Who Thinks Compulsory Voting Laws Are A Good Idea?

I'd rather see mental competency exams for voters. It seems more and more like we need them.
But nah. Don't make it mandatory then the people who don't care about how the country is run can actually not care AND mess things up more...

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.

Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.

Click to expand...

In principle, I would have argued in the past that part of Democracy involved the right not to vote, which certainly makes sense on the surface of it. However, what I'm witnessing in the United States is that apathy is ironically destructive to a Democracy as democratic underpinnings are slowly dismantled. So, again ironically, I've come to believe that an undemocratic principle such as mandatory voting is actually required to strengthen our democracy.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.

Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.

Click to expand...

I think voting age should be 21, and to vote, you have to answer a few questions before being able to cast your vote... to help prevent ignoramuses from being bused or bribed. And there should be picture ID.

zimmer said:

I think voting age should be 21, and to vote, you have to answer a few questions before being able to cast your vote... to help prevent ignoramuses from being bused or bribed. And there should be picture ID.

Click to expand...

What would these questions be?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.

Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.

Click to expand...

I would rephrase that assumption to populists being more in favor of compulsory voting than those believing in individual freedoms.

Captain Adverse said:

No for the simple reason that a non-vote IS a vote...against the candidates placed on the ballot.

Why should people be forced to pick from a list of candidates selected for them by established political parties? Especially when we see in both the Democrats and GOP how the machines determine who runs, not us?

Selecting from the lesser of two evils (or weevils) in a pretense at a mandate.

Click to expand...

It is true that a non-vote is a vote. It is for the winner and says that the non-voter does not care and /or does not believe her vote important.

Cardinal said:

What would these questions be?

Click to expand...

Something that would disqualify 90% of Demokrat voters.

zimmer said:

Something that would disqualify 90% of Demokrat voters.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I know a few good ones: "Is gay marriage protected under the constitution?" or "Is global warming man made?" How about "Is there a separation of church and state?" And when they answer in the negative, we'll know that they're not informed enough to vote.

Hawkeye10 said:

I want fewer people voting, lets put up some good roadblocks so that only the people who are determined can do it.

Click to expand...

Arizona leads the way.

joG said:

It is true that a non-vote is a vote. It is for the winner and says that the non-voter does not care and /or does not believe her vote important.

Click to expand...

I've heard that position and I used to believe in it. After all, a candidate will win anyway right?

Then I realized that if you force someone to pick they simply choose the lesser of two evils. The are not voting FOR anyone, then are simply voting AGAINST the candidate they think is worse.

What this does is create a false belief in the winner that he has a mandate. Haven't you seen that term hyped in the media in election after election?

On the other hand a non-vote serves two purposes:

1. It reminds the winner that he does not truly have the support of a majority of the people, considering those who voted for his opponent and those who did not vote at all.

2. It grants those of us who have voted with our feet rather than our ballots a clean conscience when we oppose or refuse to defend the acts of those elected without our support.

ITT: Conservatives calling liberals authoritarian, while saying people they don't like should be disenfranchised.

As to the topic, compulsory voting is a stupid idea. You can force people to mark their names off a list, but you can't force them to vote. I've literally drawn penises on ballot papers because I didn't like where my preferences would go.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.

Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.

Click to expand...

I'm split on the idea, provided "none of the above" is an option and/or "write in a candidate not listed." Americans should never be forced to choose between Hitler and Attila the Hun.

i don't support compulsory voting. i do support automatic registration when one turns 18, though.

Beaudreaux said:

Actually, it should be on April 15th - once you turn in your federal tax return at the polling place you can then be given a ballot to vote in the federal election, like the 'Motor Voter" crap the Democrats put in place, except I don't think the Dems (nor a large number of Republican politicians) would be in favor of this one.

Click to expand...

That sounds like the most inefficient process ever. Not to mention that you put more polling places around than you can tax offices.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am curious which kind of people are in favor or compulsory voting laws as practiced is many countries, such as Australia for example. My hunch is that the progressively minded are more in favor, while the more conservative folk tend to not like the idea. But I could be completely wrong about that.

Please vote in the poll, and feel free to explain your choice and start a fight in a comment.

Click to expand...

Why would I think making apathetic disinterested uninformed people vote against their will could possibly be a GOOD idea??

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY? WORK-IN-PROGRESS ...

Gaztopian said:

Dear lord, no. It's bad enough that people are allowed to vote, let alone ensuring that everyone votes, including the disinclined.

Click to expand...

Twaddle this: Liberty, Freedom, Democracy - call it what you will. They are all functionally two-way streets.

One "way" is the manner in which we elect our representatives to both the Legislature and Executive positions in our Tripartite System of Governance (the third being the Judiciary nominated by the Executive and accepted by the Legislature). The other "way", in return, is the manner in which our representatives do what is best for their constituency. This simple characterization is the very heart of any democracy.

When an electorate does not understand that the "two-way street" has obligations, then democracy crumbles and fails. It becomes a mechanism employed by the minima. That is, the least number of voters.

There is therefore, undeniably, a supreme responsibility to participate in the vote of our "representatives".

Unless of course, as other countries have devised, referenda are also a part of the legislative process, by which laws voted by the legislature are put to a national vote by citizens.

When referenda are applied nationally and become a current facet of the political system nationally, they are an effective means of obviating abuse by political-parties. Switzerland, which employs referenda, is an example. By simply obtaining a minimal percentage of the voting population signatory to a petition for a vote upon a given law, the popular vote can (or not) destitute said law.

When gerrymandering is employed, then the base-principals of an equitable democracy are conflicted. Gerrymandering is undemocratic because it creates a misrepresentation of the common vote intended to favor one political party over another in a two-party system.

(And, in doing so, it helps obviate any third-party from being created viably.)

Still, though it became a public issue in 1812, gerrymandering goes back to the very foundation of the nation in the 18th century. Yes, it has been employed in the US to skew political outcomes from the very beginning. For more, see here.

So, it has been a common political "tool" in the US for more than two centuries. You (plural) think you are living in a "fair and democratic" country, with a "equitable" system of electoral governance?

Not quite yet - though a real advance over monarchism, our democracy is still "work in progress" ...

POST SCRIPTUM

There is no "perfect" system of governance in the world; at least, not in my experience. Thus the continuous necessity to "make it better" ...

spud_meister said:

I've literally drawn penises on ballot papers because I didn't like where my preferences would go.

Click to expand...

At least your artistry was given its deserved recognition.

In some worlds, you're hands would be cut-off - and you would be allowed to "mellow" in the mid-day sun for a week.

So, consider yourself lucky to be able to express yourself "democratically" ... ?

Lafayette said:

At least your artistry was given its deserved recognition.

In some worlds, you're hands would be cut-off - and you would be allowed to "mellow" in the mid-day sun for a week.

So, consider yourself lucky to be able to express yourself "democratically" ... ?

Click to expand...

The places where they cut peoples hands off generally aren't very democratic. As people have pointed out, a non-vote is still an expression of political opinion. Why should I contribute votes to political parties that I don't agree with?

If I have the right to vote, I should have the right to not vote.

Helix said:

i don't support compulsory voting. i do support automatic registration when one turns 18, though.

Click to expand...

I'd be fine with that.

I'm a liberal and I'm against it. We have too many uninformed voters as it is. Forcing people to vote would only increase that number, and a lot of the people who were forced to vote would probably not really vote in a serious way anyway.

spud_meister said:

As people have pointed out, a non-vote is still an expression of political opinion. Why should I contribute votes to political parties that I don't agree with?

Click to expand...

Because it is a Civic Duty.

You go to the ballot-box, and you put in a blank-ballot, which is counted.

What does a blank-ballot mean? Exactly what you say above. And its counting has significant meaning to the body-politic. (As in, "Go Shove It", you bunch of cranks!")

It is this Lack of Discipline that is gnawing away at the General Public, which seems to think that a Free Country is one where there are No Rules, No Obligations, and "I'll defecate wherever the hell I want!"

That is, this sort of behaviour:

Lafayette said:

Because it is a Civic Duty.

You go to the ballot-box, and you put in a blank-ballot, which is counted.

What does a blank-ballot mean? Exactly what you say above. And its counting has significant meaning to the body-politic. (As in, "Go Shove It", you bunch of cranks!")

It is this Lack of Discipline that is gnawing away at the General Public, which seems to think that a Free Country is one where there are No Rules, No Obligations, and "I'll defecate wherever the hell I want!"

That is, this sort of behaviour:

Click to expand...

So what's the difference between not voting and submitting an empty ballot? Unless you're saying it's a civic duty to get my name ticked off a list.

natsb said:

I know what you mean. What if they force everyone to purchase medical insurance they can't afford? no... wait...

Click to expand...

Everybody can afford medical insurance where I live.

Captain Adverse said:

No for the simple reason that a non-vote IS a vote...against the candidates placed on the ballot.

Why should people be forced to pick from a list of candidates selected for them by established political parties? Especially when we see in both the Democrats and GOP how the machines determine who runs, not us?

Selecting from the lesser of two evils (or weevils) in a pretense at a mandate.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with your first point.

How is not voting a vote against? At best you're simply saying "I don't like any of them" (which is fair, in many cases).
But it doesn't really cause them any harm unless enough people don't vote or vote for their opponents.

That said, it is vaguely upsetting when I see local races in my area that have one person who was nominated by both main parties running unopposed. Or even worse, nominated by one party and running unopposed. Those I could safely see myself not voting for, out of spite if nothing else.
It's probably because my district got gerrymandered all to hell in the last redrawing of lines, so the democrats know their candidates would have little to no chance and just don't bother wasting even a few bucks on the area...

Ah, Pennsylvania, you're so corrupt.


Edit: oh, and as for the main question...no
I do not think voting should be mandatory.

Voting should be free of cost, easily accessible, and easily understood (or at least the mechanics of the voting system). And a choice.