• 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!

Who Thinks Compulsory Voting Laws Are A Good Idea?

Who Thinks Compulsory Voting Laws Are A Good Idea?


  • Total voters
    96

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
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.
 
I want fewer people voting, lets put up some good roadblocks so that only the people who are determined can do it.
 
Higher voter turnout is a positive thing, but not if it's coerced; that's rather missing the point that higher voter turnout is a good thing because of increased political engagement by the citizenry.

Inherent to every right is its opposite; if you have the right to vote, you have the right to not vote.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Hope that you are wrong on that progressives favor and conservatives oppose stuff because that would seem to indicate that one sides sees an advantages while the other doesn't. It should be based on principles, not politics.
I am intrigued by the idea. Australia is very well led, IMHO, so it seems to work there. They have the government I wish that the US had-with a good mix of conservative and liberal principles.
 
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.

A good chunk of registered voters are ignorant when it comes to political issues and the candidates. Its why these politicians have low approval ratings and a high incumbency reelection rate. Why would it be a great idea to force more politically ignorant people to the polls?
 
Higher voter turnout is a positive thing, but not if it's coerced; that's rather missing the point that higher voter turnout is a good thing because of increased political engagement by the citizenry.

Inherent to every right is its opposite; if you have the right to vote, you have the right to not vote.

The national vote should take place on April 16th each year
 
I know it seems to work well for many countries, but forced voting is the antithesis of what America stands for, and in all probability would be eventually adjudicated as unconstitutional. To get a higher turnout of eligible voters, we should do away will delegates, and go with a one-person, one-vote method so that a vote in a state with a large population is not worth a fraction of a vote from a person from and state with smaller populations, and the candidate who receives the highest number of popular votes actually, you know, wins.
 
I know it seems to work well for many countries, but forced voting is the antithesis of what America stands for, and in all probability would be eventually adjudicated as unconstitutional. To get a higher turnout of eligible voters, we should do away will delegates, and go with a one-person, one-vote method so that a vote in a state with a large population is not worth a fraction of a vote from a person from and state with smaller populations, and the candidate who receives the highest number of popular votes actually, you know, wins.

isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?
 
The national vote should take place on April 16th each year

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.
 
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?

It's based on Congressional representation, which is (mostly) based on state population.

And yes, Cali has 35 electoral votes to 3 for Alaska, for example, but Cali also has 39 million people and Alaska has less than 800,000. Smaller states are very overrepresented in the EC.
 
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?

IIRC, the Electoral College has the same number of electors as the US House of Representatives has members, and is divided amongst the states based on the number of US House Districts per state. However, I have been drinking, it is late, and I'm sleepy, so all that I just said could very well be hokum.
 
It's based on Congressional representation, which is (mostly) based on state population.

yes that is true
now the real controversy is that some states apportion electoral college votes by percentage while most are winner take all which is why someone can win the popular vote and not the electoral college vote. if the states apportioned electoral college votes based on the popular vote in that state,, that would pretty much obliterate that aberration wouldn't it?
 
isn't the electoral college based on state population? California has more electors than say Alaska, Delaware and Idaho combined?

But the number of delegates per voter is a fraction of the delegates per voter of a state like Ohio. This is done so that lower populace states have "more of a say" in choosing the president, so it takes considerably more voters in California, New York, and Texas to earn a single delegate than it does in states with lower populations. It's also the reason that a candidate can, and has, won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote.

I'm pretty sure you already know this, lol.
 
But the number of delegates per voter is a fraction of the delegates per voter of a state like Ohio. This is done so that lower populace states have "more of a say" in choosing the president, so it takes considerably more voters in California, New York, and Texas to earn a single delegate than it does in states with lower populations. It's also the reason that a candidate can, and has, won the popular vote while losing the electoral vote.

I'm pretty sure you already know this, lol.

