- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 60,951
- Reaction score
- 6,511
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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 ?
No republican would ever get elected again.
There's more democrats than republicans.
31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% identified as Republican, and 36% as Independent
Well, maybe in some areas republicans would win an election or two.
The biggest con to your notion is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. That is very difficult to enact...and rightfully so.
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 ?
First of all, it is the right of every person 18 and over who are U.S. citizens to vote. Second, it is also the right of every U.S. citizen 18 and over not to vote.
To make voting mandatory, the government is forcing a person to do something they choose not to do...
Second, the voting is done at a State level, the federal government has no say so in the voting process with the exception of setting the day when elections are held. You would have to get the States to make voting mandatory.
Good topic.
The biggest problem I see is it turns a right on it a govt mandate. I have a problem with govt mandates no matter what its for. As for the jury thing I hate it. I have been chosen for 5 juries in my life. There must be a check mark next to my name or something.
Also i am not sure people would necessarily take an interest in their democracy. If they aren't now when it voluntary I don't think they would be more inclined to be if it was mandated.
[/QUOTE]I used to be dead against mandatory voting but now I favor it
Actually just making the states register everyone and make everyone get off their @ss and go to a voting station (that's all they wouldn't have to actually check a box if they don't want to, but they'd have to at least show up, no excuses)
I think a lot of people complain about the government, this would eliminate a lot of those complaints from people who don't actually vote.
There's a lot of people who do vote for stupid reasons, so the donkey vote argument is invalid IMO
I think making people perform a civic duty (as voting would be seen to become) will invest them more in government and politicians would have to address them and not the demographic who votes as is the case now.
Lastly, it's not actually an arduous burden to place on citizens to go to a voting station once every two years.
I think it would reduce apathy and make people feel a part of society, not some view that they are not part of it.
I have no major disagreement with the rest and especially like the LEGAL citizen condition.
Let's get the hypothetical out of the way and say that a Constitutional Amendment passes to allow it to happen. Just for the sake of argument.
Pros -
The GOP would most likely become a minority party.
The GOP, in the long-term, would be able to clean house and get rid of idiots like Trump and McConnell and rebuild the party and make it saner.
THE DNC would gain power in the short term and be able to do some initial, return to common sense government to reverse the damage done by Trump and those who support him.
The DNC, in the long-term is going to have to have the moderates, Blue Dogs and progressives come together to make a stronger party.
There will be a rise in third parties. My feeling is that if everyone is forced to vote, then voices will be heard and parties will be created around them. What this means is that both the GOP and DNC will suffer from splintering, reducing each party's power further (making the GOP, even more of a minority party). While the third parties may not be as powerful as the DNC or even reduced GOP...they will be able to get votes and candidates elected at various levels to help shape policy. Something third parties don't really get to do now. BTW, I'm a Democrat and I would continue to stay as one (most likely), but I am not adverse to the people havong a larger selection of those who will listen to them.
This will put the final nail in the coffin of the absurd notion of systemic voter fraud the GOP keeps harping on about. There will have to be a federal agency that approves the voter rolls from the states. There will be a singular, final authority on who can and cannot vote. The states will still be able to carry on voting the way they wish, it is just that the voter rolls have to be finalized by an agency that should only report to...the Supreme Court. The executive branch can nominate who leads it, as can Congress, Congress will approve the candidate. But the agency resides inside the judicial branch, away from executive and Congressional meddling.
Number of polling stations will increase.
Gerrymandering will not be as powerful of a tool as it has been (but it will still exist and be somewhat obnoxious).
States will be forced to be more precise in how they keep voter rolls up to date. And transparent.
Cons -
We are going to have to paid for the agency stated above. As well as on the local level to fulfill the voter roll requirement. It also means that money will be spent to ensure voting happens, we have to be clear on various exceptions per state like soldiers voting from overseas, etc. All of that is going to take money and people to make it happen.
States are going to have to raise taxes to do their part to make sure voter rolls are complete and accurate.
How to punish those who refuse to vote. Here's a not-so-great question: if you refuse to vote, should your right vote be taken away?
What if the ballot literally has pi$$-poor candidates only and other things that are awful?
Those are from the top of my head, I'm sure there are other pros and cons out there as well.
Yes, I think this GOP (as it is now) would suffer and either become a RW protest party or moderate its message by moving to the center and ditch nationalists like Trump
The party in government would probably swing slightly to the left and perhaps a third or even fourth party would emerge and we'd see a coalition government.
Elections will cost more - I would move them to a weekend to ensure a better turnout - maybe even allow the election over two days. I'm not sure about too big a cost as all voters would already be on a tax or jury duty list. It also removes the need for a 10 yearly census.
Lastly, no-one should be forced at gun point into the voting booth - all that is required is that you register your attendance at the voting station
As I said above, I don't think asking citizens to get off their couch and to an voting station once every couple of years is too onerous.
Yes, I think this GOP (as it is now) would suffer and either become a RW protest party or moderate its message by moving to the center and ditch nationalists like Trump
The party in government would probably swing slightly to the left and perhaps a third or even fourth party would emerge and we'd see a coalition government.
Elections will cost more - I would move them to a weekend to ensure a better turnout - maybe even allow the election over two days. I'm not sure about too big a cost as all voters would already be on a tax or jury duty list. It also removes the need for a 10 yearly census.
Lastly, no-one should be forced at gun point into the voting booth - all that is required is that you register your attendance at the voting station
As I said above, I don't think asking citizens to get off their couch and to an voting station once every couple of years is too onerous.
No idea what a "donkey vote" is.
I see your point about making people get up and out and maybe that will eventually get them more interested but I still don't like govt mandates. They should be very rare in my opinion.
As for people complaining about the govt I usually ask if they vote and if they say "No" I tell them they arent entitled to an opinion and ignore them.
I like your idea of moving elections to a weekend.
I feel this tackles the wrong issue and punishes people for no good reason.
what happens when the compelled voters, those who would not vote voluntarily, continue not to vote?Where is the "punishment"
there are members of religious groups who believe voting is a sin. are you going to compel them to violate their religious convictions? are you going to punish them for refusing to follow their religious convictions?Getting people to do what they should be doing
we have another - home school - option. that allows parents NOT to send their children to schoolWe should also punish parents if they don't send their children to school.
Where is the "punishment"
Getting people to do what they should be doing
We should also punish parents if they don't send their children to school.
what happens when the compelled voters, those who would not vote voluntarily, continue not to vote?
there are members of religious groups who believe voting is a sin. are you going to compel them to violate their religious convictions? are you going to punish them for refusing to follow their religious convictions?
we have another - home school - option. that allows parents NOT to send their children to school
and if the parents' belief system is opposed to vaccination, then their unvaccinated children will be prohibited from attending the schools
what is the point of forcing people who choose not to vote, to vote?
i thought you were a supporter of "choice"; now you would have that choice taken away because it is not a choice you would make
seems like a hypocritical position to take
....... *facepalm* if you cant tell the difference between punishing citizens for not exercising a right and truancy i cant help you
There will be a rise in third parties. My feeling is that if everyone is forced to vote, then voices will be heard and parties will be created around them. What this means is that both the GOP and DNC will suffer from splintering, reducing each party's power further (making the GOP, even more of a minority party). While the third parties may not be as powerful as the DNC or even reduced GOP...they will be able to get votes and candidates elected at various levels to help shape policy. Something third parties don't really get to do now. BTW, I'm a Democrat and I would continue to stay as one (most likely), but I am not adverse to the people havong a larger selection of those who will listen to them.
This is the point that is appealing. A multi-party system would necessitate more cooperation between lawmakers. There is no in between with two parties......it is just either/or
So basically ignore all institutional problems with voting and representation then say vote or else! Soundsnlike a plan! For disaster
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?