A USA National Bill Proposition--Should We Be Forced To Vote?

Actually, I think there should be compulsory non-voting.

Voting should be a challenge, not something you can do from your Lazy-Boy.

 

I'm somewhat torn.

One one hand, I'm tired of people like Jeanine Garrafalo (sp?) who whine and bitch about how bad things are in the government, then admit that they've never voted once, and forcing them to vote would at least get them to vote.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of forcing one to vote. Who knows who'd get elected then. Also, I think if people are too lazy (or too stupid) to vote, maybe we don't want them voting in the first place.




Anata Baka?!

 

That's why we should give people to lazy to vote the option of just checking into the polling place and leaving without actually voting for someone.

 

Theoreticaly, i think i'm in favor of such a thing......but in practical terms......with more people (at least twice as many) we'd need a faster way of getting voters through the process...as its already a bit overcrowded......and the faster it goes...the less accurate it might be...and really...i'd rather it took a week and was precise...than was done in a single rushed day with questionable results......and really...electronic machines...hailed as being faster...have a whole can of worms attached to them...so i'll not go there.........and if there were a fine for those who didn't vote?...imagine the post-election court system! there'd be cases backlogged until well after the next election!...so...in short:

Yes...i think people should have an obligation to vote...but i don't know how it should be done...

 

You shouldn't be forced to vote, but the government should automatically register you on your 18th birthday. I have many friends who don't vote, and when I ask them why not, they say they just don't want to bother with "all the paperwork". They don't realize that the registration process is actually quite simple, and I feel that if the government did it for you and just mailed you your voter card, it would improve voter turnout significantly.

 

I'm actually glad that Australia has compulsory voting. For one, it gets young people noticing political ideologies much more and at a younger age. If you're not into politics all that much, Nigel Freemarijuana is still on the ballot most times.

And you really don't have to vote. The fine for failing to vote is only $20 at the moment - hardly a slap on the wrist.

It is comforting to know that 95% of the population had a say in who's running the country though. Well, okay, not the current government. But I'm sure come next federal election people will vote properly.

 

Voting is a right and a privilege, not something that can be forced

We have compulsory voting, V-03 and it makes sense. It's our government, we're accountable to it as it is to us. The words demos and kratein, the etymological roots of democracy, mean "the people, to rule".

There are arguments for and against the concept of compulsory voting - on the plus side you obviously get a good turn out at elections and generally people tend to pay attention to the campaigns in the knowledge that they must tick a ballot slip.

The advantage of complusory voting is that it eliminates interest groups. For example, if the US had compulsory voting, policies vis-a-vis Israel and Cuba would change dramatically as the Jewish and Cuban lobbies in New York and Florida would have a greatly diluted influence. It stops the minority groups with an agenda hijacking the democratic process to suit their ends. And really, if you look at our political history, we've had a stability few other have achieved.

No one should be forced to vote.

That would be an infringement upon one's liberty.


Forcing people to be part of a representative government is ideologically sound, actually, and has it's roots in classical liberalism. If the State is to reflect the will of the people, the people must be able to decide the will of the state. And by people, I don't mean interest groups with an agenda, I mean the adult population. Voting is the power to change the government, a responsibility every citizen who pays taxes is given.

If something like australia's system was adopted it would almost certainly cost more money. Certainly the first few times there might be significant portions that refused to vote, however it is extremely unlikely that they would pay for the increased costs.

farraday has raised a good point here. Out system works because of our population size: slightly below 20,000,000, but with a landmass roughly equivalent to the 48 contigious states of the USA. We cannot afford to allow such a country to be controlled by minority interest groups, be they political, religious, corporate, environmental or the like.

But what about issues of identity fraud, or setting new standards of election validity tied to turn-out?

Does anyone know how these are handled in Australia?

Heh, you turn up, give them your name, they check the electoral role for that Seat and give you your forms. Policing either fraudulent votes (i.e. donkey votes as they're called) is impossible, policing identity fraud itself difficult. Most people just want it over and done with - so they vote the easiest option, which is liberal or labor.

Also, I think if people are too lazy (or too stupid) to vote, maybe we don't want them voting in the first place.

//Resists urge to comment about last election!

But I'm sure come next federal election people will vote properly.

I'd vote for George W Bush before Simon Crean, Sil. And both look suspiciously like Maxwell Smart...

E_S

 

Nah, Kim will be back. You just watch.

 

You know, my first thought was: "Why not force people to vote? It's the driving power if the people, after all, and is needed to mainain this democratic Republic."

But, upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that not voting is a just punishment for not voting. That is to say, if you don't vote, you deserve whatever you get.

I always wondered what would happen if on election day, no one showed up to stamp the ballots.

 

I agree with you Cheveyo.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

And if 18 year olds don't bother to vote because they're afraid of "too much paperwork" then they shouldn't bother.

It's not a handout.

BTW, maybe we should elect Representatives by draw or lottery.

 

Voting should be required.

It's our civic duty and responsibility as citizens. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, then you should go to the pollls and mark a write-in vote for "no-one."

Voting Day should be a natinal holiday, and the government should offer some sort of incentive for voting as well.

In addition, you should be able to register the day you vote. Did I mention it should be a national holiday?

 

I am actually glad that voting is a requirement down here.

The way it works in terms of voting places is per population in that area. Most schools are more then happy to become voting stations (because they can then raise money with cake stalls and stuff) and so there is usually a good distribution of voting places across the city.

They check your name off on the books and then cross reference that book with all the other ones from the same area. (I live in the electoral zone of Ryan - I vote at a local school and then they take that and make sure I haven't voted at any of the other places within Ryan).

Kithera

 

In addition, you should be able to register the day you vote.

I don't like that idea, simply because it doesn't allow enough time to process the registration and check for forgeries, duplications, etc. Also, that would mean you could either register to vote - and thus be required to vote - or opt not to, and never be bothered. That would actually discourage people from registering, don't you think?

Instead, if voting was mandatory, I would support having voter registration much the same as registering for the draft - when you turn 18, you are required to fill out a registration form. That way everyone's covered.

 

OWM:
In addition, you should be able to register the day you vote.

womberty
"I don't like that idea, simply because it doesn't allow enough time to process the registration and check for forgeries, duplications, etc"


LOL! I think that's the idea!

 

Religious freedom includes, implicitly, the right to not worship.

Economic freedom includes, implicitly, the right to give away every you own.

Shouldn't political freedom include the right to refuse to participate?


Just glancing through the thread, I think Ender made the two best arguments for compulsory voting:

The advantage of complusory voting is that it eliminates interest groups. For example, if the US had compulsory voting, policies vis-a-vis Israel and Cuba would change dramatically as the Jewish and Cuban lobbies in New York and Florida would have a greatly diluted influence. It stops the minority groups with an agenda hijacking the democratic process to suit their ends. And really, if you look at our political history, we've had a stability few other have achieved.

One could use a similar argument for compulsory newspaper reading:

The advantage of complusory newspaper reading is that it eliminates demagoguery. For example, if the US had compulsory voting, policies vis-a-vis gun control and environmental regulations would change dramatically as the NRA and GreenPeace would have a greatly diluted influence. It stops the minority groups with an agenda hijacking the democratic process to suit their ends.

To both of these arguments, I would reply: a compulsory action is not sufficiently justified by its benefits. One needs to consider what happens if an action remains voluntary.

For instance:

If taxation remains voluntary, hardly anyone would pay taxes, and the government would be unable to perform even the most basic acts of governing. The results are catastrophic.

(Consider, people are free to give more than required to the government, but nobody does.)

If, during a large-scale war, enlistment remains voluntary, it's possible that not enough citizens enlist. From there, the war could be lost and (potentially) the nation could be conquered. The results are catastrophic.

Let's look at voluntary voting: what happens in the US with the special interest groups? Are these groups over-represented? Sure, but the results aren't catastrophic. As long as elections are regular and people are not disenfranchised, the population in general can rein in any group that goes too far.


Forcing people to be part of a representative government is ideologically sound, actually, and has it's roots in classical liberalism. If the State is to reflect the will of the people, the people must be able to decide the will of the state. And by people, I don't mean interest groups with an agenda, I mean the adult population. Voting is the power to change the government, a responsibility every citizen who pays taxes is given.

All this justifies universal suffrage -- that every adult be able to cast a vote -- but I don't see how one reaches mandatory voting.

If the only thing one believes in is representative government, mandatory voting seems allowable, but not necessary. When voting is voluntary, my "non-vote" is essentially a vote for letting other people make the decisions, and my will is not thwarted.

Representative government can be only one facet of a larger principle of individual freedom, and I believe mandatory voting violates that larger principle.

If we are truly free, acts should only be mandatory if doing otherwise has catastrophic results. Comparative advantages are not enough; we should be free to make mistakes.

 

If the only thing one believes in is representative government, mandatory voting seems allowable, but not necessary. When voting is voluntary, my "non-vote" is essentially a vote for letting other people make the decisions, and my will is not thwarted.

I agree that non-vote is a vote itself, however, that is not an excuse not to go to the polls and turn in a blank ballot. Maybe this should not be mandatory voting, but instead, mandatory show-up at the polls on voting day (exceptions for absentee ballots of course). Nobody is being forced to vote, but they should be forced to be their.

Its kind of like schooling for children. It is mandatory that kids go to school. However, what the kids do with their time there is up to them.

 

Does anyone really think forcing people to vote at wallet point will make them care more about the issues?

I don't see how you can pretend people who are only voting so they don't have to pay 200 dollars give a rats ass in the first place.

Furthermore, to be perfectly callous, I'm not sure I want to risk that someone who's only there to keep their money might actually vote for someone.

Democracy is predicated on the informed populace, an ideal we fail to meet even under the nicest of standards, throwing millions of people who would rather not even be there into the mix is asking for trouble.

And I'm at a loss at how this is supposed to crush special intrest groups. You can increase the pool as much as you want, in the US system things devolve to an either/or option. I fail to see how it cuts down on special intrrest influence over those in power.

 

I'm not saying non-voters should be jailed.

But, I think perhaps a TAX on non-voting would suffice.

See, it is our responsibility to support and maintain our own government. If we choose not to participate, we should support it by forking over 50 bucks to get out of the headache.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Obi-Wan.

The 50 dollars (or whatever amount the penalty would be) could be used to help fund programs that help provide transport to the polls (especially in poorer areas) and make sure the polling places have enough manpower.

 

kind of a reverse poll tax?

Interesting, either support the government by participating, or by paying...hmm..

How would that stand Constitutionally though?

 

I think this whole idea would need a constitutional amendment anyway, because the federal government can't tell the states how to run their elections.

 

Exactly. And I have read nothing that convinces me that the issue merits Constitutional revision, or presents a clearcut case that this isn't some sort of constraint on liberties.

 

Maybe we could package this issue along with others, such as foreigners being able to run for president after being citizens for a certain amount of time and electoral college changes, when designing a Constitutional ammendment.

This idea is just in its bainstorming stage and I do not think it should be rejected outright.

 

Come on folks, the constitution is NEVER a barrier when you have a good attorney!

It wouldn't necessarily take a constitutional amendment, perhaps just some good old fashioned federal/state arm wrestling.

Or heck, Congress could try and pass the law and see if the Supreme Court holds it up.

Or yeah, just do it at the state level, since elections are always at the state level anyway, even for national office.

 

As farraday hinted at, enforced voting may not be answer. If people are apathetic enough not to vote, the logical assumption is that they apathetic enough not to care, so counting their votes could at best randomise the electoral results. At worst, it could skew elections in favour of unhealthily marginal or bizarre novelty candidates.



They've had compulsory voting in California for years, right?