I do but if the states awarded EC votes based on the percentage of the popular vote, that would make the chances of someone winning the electoral college without the popular national vote almost impossible

currently the EC is like a tennis match

you see it all the time

someone wins a Match 0-6, 7-6, 7-6 they win 14 games and lose 18 but you win a set even if you win 2 more points and that counts as much as one where you lose every single point in another one.

so if you win several winner take all states by say 100 votes in each state, you will beat someone who beat you 90-10% in 20 of the smaller states.

now if it was proportional, in that state where you win by 100 votes you might only get one more EC vote rather than say 50 to 0

but I think we all know the facts. I support the EC but I find proportionate allocation of EC votes to be more proper
 
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.

This is, IMO, the key to why American politics are so screwed up now.

It has been drummed into too many people's heads (mostly by politicians) that you are somehow less patriotic if you don't vote...even if you despise all of the candidates.

This forced mediocrity allows the present level of mostly awful politicians to be elected/re-elected.

People should be encouraged NOT to vote if they think all of the candidates are inadequate.

Strive for excellence...not mediocrity - or worse.
 
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.

Should it be compulsory for people to own guns?
Should it be compulsory for people to use lawyers even if they themselves are lawyers?

Rights should never be compulsory. In fact, doing ANYTHING beyond paying taxes to support the country/state that you live in should EVER be compulsory.
 
Compulsory voting...what a ridiculous idea.

What are you going to do...have police/the military physically force people into polling booths? Arrest them and throw them in jail if they don't vote?

Pass.
 
It would be absolutely grand if "rule by consent" actually meant something. Telling people they must vote is not ruling them by consent, but ruling them at gun point.
 
Compulsory voting...what a ridiculous idea.

What are you going to do...have police/the military physically force people into polling booths? Arrest them and throw them in jail if they don't vote?

Pass.

It doesn't come to that in Australia. As I understand it, a fine or community service is levied if a person doesn't vote.
 
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.

I am not a full fledged liberal or conservative, I lean slightly more to the left then the right.

I do not care for mandatory voting because I believe sitting out an election is a legitimate political position, and further more there's practical consideration, like for example certain religious groups like the Amish and Jehova's witnesses do not involve themselves in politics because of their faith. So they will need to exempted, or they will be prosecuted and tie up a mandatory voting law for years in the courts, and then when it's decided you will need a whole new regulatory structure to determine objector status. In addition to that how does one enforce that law? and what resources will be used to enforce it? A man can be prosecuted for not registering for the draft, no one has been prosecuted for that in 30 years.

I think you did hit on something though, liberals want the law because of the perception it brings out sypathetic voters, which is the only reason they support it.
 
It's based on Congressional representation, which is (mostly) based on state population.

And yes, Cali has 35 electoral votes to 3 for Alaska, for example, but Cali also has 39 million people and Alaska has less than 800,000. Smaller states are very overrepresented in the EC.

Regardless I personally prefer smaller states be overrepresented, a diversity of political interests is important or else a majority will just steamroll what they want and won't care what other affected groups think.
 
It doesn't come to that in Australia. As I understand it, a fine or community service is levied if a person doesn't vote.

Nuts.

Absolutely nuts, imo.

Forced to vote?

What's next? Forced to watch political broadcasts? Forced to have a drivers license? Forced to conceive?


If they ever do that in my country, I will start a political party called '**** Compulsory Voting'.
 
Last edited:
I want fewer people voting, lets put up some good roadblocks so that only the people who are determined can do it.

Agreed. A modest fee should be charged for voting, say $10. People tend only to value what they pay for.

More generally, a large proportion of people are 'not interested in politics', meaning that they have very little knowledge of how their country is governed. These are the people who are most likely to be swayed by tendentious claims. The fewer of them that vote the better.
 
Agreed. A modest fee should be charged for voting, say $10. People tend only to value what they pay for.

More generally, a large proportion of people are 'not interested in politics', meaning that they have very little knowledge of how their country is governed. These are the people who are most likely to be swayed by tendentious claims. The fewer of them that vote the better.

I cant go with that with the income disparity problem we have, I am thinking more like every two years you have to go to a place and maybe wait in line as you present id and proof of residence. I would like a little reading test too but I understand that my fellow citizens will not go for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom