• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Someone Be Required By Law To Vote In The Presidential Election(s)?

Should It Be Required That ALL Legal U.S. Citizens Vote In Presidential Elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • No

    Votes: 60 92.3%
  • Only A Certain Amount Every So Many Years

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65
This misses the point. Compulsory voting does not encourage active participation. It is worse than useless, as it pushes people who are too apathetic to look at the candidates to vote. The United States government or any type of democracy relies upon people choosing how their government is run. Not making a decision is still a choice. In taking away someone's right to not choose you restrict their choice.

How is allowing a none of the above choice, restricting someone's right to not choose a candidate if they so wish?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stick the topic which is not making personal attacks against each other.
 
An interesting debate. Should voting in presidential elections be required by law? Of course this excludes felons and non-u.s. citizens. Legal voting age stays the same in this scenario.

My opinion: If you live in the United States, you will be required to vote in the United States. It would be a huge dis-respect to the millions of Americans that died for this country to sit at home on election day. This is a freedom many have died for so get out and participate!
I just don't see how not voting hurts anyone. Why would you want to force someone to do something they don't wish to do? That just sounds wrong on the face of it. They're not hurting anyone; just leave them alone, is my opinion.
 
What I really want to know is what the government is going to do about it should people not vote.
 
What I really want to know is what the government is going to do about it should people not vote.

Then we get the government we deserve.
 
Then we get the government we deserve.

That's a bit non-sequitur.

Would you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion from my earlier post?
 
How is allowing a none of the above choice, restricting someone's right to not choose a candidate if they so wish?

How is pulling a lever any more fulfilling one's duty than staying home? Even then, it restricts your right to stay home an make absolutely no say in government. Even a vote for no one says something to the government in a certain way. Freedom to speak implies freedom to be silent.
 
A year or five ago, I bought up this very same debate, the majority voted that voting be "optional".
I felt back then that it should be mandatory, and that voting be made much easier...
We simply need a better people.
And, seriously, "none of the above must be an option".....if we are going to have full participation in the process...
 
Last edited:
That's a bit non-sequitur.

Would you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion from my earlier post?

You asked what would happen if people do not vote. The answer, IMO is that we get the government we deserve. Unless we are willing to put forth the effort of holding our representatives accountable, we deserve the government we get.
 
How is pulling a lever any more fulfilling one's duty than staying home? Even then, it restricts your right to stay home an make absolutely no say in government. Even a vote for no one says something to the government in a certain way. Freedom to speak implies freedom to be silent.

See my response to Wake above.
 
You asked what would happen if people do not vote. The answer, IMO is that we get the government we deserve. Unless we are willing to put forth the effort of holding our representatives accountable, we deserve the government we get.

OK, how does making people vote help, and how does this address my point about people choosing?
 
OK, how does making people vote help, and how does this address my point about people choosing?

A democratic system can only work through voters holding their representatives accountable. The founders provided this mechanism of peaceful revolution to keep our government representative. If we are not willing to do our part, we will not have a representative government, we will have the government we deserve, IMO.
 
A democratic system can only work through voters holding their representatives accountable. The founders provided this mechanism of peaceful revolution to keep our government representative. If we are not willing to do our part, we will not have a representative government, we will have the government we deserve, IMO.

I have voted in many elections and I've rarely ever felt the elected government represented my views and beliefs.

Considering that the majority of people polled have been very dissatisfied with the government for the last decade at least I'd say most probably feel the same way.

More people voting won't necessarily make for better government, and it surely might make things worse.
 
Wheather voting is mandatory or not you are still voting for the lesser of the two evils.
 
Why isn't not voting simply viewed as voting "none of the above"?

Same outcome. Same concept.

Less pollution, and less congestion at voting places.
 
Many countries have compulsory voting. I have a co-worker that did time for insubordination after North Vietnam took over the whole country. He told me that on election day the police go door-to-door to make sure that everyone votes. Vietnam has a 96% voter turnout, all just to vote for the Party's candidate. There is actually another name on the ballot, but you don't dare vote for the challenger.
 
fatimasm.jpg
The constitution gives people the right to vote. Not requiring people to vote. I strongly encourage people to vote, but what about the people who don't care about politics? Would you want someone just blindly voting for whatever name they see first?

...and Hatuey said:
"Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege."

No, not at all. Our founding fathers tried to protect our country from ignorant voters and vote-buying corruption by saying citizens had to have "skin in the game" to be allowed to vote. Only successful people were allowed to vote. (That would be today's definition of the EVIL RICH.)

"At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote."

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights

Benjamin Franklin:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

And actually, we don't have the right to vote in a presidential election. The Supreme Court pointed that out just over 11 years ago:

pbc.jpg

***
earthworm said:
"I felt back then that it should be mandatory,"

Do you think that the words "liberty" and "freedom" go with the word "mandatory?"
 
An interesting debate. Should voting in presidential elections be required by law? Of course this excludes felons and non-u.s. citizens. Legal voting age stays the same in this scenario.

My opinion: If you live in the United States, you will be required to vote in the United States. It would be a huge dis-respect to the millions of Americans that died for this country to sit at home on election day. This is a freedom many have died for so get out and participate!

Some centuries ago, tens of thousands died in order NOT to have a government force ecdicts on the people..
IMO, they were as correct then as today...
Our voting process is so corrupt today that no man should should vote !
 
A year or five ago, I bought up this very same debate, the majority voted that voting be "optional".
I felt back then that it should be mandatory, and that voting be made much easier...
We simply need a better people.
And, seriously, "none of the above must be an option".....if we are going to have full participation in the process...

That's very interesting. And if "None of the Above" gets the most votes, all candidates on the ballot are disqualified, and the election process begins again. The current President remains in office as Interim President until new candidates are identified, vetted, and a new election is held- but he is a lame duck president as he has also been disqualified from running again.

This is a very interesting concept... and if there were ever a time when "None of the above" gets elected president, this would be it I think.
 
I have voted in many elections and I've rarely ever felt the elected government represented my views and beliefs.

Considering that the majority of people polled have been very dissatisfied with the government for the last decade at least I'd say most probably feel the same way.

More people voting won't necessarily make for better government, and it surely might make things worse.


I disagree. Democracy is not a spectator sport. What you see the result of, is people not voting out the people that do not represent them in Congress. If more people voted and did not keep re-electing their representative over and over again, our system would be more democratically representative.

But since half the country seems to pre-occupied with the latest edition of American Idol, or whatever, and do want to take the time to go vote and hold their representatives accountable, we have the government we deserve.
 
Wheather voting is mandatory or not you are still voting for the lesser of the two evils.

That is always the case except in fairy tales where utopia possible. Let's have 10 candidates from 10 different parties if you wish. If you have 10 candidates, people will still pick the one they feel will do the most good.

The very definition of choice itself means picking who or what is your best option.
 
Last edited:
Voting should always be optional.
My vote, no matter who I vote for, is entirely meaningless.

To me, it's a giant waste of time.

If you choose to leave the selection of our leaders up to myself and the other voters, so be it! Don't bother yourself.
 
I disagree. Democracy is not a spectator sport. What you see the result of, is people not voting out the people that do not represent them in Congress. If more people voted and did not keep re-electing their representative over and over again, our system would be more democratically representative.

But since half the country seems to pre-occupied with the latest edition of American Idol, or whatever, and do want to take the time to go vote and hold their representatives accountable, we have the government we deserve.

You're wrong. While the vast majority feel that most people in Washington should be voted out, the vast majority also feel it's not "their guy" that's the problem, but all the OTHER people. Which is why we have career politicians.

Our entire political system has become so corrupted and distorted that many people just feel it's all a waste of time.

When the "best choice" becomes either an Obama or a Romney I can totally understand why many would rather just drink beer and contemplate their next bowel movement.

Neither of those two choices represents me.

I can fully understand why, if those are the two choices come November, that many people will just walk right past the polling places and enter the nearest bar.
 
Back
Top Bottom