• 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?

C

Crusader13

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
893
Reaction score
212
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
That problem could be fixed by including "none of the above" for each ballot position.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That problem could be fixed by including "none of the above" for each ballot position.
Click to expand...
Offering another choice does nto "fix" the compelling nature of forcing you to choose.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's the same as choosing not to vote.
Click to expand...
The effect is irrelevant to the fact that you are being compelled to vote regardless of the option you choose.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In the US, mandatory voting is compelled speech (and expression.)

The subject has come up multiple times and usually resulting from a combination of general low voter turn out and comparison to other nations. However, it stands to Constitutional reason that forcing a vote would cause a problem even if it somewhat addressed these issues of voter participation.

Besides... Republicans would **** themselves if everyone was required to vote.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
I'd rather have mandatory voting like you have there, rather than disenfranchised voters like we have here...
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

What happens to you if you don't vote?
 
Crusader13 said:
... would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?
Click to expand...
Yes. By forcing it's citizens to choose a candidate, when they might not favor any of them, the Australian government is being coercive.
 
SoCal said:
I'd rather have mandatory voting like you have there, rather than disenfranchised voters like we have here...
Click to expand...

Mandatory voting does not equate to empowered and engaged voters, it just means forced voting.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is both coercive and a free choice. I don't see why it has to be either or. It is however a choice akin to a drowning man being given a choice between death and being saved by someone who will demand a lifetime of labor in return. Sure you have a choice...

But coercive speech in this manner isn't so bad. In exchange for the luxury and safety of society it is the least our government could ask of us, to make a decision, informed or otherwise, on appointment of our representatives. Next to conscription, taxes and jury duty, which forces us to decide the fate of our fellow citizens in legal matters, it's almost an affront to call compulsory voting coercion to begin with. But if you want to be pedantic, yes. Yes it is.
 
Sigh!
The Op here is either misdirecting all of you or just does not understand mandatory voting.

Firstly, australia does have a mandatory voting system but on the brighter side the title is a misnomer. It really does not mean that you have to cast a vote.

What it does mean and the way the australian system works is that every eligible voter in australia has their name on a voting register. And the law states that during the voting period the voter must get their name signed off on that register otherwise they face a fine. This is a far better system than america has where apparently politicians can make law changes that prevent people from voting.

However, and this is the important bit, so pay attention. What a person does with their voting card is entirely their choice. They can vote if they want, they can screw it up and throw it in the rubbish, they can fold it into a paper aeroplane if they like. Which i have actually done. And got it into the rubbish bin first shot as well.

There is no law that forces anyone to actually cast a vote. Australians do have the freedom of choice on whether to vote or not.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...

WTF. I suspect you are prime example of why people argue there should be a minimum iq level to be able to vote.

Your link is absolute ****. It has nothing to do with mandatory voting in australia, it does not even mention australia.

Compelled speech is even held up as correct in the americans constitution. so wtf does it have to do with this outright post of ignorance you have just wasted everyone's time with?

From your link
Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. In the United States, compelled speech is governed by the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. In the same way that the First Amendment protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which they disagree.
Click to expand...

How laughable.
 
Well, it is coerced but I don't know if it is coerced "speech". I do think there should be a "none of the above" option if it is mandatory. If that is done then it is no more problematic then requiring us to participate in the census.
 
soylentgreen said:
Nothing. I can assure you that chasing down people for not voting is not high on a police persons list of things to do.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of the OP then when he says voting is mandatory and that you are forced to vote. Apparently you're not.
 
SoCal said:
I'd rather have mandatory voting like you have there, rather than disenfranchised voters like we have here...
Click to expand...

But anyone who is forced to vote when they don't want to is disenfranchised.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?)
Click to expand...
No.

Votes are not speech.

I'd say that Voting is a civic duty, just like jury duty (which is also compulsory) or military service during a draft.

Compulsory voting does not necessarily favor any ideology or party size. If people are voting for similar parties, then it sounds like that is, at the very least in part, what the majority wants.

Any possible remaining issues could be handled by allowing abstentions.
 
soylentgreen said:
Sigh!
The Op here is either misdirecting all of you or just does not understand mandatory voting.

Firstly, australia does have a mandatory voting system but on the brighter side the title is a misnomer. It really does not mean that you have to cast a vote.

What it does mean and the way the australian system works is that every eligible voter in australia has their name on a voting register. And the law states that during the voting period the voter must get their name signed off on that register otherwise they face a fine. This is a far better system than america has where apparently politicians can make law changes that prevent people from voting.

However, and this is the important bit, so pay attention. What a person does with their voting card is entirely their choice. They can vote if they want, they can screw it up and throw it in the rubbish, they can fold it into a paper aeroplane if they like. Which i have actually done. And got it into the rubbish bin first shot as well.

There is no law that forces anyone to actually cast a vote. Australians do have the freedom of choice on whether to vote or not.
Click to expand...

I'm glad there are a lot of low information voters in the US who do not vote. I'd like to know that whoever casts a vote at least has a clue what is going on, even if they disagree with my interpretation of what is going on. People need to take voting seriously. If they can't do that then I don't think they should vote anyway and I'm glad if they don't. By the way, with very few exceptions, Republican lawmakers don't pass legislation to stop people from voting but we do have laws that only those people who are legally eligible to vote do. Many of the things you refer to are both checking to make sure only those eligible to vote do and also purge people from the rolls who have gone many elections without casting a vote. These people either don't want to vote or have other reasons for not voting, such as they don't live in that area anymore or maybe they are dead. And, people set for purging are notified of the purge and can stop the process if they want to. Many businesses purge files that have been inactive for long periods.
 
Crusader13 said:
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?
Click to expand...
actually yes it is and forced vote is unconstitutional.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's the same as choosing not to vote.
Click to expand...

not really. not filling out a ballot is not different than marking none of the above.
plus forced voting would be unconstitutional.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Mandatory voting does not equate to empowered and engaged voters, it just means forced voting.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood the OP's question. I'm unaware of any Dems proposing that voting cards literally need to be punched or mail-in ballots requiring a check mark for each and every race or ballot measure. If you know of someone proposing that, I'd be interested in reading about it.

My wife and I have been voting by mail for a few years now and what a great improvement. Taking the time to get the the polling place so you can wait in line for an hour or two, is no way to run a government. What I'd like to see and what I've heard proposed is mailing registration forms and ballots to every household. Maybe use the same mailing list the IRS uses and like them, require a signed 'form' be sent back, in this case a registration or ballot (not at the same time). That's what should be required.

However many candidates or measures the voter actually votes for would of course be entirely up to her/him. Anyone could return a signed blank ballot with no choices made if they're apathetic Americans.

But of course that will never happen. Repubs will create as many new road blocks to registration and voting as they can as their recent new registration requirements effecting southern states with large black populations attests. As America diversifies and we becomes less white and conservative, the last thing they want (or need) is a huge increase in voter participation in future elections...
 
soylentgreen said:
Sigh!
The Op here is either misdirecting all of you or just does not understand mandatory voting.

Firstly, australia does have a mandatory voting system but on the brighter side the title is a misnomer. It really does not mean that you have to cast a vote.

What it does mean and the way the australian system works is that every eligible voter in australia has their name on a voting register. And the law states that during the voting period the voter must get their name signed off on that register otherwise they face a fine. This is a far better system than america has where apparently politicians can make law changes that prevent people from voting.

However, and this is the important bit, so pay attention. What a person does with their voting card is entirely their choice. They can vote if they want, they can screw it up and throw it in the rubbish, they can fold it into a paper aeroplane if they like. Which i have actually done. And got it into the rubbish bin first shot as well.

There is no law that forces anyone to actually cast a vote. Australians do have the freedom of choice on whether to vote or not.
Click to expand...

Nice try mate. Show me where in Australian law it is written that you have a right to deface your voting ballot or return it blank. This is not a given right to Australian citizens.

The way the law works is that you are legally required to attend the voting event and have your name checked off by collecting a card and approaching the ballot. Granted, what you do after that point cannot possibly be monitored so the government doesn't even try. But that doesn't mean you have the right to not vote. The way the law is currently is written is that you will be fined for not voting, which includes the intentional act of not selecting a given option. With electronic voting being rolled out and set to become the norm, the government will be able to track whether you voted correctly or not, which means you wouldn't be able to hide behind the red tape by casting an invalid vote or tearing up your card.

Even if none of the above was an option, it doesn't negate the fact that you are still required to attend an event you may not support and express an opinion you may not want to express. That's the definition of compelled speech - it was explained in the Wiki article you so thoughtfully ignored.

God I worry for the future of this country when so many citizens are willing to put up with restricted freedoms and make excuses for it. Unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom