Mandatory Voting

[VySky]

No 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".

I just don’t see that mandate implemented. They can’t even get everyone to take the Covid vaccine when available

 

[bomberfox]

Taxes are also mandatory......along with speed limits.....etc

Sure im not claiming otherwise. I just dont think a right should come with punishments for not exercising them. What the op wants to do is just put all this out without demonstrating anything or showing this actually fixing the broken system and just blaming the voters.

 

[bomberfox]

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?

Seems to me if the system was fixed more people would vote.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

People are not participating because our rulers have made it so despairingly awful.

 

[bomberfox]

To increase participation

To add legitimacy to the government.

The government is so broken its legitimacy is wearing thin

 

[Rich2018]

I just don’t see that mandate implemented. They can’t even get everyone to take the Covid vaccine when available

You're probably right...the GOP would fight it tooth and nail.

 

[Rich2018]

Seems to me if the system was fixed more people would vote.

I'd like all eligible voters to participate

As a side issue, I think legal resident should get the vote too

People are not participating because our rulers have made it so despairingly awful.

IMO having mandatory voting would "fix" all the current issues we have with elections

The government is so broken its legitimacy is wearing thin

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.

 

[Conaeolos]

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.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

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.

 

[Bodi]

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.

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.

 

[Individual]

So a right to a jury trial = mandatory participation in the jury process

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.

Therefore a right to vote = mandatory voting (actually mandatory participation in the voting system)
IMO anyway

Rights are what we are free to exercise or not. They are not obligations.

But all eligible citizens are mandated to participate, and face consequences if they do not

Yes, serving on a jury is NOT a Right, but an obligation resulting from an accused persons Right to a trial by jury.

In order to voice an informed opinion on the need for mandatory voting

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.

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

That could only be fixed by requiring a candidate to win by a landslide each election.

You said the EC should be eliminated and I would agree.

And just total each States EV count for the candidate who received the most votes?

 

[AmNat]

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 ?

It would throw more noise into elections and thereby benefit the Democrats. Which is, after all, the point of the idea.

 

[Oborosen]

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 ?

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.

Now that I think about it, I don't even know if that story ever got resolved, or not.

 

[Rich2018]

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.

Why would it be dangerous ?

Why would their opinion be worth less than those that do vote

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 ?

 

[Rich2018]

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.

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

 

[Rich2018]

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.

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 ?

 

[Rich2018]

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.

So what ?

If he/she elects for a trial by jury, mandatory jury service papers are sent out

Rights are what we are free to exercise or not. They are not obligations.

Jury service is
Military registration is
The draft is
Census forms are


They are duties of citizens (eligible that is) - I would make participation in the voting process a duty
You would have a right to vote, but a duty to participate - you could always choose not to vote for ANYONE, but you could not decide not to participate in the process

...serving on a jury is NOT a Right, but an obligation resulting from an accused persons Right to a trial by jury.

One of several obligations on a citizen. I wish to add one more

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.

50% is pathetic
That alone demonstrates the NEED for mandatory voting

That could only be fixed by requiring a candidate to win by a landslide each election.

Or a majority with something close to 100% participation

And just total each States EV count for the candidate who received the most votes?

Or better still, just total every state's vote for each candidate.

 

[Rich2018]

It would throw more noise into elections and thereby benefit the Democrats. Which is, after all, the point of the idea.

That "noise" is otherwise known as "votes".

 

[Rich2018]

Apart from a constitutional grievance. This would be a rather interesting thing to see, if it were ever proposed.

I completely accept that a constitutional amendment is required in order to facilitate mandatory voting

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.

I think it is a fallacy that most none voters have no political interests

There are two big groups that would benefit:

1. Democrats in staunch GOP area (and vice versa) who think their vote would be "wasted" and thus they'd just be wasting their time

2. I think that the number of voters who flip-flop between parties are relatively small and if say a committed Republican voters is totally turned off Trump, he/she might not be able to bring themselves to vote Democrat, they will, instead, just stay home

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.

That would be the aim, to ensure maximum participation and also to ensure all voters feel invested in the democratic process

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.

Bad for who ?
Certainly not the ordinary people

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.

Another advantage of mandatory voting.

 

[Conaeolos]

Why would it be dangerous ?

To borrow your jury analogy. 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".

Why would their opinion be worth less than those that do vote

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

 

[Rich2018]

...when does a jury simply represent mob justice?

It doesn't normally, though it is a system susceptible the acquitting defendants like OK, Casey Anthony and the cops tried for beating the hell out of Rodney King

Juries are a reflection of the societies that spawn them

Democracy becomes dangerous when it is manipulated from being a check on power to enforcing the tyranny of the majority

There is no "tyranny of the majority" in a constitutional state
Yes a small town can be overwhelmingly racist, but that majority has to obey laws

There is though tyranny of the MINORITY: what was the highest vote share of the Nazis?


So why (in a 2 party system) would you want a government to only represent a minority of the people ?
For a 3 party or more system, it is more complicated

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

I think you mean " descend" into tyranny & possibly "population"

Plenty who do vote lack an "informed opinion" (in 2016 I remember a Republican woman saying she voted for Trump because "god told her to")

Explain how a tyranny might form if everyone was forced to participate in the election process

Are you suggesting that those forced to, vote for a party that advocates "tyranny"

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...

Give me an example of an issue in S.Dakota that you feel a majority would ignore but a minority would respect ?

And yes, with freedoms do come responsibilities. I think the right to vote should be accompanied by the duty to do so (or at least participate in the election process)

I still can't understand how you feel that a majority would ignore issues in one state while a minority wouldn't

If a majority, in a majority of the states win,...do they have the right to dictate to the larger states who voted against their preferred choice of party ?

And if there is a local issue, that's what state governments exist for

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.

I guess we are because all votes (however misguided) ARE equal

I suppose you're going to say something like "what if the majority of people vote for slavery?"


I will counter with "what if a minority of people vote for slavery, and they win the election?"


A government taking power from an election with a 95% turnout has infinitely more legitimacy that one taking power from an election with a 45% turnout

 

[Rich2018]

///cotd

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.

How would you quantify a citizens "well informed-ness" ?
The vast majority of American could pass the citizenship test - so immigrants are far more informed than natural born citizens

I'm not a citizen yet I know far more about the US political system than the majority of natural born citizens I have ever met

So, IMO, the political opinion of a Harvard politics professor, is as valid as the most ignorant, illiterate citizen

I am someone who know juries create a lot of injustice, but judges alone would likely do worse....

Are you familiar with the Adversarial Vs Inquisitorial system of justice ?

If so what are the main arguments for the inquisitorial system ?
If not, what is your evidence for that claim ?

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.

What proportion of the eligible citizenry would volunteer for jury service in your estimate ?
How much would that dwindle if the majority were able to avoid service and those volunteers were called upon, for a week at a time, again and again ?

To tie the parallel, juries and the electorate are nothing alike.

They are actually identical

If they were, we'd randomly assign a jury and they would sit down and make charges, pick a judge, assign lawyers and sentence.

Is that because you believe that's how the advarsarial system of justice works ?

If not, explain how you got there

That has a term: mob justice.

No it doesn't

You're talking about "mob rule" and that exists in systems when government are unable the control a minority of the people

Basically mob rule is where a MINORITY not a MAJORITY wields political power

eg: the Nazis or southern lynch mobs

Do you think a majority of Germans wanted to gas millions of Jews or were in favor of "Kristallnacht" ?
Do you think a majority of Americans supported the KKK ?

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.

The point is the founders assumed trial by jury was a right (are you saying it shouldn't be?) and in order to facilitate this, jury service became mandatory

The founders also determined a states representatives etc should be based on head count, and in order to facilitate this, the completion of the Census form was deemed mandatory.

You want dysfunction corrupt government keep encouraging the ignorant to nullify the informed.

Again, why do you assume that those who vote are more "informed"
They're just more motivated

Australia didn't descend into some dystopian nightmare upon implementation, nor would it here.

QED

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.

The USA is a democracy based on free elections by the people


If governments are elected by just a minority, THAT is an erosion of democracy

THAT is what mandatory voting would seek to prevent.

 

[Bodi]

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

You just agreed with me...

Just attending a voting station or returning a postal ballot is participating.

Talking about the issues is participating. There is nothing magical in ticking a box that makes that participation more participating than other forms of participation...

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"

Besides being fascist this does not do anybody anything good...

Why would you oppose making participation mandatory - do you really feel so sorry for your fellow couch potatoes ?

I do not support fascism. You do. That is our primary difference.

 

[Bodi]

There is no "tyranny of the majority" in a constitutional state

Somebody does not understand the basics of government...

 

[bomberfox]

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

Ok you only showed it increased turnout which no **** Sherlock if you have to vote or else, you have not shown that it will solve the issues that ruin voting for everyone derp. You just assumed that and expect us to believe it without question.