Mandatory Voting

[Rich2018]

P1: No it doesn’t. In fact the process opposite. It means that voters unprepared and ill informed are now mandated to act on that unpreparedness and ill informed state.

I don't believe that anyone is unprepared to vote in elections

And of course, no-one is actually forced to vote

P2: How so?

Because a government elected from a turnout of 95% can claim a greater mandate than one elected from a turnout of 55% - or even less

P3: No it doesn’t. The use of mass media already are blanketing tools. It’s likely to change the approach not one wit.

Wait, they're "blanketed" but "ill informed" ?
Which is it ?

And the "blanketing" as you put it, is one way
It is the candidate/party speaking to the people

It is hardly the people (all demographics) speaking to the candidates/parties.

 

[Rich2018]

Not showing up for jury duty can be a fine or time in jail... if people could opt out like you are suggesting then NOBODY would go to jury duty.

As it is for not showing up on election day is Australia

So want WANT people to vote so we mandate it, why not with voting ?

And FYI another poster on this very thread said some people would indeed still volunteer for jury duty and those are the ONLY people he'd want for jurors
I take it you say he is wrong ?

Lastly, a point I'm making is that a person not voting is not an abstention anymore than a jury member staying home is a not guilty verdict

I don't surrender to a person that I completely thrashed already...

If your blinkered efforts at argument you've displayed on this thread are typical, I somehow doubt that, that has ever been the case



You certainly have backed away from my posts on here and substituted a rather weak, as well as derisory, parting shot.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I don't believe that anyone is unprepared to vote in elections

And of course, no-one is actually forced to vote

Not now, but your proposing that change. If it did the unprepared and ill informed now, by mandate, would be forced to act.

Candidly, I’d prefer the folks who haven’t taken the time to get the facts to make informed decisions (no matter whether those decisions agree with mine or not) just stay home. We have too many voting perceptions, that if you ask to articulate why they hold them can’t remotely tell you, voting already.

Because a government elected from a turnout of 95% can claim a greater mandate than one elected from a turnout of 55% - or even less

Perhaps. I’d think it would turn on the results over time.

Wait, they're "blanketed" but "ill informed" ?
Which is it ?

Both. Blanketed Madison Avenue style bull crap doesn’t equate to well informed.

Look at how we eat as a prime example. What we don’t know about what we put in our mouths but is completely influenced by blanketed multi-media advertising. Their multi-media ad buys serve to keep the populace I’ll informed, for the most part. To influence public opinion to increase sales. How is political advertising any different?

 

[Bodi]

As it is for not showing up on election day is Australia

So want WANT people to vote so we mandate it, why not with voting ?

And FYI another poster on this very thread said some people would indeed still volunteer for jury duty and those are the ONLY people he'd want for jurors
I take it you say he is wrong ?

Lastly, a point I'm making is that a person not voting is not an abstention anymore than a jury member staying home is a not guilty verdict




If your blinkered efforts at argument you've displayed on this thread are typical, I somehow doubt that, that has ever been the case



You certainly have backed away from my posts on here and substituted a rather weak, as well as derisory, parting shot.

Because you keep repeating the same incorrect arguments...

 

[Rich2018]

Not now, but your proposing that change. If it did the unprepared and ill informed now, by mandate, would be forced to act.

Act yes, made to vote no


Secondly, I dispute that there is a sub class of people that are relatively "unprepared and ill informed" at least in relation to those who ***DO*** vote

Candidly, I’d prefer the folks who haven’t taken the time to get the facts to make informed decisions (no matter whether those decisions agree with mine or not) just stay home. We have too many voting perceptions, that if you ask to articulate why they hold them can’t remotely tell you, voting already.

So what is your attitude towards the "unprepared and ill informed" who do vote? Are you OK with them exercising their democratic rights ?

Why do you assume that those not voting are "unprepared and ill informed" ?

Perhaps. I’d think it would turn on the results over time.

No, a government elected by a minority vote can never claim a mandate IMO

Both. Blanketed Madison Avenue style bull crap doesn’t equate to well informed.

But you're OK with them voting ?

So being "blanketed by political ads from both sides" is not enough for you ?

What else do you suggest ?

Maybe hooked to Fox News or CNN ?

Look at how we eat as a prime example. What we don’t know about what we put in our mouths but is completely influenced by blanketed multi-media advertising.

OK, so you're suggesting we shouldn't eat or shouldn't eat out ?

Next you'll say I shouldn't buy a car based on car ads.

 

[Rich2018]

Because you keep repeating the same incorrect arguments...

Because some people are not getting them


Some still have a hard time understanding that democratic countries do not interpret mandatory/compulsory voting as being forced to vote

Some people insist on clutching to an idea that people who don't vote are ill prepared or ignorant.

Some people keep regurgitating a notion that the state has no right to make you do anything - a disproved assertion.

 

[Individual]

Why, are you planning to confide in someone ?

I'm not the one who claimed to be struggling.

The OP - the pros & cons bit




Because that's what its called (or sometimes "Compulsory Voting") across the world

Why are you getting so hung up on semantics ?




Yes - with major benefits to democracy




Yes they do

Absence is not abstention It can be.

The same way that failing to turn up for jury service is not a "not guilty" verdict
Verdicts are handed down ONLY by those who DO show up and serve on the jury.
The "Right" to a trial by jury only applies to the accused, and there is enough population to assure that a jury can be assembled.


That would be nice but it wouldn't increase legitimacy

Only large voter turn out does that (including postal ballots)

AFAIK, only mandatory voting can achieve this
If you can think of a way that's been shown to increase voter turn out to Australian levels, hit me with it




nd MV does NOT impinge that. The most you can bemoan is about an hour's inconvenience every couple of years.

What are the pros and cons on making voting compulsory ?


Pros:

1. It makes people take an interest in their democracy Does it?
2. It gives greater legitimacy to the government Substantiate that claim!
3. It makes politicians appeal to a broader spectrum of people They would just avoid issues that might alienate voters.


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
You have a "Right" to work, so should the be a law requiring you to work or face a fine?

Cons:

1. A higher turn out would probably mean voting stations would need to stay open longer More time consuming and costly.
2. A secure postal system of voting would be required for all elections to allow those who can't travel to vote ???
3. People may not be voting for any rational reason at all, simply checking a box at random.
4. An unnecessary inconvenience for people who have no interest in politics.
5. Could result in even less acceptable candidates winning as a result of uninformed random votes, or votes cast in anger.
6. Would result in the loss of a "Right" by making it mandatory and punishable by law.

States would be mandated to register all eligible voters
Eligible voters = all citizens and LEGAL residents over the age of 18.
There should be no need to register unless one wishes to vote in primary elections choosing a party candidate.
Age and citizenship should be all that is necessary.


A last thought, if you object to mandatory voting, do you also object to mandatory participation in the jury system ?
They are two completely different things.

Your OP, with my comments are in Red.

 

[Bodi]

Because some people are not getting them


Some still have a hard time understanding that democratic countries do not interpret mandatory/compulsory voting as being forced to vote

Some people insist on clutching to an idea that people who don't vote are ill prepared or ignorant.

Some people keep regurgitating a notion that the state has no right to make you do anything - a disproved assertion.

Mandatory Voting is a stupid idea without first making sure the voter is properly educated.... and that requires a test.

 

[Oborosen]

I can't imagine they ever would

So congressional boundaries will always be an issue with neither major party accepting a solution that it perceives as disadvantageous.

It could be possible if we still have a third party to run with. But independents have been largely relegated to a myth for nearly two half a century in most cases.

I would offer that the party that does not hold power in either the senate, or house. Could take majority in this group, with some oversight power coming from a committee of the three leading bodies representatives.

 

[American]

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 ?

 

[rocket88]

I'm not in favor of mandatory voting. If seeing the performance of Trump in crisis response and diplomacy diesn't motivate you, nothing will.

The Trumpian party just doesn't want people to vote because they can't win on ideas alone.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not the one who claimed to be struggling.

Only to understand your thought process

But you suggested that someone might explain how your thought process works.

Verdicts are handed down ONLY by those who DO show up and serve on the jury.

As votes are ONLY cast by those do DO show up at a voting station (or return a postal vote)

The "Right" to a trial by jury only applies to the accused, and there is enough population to assure that a jury can be assembled.

So why does the law mandate their "service" ?

1. Does it?
2. Substantiate that claim!
3. They would just avoid issues that might alienate voters.

1. Yes
2. Many organizations accept that a minimum voter turnout is required to validate a vote - this is called "quorum"

"A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."

3. Substantiate that claim from evidence collected from places that do have MV

You have a "Right" to work, so should the be a law requiring you to work or face a fine?

No, though there are restrictions on collecting unemployment benefit to control the consequences of significant number of people deciding not to vote

3. People may not be voting for any rational reason at all, simply checking a box at random.
4. An unnecessary inconvenience for people who have no interest in politics.
5. Could result in even less acceptable candidates winning as a result of uninformed random votes, or votes cast in anger.
6. Would result in the loss of a "Right" by making it mandatory and punishable by law.

3. This is true, but evidence from Austria where they had mandatory voting for nearly 100 years, suggests these so called "donkey-votes" are minimal

4. Requiring someone to get off their couch and attend a voting station is not exactly an onerous demand, neither should it be viewed as "unnecessary" because MV has shown that is ***DOES*** significantly increase turnout

5. Substantiate that claim from evidence collected from places that do have MV

6. Nope, no rights would be lost, no-one would be forced to vote (ie: select a candidate)

(is that all you've got?)

There should be no need to register unless one wishes to vote in primary elections choosing a party candidate.
Age and citizenship should be all that is necessary.

Agreed but there is a many states (eg Georgia) manipulate the size of the electorate by implementing rules and restrictions on voter registration)

A benefit of MV is that the states will be forced to register EVERY eligible voter with NO exceptions

They are two completely different things.

They are but share the same principal..
The judicial system and the constitutional right to a fair trial by a jury is protected and maintained by mandatory jury service

Likewise the right to vote and have a government "of the people" would be protected by MV
Or we have a government of only the people who're willing to get of their couch

You might not think that a government elected by a 50% turnout is at best unhealthy, or 25% or even 10%
I do, the same way that I think that a guilty verdict, in a criminal trial, where only 6 jurors bothered to return a verdict is "unsafe".

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not in favor of mandatory voting. If seeing the performance of Trump in crisis response and diplomacy diesn't motivate you, nothing will.

The Trumpian party just doesn't want people to vote because they can't win on ideas alone.

You'd be surprised

As Napoleon once said "A man will fight harder for his interests that his rights"

The Australian experience had shown that even a modest fine motivates voters to turn out.

 

[Rich2018]

Mandatory Voting is a stupid idea without first making sure the voter is properly educated.... and that requires a test.

So all voters should have to pass a "test" before being allowed to vote ?

Jeez and I thought the Republican demand of voter ID was too restrictive.


You're arguing like a teenager who's just seen a movie he didn't like and is incapable of articulating his thoughts; instead he's relegated to dismissing it by simply saying: It sucked

 

[Rich2018]

It could be possible if we still have a third party to run with. But independents have been largely relegated to a myth for nearly two half a century in most cases.

I would offer that the party that does not hold power in either the senate, or house. Could take majority in this group, with some oversight power coming from a committee of the three leading bodies representatives.

I think mandatory voting would help to promote third parties or independents.

Right now people who hate bot parties (say in 2016 they disliked both Hilary and Trump), they could vote for an independent (and some did) but I think many were deterred by thinking their vote wuld be wasted and their trip to the voting station a waste of time.

MV would ensure the vast majority of people vote and so those third parties and independents will get all (or almost) the votes they should.

 

[Rich2018]

Image

Clearly you don't understand how mandatory voting works in countries that have it and haven't done any research on it at all.

 

[Bodi]

So all voters should have to pass a "test" before being allowed to vote ?

Jeez and I thought the Republican demand of voter ID was too restrictive.


You're arguing like a teenager who's just seen a movie he didn't like and is incapable of articulating his thoughts; instead he's relegated to dismissing it by simply saying: It sucked

yes yes yes... people that disagree with you are teenagers or have only a high school understanding... blah blah blah


... and yes, people should have to take a basic knowledge test before being allowed to vote. Basic government stuff. Nothing complicated. You keep saying that I have a high school understanding about this MV issue as if that is not enough knowledge... and you are fine with that if it came to me voting on it? You want people that you consider ignorant voting? Seriously?

No way... when I see the videos of street questions to people who can not name the Vice Presidents name or do not know how many Supreme Court Justices there are or what some basic 1st Amendment rights there are I get pissed off that these morons are allowed to vote for people and laws that affect me, my family, the way that the State is run, taxes, wars... literally the lives of hundreds of millions of people are at stake... but sure, lets let Timmy Dip**** dating Yolanda with three kids before they are 20 years old and who work as janitors at Walmart after dropping out of high school or Frankie ****stick with a felony rape or Susie Slush that spent her entire schooling obsessed with texting friends in class and only graduated because she did the absolute minimum and learned nothing vote for candidates talking about tax reform, foreign policy, etc. Totally stupid.

 

[Rich2018]

... people that disagree with you are teenagers or have only a high school understanding...

Or people like you who only demonstrate a high school level of understanding

AND

Are completely ignorant of any empirical data - as you have shown yourself to be

... and yes, people should have to take a basic knowledge test before being allowed to vote. Basic government stuff. Nothing complicated. You keep saying that I have a high school understanding about this MV issue as if that is not enough knowledge... and you are fine with that if it came to me voting on it? You want people that you consider ignorant voting?

:lamo


Thank you for the most ridiculous suggestion of the day

So you think you should have a license to exercise a right - I mean I assume you don't think there's time to conducts an examination on all voters on election day ?

Who would be responsible for drawing up this test ?

I am severely tempted to start a new thread on you bats**t crazy idea just for the laughs it would get across the forum ?

I'm still laughing...and I thought the Republicans attempt to curtail voting registration lists was a restriction too far ?

For more laughs, could you give a couple of examples of the questions you'd like to see on the test to prove competence to vote ?
(I want to make my new thread as funny as possible)

No way... when I see the videos of street questions to people who can not name the Vice Presidents name or do not know how many Supreme Court Justices there are or what some basic 1st Amendment rights there are I get pissed off that these morons are allowed to vote for people and laws that affect me, my family, the way that the State is run, taxes, wars... literally the lives of hundreds of millions of people are at stake... but sure, lets let Timmy Dip**** dating Yolanda with three kids before they are 20 years old and who work as janitors at Walmart after dropping out of high school or Frankie ****stick with a felony rape or Susie Slush that spent her entire schooling obsessed with texting friends in class and only graduated because she did the absolute minimum and learned nothing vote for candidates talking about tax reform, foreign policy, etc. Totally stupid.

Get used to it brother....that's most Americans

I saw a YouTube video of a guy asking general knowledge question to people out celebrating 4th July

He asked "who did we (the USA) get our independence from?"
Amazingly most people didn't know

I felt I had to test it (I am English and used to be a supervisor at a large US company). At a quiet moment one evening, I asked my team the same question and do you know,, not one of them knew !

I asked one girl what languages she was speaking. She answered that it was English
I then asked her what language I was speaking, again she answered English
I then asked her if she thought that was a coincidence...the penny started to drop, but until then she just knew it as a day off work

So much for the US education system.

 

[holbritter]

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 to mandatory voting. I also object to mandatory participation in the jury system. (Something that is easy to get out of, so it's no big deal really)

 

[Bodi]

Or people like you who only demonstrate a high school level of understanding

AND

Are completely ignorant of any empirical data - as you have shown yourself to be




:lamo


Thank you for the most ridiculous suggestion of the day

So you think you should have a license to exercise a right - I mean I assume you don't think there's time to conducts an examination on all voters on election day ?

Who would be responsible for drawing up this test ?

I am severely tempted to start a new thread on you bats**t crazy idea just for the laughs it would get across the forum ?

I'm still laughing...and I thought the Republicans attempt to curtail voting registration lists was a restriction too far ?

For more laughs, could you give a couple of examples of the questions you'd like to see on the test to prove competence to vote ?
(I want to make my new thread as funny as possible)





Get used to it brother....that's most Americans

I saw a YouTube video of a guy asking general knowledge question to people out celebrating 4th July

He asked "who did we (the USA) get our independence from?"
Amazingly most people didn't know

I felt I had to test it (I am English and used to be a supervisor at a large US company). At a quiet moment one evening, I asked my team the same question and do you know,, not one of them knew !

I asked one girl what languages she was speaking. She answered that it was English
I then asked her what language I was speaking, again she answered English
I then asked her if she thought that was a coincidence...the penny started to drop, but until then she just knew it as a day off work

So much for the US education system.

Please feel free to start a thread about me and my ideas...

 

[Grand Mal]

You'd be surprised

As Napoleon once said "A man will fight harder for his interests that his rights"

The Australian experience had shown that even a modest fine motivates voters to turn out.

Napoleon also said that men will die for pieces of ribbon. I think Napoleon had a very low opinion of anyone who wasn't Napoleon.
But I'm in favour of mandatory voting and I frequently don't vote.

 

[Grand Mal]

Please feel free to start a thread about me and my ideas...

Attention whore.

 

[Peter]

yes yes yes... people that disagree with you are teenagers or have only a high school understanding... blah blah blah


... and yes, people should have to take a basic knowledge test before being allowed to vote. Basic government stuff. Nothing complicated. You keep saying that I have a high school understanding about this MV issue as if that is not enough knowledge... and you are fine with that if it came to me voting on it? You want people that you consider ignorant voting? Seriously?

No way... when I see the videos of street questions to people who can not name the Vice Presidents name or do not know how many Supreme Court Justices there are or what some basic 1st Amendment rights there are I get pissed off that these morons are allowed to vote for people and laws that affect me, my family, the way that the State is run, taxes, wars... literally the lives of hundreds of millions of people are at stake... but sure, lets let Timmy Dip**** dating Yolanda with three kids before they are 20 years old and who work as janitors at Walmart after dropping out of high school or Frankie ****stick with a felony rape or Susie Slush that spent her entire schooling obsessed with texting friends in class and only graduated because she did the absolute minimum and learned nothing vote for candidates talking about tax reform, foreign policy, etc. Totally stupid.

The problem here is that once you decide who's ok to vote what's to stop someone else deciding to change the test to make sure even fewer people can vote?
I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument but it's applicable here.
Voting should be open to all adults with no exceptions.

 

[Bodi]

Attention whore.

Can you make a thread about how badly I want attention please?

 

[Rich2018]

No to mandatory voting. I also object to mandatory participation in the jury system. (Something that is easy to get out of, so it's no big deal really)

Do you think the right to trial by jury could be maintained if service was voluntary ?