• 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!

Should Someone Be Required By Law To Vote In The Presidential Election(s)?

Should It Be Required That ALL Legal U.S. Citizens Vote In Presidential Elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • No

    Votes: 60 92.3%
  • Only A Certain Amount Every So Many Years

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65
So the solution is to increase this number? I don't really get it. How does more people voting lead to a "healthier" democracy?

Because a democracy is based on allowing the small guy to have his voice heard. Democracy allows financially disadvantaged citizens a chance to have a say in the direction our government heads, it benefits all walks of life, just not the people with money. Are you saying the less people that vote the better it is for the country? thats a very unrealistic view of democracy.
 
That's pretty hackish and ignorant, imo.

How so? People voted George W. Bush back into office during horrible economic times, so obviously he was not voted back into power based on his record. George W. Bush's campaign motto was "I will keep you safe." Bush couldn't run on his record just as Obama can't run on his. Both campaigns will show similarities. My statement wasn't arrogant what so ever, it's just not what you wanted to hear. its pretty well documented.
 
LOL!!!

Or Barak Obama, for that matter, eh?

Actually you are wrong, "eh?." Obama was elected by a landslide majority, he didn't need his big brother to steal the election in Florida to claim victory. Also, Obama will win re-election on a much larger scale compared to George W. Bush in 2004, I guarantee it.
 
Last edited:
Because a democracy is based on allowing the small guy to have his voice heard. Democracy allows financially disadvantaged citizens a chance to have a say in the direction our government heads, it benefits all walks of life, just not the people with money. Are you saying the less people that vote the better it is for the country? thats a very unrealistic view of democracy.

What????

Democracy is another word for "mob rule".

The little guy can get crushed. Crushed. The weak can fall prey to the masses.

A popularity contest is not always the "best option".
 
I've long thought that voting should be a duty just as is registering with the Selective Service Commission when you turn 18. No requirements as to party of candidate, you just have to participate as a duty to your country. Our government would be much more representative of its people.
 
Our government would be much more representative of its people.

I know it's hard to comprehend, but it could surely mean we'd have a much much worse government than we already have.

I'm not sure I want a "true representation" of a large part of "our people".
 
I know it's hard to comprehend, but it could surely mean we'd have a much much worse government than we already have.

I'm not sure I want a "true representation" of a large part of "our people".


You prefer the government only represent a small portion of its citizens then?
 
I see that a few have voted yes we should require that everyone vote. I am honestly baffled by this view and need help understanding it.

How would requiring everyone to vote improve anything? It can also go against a persons religious beliefs or personal standards. Years when I feel no candidates are worthy to represent the people I refuse to vote. Forcing persons to vote may but them in a position to support someone they feel are corrupt, dishonest, have little or no similar views. I just dont think it is a good idea.
 
Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege.

I never said it wasn't a right. It is a right but it's also a privilege. It's a violation of someone's right to vote by forcing them to vote against their will.
 
Because a democracy is based on allowing the small guy to have his voice heard. Democracy allows financially disadvantaged citizens a chance to have a say in the direction our government heads, it benefits all walks of life, just not the people with money.

Poor people can still vote. Democracy is based on all those who want to be involved to some degree being allowed to do so. There is no requirement for everyone to participate if they do not want to. If people see no interest in democracy, you will not be able to force them to have an interest. Many people have deep moral convictions against voting. You can try to educate them, but you cannot alter a person's convictions, or lack thereof, by decree.

Are you saying the less people that vote the better it is for the country? thats a very unrealistic view of democracy.

Nice strawman. I never gave an ideal number for how many people should vote. There isn't an ideal turnout rate. The key is that voters have a grasp of the issues and don't just vote based on personality. There's no good way of forcing this interest, but compulsory voting is certainly not a good way to do it.
 
Last edited:
An interesting debate. Should voting in presidential elections be required by law? Of course this excludes felons !

I think as long as they're not incarcerated most states allow felons to vote. Why shouldn't they, if they've "paid their debt to society?" Maine and Vermont allow incarcerated felons to vote.
 
I see that a few have voted yes we should require that everyone vote. I am honestly baffled by this view and need help understanding it.

How would requiring everyone to vote improve anything? It can also go against a persons religious beliefs or personal standards. Years when I feel no candidates are worthy to represent the people I refuse to vote. Forcing persons to vote may but them in a position to support someone they feel are corrupt, dishonest, have little or no similar views. I just dont think it is a good idea.

In government class, I was taught that democracy can only be representative of its citizens if everyone does their duty to be an active participant. I don't know if you saw earlier I suggested there should be no requirements for voting for particular parties or candidates? I also agree with someone that suggested there should be a none of the above choice, and write ins allowed. How would that violate someone's religious beliefs or personal standards?

Everyone would have complete freedom to vote how they think best represents them, but they have to participate in the process as a citizen duty, just like registering with the selective service system.
 
If you are informed it is your duty as an American to vote, sorry if its a bit inconvenient.

Certain states it would be a waste of time to vote. Obama in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho is not going to happen.
 
No, voting is a privilege. It would be a violation of voting rights to force someone to vote.

Ummm I believe voting is not only a privilege but a right,. A right you can lose in certain states.
 
I find the majority to be wrong about 95% of the time. Especially when it comes to matters of values or morality.

Rick? Rick Santorum? :2wave:
 
Ummm I believe voting is not only a privilege but a right,. A right you can lose in certain states.

Read back about 5 posts :2razz:
 
An interesting debate. Should voting in presidential elections be required by law? Of course this excludes felons and non-u.s. citizens. Legal voting age stays the same in this scenario.

My opinion: If you live in the United States, you will be required to vote in the United States. It would be a huge dis-respect to the millions of Americans that died for this country to sit at home on election day. This is a freedom many have died for so get out and participate!

Can they vote for themselves?
 
Actually you are wrong, "eh?." Obama was elected by a landslide majority, he didn't need his big brother to steal the election in Florida to claim victory. Also, Obama will win re-election on a much larger scale compared to George W. Bush in 2004, I guarantee it.

ummm...

Okay, dude.
 
An interesting debate. Should voting in presidential elections be required by law? Of course this excludes felons and non-u.s. citizens. Legal voting age stays the same in this scenario.

My opinion: If you live in the United States, you will be required to vote in the United States. It would be a huge dis-respect to the millions of Americans that died for this country to sit at home on election day. This is a freedom many have died for so get out and participate!

Haven't they also died for the freedom to stay home? At any rate, everyone should have the right to vote or not vote as they see fit. But while everyone can vote, only the people who take the time to educate themselves on what each candidate believes should vote. However, should and should not are not the same as can and cannot.
 
I have generally found in my lifetime that the fewer people believe something, the more likely it is to be correct. I find the majority to be wrong about 95% of the time. Especially when it comes to matters of values or morality.

That's equally as asinine as allowing the majority groupthink to define your beliefs. In either case you're allowing yourself to be guided by what amount to survey results.

That explains a few things about you. After all, most people aren't white supremacists.
 
Your belief is women are incapable of examining their finances and comparing cause and effect to a candidates position?

Your belief is women are incapable of comparing their values to a candidates social platform?

Your belief is women cannot study world politics and decide what foreign policy actions support America's best interest?

Have you ever met a real live women?

Hows the view from your high horse?

I wouldn't take Tigger too seriously, his dream babe boils down to a prostitute who will clean and cook. He's about as interested in what most of us would call a relationship as he is in equal rights for women.
 
In government class, I was taught that democracy can only be representative of its citizens if everyone does their duty to be an active participant. I don't know if you saw earlier I suggested there should be no requirements for voting for particular parties or candidates? I also agree with someone that suggested there should be a none of the above choice, and write ins allowed.

I was taught that active participation involves more than just pulling a lever. The compulsion to vote would solve none of the problems advocates say it would. A democracy allows people to participate in government how they see fit. If they choose that their participation will amount to nothing, that is their decision alone.

How would that violate someone's religious beliefs or personal standards?

Everyone would have complete freedom to vote how they think best represents them, but they have to participate in the process as a citizen duty, just like registering with the selective service system.

What does or does not violate someone's personal standards or beliefs is not for you to decide. That's why they are personal. Many feel that the mere act of voting involves putting the political process before God. Others feel that they are simply encouraging a failed system. Who they vote for is unimportant. It is the act itself that bothers them, and if they vote for no one, what's the point of this whole endeavor? I'm not saying that I agree with these people, but democracy is based on people deciding how they will participate in government. You can tell them that their choice is foolish or illogical all you want. However, they made their choice on how much to participate, and you undermine the premise of democracy when you force voting.
 
I was taught that active participation involves more than just pulling a lever. The compulsion to vote would solve none of the problems advocates say it would. A democracy allows people to participate in government how they see fit. If they choose that their participation will amount to nothing, that is their decision alone.

Of course active participation requires more than just pulling a lever, that's why I am so proud of the OWS protesters around the country!!! I actively protested in my younger days, and I'm glad to see there are still people with enough fortitude to do their part. But doing your duty to vote is the minimum people can do for their country IMO.



What does or does not violate someone's personal standards or beliefs is not for you to decide. That's why they are personal. Many feel that the mere act of voting involves putting the political process before God. Others feel that they are simply encouraging a failed system. Who they vote for is unimportant. It is the act itself that bothers them, and if they vote for no one, what's the point of this whole endeavor? I'm not saying that I agree with these people, but democracy is based on people deciding how they will participate in government. You can tell them that their choice is foolish or illogical all you want. However, they made their choice on how much to participate, and you undermine the premise of democracy when you force voting.

We must have studied different types of governments.
 
Last edited:
Of cours active participation requires more than just pulling a lever, that's why I am so proud of the OWS protesters around the country!!! But doing your duty to vote is the minimum people can do for their country.

This misses the point. Compulsory voting does not encourage active participation. It is worse than useless, as it pushes people who are too apathetic to look at the candidates to vote.

We must have studied different types of governments.

The United States government or any type of democracy relies upon people choosing how their government is run. Not making a decision is still a choice. In taking away someone's right to not choose you restrict their choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom