- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,407
- Reaction score
- 27,905
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Everyone should be able to vote, regardless of who they are.
Does that include people from other countries?
Everyone should be able to vote, regardless of who they are.
Babies are forced to wear diapers. TYRANNY!
I'm for mandatory voting, but would have a ballot exception allowing one to vote "none of the above", if they so desire.In some countries it is mandatory to vote during elections in other countries this is not the case.
My believe is that it should be mandatory to vote. While voting, you will have the option that you do not want to vote, but at least you have taken the effort. After all there may simply not be a party you would consider worth your support. This way the turnout will obviously be much higher, and, more importantly, the actual votes collected also better represent what the general consensus is of the people in the country.
The choices are
- Yes, voting should be mandatory.
- No, voting should not be mandatory.
- I have no opinion on the subject.
An obvious question for the DebateForum moderators/administrator is of course whether it is possible or not to make voting for polls mandatory as well. Could this be done by sending all members an email to which they need to respond?
All my polls will be hidden from the public in order to avoid a biased response. If people want their opinion to be public they have the choice to announce this with a reply in the thread.
Joey
I'm for mandatory voting, but would have a ballot exception allowing one to vote "none of the above", if they so desire.
Why mandatory? Because the lower the general voter turnout, the higher the weighting for special & minority interests.
I saw these negative aspects in local electioneering I used to do in my old big-city neighborhood.
Absolutely not... in fact, I think a test should be required to show sufficient knowledge before voting on a subject.
Hi Bodhisattva,
I, myself, can think of a few people I would not necessarily want to vote, but by doing this, democracy is out of the windows immediately. Not a judgement, merely an observation.
Joey
Hi Bodhisattva,
I, myself, can think of a few people I would not necessarily want to vote, but by doing this, democracy is out of the windows immediately. Not a judgement, merely an observation.
Joey
No one (or few people) are prevented from voting. What upset people is once early voting began the GOP leadership in power happen to notice a huge voter turnout in high density black areas was Sunday. Specifically, it turned out, a tradition was developing where after Church black congregations would fill up the church buses and rake parishioners to the libraries to vote. The GOP government in power then decided, "Oh no, we need to get 'spending' under control...sure, that's the ticket! Early voting is cancelled on Sundays after church." This, in a state where the White House was determined by just 500 votes in 2000. Fla. Republican: We wanted to suppress black votes - Salon.com
Then in Ohio, the hours early voting was allowed in predominantly black neighborhoods closed by several hours shorter than the hours allowed in predominantly white republican neighborhoods. Ohio GOP Admits Early Voting Cutbacks Are Racially Motivated | The Nation
What? At no point during any of this did you actually answer my question. You made the bold statement that streamlining the registration process was sleazy and would "legitimize those in charge". I guess the people in charge would be a bit more legitimate because there would be MORE voters electing them instead of less.
I can't possibly fathom why you'd be opposed to a high voter turnout. Oh... You're not a GOP voter are you? That would explain it for sure. Those kids are always interested in making it as hard as possible to vote, because when the people don't get out and be part of the political process, it's easy for the angry old white men to swing the vote.
In some countries it is mandatory to vote during elections in other countries this is not the case.
My believe is that it should be mandatory to vote. While voting, you will have the option that you do not want to vote, but at least you have taken the effort. After all there may simply not be a party you would consider worth your support. This way the turnout will obviously be much higher, and, more importantly, the actual votes collected also better represent what the general consensus is of the people in the country.
The choices are
- Yes, voting should be mandatory.
- No, voting should not be mandatory.
- I have no opinion on the subject.
An obvious question for the DebateForum moderators/administrator is of course whether it is possible or not to make voting for polls mandatory as well. Could this be done by sending all members an email to which they need to respond?
All my polls will be hidden from the public in order to avoid a biased response. If people want their opinion to be public they have the choice to announce this with a reply in the thread.
Joey
Absolutely not mandatory. We have enough stupid people voting as it is. Make it mandatory and the Dems will own govt. forever.
Hi GunFora,
Are you saying that you do not want everyone to vote because you are think that the republicans only have a chance to win an election because there is a substantial part of the population that does not vote and would vote for the democrats if they were to vote?
Joey
I don't know, it's just a feeling.
It doesn't seem right and it's hard for me to articulate the "why" of the feeling.
Dude, I don't vote, for anyone, ever.
I do disagree with high voter turn out, just because.
I mean, I don't want someone voting GOP because they're registered and their daddy said to always vote repubs, same goes for anyone else.
It's dumb and does a disservice to everyone.
Someone who never votes doesn't see the benefit of more Americans voting. Not particularly surprising. Why don't you just step out of the way and we'll handle things for you.
As you say, they werent prevented from voting.
Right, just had some hurdles placed in front of them specifically because they were black, because of how blacks vote most of the time in hopes of keeping enough of them home just enough to tip the scales to bring about a different outcome when the votes are counted. As I also said, I think its wrong and is means justify ends ethics (or lack thereof.) And as I further said, it backfired; once word got out that this was part of the GOP strategy, blacks showed up to vote in droves. In fact, I'm persuaded Obama would have never won in 2008 had not Limbaugh motivated Clinton to use McCain's only October Surprise of Jeremiah Wright, bringing out in the open early enough for Obama to recover and making it old news by November. Yes, Obama needs to send Limbaugh a thank you card for getting him elected, IMHO.
So again, your concerns are unfounded. Having 10 days to early vote, instead of 14. One sunday, instead of two sundays, discussion of possible voter suppression, are not barriers to voting. Much like voter IDs are not barriers to voting.
No. Hell No!
It’s a violation of individual freedom.
We (Americans) are not servants of the political system.
I am so sick of these authoritarian and draconian politicians.
What happened to our freedom of choice?
What happened to our freedom of speech?
:mrgreen:
In some countries it is mandatory to vote during elections in other countries this is not the case.
My believe is that it should be mandatory to vote. While voting, you will have the option that you do not want to vote, but at least you have taken the effort. After all there may simply not be a party you would consider worth your support. This way the turnout will obviously be much higher, and, more importantly, the actual votes collected also better represent what the general consensus is of the people in the country.
The choices are
- Yes, voting should be mandatory.
- No, voting should not be mandatory.
- I have no opinion on the subject.
An obvious question for the DebateForum moderators/administrator is of course whether it is possible or not to make voting for polls mandatory as well. Could this be done by sending all members an email to which they need to respond?
All my polls will be hidden from the public in order to avoid a biased response. If people want their opinion to be public they have the choice to announce this with a reply in the thread.
Joey
Of course not, you cannot force people. But election days should be state/federal holidays.
Absolutely not. Three reasons...In some countries it is mandatory to vote during elections in other countries this is not the case.
My believe is that it should be mandatory to vote. While voting, you will have the option that you do not want to vote, but at least you have taken the effort. After all there may simply not be a party you would consider worth your support. This way the turnout will obviously be much higher, and, more importantly, the actual votes collected also better represent what the general consensus is of the people in the country.
The choices are
- Yes, voting should be mandatory.
- No, voting should not be mandatory.
- I have no opinion on the subject.
An obvious question for the DebateForum moderators/administrator is of course whether it is possible or not to make voting for polls mandatory as well. Could this be done by sending all members an email to which they need to respond?
All my polls will be hidden from the public in order to avoid a biased response. If people want their opinion to be public they have the choice to announce this with a reply in the thread.
Joey
Agree, and I tend to dismiss people's opinions if I find out they do not vote. But that's me responding as an individual. I still don't believe that voting should be mandatory.I voted Yes. In Australia it is compulsory and I guess I am used to an idea I grew up with. As far as I am concerned it is the responsibility of every citizen of voting age to get off their backsides and vote. If you are a citizen, it is your civic responsibility. People who do not vote have no right to whinge about the results.
Unfounded? I never said they intended to stop all blacks from voting. I said the Republican party took efforts to intentionally and deliberately make it somewhat less convenient to one group of Americans, blacks, not with the expectation that all blacks would be blocked from voting but in hopes that turnout/participation will be slightly affected just enough to tip the scales in their favor. THEY were the ones who admitted this along with all the supporting evidence; at least some did while others played stupid.
BTW: I am a very disillusioned registered Republican who in the past has worked hard to get Republicans elected the right way, by persuasion and winning hearts and minds of voters on the issues.
And Im anti-parties period, because all they care about is maintaining power. Im just countering this idea that voter suppression is more concerning than voter apathy. None of it is really concerning.