View Full Version : Mandatory voting?
Some say Pres. Obama has proposed that voting be made mandatory, perhaps even with a constitutional amendment created to that effect:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mandatory.asp
Now, whether he did or didn't take this position isn't my question or concern.
Rather - do y'all think making voting compulsory is a good idea? Or even a moral one?
Why/why not?
This is a predictable outcome of government by force.
No, I do NOT! I am thankful that we do not have 100% "civic engagement" by all eligible adults. If they can't make it to the polls on their own volition, then leave it at that. S'why I oppose the so-called motor-voter type concepts. The reason for that is because too darn many people are too lazy and ignorant or apathetic to make reasonable assessments of the issues and the candidates. I see this evidenced in the online responses to news stories in the "comments" section. If you kids think that I(littlebittymee) am a nincompoop, go and take a look at what "they", the TV-educated armchair crackpots have to say. Bunch of ignorant, hyper-idealistic fools. No common sense. Candidates--or I should say---Demagogues-- with the most charisma and the biggest advertising budget and other irrelevant criteria would win, every time. This, is exactly why we have a representative democracy, instead of pure democracy. It would be tantamount to mob rule. This is also why the Republicans are using people of Pailins' caliber(get it?), etal, to carry water for them--to get out the redneck cracker vote--to even out the fact that potentially, there are more Democratic voters. See? S'why Yobama is proposing this. No good.
To vote is to exercise free speech. A mandatory vote is a coerced vote.
ApatheticNoMore
3-27-15, 3:20pm
Well I suppose you could always turn in an entirely blank ballot (so I don't see it as having to vote for someone - and if there were no 3rd party choices in many contests, I'd leave blank).
It seems likely to punish the poor, who can't get to the polls (you try working 2 or 3 jobs and voting!), who would then have another reason to have a warrant on them ala Ferguson. It also seems unnecessary if the point is just to increase voter turnout. Have a national holiday on voting day. I think most people would happily take another paid holiday and some would even use it to vote. I think a holiday on voting day is proven to increase turnout. And/or have multi-day voting, although this might allow more corruption I don't know. Not that u.s. elections aren't of very questionable legitimacy as is.
It's supposed to counter the power of money in elections. Ok an argument by a tool of the oligarchs like Obama is going to be made in bad faith. And a prohibition (constitutional amendment if need be) on buying politicians would be a much more direct route to that. Is it intended to pre-empt that? But I couldn't even understand what alleged theoretical basis this was supposed to have. What sense is it supposed to make that mass voting for those who are bought and paid for is going stop them from being bought and paid for? What is the strategic thinking there? There may be some, but it's beyond me. They should at least have the ability to lay it out. More than that, I'd like it proven experimentally ideally or at least in real life. Then I realized by "reduce the influence of money in politics" he really might just mean "elect more democrats". That's rich, the man who is pretty much the reason democrats lost the House and the Senate is now pushing for more democrats.
See, even if I'm wrong about the mentality of people who choose not to vote--what evidence is there that there would even be a different outcome, if everyone voted? Most opinion polls only include a sample minority of citizens , and they produce results that are relied upon. Furthermore, it would certainly take more resources to handle an increase in voters participating, not to mention those expended in enforcement to insure compliance. Progress, should not mean fixing things that are not broken.
We have mail-in ballot here...transportation/getting to the polls is not a problem. Sooooo, you'd think we'd have better turnout, wouldn't you? Nope.
We also have early voting. I don't think it makes a bit of difference in the turnout. People who want to vote, will and those who don't care...do we want them to vote? Not me.
flowerseverywhere
3-27-15, 9:50pm
No.
but I do believe more education through school about bills, laws, history and what it means to be an American would be helpful.
we also have early and mail vote and a high voter turnout, but I think that has to do with a wealthier and more educated population with a lot of war veterans as well.
How about instead of mandatory voting we have mandatory running for election. Instead of the same tired two parties of candidates who've all been bought and paid for by Big Everything and only represent Big Everything once they get in office, we could have a lottery and force a certain number of "winners" to run for election. They surely couldn't do a worse job of representing the American population than our current politicians do.
or do what they used to do and the majority winner is president and the runner up is vice.
IshbelRobertson
3-28-15, 10:06am
Voting is mandatory in Australia for all those who are eligible. There is a fine for not voting without a legitimate reason, I think it's AuD 20.
Voting is mandatory in Australia for all those who are eligible. There is a fine for not voting without a legitimate reason, I think it's AuD 20.I heard someone on NPR a few days ago who said that in Australian elections, the person or issue at the top of the ballot usually wins. It seems that coerced voters have a tendency to pick the first option.
IshbelRobertson
3-28-15, 11:32am
How interesting. I have never heard that before.
ApatheticNoMore
3-28-15, 11:45am
There is always some tendency to pick people toward the top, it's why they shuffle who gets placed where (ok maybe this is state policy, not sure, but they do here). It's pretty much basic marketing/psychology (the same thinking probably influences menu design - although it may be more complex than just the 1st item placement, but placement matters). But the "gain" for 1st on the ticket placement may be greater there, I don't know.
If the top person really won and placement at the top was truly determined randomly (yes I know talk about a system waiting to be corrupted - but no more than voting machines right?) would it mean 3rd parties sometimes got in? That might be an improvement. Or does placement near the top really just mean major party placed near the top. I find it near impossible to believe that would trump party voting in the U.S., although it might influence primary voting.
It's kind of irrelevant if someone else is controlling who goes on the ballot.
It's like polls where people are asked difficult questions and get to choose only from the answers the pollers have already chosen for them.
Mandatory voting is consistent with the Left's general belief in the virtue of coercive government. Health insurance is good, so impose a fine on those who don't buy it. I'm starting to read more arguments that private education should be outlawed because it takes resources away from public education. Soon we'll need to build a wall around Utopia to keep the inmates from escaping.
Free will is nearly impossible to control, it should be abolished.
goldensmom
3-28-15, 4:01pm
I could be forced into a voting booth to avoid paying a penalty but I cannot be forced to vote. I can turn in an empty ballot or pull the lever with no candidate chosen or vote for only dog catcher.
Mandatory voting is consistent with the Left's general belief in the virtue of coercive government. Health insurance is good, so impose a fine on those who don't buy it. I'm starting to read more arguments that private education should be outlawed because it takes resources away from public education. Soon we'll need to build a wall around Utopia to keep the inmates from escaping.
Oh baloney! Typical right wing answer. You don't actually have anything to add to the discussion so you start making sh*t up. Democrats don't want to 'force' voting any more than anyone else. They just want everyone to participate, left AND RIGHT. that's the difference between the parties. We want everyone to let their voice be heard. And, Obama didn't say he wants mandatory voting. He just was talking about voting and brought up the Australian version. (sorry bae, I know you didn't want to go there but I just had to answer to this ridiculous assertion by someone else)
I certainly don't believe in mandatory voting, but I kind of like the Oregon way. (I think it's Oregon) Automatic registration. I think that's brilliant. You still don't have to vote if you don't want to, and apparently many don't want to, but Oregon has the best methods and the best turnout.
Lots of people don't vote, but they are affected by what the government (the government is us and we are the government) does. I do believe it is our duty to vote, but again I don't think folks should be forced. Rather I think automatic registration is cool and then it is up to the parties to educate the people on the value of voting and letting their voices be heard.
Whatever my party affiliation, I completely agree each voice should be heard so there is a true representation of the will of the people...all the people, in government.
I'm starting to read more arguments that private education should be outlawed because it takes resources away from public education.
I'm curious to see who's saying this and what, exactly, they're saying. Couldn't find it myself, can you share a link?
iris lilies
3-28-15, 6:56pm
I'm curious to see who's saying this and what, exactly, they're saying. Couldn't find it myself, can you share a link?
jp my buddy, did you use your Google fu?
This was the top article when I Googled "private education outlaw"
"This is not an original idea. Billionaire wise hobbit Warren Buffet once told school reformer Michelle Rhee that the easiest way to fix schools was to "make private schools illegal and assign every child to a public school by random lottery."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/12/AR2010091203935.html)
gimmethesimplelife
3-28-15, 7:13pm
Oh baloney! Typical right wing answer. You don't actually have anything to add to the discussion so you start making sh*t up. Democrats don't want to 'force' voting any more than anyone else. They just want everyone to participate, left AND RIGHT. that's the difference between the parties. We want everyone to let their voice be heard. And, Obama didn't say he wants mandatory voting. He just was talking about voting and brought up the Australian version. (sorry bae, I know you didn't want to go there but I just had to answer to this ridiculous assertion by someone else)
I certainly don't believe in mandatory voting, but I kind of like the Oregon way. (I think it's Oregon) Automatic registration. I think that's brilliant. You still don't have to vote if you don't want to, and apparently many don't want to, but Oregon has the best methods and the best turnout.
Lots of people don't vote, but they are affected by what the government (the government is us and we are the government) does. I do believe it is our duty to vote, but again I don't think folks should be forced. Rather I think automatic registration is cool and then it is up to the parties to educate the people on the value of voting and letting their voices be heard.
Whatever my party affiliation, I completely agree each voice should be heard so there is a true representation of the will of the people...all the people, in government.Peggy, I just wanted to say it's good to see you here. I have missed your posts! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
3-28-15, 7:14pm
Voting is mandatory in Australia for all those who are eligible. There is a fine for not voting without a legitimate reason, I think it's AuD 20.It's mandatory in Austria, too, though I don't know what the penalty for non-compliance is. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
3-28-15, 7:15pm
This is my stance on voting - if you don't want to vote, don't, but then don't complain. My belief is that voting is a price tag to pay - and not a strenuous price tag by any stretch of the imagination - to have the right to complain. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
3-28-15, 7:30pm
How many elections do you have to vote in to have the right to complain?
Just the big elections, or do you have to vote for all the judges and school board ones as well? (where actually your vote probably matters more) Or is it just if you don't vote for school board you can't complain about the school board? Do you have a right to complain if you didn't vote in the primary but voted in the general election? What if you voted in the primary but not the general? Do you have a right to complain if you leave it blank because you hate both candidates? Or must you vote for one of the candidates you hate, in order to then complain about how awful they are? Is that allowed? Do you have a right to complain about the person you voted for? Well they might be disappointing right? Do you have a right to complain about the legislation passed by the candidate that won if you voted but don't contact your congressperson about that legistlation? If you move states, do you have a right to complain about legistlation passed before you moved there?
gimmethesimplelife
3-28-15, 7:35pm
How many elections do you have to vote in to have the right to complain?
Just the big elections, or do you have to vote for all the judges and school board ones as well? (where actually your vote probably matters more) Or is it just if you don't vote for school board you can't complain about the school board? Do you have a right to complain if you didn't vote in the primary but voted in the general election? What if you voted in the primary but not the general? Do you have a right to complain if you leave it blank because you hate both candidates? Or must you vote for one of the candidates you hate, in order to then complain about how awful they are? Is that allowed? Do you have a right to complain about the person you voted for? Well they might be disappointing right? Do you have a right to complain about the legislation passed by the candidate that won if you voted but don't contact your congressperson about that legistlation?I pretty much vote in them all so that I can complain. Also when I perceive basic human rights to be involved, such as with a measure here recently in Phoenix to raise property taxes slightly to fund the safety net hospital here. I'll still vote the measures that don't scream human rights to me, but not with the same gusto as something like the hospital measure I mentioned above. Rob
jp my buddy, did you use your Google fu?
This was the top article when I Googled "private education outlaw"
"This is not an original idea. Billionaire wise hobbit Warren Buffet once told school reformer Michelle Rhee that the easiest way to fix schools was to "make private schools illegal and assign every child to a public school by random lottery."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/12/AR2010091203935.html)
Apparently I have indeed lost my google fu because that was the exact same thing I put into the google.
I suppose, as that article and a couple others I've now found say, there are indeed a few people discussing this. Or at least there were back in 2012, the most recent article I could find. But based on the relative scarcity of articles about it I suspect that we'll succeed in repealing the second amendment before we shut down the private schools. Which probably is a good plan since then all the evil parents of private school kids won't be able to shoot us when we close their schools. [/snark]
if public schools are good enough for obama's daughters then they are good enough for my kids!
OBAMA 2016
goldensmom
3-29-15, 9:54am
OBAMA 2016
For what? Governor? Senate? Mayor?
Oh baloney! You don't actually have anything to add to the discussion so you start making sh*t up.
if I'm making it up, I've managed to make the President complicit in my conspiracy.
iris lilies
3-29-15, 4:53pm
For what? Governor? Senate? Mayor?
I don't think zeaxmays meant this sincerely. :)
I know people who out of quite reasonable moral, political, or religious principles refuse to vote on certain sorts of things, or in some cases on anything at all.
To force such people to vote is to deny them their basic liberty of thought and action.
Thus, I am against mandatory voting.
If they were going to do mandatory voting, I'd want a box for each office that said "none of the above". Although I'm not sure how to deal with if "none of the above" kept being the winner - it could get messy.
Jose Saramago wrote a book about just that possibility. In the book everyone turned in blank ballots and the government had a nervous breakdown/freakout/meltdown.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/03-overflow/20150329_vote.jpg
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
gimmethesimplelife
3-30-15, 8:28pm
Jose Saramago wrote a book about just that possibility. In the book everyone turned in blank ballots and the government had a nervous breakdown/freakout/meltdown.I'd really be interested to see what would happen in such a case. Would it be anarchy, would somebody just step in and take over, and if so, would they be the military as in the case of the some third world nations, or ? Interesting to think about but I don't know if in practice most would want to see the results.....Rob
If they were going to do mandatory voting, I'd want a box for each office that said "none of the above". Although I'm not sure how to deal with if "none of the above" kept being the winner - it could get messy.
1473
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.