• 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!

Mandatory Voting

Rich2018 said:
So "getting it" = agreeing with your ignorant view ?
Click to expand...

Nope. But I remember trying to explain stuff like this to you before and it amounted to zero comprehension...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nope. But I remember trying to explain stuff like this to you before and it amounted to zero comprehension...
Click to expand...

Nope, you gave a knee jerk reaction to mandatory voting that centers on two things:

1. People who don't vote are politically stupid

2. An election is devalued if these people vote


Aside from the fact that you did no research at all and chose to harp on about dictionary definitions rather than research how the many countries, who have MV, actually interpret it....your knee jerk opposition flies in the face of the empiurical evidence

Not that you'd know that as you prefer to debate with your own blinkered opinion and not little things like actual evidence



Lastly, it's hard too take someone seriously who said voters must pass some kind of political knowledge test (presumably to get some kind of voting license) before being allowed to vote.
 
Rich2018 said:
What are the pros and cons on making voting compulsory ?


Pros:

1. It makes people take an interest in their democracy
2. It gives greater legitimacy to the government
3. It makes politicians appeal to a broader spectrum of people


People wouldn't have to pick a candidate, all ballot papers would have to have a "none o the above" option or a simple abstention box to check.
The consequences of not voting would be a fine. Automatically added to your tax bill or deducted from you welfare check


Cons:

1. A higher turn out would probably mean voting stations would need to stay open longer
2. A secure postal system of voting would be required for all elections to allow those who can't travel to vote



States would be mandated to register all eligible voters
Eligible voters = all citizens and LEGAL residents over the age of 18.

A last thought, if you object to mandatory voting, do you also object to mandatory participation in the jury system ?
Click to expand...

Just a thought - Isn't choosing not to vote an expression of free speech and a commentary on one's view of politics and government in general or the candidates on offer specifically? Isn't voting the ultimate expression of free speech and doesn't your constitution prohibit your government from enacting legislation that would prohibit or compel speech?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just a thought - Isn't choosing not to vote an expression of free speech and a commentary on one's view of politics and government in general or the candidates on offer specifically? Isn't voting the ultimate expression of free speech and doesn't your constitution prohibit your government from enacting legislation that would prohibit or compel speech?
Click to expand...

Yes, but mandatory voting doesn't mean being forced to vote (ie: select a candidate)
It is impossible anyway in a secret ballot

Mandatory voting is interpreted, by the countries that have it, as being forced to participate in the election process
ie: you must attend a voting station on election day, or return a postal vote (which can be for "none of the above", left blank or contain drawings of Mickey Mouse)


So what's the point ?

Well according to the empirical evidence from Australia, the so called "donkey votes" are at best minimal and most people do actually select their preferred candidate/party.
 
Rich2018 said:
Secondly, I dispute that there is a sub class of people that are relatively "unprepared and ill informed" at least in relation to those who ***DO*** vote


So what is your attitude towards the "unprepared and ill informed" who do vote? Are you OK with them exercising their democratic rights ?
Click to expand...

Its not a "sub-class". They are folks performing a willful action to not educate themselves as to current events, form conclusions with either bad information or no information at all, and then put action behind them by deciding who is best qualified to lead us and casting their vote for them.

My attitude toward them is that they have every right, particularly in this nation, to be as ill or non-informed as they care to be, but their actions make it clear that they have limited, if any, respect for the process that is this great experiment in representative democracy.
 
Rich2018 said:
Whatever, are you going to confide your (highly personal) thought process to someone else by means of explanation or chose to retain an unfathomable cryptic meaning known only to yourself (and I'm not really sure of that based on your answers)

My response to some of your nonsense "The above is probably why you're on my ignore list." in my post #416, you responded with "Then I struggling to see how you came to reply". Think about it, "HOW I came to reply."


I would like to increase the legitimacy of all successful candidates and governments

The legitimacy of our government would not change.



Yes, if a jury member is "lost", the trial is deemed "invalid"
ie: it lacks legitimacy, in 2016 the US election "lost" about 45% of the electorate

Are you getting it now ?

If a jury member is lost, an alternate takes their place and the trial continues.
The 45% who did not vote were not lost, they simply did not participate for a myriad of reasons.

Your reply was an argument to abolish trial by jury - whether or not you intended it to be or not. Sounds like it was unintentional but that's what your response amounts to.

I made no such argument, I simply stated what the existing law is. A defendant has a Right to a trial by jury, but also has the Right to waive that Right. Rights are NOT mandatory.


So they should do...and made made to attend a voting station, on election day, or return a postal vote

And they likely would, IF they had a candidate they really wanted to win who they felt needed their vote.


1. Explain why you say "no"
2. No there isn't, I was illustrating the precedent of a small voter turn out invalidating the result
ie: the principle is not unknown in the USA
3. Yes there is a need, you made an unsubstantiated claim that:

1. I don't recall the original question, repeat it if you feel it important.
2. There IS a quorum rule in Congress. Representatives are elected as a result of the majority of votes cast, which can be a plurality of votes.
3. We can only offer unsubstantiated opinions comparing countries to one another.

Now substantiate that claim from evidence collected from places that do have MV. Typical RW response is to refuse or claim it already has been and you're not going to repeat yourself

No politician is going to say anything that would lose more votes than it would gain. Just apply some common sense.


So if you don't see unemployment benefit as a reward, please explain what you meant by a reward when you said:

It's a form of government charity, but what has it to do with MV? At least try to remain on topic.

What "reward" ?

Something for nothing.



Would that include your posts ?

And yours too.


No, I'm stating that some people are and asking if you agree with it

Perhaps voters should sit and pass some king of political knowledge test before being allowed to vote, what do you think of that ?

In certain cases, Yes.
The Right to vote applies to all citizens 18 and older. The only test would be to display proof of citizenship and age.


So citizen rights should never be suspended should a citizen be convicted of a felony ?

While incarcerated, Yes.


Of course trials and elections are different things, but we mandate participation in one to ensure the integrity of the process, why not the other ?
Click to expand...

Serving on a jury is a duty which only provides the means for a Right to a trial by jury to be exercised by a defendant. The integrity of the pool may be compromised as a result of media coverage which could require moving the trial elsewhere.
Have you not learned that yet?
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Its not a "sub-class". They are folks performing a willful action to not educate themselves....
Click to expand...


How do you know they're not "educating" themselves ?

You're making a blanket assumption

Do you support the suggestion that NO voter is allowed to vote unless they sit and pass a political knowledge test ?


My attitude toward them is that they have every right, particularly in this nation, to be as ill or non-informed as they care to be, but their actions make it clear that they have limited, if any, respect for the process that is this great experiment in representative democracy.
Click to expand...

You can view it as a lack of respect in your opinion


But your description of a "great experiment" paints you into the RW patriotism corner

Voting in the USA is not some kind of unique or special event
Though it is essential to democracy in the USA and we should do everything we can to encourage turnout

IMO, nothing does that better than mandatory voting.
 
Individual said:
My response to some of your nonsense
Click to expand...

And my reply to your ill thought out nonsense is below

(and so much for being on you "ignore" list too Btw)


The legitimacy of our government would not change
Click to expand...

So in your view, a 10% turn out doesn't affect the legitimacy?

A ridiculous presumption, many organizations have a "quorum" when it comes to voting - establishing a voting principle
A low turn out does indeed reduce the legitimacy of a vote and IMO, the evidence shows nothing achieves this as well as MV


If a jury member is lost, an alternate takes their place. The 45% who did not vote were not lost
Click to expand...

Yes they were lost. There is no replacement for them
No judge would accept a verdict from just 55% of the jury

I made no such argument, I simply stated what the existing law is
Click to expand...

Nope, you weren't "just" stating what the law is regards trial by jury. You said:

A jury trial may result in a verdict, which a vast majority of the general population may disagree with
Click to expand...

So if a jury can return a guilty verdict that the "vast majority" of the population disagree with, isn't that an argument against trial by jury? I mean the purpose of criminal justice is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, so if a jury is so far out of step with the "vast majority" doesn't it seem like they've convicted an innocent man ?

How can this verdict be considered safe when another jury almost certainly would have returned NOT guilty if the "vast majority" of people disagreed (& presumably would do at a re-trial) ?


And they likely would, IF they had a candidate they really wanted to win
Click to expand...

So you're now claiming people "likely would" vote if they had a good enough candidate?

You abandon your claim that non-voters are "people who have no interest in politics" but rather people who have no candidate to vote for ?
Yet you have no evidence for either

If that were the case, we'd expect spoiled ballots/"none of the above" to be sky high in places with MV, but they're not


1. I don't recall the original question
2. There IS a quorum rule in Congress. Representatives are elected as a result of the majority of votes cast, which can be a plurality of votes.
3. We can only offer unsubstantiated opinions comparing countries to one another.
Click to expand...


1. Yet you claimed to recall it perfectly well in posts #482 and #495 where you returned an answer - or where they just knee jerk responses? And you're the one talking about "nonsense" posts :confused:
(maybe if you weren't so lazy?)

2. So the quorum principle (of a vote lacking legitimacy if enough votes are not cast) is established in Congress. Yet you cannot see how it might apply in a general election ? :confused:

3. No, you can offer qualified opinions, substantiated by empirical evidence


No politician is going to say anything that would lose more votes than it would gain. Just apply some common sense.
Click to expand...

Yet MV was accepted in Australia - and last time I checked, Australia is a democratic country. So much for your criteria for "common sense"
And Btw, the mark of a great politician is having the courage to do unpopular things because he/she considers it the right thing to do. It's called "leadership"

Again, file your idea of "common sense" with your idea of "nonsense"


It's a form of government charity, but what has it to do with MV? At least try to remain on topic.
Click to expand...

Unemployment benefit is a form of "charity" ?
Man, I wish Trump would say that in public

And you started talking about the "right to work" in post #457 when you said:

You have a "Right" to work, so should the be a law requiring you to work or face a fine?
Click to expand...


More "nonsense" huh ?

And yours too.
Click to expand...

Another knee jerk response from Mr "nonsense" ? (do you even know what you're replying to?)

You're admitting no-one should believe what they read in your posts. I make no admission for mine

The Right to vote applies to all citizens 18 and older. The only test would be to display proof of citizenship and age.
Click to expand...

Why would we need people to prove that ? They just need to identify themselves and then vote....no ID should be required
So you reject the proposal that people should qualify for voting by passing a test ?


Serving on a jury is a duty which only provides the means for a Right to a trial by jury to be exercised by a defendant. The integrity of the pool may be compromised as a result of media coverage which could require moving the trial elsewhere.
Have you not learned that yet?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that a trial couldn't be compromised by it's location - the Rodney King trial proved that
And the trial of the self appointed vigilantes McMichael father & son in Brunswick, Georgia will probably have to be moved.


What has that got to do with MV ?
Stay on topic.
 
Rich2018 said:
How do you know they're not "educating" themselves ?

You're making a blanket assumption

Do you support the suggestion that NO voter is allowed to vote unless they sit and pass a political knowledge test ?




You can view it as a lack of respect in your opinion


But your description of a "great experiment" paints you into the RW patriotism corner

Voting in the USA is not some kind of unique or special event
Though it is essential to democracy in the USA and we should do everything we can to encourage turnout

IMO, nothing does that better than mandatory voting.
Click to expand...

It’s not an assumption. It’s an educated calculation based on studies and surveys.

And no, I think the system should be 100% voluntary. I just think people should give enough of a damn about their government to take an interest beyond knee jerking a vote based on some party loyalty passed done from their parents or influence by 15 second ad spots or having seen some guy pretending to be a Master of the Universe on a reality TV show.

We should do everything to encourage a desire to be well informed and then turnout at the polls. Good citizenship isn’t something you practice for an hour on election days. It’s 24-7-365.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
It’s not an assumption. It’s an educated calculation based on studies and surveys.
Click to expand...

Which studies and surveys ?


And no, I think the system should be 100% voluntary. I just think people should give enough of a damn about their government to take an interest beyond knee jerking a vote based on some party loyalty passed done from their parents or influence by 15 second ad spots or having seen some guy pretending to be a Master of the Universe on a reality TV show.
Click to expand...

Sadly elections are like that, studies show that there's only a minority of "swing voters" - people who will/have voted for both parties at different elections


We should do everything to encourage a desire to be well informed and then turnout at the polls. Good citizenship isn’t something you practice for an hour on election days. It’s 24-7-365.
Click to expand...

True but we can't rely on volunteers

If we did, the trial by jury system would collapse

If taxes were voluntary, none would be paid

I think, after being vehemently against it, we should have mandatory voting

Which is a bit of a mis-nomer as you're not forced to actually vote (ie: select a candidate) but rather attend a voting station on election day OR return a postal vote.
 
Rich2018 said:
And my reply to your ill thought out nonsense is below

(and so much for being on you "ignore" list too Btw)




So in your view, a 10% turn out doesn't affect the legitimacy?

The legitimacy, no.

A ridiculous presumption, many organizations have a "quorum" when it comes to voting - establishing a voting principle
A low turn out does indeed reduce the legitimacy of a vote and IMO, the evidence shows nothing achieves this as well as MV

1996 was the most recent year, and ONLY year since 1932 that a "quorum" did NOT occur in our Federal elections.


Yes they were lost. There is no replacement for them
No judge would accept a verdict from just 55% of the jury



Nope, you weren't "just" stating what the law is regards trial by jury. You said:



So if a jury can return a guilty verdict that the "vast majority" of the population disagree with, isn't that an argument against trial by jury? I mean the purpose of criminal justice is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, so if a jury is so far out of step with the "vast majority" doesn't it seem like they've convicted an innocent man ?

How can this verdict be considered safe when another jury almost certainly would have returned NOT guilty if the "vast majority" of people disagreed (& presumably would do at a re-trial) ?




So you're now claiming people "likely would" vote if they had a good enough candidate?

If they find a REASON to vote, yes.

You abandon your claim that non-voters are "people who have no interest in politics" but rather people who have no candidate to vote for ?
Yet you have no evidence for either

If that were the case, we'd expect spoiled ballots/"none of the above" to be sky high in places with MV, but they're not

I said there are a myriad of reasons that people vote and/or do not vote.



1. Yet you claimed to recall it perfectly well in posts #482 and #495 where you returned an answer - or where they just knee jerk responses? And you're the one talking about "nonsense" posts :confused:
(maybe if you weren't so lazy?)

2. So the quorum principle (of a vote lacking legitimacy if enough votes are not cast) is established in Congress. Yet you cannot see how it might apply in a general election ? :confused:

3. No, you can offer qualified opinions, substantiated by empirical evidence




Yet MV was accepted in Australia - and last time I checked, Australia is a democratic country. So much for your criteria for "common sense"
And Btw, the mark of a great politician is having the courage to do unpopular things because he/she considers it the right thing to do. It's called "leadership"

Again, file your idea of "common sense" with your idea of "nonsense"




Unemployment benefit is a form of "charity" ?
Man, I wish Trump would say that in public

And you started talking about the "right to work" in post #457 when you said:




More "nonsense" huh ?



Another knee jerk response from Mr "nonsense" ? (do you even know what you're replying to?)

You're admitting no-one should believe what they read in your posts. I make no admission for mine



Why would we need people to prove that ? They just need to identify themselves and then vote....no ID should be required
So you reject the proposal that people should qualify for voting by passing a test ?




I didn't suggest that a trial couldn't be compromised by it's location - the Rodney King trial proved that
And the trial of the self appointed vigilantes McMichael father & son in Brunswick, Georgia will probably have to be moved.


What has that got to do with MV ?
Stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I keep trying.
 
Individual said:
The legitimacy, no
Click to expand...

Legally you are of course right, morally you're not

IMO, a 10 turnout produces in illegitimate result. You might be OK with a government or president elected from a 10% turn out or even 1% turnout - I would not


1996 was the most recent year a "quorum" did NOT occur in our Federal elections.
Click to expand...

Did you not say a quorum doesn't exist in federal elections...or did you just mean a majority of the electorate ?
(a quorum does not have to be 50%, it could be stated to be 10% or 95% - the point is that many organizations recognize a minimum turnout is required - why not the president and Congress with regard to federal elections?)


If they find a REASON to vote, yes.
Click to expand...

And that "reason" to vote would be a "good enough candidate" ?


I said there are a myriad of reasons that people vote and/or do not vote.
Click to expand...

So the people who do note vote are not necessarily "stupid", "lazy", "politically ignorant" ?

Or perhaps they feel that the 3rd party candidates have no chance of winning, so decide their vote would be a waste of time...


I keep trying.
Click to expand...

Then don't go off on tangents about a "right to work".
 
Rich2018 said:
Legally you are of course right, morally you're not

Thankfully we're governed by laws, not opinions.

IMO, a 10 turnout produces in illegitimate result. You might be OK with a government or president elected from a 10% turn out or even 1% turnout - I would not

Everyone is entitled to have opinions. I'm OK with a government elected by the rules that currently exist, though I would like to see the 17th amendment repealed.


Did you not say a quorum doesn't exist in federal elections...or did you just mean a majority of the electorate ?
(a quorum does not have to be 50%, it could be stated to be 10% or 95% - the point is that many organizations recognize a minimum turnout is required - why not the president and Congress with regard to federal elections?)

That's what I said. And yes more than have the voting age population has voted in nearly every election except the one I mentioned, since 1932. 10% would be fine.


And that "reason" to vote would be a "good enough candidate" ?

Do you not understand what the word "myriad" means?


So the people who do note vote are not necessarily "stupid", "lazy", "politically ignorant" ?

Have you seen me call them "stupid", "lazy", "politically ignorant"?

Or perhaps they feel that the 3rd party candidates have no chance of winning, so decide their vote would be a waste of time...

Or maybe they find no 3rd party candidates acceptable either?


Then don't go off on tangents about a "right to work".
Click to expand...

Same goes for Right to a trial by jury.
 
Individual said:
Thankfully we're governed by laws, not opinions.
Click to expand...

Why do you think anyone has suggested that we're not ?
Your empty response speaks volumes for you "argument" against mandatory voting


Seemingly the thrust of the debate slipped you by - that is that there SHOULD be a law for mandatory voting, not any opinion that there is.

Do you grasp that now ?


I'm OK with a government elected by the rules that currently exist, though I would like to see the 17th amendment repealed.
Click to expand...

So what ?
You've utterly failed to justify the status quo, with you defense of it beinf confined to stating that "that is just the way the law is right now"

And I'd rather the Senate be abolished that to see the 17th scrapped


That's what I said. And yes more than have the voting age population has voted in nearly every election except the one I mentioned, since 1932. 10% would be fine.
Click to expand...

10% turn out fine ?

Then you advocating that the USA abdicates from it's claim to be a democracy
Because 10% is ABSOLUTELY not "fine"

Right wingers preach about the so-called tyranny of the majority
So suggesting its OK to allow a wolf to discuss the menu for dinner with 9 sheep with himself having all the votes

Do you not understand what the word "myriad" means?
Click to expand...

Do you understand why it is relevant in any way, in this context?
Because it isn't

Have you seen me call them "stupid", "lazy", "politically ignorant"?
Click to expand...

I said "not necessarily"

So do you deny that these are part of your "myriad"


Or maybe they find no 3rd party candidates acceptable either?
Click to expand...

And you're actually suggesting that might be the case for 45% of eligible voters ?



Same goes for Right to a trial by jury.
Click to expand...

That right cannot be maintained without mandatory jury service.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why do you think anyone has suggested that we're not ?
Your empty response speaks volumes for you "argument" against mandatory voting


Seemingly the thrust of the debate slipped you by - that is that there SHOULD be a law for mandatory voting, not any opinion that there is.

Do you grasp that now ?

Exercising ones Rights is not made mandatory by law, they are entitlements protected by law. Do you grasp that?


So what ?
You've utterly failed to justify the status quo, with you defense of it beinf confined to stating that "that is just the way the law is right now"

And I'd rather the Senate be abolished that to see the 17th scrapped

Read the response above.



10% turn out fine ?

Then you advocating that the USA abdicates from it's claim to be a democracy
Because 10% is ABSOLUTELY not "fine"

Right wingers preach about the so-called tyranny of the majority
So suggesting its OK to allow a wolf to discuss the menu for dinner with 9 sheep with himself having all the votes

Enough sheep would likely find that a reason worthy of casting a vote.

Do you understand why it is relevant in any way, in this context?
Because it isn't

Then you obviously don't know the definition of the word.

I said "not necessarily"

So do you deny that these are part of your "myriad"

Why do you feel a need to apply a derogation to those who for whatever reason don't vote?


And you're actually suggesting that might be the case for 45% of eligible voters ?

I'm not suggesting anything more than there are a myriad of reasons people don't vote.



That right cannot be maintained without mandatory jury service.
Click to expand...

Yes, to serve on a jury is a duty, NOT a Right. The accused possesses the Right to a trial by jury, which can be waived by the accused.
 
Individual said:
Exercising ones Rights is not made mandatory by law, they are entitlements protected by law. Do you grasp that?
Click to expand...

Yes, and mandatory voting doesn't make anybody exercise the right to vote, but protects the right to vote
Have you really not read that part of the thread

Mandatory voting does NOT mean a citizen is forced to vote (ie: select a candidate)


Read the response above.
Click to expand...

Again, you've utterly failed to justify the status quo. Period


Enough sheep would likely find that a reason worthy of casting a vote.
Click to expand...


LOL so you deny calling people "stupid" :


Have you seen me call them "stupid", "lazy", "politically ignorant"?
Click to expand...

But you're OK with calling them "sheep"


So much fail



Then you obviously don't know the definition of the word.
Click to expand...

Really? Explain what your criteria is and how it is in any way relevant


I'm not suggesting anything more than there are a myriad of reasons people don't vote.
Click to expand...


Sure, and all addressed with mandatory voting


Do you support speed limits on highways Btw ?


Yes, to serve on a jury is a duty, NOT a Right. The accused possesses the Right to a trial by jury, which can be waived by the accused.
Click to expand...


The duty of jury service is to protect a right, do you not think that the right to vote is worth protecting ?
Do you really not see how shrinking the electorate (to maybe just 10%) is a threat to that right ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, and mandatory voting doesn't make anybody exercise the right to vote, but protects the right to vote
Have you really not read that part of the thread

Mandatory voting does NOT mean a citizen is forced to vote (ie: select a candidate)




Again, you've utterly failed to justify the status quo. Period

The Constitution protects the Right to vote.



LOL so you deny calling people "stupid" :




But you're OK with calling them "sheep"


So much fail

Yes, and YOU introduced sheep NOT me. I simply responded to your post about the wolf and the sheep.



Really? Explain what your criteria is and how it is in any way relevant

There is no ONE reason people don't vote, nor should they be required to provide one.



Sure, and all addressed with mandatory voting


Do you support speed limits on highways Btw ?

Yes, that appears to be your opinion.
Your thread topic is "Mandatory Voting". Stick to it.



The duty of jury service is to protect a right, do you not think that the right to vote is worth protecting ?
Do you really not see how shrinking the electorate (to maybe just 10%) is a threat to that right ?
Click to expand...

Once again, the Right to vote is protected by our U.S. Constitution and several amendments. Perhaps you should read it.
No one is suggesting shrinking the electorate to 10%, but if only 10% of the voting age population voted, it would still be a valid election. Though that is unlikely to occur, and since 1828 the lowest VAP turnout was 48.9% in 1924 while the highest was 81.8% in 1876. More than 50% of the VAP has voted in every Federal election since 1900, except for 2.

 
Individual said:
The Constitution protects the Right to vote.
Click to expand...

Like a fig leaf's protection at the North Pole


The Constitution protects nothing...if anything is protected it is protected by the people

A piece of paper - like a "No Guns" sign outside a school - protects nothing if people aren't prepared to support it
And if 90% of the people didn't vote, that's a pretty significant lack of support

A democracy run by just 10% of the people is not a democracy at all, it's close to a tyranny and whilst you might be OK with that, I am not


Yes, and YOU introduced sheep NOT me. I simply responded to your post about the wolf and the sheep.
Click to expand...

Nope it was YOU

I don't regard people as "sheep", tell me where I have ever referred to people as that or retract


There is no ONE reason people don't vote, nor should they be required to provide one.
Click to expand...

Who said they should be ?
Post # or again retract


Yes, that appears to be your opinion.
Your thread topic is "Mandatory Voting". Stick to it.
Click to expand...

I have, apart from addressing your tangents

Btw the issue of speed limits on highways is relevant, as you would see if you answered it.
Do you support speed limits on highways ?


Once again, the Right to vote is protected by our U.S. Constitution and several amendments.
Click to expand...

So what ?


No one is suggesting shrinking the electorate to 10%, but if only 10% of the voting age population voted, it would still be a valid election.
Click to expand...

Legally yes
Morally no - the resulting government would stink of illegitimacy and I would definitely not think a 10% turn out was "fine" or "OK"


Though that is unlikely to occur, and since 1828 the lowest VAP turnout was 48.9% in 1924 while the highest was 81.8% in 1876. More than 50% of the VAP has voted in every Federal election since 1900, except for 2.
Click to expand...


That the USA has a history of low turn outs, only emphasizes the need for MV.
 
Rich2018,

Off the top of my head, Pew did one where the majority of Adult US eligible voters could not get even half the answers right on a current events quiz. The majority under, ill or non-informed. They also showed little to no knowledge of civics, even of their own local government, let alone state and federal.

If memory serves that was back in 2018.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Rich2018,

Off the top of my head, Pew did one where the majority of Adult US eligible voters could not get even half the answers right on a current events quiz. The majority under, ill or non-informed. They also showed little to no knowledge of civics, even of their own local government, let alone state and federal.

If memory serves that was back in 2018.
Click to expand...


Yes, Jay Leno on his series "Jaywalking" showed that Americans are really ignorant on political matters

YouTube
 
Rich2018 said:
What are the pros and cons on making voting compulsory ?


Pros:

1. It makes people take an interest in their democracy
2. It gives greater legitimacy to the government
3. It makes politicians appeal to a broader spectrum of people


People wouldn't have to pick a candidate, all ballot papers would have to have a "none o the above" option or a simple abstention box to check.
The consequences of not voting would be a fine. Automatically added to your tax bill or deducted from you welfare check


Cons:

1. A higher turn out would probably mean voting stations would need to stay open longer
2. A secure postal system of voting would be required for all elections to allow those who can't travel to vote



States would be mandated to register all eligible voters
Eligible voters = all citizens and LEGAL residents over the age of 18.

A last thought, if you object to mandatory voting, do you also object to mandatory participation in the jury system ?
Click to expand...
Such a law would result in Mickey Mouse getting a lot of votes.
 
Samwise said:
Such a law would result in Mickey Mouse getting a lot of votes.
Click to expand...

Really ?

Do you have any evidence for that ?

Australia has has mandatory voting since 1924, do they have experience of a "lot" of votes for Mickey Mouse or are you just talking out of the back of your head again ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Really ?

Do you have any evidence for that ?

Australia has has mandatory voting since 1924, do they have experience of a "lot" of votes for Mickey Mouse or are you just talking out of the back of your head again ?
Click to expand...

Nope. I have no evidence. But if the government put a machine gun at my back and said I had to vote, then the government might not like who I voted for.
 
Samwise said:
Nope. I have no evidence. But if the government put a machine gun at my back and said I had to vote, then the government might not like who I voted for.
Click to expand...

So you admit spouting personal opinion again and trying to pass it off as fact ?

No-one said you have to vote under mandatory voting Btw.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you admit spouting personal opinion again and trying to pass it off as fact ?

No-one said you have to vote under mandatory voting Btw.
Click to expand...

Omg, you got me! I expressed an opinion on a political discussion board. Was that wrong of me? I feel so ashamed.

So let's hear more about this mandatory voting thingy. Would I have to vote, or could I just sit it out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom