• 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!

Proposal to make voting mandatory....

Eh, they've got it easier, what with the natural moat and all...

That be right !!! Your problem get eaten by the sharks if your illegals try to swin in. lol hey long swim from Indonesia eh!
 
Having said that, boy am I ever against this. Just the thought about how they can even enforce this would be Orwellian to a frightening level.

Just imagine how much worse things would get, at a faster pace, if this became a national trend.:shock:
 
I am personally in favour of it for two reasons: firstly, participation in the political process fosters a greater sense of community and secondly, voting outcomes are made more legitimate by every member of a community participating in the decision.

That may be the case Down Under, but it would be quite different here. We are already highly divided as a nation, and having everyone required to vote would make it worse. My reasoning behind this is that most who don't vote here aren't very informed and they just lumber along like the good little sheep they are. Otoh, if the uninformed who just coast through life start voting, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting back to some form of fiscal sanity.
 
They need to fix problems with the voter system before trying to demand everyone vote.

How is it possible to pull off, anyway?

Let's say, for example, I'm sick with the flu - and so are 2 of my kids. How would they approach this, with a fine, chastisement or punishment? Would they accept a delayed vote? (of course not).

Would they provide childcare for that brief amount of time? Of course not

Transportation? Nope, not that either.

If they're going to require something that's actually a cumbersome trouble for some - and just not possible due to life's unexpected drama - without giving flex - then they shouldn't be trying to force it.

Not voting doesn't always mean you don't want to vote or wouldn't if you could get to the voting booth. Yet Others (I believe) who don't vote shouldn't vote because they don't have an awareness of the issues, thus, no opinions. That's how my first vote went - I went there and had no clue who on earth some of the people were or what the various issues were - I should have considered things and taken an interest. To this day I don't know the ramifications of my blind voting and regret going through with guessing. Thus, they should be encouraging informed voting rather than blanket voting.
 
Last edited:
Jerry done wrote "if "non of the above" got the majority vote, then the election starts all over will all new candidates."

That sounds like a real productive plan. !! vote followed by revote !!
 
Jerry done wrote "if "non of the above" got the majority vote, then the election starts all over will all new candidates."

That sounds like a real productive plan. !! vote followed by revote !!

Vote followed by different vote ;)
 
I remember in Brazil voting was (is) mandatory. When you vote, you get a receipt of sorts that verifies you voted. This receipt is like a piece of gold. You can't open a bank account, register a business, apply to post-secondary, and many other things without that receipt.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Voter apathy is growing in modern democracies, rendering them less effective. For instance, in Canada's last Federal election, 40% of the country didn't vote. That means that the politicians in Parliament are only representing 60% of the total country.

On the other hand... forcing people to vote means they might not make an informed choice. They'll vote just because they have to, instead of feeling that it's their civic duty.

I think I could be in favor of it. By forcing people to vote, it could make more people become politically aware.

Hey, does Brazil still have the alluminum coins for money ? I had family that was stuck in Brazil ( long story) and they brought some Cruzeros - with them after they escaped from Curitiba Brazil (sic) sp not sure too long ago!!
 
What amazes me is that not only did this actually get a thread, it actually got a mention in the news.

This is a town board. Taking a non-binding vote. To express an opinion.

That said, while the bulk of the U.S. continues to use electronic voting systems that can be remotely (and easily) hacked, all a measure like this would do is serve to further legitimize our illegitimate election process.

How many times have we heard, in countries where the election system was corrupt as all get out, that virtually everybody eligible to vote turned out to do so?
 
Republicans would never go for this. Republicans only win elections by hoping for small turnouts. The more people registering and the more people voting is disaster for the GOP.
 
That may be the case Down Under, but it would be quite different here. We are already highly divided as a nation, and having everyone required to vote would make it worse. My reasoning behind this is that most who don't vote here aren't very informed and they just lumber along like the good little sheep they are. Otoh, if the uninformed who just coast through life start voting, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting back to some form of fiscal sanity.

most Aussies are A-political, and just vote for whoever can lie the best:mrgreen:

but we have a multiple party system, even though two main parties dominate, smaller parties can swing elections one way or another, and thusly have their voices heard.

and it's my opinion that compulsory voting only works in multi-party systems
 
What amazes me is that not only did this actually get a thread, it actually got a mention in the news.

This is a town board. Taking a non-binding vote. To express an opinion.

That said, while the bulk of the U.S. continues to use electronic voting systems that can be remotely (and easily) hacked, all a measure like this would do is serve to further legitimize our illegitimate election process.

How many times have we heard, in countries where the election system was corrupt as all get out, that virtually everybody eligible to vote turned out to do so?

We're (well, maybe just me) discussing the overall thought process and theorizing about it in general. If one small town here and there took this approach then it's likely that people in government would actually consider supporting it, too.

Republicans would never go for this. Republicans only win elections by hoping for small turnouts. The more people registering and the more people voting is disaster for the GOP.

And they both work together to undermine and block out all other every other political group out there that might have the slightest chance of success - it's a gang effort. They'll disagree on everything but the need for them to be the only options on election day.

But how this last election to 'get out the vote' went was appalling. The Democrats stroked the egos and personal plights of black people - purely appealing to their race or culture identity to elect the 'first black' president simply so the Democrats could be in control. I wouldn't claim that as a possitive reflection of our partisan system.
It's like when the slaves were emancipated - they were suddenly seen as an untapped voter block and Democrats suddenly changed their tune to boost their numbers.

Yeah, see - I'm not a Republican but at least they didn't try to win me over by appealing to my white-ness in the election, telling me to support the "next white president". :roll:
 
I'd vote more if "non of the above" were an option.

For example, if "non of the above" got the majority vote, then the election starts all over will all new candidates.

Sounds good to me. Too often we are stuck voting between a crappy Democrat and a crappy Republican. If the solution is keep voting until someone decent gets elected, so be it.
 
Sounds good to me. Too often we are stuck voting between a crappy Democrat and a crappy Republican. If the solution is keep voting until someone decent gets elected, so be it.

Some states have runoff elections now, requiring that the winner get at least 50% of the vote, and if nobody does, the top two face each other again. That's almost the same thing.
 
Some states have runoff elections now, requiring that the winner get at least 50% of the vote, and if nobody does, the top two face each other again. That's almost the same thing.

Almost. But in the end what do you end up with? The same two crappy people you had when you first voted. It's like having Bush, Kerry and several candidates from small parties on the ballot. You vote and no one gets 50%, so they drop the small parties and we are left with what? Bush and Kerry. Which is clearly what any person with a brain simply does not want. Put None of the Above and if that wins we get new candidates.

I know this is not practical, so there is no need to bother pointing it out! But a cyborg can dream, right?
 
Almost. But in the end what do you end up with? The same two crappy people you had when you first voted.

Not necesssarily. It allows more than two to have a shot.

It's like having Bush, Kerry and several candidates from small parties on the ballot. You vote and no one gets 50%, so they drop the small parties and we are left with what? Bush and Kerry. Which is clearly what any person with a brain simply does not want.

Let's not get judgmental.

Put None of the Above and if that wins we get new candidates.

Ah, so instead of a Democrat and a Republican, you get...another Democrat and another Republican.

What's that solve?

If you don't like the candidates the party puts up, you can vote in a primary.

The bottom line is this - as long as we have a winner-take-all system, we're going to have just two parties, because additional parties can't win.

I know this is not practical, so there is no need to bother pointing it out! But a cyborg can dream, right?

I think Arizona has, or did have, a none of the above option.
 
Not necesssarily. It allows more than two to have a shot.

Actually, it only ensures two get a shot! Everyone else is gone after the first vote.

Let's not get judgmental.

I can't help it.

Ah, so instead of a Democrat and a Republican, you get...another Democrat and another Republican.

What's that solve?

It does not solve the entire problem, true. But two good candidates are still superior to what we generally get.
 
Actually, it only ensures two get a shot! Everyone else is gone after the first vote.

Everyone gets a shot IN the first vote though. That's more than most elections, where the final two viable choices are already on the ballot.

But again, it's all about the winner take all system. It makes no sense to vote for anyone but one of the top two in that system. You waste your vote. Just like votes for losers in one district or state that could be used to support someone else are "wasted." Their voices aren't heard.

The only way to give everyone a voice is proportional representation.

Of course, the representatives then go to a legislature and use the winner take all system to vote on legislation, but at least they can form different coalitions for different bills instead of doing it all at once at election time.
 
We are going to force you to pick one of two bad parties so we can reaffirm the idea that the two party system is working!
No... you can always not mark your ballot.
 
I'm fine with this only as long as hey change the voting system to allow multiple parties to get voted into office, such as IRV. Otherwise, mandatory voting does nothing but mandate either Democrats or Republicans get elected.
1: Nothnig in the law stops this now
2: You can always not mark your ballot.
 
In other news, proposals for voter death panels are moving through the legislature.
 
Back
Top Bottom