• 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!

Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

Or, if we see voting as a civic duty -- and one we actually want people to do, including clearing away unjust barriers to voting -- then it's highly democratic.



:roll:

Or, since there is no indication that minorities in nations with compulsory voting are negatively impacted by fines, you're just desperately scrambling for more ad hoc objections.



LOL

43 people on a web forum! Tremendous!!! Oh yeah, that's real meaningful. Move over, Gallup.

Back in the real world, and again... Australia has had compulsory voting since around 1911. The citizens or government could get rid of it at any time, and yet they don't; nor has Australia turned into a totalitarian state. So that's maybe what, 20 million voting-age Aussies who have lived with it their entire lives, and don't want to change it.

So, you're saying that if the top tier view voting as a civic duty then that is justification to force it on everyone. How about we have a national referendum on it? According to my poll in the polls thread, over 90% would reject it as a civic duty.
 
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?

This isn't Australia. No one is forced to vote. Rather the opposite happens. Republicans do everything possible to curtail the popular vote.
 
I saw that quote recently on the Jimmy Dore show on YouTube. They were talking about Venezuela. Is that where you got it?

No, I've been aware of Casey's statement for 10 years or more.

A related observation by Dresden James is "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
 
That's a fair point but maybe there is no ideal solution. Being required to vote and having the option to vote "none of the above" is pretty fair.
Is pretty fair? WTF? Being forced to vote is not fair. Force is not fair.


I think a better criticism is that those who don't want to vote may not understand or be interested in the issues. Forcing them to vote may mean they toss a coin or vote for superficial reasons. It just may mean the most popular candidate will win.
Not interested or don't understand - leave them alone. That is freedom.
 
such laws would be creating a nanny state where the government is trying to force a specific set of morality.

That's already happening. Our democracy, including the accompanying ultra-controlled restrictions we have here, is a set of moral beliefs just like religion. We are being forced to participate even though some may not support it.

What your argument is really about is that you want all the rights, benefits and privileges society has to offer but have no desire to actually do the work needed to maintain those gifts.

Absolute ****speak. I pay my taxes (which fund these benefits and privileges), I served in the military and would gladly defend my people, I'm also happily married and plan to populate this country with many law abiding, socially-constructive citizens. I'm doing my part. Showing up by force to a voting centre to tick a piece of paper doesn't compare.

In fact, it is because I want the best for my country that I support the right to forego elections. By not voting (or showing up at all), citizens would have the ability to demand change and reform among our political landscape (God knows we need that dearly in Australia). The only thing mandatory voting does is allow politicians to stay corrupt and oppressive without opposition from the people.

Trump's victory is the perfect example of this. It was a case of informed people deciding enough was enough and change was needed. Whether that change is good or bad is irrelevant. It shows that the US has a system which accommodates change by letting the people control the politicians, not the other way around. That is true progress.

If you want a society where elections are truly representative of the people then go and vote.

Forced voting is not representative of people. It's representative of politicians. How do you not see that?
 
That's already happening. Our democracy, including the accompanying ultra-controlled restrictions we have here, is a set of moral beliefs just like religion. We are being forced to participate even though some may not support it.



Absolute ****speak. I pay my taxes (which fund these benefits and privileges), I served in the military and would gladly defend my people, I'm also happily married and plan to populate this country with many law abiding, socially-constructive citizens. I'm doing my part. Showing up by force to a voting centre to tick a piece of paper doesn't compare.

In fact, it is because I want the best for my country that I support the right to forego elections. By not voting (or showing up at all), citizens would have the ability to demand change and reform among our political landscape (God knows we need that dearly in Australia). The only thing mandatory voting does is allow politicians to stay corrupt and oppressive without opposition from the people.

Trump's victory is the perfect example of this. It was a case of informed people deciding enough was enough and change was needed. Whether that change is good or bad is irrelevant. It shows that the US has a system which accommodates change by letting the people control the politicians, not the other way around. That is true progress.



Forced voting is not representative of people. It's representative of politicians. How do you not see that?

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 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? The way your system works is that people are elected on the votes given. If only one person in all of australia voted that is the only vote that would count. The non votes would just be ignored.

The only way to actually make those changes you think your making is by voting for an alternative such as was used in england or new zealand. In england they formed the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. and in new zealsnd the McGillicuddy Serious Party. These were very effective at bringing about reforms especially in new zealand. And more important it did show that changes occur through voting and not by not voting.

You completely wrong about trump. He got voted in on popularity not on informed people making choices. The majority of his supporters are not informed they a partisan.

There is no such thing as forced voting. That you keep going back to this lie is proof enough that you have no real argument to offer. 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.
 
While "we" don't want stupid americans getting out.

I'm not sure what that actually means. I would be fine with stupid people getting out. Anyone who is not jailed is free to leave.
 
I'm not sure what that actually means. I would be fine with stupid people getting out. Anyone who is not jailed is free to leave.

Just to make it clear, that comment was a joke not a serious idea.

And yes i can see why you would be fine at getting rid of the idiots. But unfortunately the rest of the world have enough problems without adding americans to it.
 
Just to make it clear, that comment was a joke not a serious idea.

And yes i can see why you would be fine at getting rid of the idiots. But unfortunately the rest of the world have enough problems without adding americans to it.

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?
 
That's already happening. Our democracy, including the accompanying ultra-controlled restrictions we have here, is a set of moral beliefs just like religion. We are being forced to participate even though some may not support it.
Y'know, I'm not an expert on Australia, but it's pretty obvious that it is not a totalitarian state. It's also had compulsory voting since what, 1911? Spare us the hysterics.


By not voting (or showing up at all), citizens would have the ability to demand change and reform among our political landscape (God knows we need that dearly in Australia). The only thing mandatory voting does is allow politicians to stay corrupt and oppressive without opposition from the people.
Your claims here are utterly ludicrous.

Voting is one of the few mechanisms citizens have to enact political changes. Staying home on election day doesn't cause political change, and it doesn't thwart corruption.

I mean, really. When blacks in the US were deliberately disenfranchised, which resulted in the same racist politicians being elected to office over and over again, was that really a secret way to overthrow segregation?


Trump's victory is the perfect example of this. It was a case of informed people deciding enough was enough and change was needed.
Nearly 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. Trump won because of a deliberately anti-democratic structure of federal elections. 'nuff said.


Whether that change is good or bad is irrelevant. It shows that the US has a system which accommodates change by letting the people control the politicians, not the other way around. That is true progress.
Yeah, you might want to know a little more about US elections before making those kinds of statements.

Again, the Electoral College is deliberately designed as an anti-democratic measure. It thwarts the will of the public.

The US has a solid 2-party system, which makes it very difficult for anyone else to get anywhere. Independent candidates have almost no success, even if they are insanely wealthy.

Incumbents have significant advantages; it's rather rare for them to lose.

The US system is compromised in many states by gerrymandering, where the parties in power draw district lines in order to ensure that they hold onto power.

This results in significant voter dissatisfaction. Polls about "direction of the country" have been anywhere from 50% to 70% "wrong direction" for about a decade, while "right direction" is around 30%. Trump's disapproval rating has been over 50% for almost his entire term so far; on a given day, his net approval-disapproval is anywhere from 10% to 20%. Congress is even worse, with approval around 20% and disapproval in the 70-80% range. Trust in government is also cratering.

The grass is not always greener on the other side.
 
Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

… no! ...
 
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?

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.
 
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?
:roll:

- 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...?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
:roll:

- 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom