Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 153

Thread: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

  1. #91
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,874

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Now, you see, I don't disagree with you one damn bit about countries have enough problems without adding more Americans to it but, if you think that, then why can't the US keep illegals out of our country who do nothing but add problems for us, particularly in adding onto our already enormous debt of 22 trillion dollars? Why can't we keep illegals out?


    - Immigrants (with and without documents) are actually beneficial for the US, including government spending. Population growth results in higher GDP, more tax revenues, more consumer spending. This has been studied extensively. There are almost no downsides to immigration, even when workers are undocumented and low-skill.

    - The US can't "keep illegals out" for the same reason that Prohibition didn't work, that we can't stop illegal drugs from being sold in the US, that we can't stop importing cheap foreign goods, and so on: The incentives are too powerful.

    The US economy is in pretty good shape, crime rates are low, there's no war here, and despite all the bitching and moaning its society and government is actually pretty decent. People want to come to the US to work, live free, and live a better life. High demand for immigration is actually a GOOD problem to have.

    On the flip side, where are people coming from? Nations with shattered economies, high crime, oppressive governments and/or are engaged in warfare. As long as those nations are a bad place to live, people will want to leave. They aren't deterred by dangerous journeys or threats of deportation or walls or anything else you can think up. You should be thrilled that you were lucky enough -- and yes, that's really all it is -- to be born in a nation where people want to live (or, qualify to naturalize as a US citizen).

    This is why immigration from Mexico has plummeted over the past 20 years. As Mexico's economy improves (in no small part due to *cough* NAFTA making it easier for Mexico to export goods), even given the problems with Mexico's government and the cartels, the incentives to pack up and move to the US have dropped significantly. One result is that apprehensions on the southern border have fallen significantly (thus giving lie to the claims of a "crisis" there).

    Oh, and one more fun fact: Clamping down on the border actually increases the undocumented population in the US. Before we tightened security along the border, migrants would come to the US, work for a few months, then go home. (This is known as "circular flow.") However, as the border gets tougher to cross, the circular flow gets cut off, so migrants are pushed to stay in the US. Unintended consequences are a bitch, eh?

    Is this really the first time anyone's mentioned these facts to you...?
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  2. #92
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    206

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    I agree that your government is completely corrupt. A bunch of old white men who have manipulated the system so that only those they approve of can get elected.
    Not a good start since you clearly know nothing about our system. We elected a woman in charge a few years ago.

    Not voting does nothing to change anything. In fact it does help to maintain the corrupt regime you have now. Where did you get the idea that citizens can demand change by not voting?
    Because if enough people don't vote (or even bother to show up), it will entice politicians to appeal to these people and win their votes. If 90% of the country didn't show up to elections because they didn't support any of the current political parties, it's undeniable that you would see these parties change. Politicians will always chase votes. Sure, you'd get a few elections where minimal people voted, but over time politicians would undeniably blink first by deciding to change in response to dissatisfied voters.

    You completely wrong about trump. He got voted in on popularity not on informed people making choices.
    LOL. Trump was the most demonized face in the world during the campaign, and IIRC he also lost the popular vote anyway. He didn't won on popularity.

    When only around 50% of the population vote as happened in america then politicians do not have to try and represent the people. They only need appeal to a minority of those gullable enough to believe them. as happened in america with the election of trump.
    If what you're saying is true, then that means more disgruntled people will show up next time to vote in order to defeat Trump, which will mean more politicians will distance themselves from Trump's policies as it's clearly what the people want. Hence, the people are causing change.

    If only 10% of the population voted in an election, who do you think the next election's candidates will be targeting - the 10% that voted, or the 90% that didn't vote? They're going to chase the majority - the 90% of voters who are clearly not loyal to any party and can easily be won by appealing to them. This is common sense, which I fear you're struggling to see because of Trump delusion syndrome.

  3. #93
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    206

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Again, the Electoral College is deliberately designed as an anti-democratic measure. It thwarts the will of the public.
    Yeah...this is just next level idiocy. I can guarantee you didn't think this way when a Democratic left-leaning candidate won because of the Electoral College.

    From what I understand, the Electoral College was designed to give every state (and the people in those states) an equal say. Without it, candidates could simply target the most populated parts of the country while completely ignoring the rest. It would also mean elections were decided on culture instead of policies...most people in New York are always going to vote left no matter who the candidate is or what they propose. If that same attitude is adopted throughout the country then you get chaos.

  4. #94
    Guru
    Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,937

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader13 View Post
    Compelled speech - Wikipedia

    Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

    Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

    Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?
    Crusader13:

    No. Being required to vote means you must turn up. Once there you can vote as you see fit or spoil your ballot if you don't like the choices offered. Thus there is no compelled speech/expression, only compelled attendance.

    No if you argue that being forced to attend a polling station is compelled expression because you wish to express your absence then try and use that argument with compelled tax filing and see how far you get. Voting is both a right and a responsibility in a democratic society and so a state can compel attendance without compelling speech or expression.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,302

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader13 View Post
    Not a good start since you clearly know nothing about our system. We elected a woman in charge a few years ago.
    Wow a whole woman you must be very proud. You are referring to julia gillard the woman famous for her speech about male misogynism just before she got dumped by her own party for a old white man.

    Because if enough people don't vote (or even bother to show up), it will entice politicians to appeal to these people and win their votes. If 90% of the country didn't show up to elections because they didn't support any of the current political parties, it's undeniable that you would see these parties change. Politicians will always chase votes. Sure, you'd get a few elections where minimal people voted, but over time politicians would undeniably blink first by deciding to change in response to dissatisfied voters.
    Care to give even one example of that ever happening? In australia donkey votes do not count. Even if only 10% voted that would still count as an election under your rules.


    LOL. Trump was the most demonized face in the world during the campaign, and IIRC he also lost the popular vote anyway. He didn't won on popularity.
    Are you that politically unaware. The votes he did get were because of popularity.

    If what you're saying is true, then that means more disgruntled people will show up next time to vote in order to defeat Trump, which will mean more politicians will distance themselves from Trump's policies as it's clearly what the people want. Hence, the people are causing change.
    True, and compulsory voting laws would go along way to achieving that.


    If only 10% of the population voted in an election, who do you think the next election's candidates will be targeting - the 10% that voted, or the 90% that didn't vote? They're going to chase the majority - the 90% of voters who are clearly not loyal to any party and can easily be won by appealing to them. This is common sense, which I fear you're struggling to see because of Trump delusion syndrome.
    Right! Again please give an example of that actually happening. You can start in america where only around 50% bother to vote in the federal elections. Pleas give me an example of trump chasing the other 50% that did not vote.

  6. #96
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader13 View Post
    Compelled speech - Wikipedia

    Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

    Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

    Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?




    I don't believe voting should be mandated. Votes have to be earned, from both sides. If you are forced to vote for someone you would not otherwise vote for ( say you'd rather not vote for either of the candidates), of what value is that vote? How can that vote be counted as legitimate? If it is not legitimate, it must be thrown out.


    And no, voting for the lesser evil doesn't negate the above argument. If you vote for someone, for whatever reason, that's a voluntary choice, and it's an earned vote, period.
    "He's in love and we're all gonna die" --- Randy Rainbow
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/parti...post1069790679

  7. #97
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    206

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    Wow a whole woman you must be very proud. You are referring to julia gillard the woman famous for her speech about male misogynism just before she got dumped by her own party for a old white man.
    Oh the outrage. A woman used her platform to scorn men publicly and the men didn't let her get away with it! ZOMGGG how dare they respond !

    Care to give even one example of that ever happening? In australia donkey votes do not count. Even if only 10% voted that would still count as an election under your rules.
    Already have...it happened in the US just a couple of years ago. One candidate was smart enough to realize that a significant portion of the public was fed up with the status quo, so he made a point of challenging it. Those who were against him laughed in his face and convinced themselves he stood no chance, so many of them didn't even bother voting. Lo and behold he won because he appealed to the large percentage of people who wanted to see a change.

    Are you that politically unaware. The votes he did get were because of popularity.
    That's a bold claim given that his opponent was one of the most untrustworthy, annoying, and characterless people to ever pollute politics. The votes he got were simply because he wasn't Hillary.

    True, and compulsory voting laws would go along way to achieving that.
    No, I've already been thru this. Compulsory voting gives even more power to the biased ****stream media to sway uninformed voters. The amount of lies that were spoken about Trump during the campaign were incredible...loading people with those misconceptions and forcing them into a voting booth is a recipe for chaos...although the more I think about it, it's not hard to imagine why left-wings would be for it.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,302

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader13 View Post
    Oh the outrage. A woman used her platform to scorn men publicly and the men didn't let her get away with it! ZOMGGG how dare they respond !



    .
    The men you speak off are mysogynists. They deserved her speech.

    Already have...it happened in the US just a couple of years ago. One candidate was smart enough to realize that a significant portion of the public was fed up with the status quo, so he made a point of challenging it. Those who were against him laughed in his face and convinced themselves he stood no chance, so many of them didn't even bother voting. Lo and behold he won because he appealed to the large percentage of people who wanted to see a change
    .

    How laughable you are. In your previous post you claim.
    LOL. Trump was the most demonized face in the world during the campaign, and IIRC he also lost the popular vote anyway. He didn't won on popularity.
    and in this post you claim.
    Lo and behold he won because he appealed to the large percentage of people who wanted to see a change

    That's a bold claim given that his opponent was one of the most untrustworthy, annoying, and characterless people to ever pollute politics. The votes he got were simply because he wasn't Hillary.
    Again you contradict yourself. Did he win because hillary was hated or because people wanted a change?


    No, I've already been thru this. Compulsory voting gives even more power to the biased ****stream media to sway uninformed voters. The amount of lies that were spoken about Trump during the campaign were incredible...loading people with those misconceptions and forcing them into a voting booth is a recipe for chaos...although the more I think about it, it's not hard to imagine why left-wings would be for it
    You have done absolutely nothing to prove this besdie give your own biased opinion. The actual research tells that you are wrong.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Moderate Right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,152

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    Because your problem is not illegals in your country. Your problem is that the government turns a blind eye towards americans who hire illegals to work in your country.
    That's leftist propaganda. It is the far left Californians who want illegals to work in their state to further their economy. That's why they have sanctuary cites, a sanctuary state, and allow illegals to vote in local elections and are against the wall. Hell, when ICE was going to raid California employers, California tipped off those employers in advance before ICE got there so the workers could flee. It is the liberal governments which turn the blind eye.

  10. #100
    Sage
    Moderate Right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,152

    Re: Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    - Immigrants (with and without documents) are actually beneficial for the US, including government spending. Population growth results in higher GDP, more tax revenues, more consumer spending. This has been studied extensively. There are almost no downsides to immigration, even when workers are undocumented and low-skill.

    - The US can't "keep illegals out" for the same reason that Prohibition didn't work, that we can't stop illegal drugs from being sold in the US, that we can't stop importing cheap foreign goods, and so on: The incentives are too powerful.

    The US economy is in pretty good shape, crime rates are low, there's no war here, and despite all the bitching and moaning its society and government is actually pretty decent. People want to come to the US to work, live free, and live a better life. High demand for immigration is actually a GOOD problem to have.

    On the flip side, where are people coming from? Nations with shattered economies, high crime, oppressive governments and/or are engaged in warfare. As long as those nations are a bad place to live, people will want to leave. They aren't deterred by dangerous journeys or threats of deportation or walls or anything else you can think up. You should be thrilled that you were lucky enough -- and yes, that's really all it is -- to be born in a nation where people want to live (or, qualify to naturalize as a US citizen).

    This is why immigration from Mexico has plummeted over the past 20 years. As Mexico's economy improves (in no small part due to *cough* NAFTA making it easier for Mexico to export goods), even given the problems with Mexico's government and the cartels, the incentives to pack up and move to the US have dropped significantly. One result is that apprehensions on the southern border have fallen significantly (thus giving lie to the claims of a "crisis" there).

    Oh, and one more fun fact: Clamping down on the border actually increases the undocumented population in the US. Before we tightened security along the border, migrants would come to the US, work for a few months, then go home. (This is known as "circular flow.") However, as the border gets tougher to cross, the circular flow gets cut off, so migrants are pushed to stay in the US. Unintended consequences are a bitch, eh?

    Is this really the first time anyone's mentioned these facts to you...?
    We have legal immigration and we have illegal immigration. Why have immigration laws at all if you think we should just left everyone in? I don't disagree we need legal immigration and we might even need more legal immigration than we currently have. But, if we are going to have immigration laws then we should enforce them or change them. No matter what happens in those regards, we should have absolutely zero illegal immigration. If you want to come in then you have to come in through the front door and ring the doorbell beforehand.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •