• 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 People Be Forced To Vote Or Pay A Fine?

Should People Be Forced To Vote Or Pay A Fine?

  • Total voters
    76
Moderate Right said:
Well, if you read this very thread you will see at least two different people from the left admitting that they believe higher voter turnout favors Democrats. Do you need a link for this thread?
Click to expand...

I have read the thread.

That which I bolded above isn't what I asked of you.

Let me go through it again.

What you Originally Posted. Your Thread OP.

Moderate Right said:
Another thread inspired me to post this poll. I think some lefties here on DP feel that Democrats best chance of winning elections is by forcing people to vote or face a fine as they do in some other countries like Australia. I guess their thinking is that the more people who vote the more will vote Democrat. So, should we up our voter turnout to 90% or more by forcing people to vote or face a fine for not voting?
Click to expand...

Notice the part of your OP that I highlighted in bold print.

Now let us look at my first post in this thread and what I actually asked you, based on your OP claim in the part that I highlighted, above, in your OP.

Moderate Right said:
Another thread inspired me to post this poll. I think some lefties here on DP feel that Democrats best chance of winning elections is by forcing people to vote or face a fine as they do in some other countries like Australia. I guess their thinking is that the more people who vote the more will vote Democrat. So, should we up our voter turnout to 90% or more by forcing people to vote or face a fine for not voting?
Click to expand...

LouC said:
I haven't been here that long, could you cite some of these Lefties stating that they think that is their best chance of winning elections?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The following two posts below, DO NOT support the claim, of yours,I highlighted in your OP, of which I asked you for examples. I imagine you think they do, but they don’t.

Sampson Simpson said:
Nobody said that, as usual, right winger has to lie in order to troll.

the more people that vote, the more likely democrats would win. That's fact. Tha'ts why republicans try so hard to purge rolls, cry about fake voter fraud to make it harder for those to vote, get voter id laws that target the poor, and even so bad as then remove id offices from those areas.

No democrat says forced. Just really poor trolling attempt
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
Historically, higher turnout rates have meant better results for the Democrats. That's why Repubs are trying to restrict voting.
Click to expand...

Neither of those say what you claimed in your OP.

Moderate Right said:
... I think some lefties here on DP feel that Democrats best chance of winning elections is by forcing people to vote or face a fine as they do in some other countries like Australia. ...
Click to expand...

Again. Please do tell. Which "Leftie" posters here at DP feel that way? Just two names would be enough to make me happy.

:2wave:
 
Born Free said:
OK let me put it this way, Liberals are not against forcing citizens to do as the government wants or pay a fine. They proved that by passing Obamacare. Not one Republican voted for Obamacare. The difference is liberals love more government control, proven by passing the individual mandate. If you can show me one republican that supports mandating or pay a fine, let me know. I would sure like to know who that is. So this vote or pay a fine is strictly a liberal thing, no republican would ever support vote or pay.
Click to expand...

I am so glad you finally figured out your argument had been so specious.

Fact is only about 300 Democrats voted for the PPACA.

Not one Republican in Congress voted for the PPACA.

That is true.

That is because they failed to take an active and equal role in crafting that legislation rather choosing to hide out from their Constitutional duties.

Not like they aren't all for spending other people's money and taxing other people to get that money, on their terms.

They did nothing noble by hiding out on the creation of the PPACA.

They certainly have done nothing noble as far as unburdening the American People from the PPACA since its inception.

Like I said, they think they have political cover by standing with their mock innocence and saying "I didn't do it."

Showing you a Republican who supports "mandating or pay a fine" isn't my argument, it is yours and it is irrelevant to the argument I made.
 
LouC said:
I have read the thread.

That which I bolded above isn't what I asked of you.

Let me go through it again.

What you Originally Posted. Your Thread OP.



Notice the part of your OP that I highlighted in bold print.

Now let us look at my first post in this thread and what I actually asked you, based on your OP claim in the part that I highlighted, above, in your OP.





The following two posts below, DO NOT support the claim, of yours,I highlighted in your OP, of which I asked you for examples. I imagine you think they do, but they don’t.





Neither of those say what you claimed in your OP.



Again. Please do tell. Which "Leftie" posters here at DP feel that way? Just two names would be enough to make me happy.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

As a liberal you see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear, and read what you want to read. I can't help you with that.
 
