- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 51,502
- Reaction score
- 20,277
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I just don’t see that mandate implemented. They can’t even get everyone to take the Covid vaccine when available
I just don’t see that mandate implemented. They can’t even get everyone to take the Covid vaccine when availableNo validation needed
Since you would be mandated to attend a voting station, you could not be turned away over something as trivial as hasing no ID on you.
And you, all ballot papers would have to have an option for "none of the above".
Taxes are also mandatory......along with speed limits.....etc
You're thinking of Australia, New Zealand does NOT have compulsory voting:
FactCheck Q&A: how unusual is compulsory voting, and do 90% of New Zealanders vote without it?
I would say "duty" rather than obligation
I get where you're coming from as I used to be wholly opposed to mandatory voting - basically making people do something that is for their benefit seem an contradiction to me
But if you look at non-presidential elections in the USA the problem states you in the face
We have more like an oligarchy than a democracy and that cannot be healthy for democracy. In order to work all the people need to support it and be invested in it
If rial by jury is beneficial to you, why is jury service mandatory ?
If the Census is beneficial, why is taking part in it mandatory ?
If fighting foreign wars (like WWII) was beneficial, why was the draft and why is military registration today supposed to be mandatory ?
Voting is beneficial, but in order to make it so, people need to participate
So, I have no problem making people participate, if they don't want to vote, simply register your attendance and walk out, or check the box marked "none of the above" for postal votes
I really can't see why you'd argue that participation is some kind of arduous requirement.
To increase participation
To add legitimacy to the government.
I just don’t see that mandate implemented. They can’t even get everyone to take the Covid vaccine when available
Seems to me if the system was fixed more people would vote.
People are not participating because our rulers have made it so despairingly awful.
The government is so broken its legitimacy is wearing thin
I'd like all eligible voters to participate
As a side issue, I think legal resident should get the vote too
IMO having mandatory voting would "fix" all the current issues we have with elections
IMO mandatory voting would fix any legitimacy issue at the stroke of a pen
Yes, you could argu that the checks and balances approach is fundamentally flaws and so is the presidential style of government.
No, it's showing up at a voting station on election day, or returning a postal vote
I think the votes of both should count equally
I bet that come back took hours to compose
Newsflash, you're the one admitting to having "no idea" ie: of being "clueless"
Logic is not information either
Let me demonstrate:
All New Yorkers are green
Donald Trump is a New Yorker
Therefore Donald Trump is green
There is zero wrong with that logic.
You've already proven your ability to engage in deductive reasoning is flawed at best
Zoo keepers do something very similar
And also how did you get from mandatory voting to wandering into a pride of lions carrying steaks ?
Again more evidence that your deductive reasoning is flawed and also your choice of analogy is equally misguided.
So a right to a jury trial = mandatory participation in the jury process
Therefore a right to vote = mandatory voting (actually mandatory participation in the voting system)
IMO anyway
But all eligible citizens are mandated to participate, and face consequences if they do not
In order to voice an informed opinion on the need for mandatory voting
Had Hilary won, it would get the job done
If the USA suspended elections indefinitely and Trump named president for life, the "job" would get done
Had George III remained king of the 13 colonies, the "job" would get done
Saddam's rule of Iraq got "the job" done
Somehow getting the "job done" doesn't quite cut it
You said the EC should be eliminated and I would agree.
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 ?
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 ?
I think it's downright dangerous to encourage those who even themselves know they don't know enough or don't wish to support anyone to vote. To enact mandatory voting is an act of hubris, alas there is no shortage of that so maybe it's just the gasoline we need to push real reform and choice.
You say this with no evidence that it will yet you want to charge them penalties without showing that it actually will. You are blaming the wrong people, people arent voting because the system is so broken.
You are off on some bizarro tangent now... not voting by not checking a candidate/proposal is not participating in the voting process the same as not voting by not going to the polling station is.
The right to a jury trial applies when someone has been accused of a crime, like the right to vote it is not mandatory as the accused can forgo the process by admitting guilt and go directly to the sentencing stage.
Rights are what we are free to exercise or not. They are not obligations.
...serving on a jury is NOT a Right, but an obligation resulting from an accused persons Right to a trial by jury.
It varies each election, and the reasons also vary greatly. There is no NEED for mandatory voting. Most often it is greater than 50% of the voting age population in a Presidential election.
That could only be fixed by requiring a candidate to win by a landslide each election.
And just total each States EV count for the candidate who received the most votes?
It would throw more noise into elections and thereby benefit the Democrats. Which is, after all, the point of the idea.
Apart from a constitutional grievance. This would be a rather interesting thing to see, if it were ever proposed.
One part would be that it could force people to actually become more apathetic to the voting process, or have them become more involved in it.
Given the amount of voters right now that are, simply that, voters because of the fact that they care to do it. Other citizens who're mostly just deemed to be of one political lean, or the other. Might actually not be inclined to actually represent their party, or are just along the same lines as a "do nothing democrat" to coin that phrase alone.
We could see states flip color in the matter of a week, or even whole sections of the country do so. Simply for the fact that there are so many people who don't actually pay attention to politics, but keep their affiliation as part of a standard participation.
Imagine how bad the turn out would be, if it were say. Republican voters who never paid that much attention, only to finally get involved and realize that their candidate was selling off his favor with lobbying firms, or allowing them to bypass entire slabs of state regulations for kickbacks.
The same could be said for any democrat voters who finally found out that their candidate was letting larger corporation purchase entire swaths of protected land to build their stores, or other business centers on. Something that I know actually happened in Florida a few years back. When Walmart's owners were allowed to just throw money at the issue of building on land, set to protect a specific bird species. Which came to light because someone was trying to do some housework on their nearby home and the state punished them. Citing the existence of this bird near their property as the cause.
To borrow your jury analogy. When does a jury simply represent "mob justice"?Why would it be dangerous ?
It literally is not worth less. We have: one citizen - one vote - universal suffrage. The only way that can work without dissenting into tyranny is if the plurality recognizes their lack of an informed opinion or rightful choice of "none of the above" and choose not to vote, yet enough do vote for the system to have legit consent of the governed. It called responsibility. They go hand in hand with any right. If I have the right to be armed, I have the responsibility not to go break laws with my new power. It also breaks if you don't cluster. North Dakota is different than California. Some issue they share, most they don't. The majority of California should never dictate issues which mostly affect the minority of south Dakota. When it does that is mostly a small tragedy, if happens too much it becomes dangerous. On the other hand, cluster too much and you don't have a common nation.Why would their opinion be worth less than those that do vote
I am someone who know juries create a lot of injustice, but judges alone would likely do worse. They as is put a check on power. I would not be opposed to voluntary jury pools as part of overall reform(as you'd be changing a principle of American law), although with the system as it stands that alone would easily increase corruption since the system itself is upto it ears in it.Are you someone who believes that jury service should be entirely voluntary...and that it's "dangerous" to encourage people to serve on juries if they don't want to ?
...when does a jury simply represent mob justice?
Democracy becomes dangerous when it is manipulated from being a check on power to enforcing the tyranny of the majority
We have: one citizen - one vote - universal suffrage. The only way that can work without dissenting into tyranny is if the plurality recognizes their lack of an informed opinion or rightful choice of none of the above and choose not to vote, yet enough do vote for the system to have legit consent of the governed
It called responsibility. They go hand in hand with any right. If I have the right to be armed, I have the responsibility not to go break laws with my new power. It also breaks if you don't cluster. North Dakota is different than California. Some issue they share, most they don't. The majority of California should never dictate issues which mostly affect the minority of south Dakota...
If you think the merit of all votes are equal. We are universes apart. I know a lady, who will proudly brags she voted based on party-color and another who followed every detail of a campaign and weighted each argument. Those are not equal in merit. If we are voting on disenfranchising voter B. Voter Bs vote has infinitely more merit and legitimacy than that of the majority.
We choose one citizen - one vote - universal suffrage as disenfranchising of any kind creates authoritarian abuse and delegitimizes the "consent of the governed" right to check power. We can not know the merit of any single vote. So we must allow any reasoning regardless of its validity. If you want to vote for the best looking candidate, it's your god given right and it will count just as much as the scholar who's weight each policy implication. You responsibility is to do your best including acting on "I don't know". Good government requires the ability to abstain and where appropriate wield the majority to check power and maintain lawful consent of the governed to prevent upraising.
I am someone who know juries create a lot of injustice, but judges alone would likely do worse....
I would not be opposed to voluntary jury pools as part of overall reform(as you'd be changing a principle of American law), although with the system as it stands that alone would easily increase corruption since the system itself is upto it ears in it.
To tie the parallel, juries and the electorate are nothing alike.
If they were, we'd randomly assign a jury and they would sit down and make charges, pick a judge, assign lawyers and sentence.
That has a term: mob justice.
Juries are specifically isolated to single role, assumed ignorant, and exist to check the tendency of power to see a situation myopically, which is exactly why when you don't get a jury of your peers (that understand your micro-culture) it often fails.
You want dysfunction corrupt government keep encouraging the ignorant to nullify the informed.
Australia didn't descend into some dystopian nightmare upon implementation, nor would it here.
Make no mistake though governing systems have foundations, and when you erode them you ignore the warning of past generations who learned the hard way. Hard earned victories for equality before the law, free-exchange, independence, liberty and free speech will be the first to go...if your think a forced "majority" who care little for politics value these principles enough to overcome human nature, the awaken will be rude.
not voting by not checking a candidate/proposal is not participating in the voting process the same as not voting by not going to the polling station is.
Yes it is
Just attending a voting station or returning a postal ballot is participating.
If people genuinely don't want to vote, they may do so, but they would have to participate in the process - a process which allows for not completing a ballot paper upon attendance, spoiling your ballot paper or checking a box for "none of the above"
Why would you oppose making participation mandatory - do you really feel so sorry for your fellow couch potatoes ?
There is no "tyranny of the majority" in a constitutional state
Are you not aware that a very similar country to the USA - Australia - has had mandatory voting for many years ?
And you still say there's no evidence ?
Voter turnout was at 56% in 1901, it is 92% now
Voter turnout – previous events - Australian Electoral Commission
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?