Only about half the countries that have mandatory voting laws make there be any penalty to not voting. Most penalties are not enforced or so insignificant they are laughable.

In Australia there is a fine, about 11 Pounds, but even then they only had 91% participation in 2016 elections.

Australia has only 16.8 million adults that are eligible to be on their voter rolls.

Just in California alone there are 25.1 million eligible adults to be on the voter rolls.

Sometimes doing the math just makes it obvious comparing America to some other nations, and what they do or how they handle things, is very much like comparing apples to aardvarks.
 
Moderate Right said:
As a liberal you see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear, and read what you want to read. I can't help you with that.
Click to expand...

I incontrovertibly prove that you cannot support the claim you made in your OP so you dodge that reality by falsely claiming I allegedly have issues.

My GOD that is hilarious!

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Absolutely not. It would be no different than the Obamacare mandate. You shouldn't have to pay a fine over something as simple (but important) as voting nor should government, even more importantly, force someone to do something such as that. For those who think that they should and say "well, I don't want to put my taxpayer money into the military and police", this is far different. Deep down, people want their law enforcement, fire fighters, and their national defense against foreign powers, all for safety. When a criminal is threatening your well being, the police are there to put that person away. When a fire breaks out, you want the fire department to try and save your home. When a country is threatening to take over ours, the military is there to defeat them (and we have the best of the best in the world). In order for all that to happen, tax payer money goes toward all that, so don't try to act like you don't want them. You would actually be thankful.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Absolutely not. It would be no different than the Obamacare mandate. You shouldn't have to pay a fine over something as simple (but important) as voting nor should government, even more importantly, force someone to do something such as that. For those who think that they should and say "well, I don't want to put my taxpayer money into the military and police", this is far different. Deep down, people want their law enforcement, fire fighters, and their national defense against foreign powers, all for safety. When a criminal is threatening your well being, the police are there to put that person away. When a fire breaks out, you want the fire department to try and save your home. When a country is threatening to take over ours, the military is there to defeat them (and we have the best of the best in the world). In order for all that to happen, tax payer money goes toward all that, so don't try to act like you don't want them. You would actually be thankful.
Click to expand...

In states with State Sanctioned Photo ID laws enacted in order to vote would you allow electors to still vote who had refused to purchase any of the officially sanctioned State Photo ID's?
 
LouC said:
I incontrovertibly prove that you cannot support the claim you made in your OP so you dodge that reality by falsely claiming I allegedly have issues.

My GOD that is hilarious!

:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Seriously? You are nothing but an uber partisan who only uses one set of glasses for everything.
 
I don't use glasses. Too many dishes to do as it is. I only use disposable-recyclable plastic cups.
 
noonereal said:
So now we have tyrannical rule by the minority.

Be happy.
Click to expand...

No we don't. We have the majority of the people of each state deciding whom to cast that states electoral votes for. The only way a minority would be involved is a state giving all their electoral votes to a plurality winner when the majority voted against the plurality winner. That needs to be addressed.

If you're referring to 2016, a majority of Americans voted against Hillary Clinton, a majority of Americans voted against Trump. Whom ever would have been declared the winner would have been a minority winner. Either one as you put it would be the result of tyrannical rule by the minority.

Since neither major party candidate received a majority of the popular votes, having a winner decided by the candidate who did received the majority of the states vote, i.e. the electoral college. Bottom line popular vote, Trump minority, Hillary minority. State vote or the electoral college, Trump a majority, Hillary minority.

So Trump batted .500, 1 majority, 1 minority. Hillary batted .000, 0 majority, 2 minority.
 
Perotista said:
No we don't. We have the majority of the people of each state deciding whom to cast that states electoral votes for. The only way a minority would be involved is a state giving all their electoral votes to a plurality winner when the majority voted against the plurality winner. That needs to be addressed.

If you're referring to 2016, a majority of Americans voted against Hillary Clinton, a majority of Americans voted against Trump. Whom ever would have been declared the winner would have been a minority winner. Either one as you put it would be the result of tyrannical rule by the minority.

Since neither major party candidate received a majority of the popular votes, having a winner decided by the candidate who did received the majority of the states vote, i.e. the electoral college. Bottom line popular vote, Trump minority, Hillary minority. State vote or the electoral college, Trump a majority, Hillary minority.

So Trump batted .500, 1 majority, 1 minority. Hillary batted .000, 0 majority, 2 minority.
Click to expand...

Dude, you are being willfully ignorant.

More people voted for Hillary. This is not rocket science.

You should be a record album, they spin, spin, snip too.
 
Carjosse said:
Also most likely would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Certainly if you (the universal 'you') examine it as a right, of course it is.
 
noonereal said:
Dude, you are being willfully ignorant.

More people voted for Hillary. This is not rocket science.

You should be a record album, they spin, spin, snip too.
Click to expand...

Correct, but not a majority of Americans. 52% of all Americans voted against Hillary. What's the difference if it is tyranny of the minority 48-52 or tyranny of the minority 46-54? You still have the minority rule over the majority.

As for Trump, he did have a majority, more states, more electoral votes. I may suggest a different way with the winner take all via plurality which doesn't seem right in my book.

Perhaps if you want a direct Democracy instead of a Republic or a union of the 50 states as you seem to with Hillary. Just do away with the states, award the presidency only by popular vote. Give each party the same number of congressmen and senators as their percentage of the overall vote. That could make things very interesting. Doing it that way would have made the House in 2016 213, 49% Republicans, 204 48% Democrats, 13 3% Independents or third party members. No majority for either majority party. I'd be extremely happy with that.

Although in 2018 the Democrats would be in charge in the House, 53% 230, Republicans 45% 196, third party or independents 2% or 9. I like it.
 
Perotista said:
Correct, but not a majority of Americans. 52% of all Americans voted against Hillary. What's the difference if it is tyranny of the minority 48-52 or tyranny of the minority 46-54? You still have the minority rule over the majority.

As for Trump, he did have a majority, more states, more electoral votes. I may suggest a different way with the winner take all via plurality which doesn't seem right in my book.

Perhaps if you want a direct Democracy instead of a Republic or a union of the 50 states as you seem to with Hillary. Just do away with the states, award the presidency only by popular vote. Give each party the same number of congressmen and senators as their percentage of the overall vote. That could make things very interesting. Doing it that way would have made the House in 2016 213, 49% Republicans, 204 48% Democrats, 13 3% Independents or third party members. No majority for either majority party. I'd be extremely happy with that.

Although in 2018 the Democrats would be in charge in the House, 53% 230, Republicans 45% 196, third party or independents 2% or 9. I like it.
Click to expand...

OMFG

just stop.

You are figuratively justifying murder.
 
noonereal said:
OMFG

just stop.

You are figuratively justifying murder.
Click to expand...

LOL, okay. I do like the electoral college as it gives each state a say in what is the United States which is a union of the several states. I do think modifications is needed. But not done away with. I don't think a direct democracy should replace our representative republic.

Perhaps at sometime in the future it will. We've been slowly headed that way.
 
Moderate Right said:
Another thread inspired me to post this poll. I think some lefties here on DP feel that Democrats best chance of winning elections is by forcing people to vote or face a fine as they do in some other countries like Australia. I guess their thinking is that the more people who vote the more will vote Democrat. So, should we up our voter turnout to 90% or more by forcing people to vote or face a fine for not voting?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Added as commentary: This is a very silly premise for a poll.
 
Perotista said:
LOL, okay. I do like the electoral college as it gives each state a say in what is the United States which is a union of the several states. I do think modifications is needed. But not done away with. I don't think a direct democracy should replace our representative republic.

Perhaps at sometime in the future it will. We've been slowly headed that way.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid in school they taught me we were one country (I am talking grammar school) but that we had different laws, here and there. It made no sense to me. Then I thought of all the duplication. 50 different legislatures. WTF?

Then as I got older we had to drive across the boarder for alcohol. One country?

It's nuts. Yes I learned why. In truth it was about the rich holding on to the power they had. Turning it to political power because wealth and politics are intertwined.

Now you want to tell me that a single district state should have the same representation as CA TX or NY? (the Senate)

There is not a person of reason that was not brought up in a culture where this was OK would even come up with such a ridiculous system. It would never cross there mind.

But now we have folks actually championing such garbage.

So, we disagree.

The electoral college enables minority rule and that can never be good.

I'll tell you something else that is not good. Not having a national language. This too keeps us divided. (plus it costs us money)
 
Last edited:
noonereal said:
When I was a kid in school they taught me we were one country (I am talking grammar school) but that we had different laws, here and there. It made no sense to me. Then I thought of all the duplication. 50 different legislatures. WTF?

Then as I got older we had to drive across the boarder for alcohol. One country?

It's nuts. Yes I learned why. In truth it was about the rich holding on to the power they had. Turning it to political power because wealth and politics are intertwined.

Now you want to tell me that a single district state should have the same representation as CA TX or NY?

There is not a person of reason that was not brought up in a culture where this was OK would even come up with such a ridiculous system. It would never cross there mind.

But now we have folks actually championing such garbage.

So, we disagree.

The electoral college enables minority rule and that can never be good.

I'll tell you something else that is not good. Not having a national language. This too keeps us divided. (plus it costs us money)
Click to expand...

Differing on the electoral college is fine. One has to remember when the Constitution and the form of representative government was drawn up, very few looked on themselves as being Americans. They were New Yorkers, Virginians, Georgians. They also feared an all powerful central government. What they did was make the House of Representatives the peoples house. The people would be represented in the House, the states in the senate. Then each state would vote on the presidency which is where the electoral college came into being.

In the beginning the people elected their state legislatures and their state legislatures voted or determined whom their state would award its electoral votes to. The people were represented by their representatives in their state legislature. In 1800 I think it was only 4 of 14 states had a popular vote. It wasn't until 1868 that a popular vote to determine how their state awarded its electoral votes was in effect in all existing states.

State legislatures also determined whom their senators would be until 1913 when the 17th took effect. Being the senate was originally designed to represent the states, it made sense that the state legislatures would choose their senators making the senators directly responsible to the state. The people had the House of Representatives. Now popular vote also decides senators, they no longer represent the states as originally designed.

As for language, that doesn't bother me. In the past it was quite normal for new immigrants to come here speaking their native language and continue to do so. But it was their children that learned English and soon forgot their native language of their parents. But that was when we were the melting pot. I'm not sure we are today. This push on diversity has put a halt on the melting pot idea. With the emphasis on our differences today instead of our similarities is probably a cause on our divisions.
 
noonereal said:
Dude, you are being willfully ignorant.

More people voted for Hillary. This is not rocket science.

You should be a record album, they spin, spin, snip too.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this, if a person, or a party wins the vote 51% to 49% do you believe they should impose tyrannical rule on everyone?
 
Perotista said:
Correct, but not a majority of Americans. 52% of all Americans voted against Hillary. What's the difference if it is tyranny of the minority 48-52 or tyranny of the minority 46-54? You still have the minority rule over the majority.

As for Trump, he did have a majority, more states, more electoral votes. I may suggest a different way with the winner take all via plurality which doesn't seem right in my book.

Perhaps if you want a direct Democracy instead of a Republic or a union of the 50 states as you seem to with Hillary. Just do away with the states, award the presidency only by popular vote. Give each party the same number of congressmen and senators as their percentage of the overall vote. That could make things very interesting. Doing it that way would have made the House in 2016 213, 49% Republicans, 204 48% Democrats, 13 3% Independents or third party members. No majority for either majority party. I'd be extremely happy with that.

Although in 2018 the Democrats would be in charge in the House, 53% 230, Republicans 45% 196, third party or independents 2% or 9. I like it.
Click to expand...

Great suggestion
 
noonereal said:
When I was a kid in school they taught me we were one country (I am talking grammar school) but that we had different laws, here and there. It made no sense to me. Then I thought of all the duplication. 50 different legislatures. WTF?

Then as I got older we had to drive across the boarder for alcohol. One country?

It's nuts. Yes I learned why. In truth it was about the rich holding on to the power they had. Turning it to political power because wealth and politics are intertwined.

Now you want to tell me that a single district state should have the same representation as CA TX or NY? (the Senate)

There is not a person of reason that was not brought up in a culture where this was OK would even come up with such a ridiculous system. It would never cross there mind.

But now we have folks actually championing such garbage.

So, we disagree.

The electoral college enables minority rule and that can never be good.

I'll tell you something else that is not good. Not having a national language. This too keeps us divided. (plus it costs us money)
Click to expand...

But you think that if one side wins the election 50.5% to 49.5%, that they have a mandate to impose their will on approximately half of the country that doesn't want their policies. That is also tyrannical rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom