• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I believe in mandatory voting

Of course there is no peace for them.
The sheer power and numbers of people who, get their information from news bits, trite bits of "common sense" and other poor sources of information, outnumber the people of conscience, the reasonable folks, those that do deep research, self reflection and in depth evaluation.
To the point that not voting, is the most logical and economical reason.

Knowing that you're going to the polling booth next year is a pretty decent motivator to get some information on who you'll vote for (even if "none of the above"). It doesn't nullify what you've said, not by a long shot: But would you really say that those already going to the polls are mostly motivated by conscience, reason, deep research, self-reflection and in depth evaluation?

The only likely pragmatic outcome from mandatory voting is a higher percentage of both under- and moderately-informed voters going to the polls... at the expense of each side's hyper-partisan nutjob share of voters. I don't see that as a bad thing.

There might also be an increase of well-informed voters going to the polls, but that depends on guesstimates of how many voters and non-voters happen to be well-informed.
 
Knowing that you're going to the polling booth next year is not a bad motivator to get some information on who you'll vote for. It doesn't nullify what you've said, not by a long shot: But would you really say that those already going to the polls are mostly motivated by conscience, reason, deep research, self-reflection and in depth evaluation?

No, not really, for the most part.
It's not reasonable for most people to research this stuff.
It's easier to rely on "rules of thumb."

The only likely pragmatic outcome from mandatory voting is a higher percentage of both under- and barely-informed voters going to the polls... at the expense of each side's hyper-partisan share of voters.
There may also be an increase of well-informed voters going to the polls, but that depends on guesstimates of how many voters and non-voters happen to be well-informed.

If the fine were too high, I would sabotage my vote on purpose, just because.
The list of candidates I get is usually just junk imo.
 
Let's be clear here: A mandatory vote doesn't mean voting for a party. You can throw in a donkey ballot if you feel the urge. Might be more productive to vote for a third party, of course.

Even then, there've been some Aussie elections that I haven't voted in, and I've copped some small fines for it: Just as I would if I drove too fast on a highway. Maintaining freedom from others' stupid decisions is not always free.

But I believe that people - even those sometimes derided as 'ignorant' or 'low-information voters' - should feel their appropriate share of responsibility for the actions of their government. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" is never an excuse.



What's prompted this is a couple of recent threads reminding me of criminality in the US government: In 2003 a United States government invaded another sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world on the flimsiest of pretexts, in the face of overwhelming international opposition and without the required UN Security Council authorization. There were many civilian casualties and (as we have since seen, despite BHO's extension of GWB's withdrawal schedule) a much greater destabilization of the region than previously, as some had predicted would be the case.

And yet George W. Bush was re-elected.

By a minority of Americans, of course. There's no telling what would have happened if mandatory voting had ensured a 95+% turnout. But it would be nice to think that even those Americans who see little substantial difference in their parties' domestic policies might at least - if they had to - come to terms with their country's international role!

The same point applies to all countries, of course. A democratic government is our government. I believe any country interested in that ideal should encourage the aspiration rather than the apathy, and the responsibility rather than the ignorance.

Mandatory and online?
 
Let's be clear here: A mandatory vote doesn't mean voting for a party. You can throw in a donkey ballot if you feel the urge. Might be more productive to vote for a third party, of course.

Even then, there've been some Aussie elections that I haven't voted in, and I've copped some small fines for it: Just as I would if I drove too fast on a highway. Maintaining freedom from others' stupid decisions is not always free.

But I believe that people - even those sometimes derided as 'ignorant' or 'low-information voters' - should feel their appropriate share of responsibility for the actions of their government. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" is never an excuse.



What's prompted this is a couple of recent threads reminding me of criminality in the US government: In 2003 a United States government invaded another sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world on the flimsiest of pretexts, in the face of overwhelming international opposition and without the required UN Security Council authorization. There were many civilian casualties and (as we have since seen, despite BHO's extension of GWB's withdrawal schedule) a much greater destabilization of the region than previously, as some had predicted would be the case.

And yet George W. Bush was re-elected.

By a minority of Americans, of course. There's no telling what would have happened if mandatory voting had ensured a 95+% turnout. But it would be nice to think that even those Americans who see little substantial difference in their parties' domestic policies might at least - if they had to - come to terms with their country's international role!

The same point applies to all countries, of course. A democratic government is our government. I believe any country interested in that ideal should encourage the aspiration rather than the apathy, and the responsibility rather than the ignorance.

Most of us value freedom here. The freedom to vote or not to vote would be included.
 
Mandatory voting would randomize the process.

These are people who care so little about politics that they can't spend some time once every four years doing this. Who knows what they'd fill out in booths?
 
Morgan Freeman '16
Just sayin'

Mandatory voting would not create mandatory informed voting so no thanks. We likely have enough coin-tossers in the mix.
 
Let's be clear here: A mandatory vote doesn't mean voting for a party. You can throw in a donkey ballot if you feel the urge. Might be more productive to vote for a third party, of course.

Even then, there've been some Aussie elections that I haven't voted in, and I've copped some small fines for it: Just as I would if I drove too fast on a highway. Maintaining freedom from others' stupid decisions is not always free.

But I believe that people - even those sometimes derided as 'ignorant' or 'low-information voters' - should feel their appropriate share of responsibility for the actions of their government. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" is never an excuse.



What's prompted this is a couple of recent threads reminding me of criminality in the US government: In 2003 a United States government invaded another sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world on the flimsiest of pretexts, in the face of overwhelming international opposition and without the required UN Security Council authorization. There were many civilian casualties and (as we have since seen, despite BHO's extension of GWB's withdrawal schedule) a much greater destabilization of the region than previously, as some had predicted would be the case.

And yet George W. Bush was re-elected.

By a minority of Americans, of course. There's no telling what would have happened if mandatory voting had ensured a 95+% turnout. But it would be nice to think that even those Americans who see little substantial difference in their parties' domestic policies might at least - if they had to - come to terms with their country's international role!

The same point applies to all countries, of course. A democratic government is our government. I believe any country interested in that ideal should encourage the aspiration rather than the apathy, and the responsibility rather than the ignorance.

I do not find it surprising that liberals would want mandatory voting. I'm more inclined to require a basic history and literacy test, along with a test on the candidates' experience and positions, in order to qualify to have the privilege of voting.
 
All mandatory voting does is help conceal the problem that our democratic system is broken and does not answer to the people.

Inherent to any right is the right not to exercise that right.
 
All mandatory voting does is help conceal the problem that our democratic system is broken and does not answer to the people.

Inherent to any right is the right not to exercise that right.

Which is why there always should be (and is, in Australia) the option of submitting an empty ballot, a vote for none of the above. Even that helps clarify the will of the people; if half the potential voters simply stay home on election day there's no distinction between those who are don't care, those who are interested but object to all available candidates or the system itself, and those who are purely lazy.

In fairness, it's hardly the most important democratic notion I'd support, just the one which happened to be on my mind one drunken eve :lol: Some kind of preferential voting system (so third-party votes aren't considered wasted) and campaign finance reform/limits (so politicians aren't so thoroughly bought and paid for by wealthy backers) would probably be the most important.

##

I do not find it surprising that liberals would want mandatory voting. I'm more inclined to require a basic history and literacy test, along with a test on the candidates' experience and positions, in order to qualify to have the privilege of voting.

No representation without meeting some pre-defined standard of acceptability, eh? No, not something that a liberal would agree with, you're right there. Those who are going to be subject to a government's decisions should have a say in its selection, where possible. What you are suggesting is a step towards tyranny, only a small step I'm sure. Having your say about government - even if it's an empty ballot - isn't a privilege, it's a right; and I would argue, a responsibility too.
 
Mandatory voting would randomize the process.

These are people who care so little about politics that they can't spend some time once every four years doing this. Who knows what they'd fill out in booths?

Quite possibly, and there's other things which might help address the issue of why politics seems a waste of time to many people.

But on the other hand, if they know they're going to the polls in a month or two, even many of those more or less apathetic people would likely pay a bit more attention to make a decision on what they'll do at the polling booth. And how many of those actually going to vote are doing so for intelligent, informed reasons, I wonder? Many are simply the hyperpartisan nutjobs of their respective parties, foaming at the mouth against those evil socialists/corporate stooges. A higher percentage of under- or moderately- interested or informed voters might even improve the mix. And politicians knowing that there'll be masses of people going to the polls to whom their over-the-top rhetoric won't play so well as it does to the party's faithful might even improve things on that side too :lol:
 
Voting is not opposing bad candidates.
Here, in some states, not writing in a valid write in candidate can have your whole vote invalidated.
Not to mention that voting roles are often used for jury duty, so there are two reasons to not bother.


Does that imply you wish to avoid jury service? If you lived in a country without juries, as I do, you might value them as the ultimate protectors of freedom - but maybe you don't value that either and prefer 'not to bother'.
 
Does that imply you wish to avoid jury service? If you lived in a country without juries, as I do, you might value them as the ultimate protectors of freedom - but maybe you don't value that either and prefer 'not to bother'.

I don't think juries are always fair, nor particularly interested in freedom as anyone else.
Judges while being able to be swayed by emotion appeals, are more attuned to how things should work.
Although of course, I'm not a huge fan of them either, especially elected judges.
 
I don't think juries are always fair, nor particularly interested in freedom as anyone else.
Judges while being able to be swayed by emotion appeals, are more attuned to how things should work.
Although of course, I'm not a huge fan of them either, especially elected judges.

Of course. Is there any thing you are a fan of? :lol:
 
Thank god that there is no law requiring Americans to vote. 90% of the voters couldn't mention 3 line items from any candidates policies.
 
Two quick observations: 1) there is no way to logically put the words "freedom" and "mandatory" together, and 2) your narrative of "criminality in the US government" is not just inaccurate, but embarrassingly so.

To make something mandatory requires that you take away a freedom that would otherwise be enjoyed.

Nailed it :cool:
 
Thank god that there is no law requiring Americans to vote. 90% of the voters couldn't mention 3 line items from any candidates policies.
This.
When I talk about this to people face to face, mentioning the platforms that I find most impressive I tend to get that glazed over expression and an admittance that they really just want to see Trump or Clinton "Tank". People are in it for the entertainment and, much like the news and other relatively important things, it is kind of a sad approach.

Very thankful the average American is not required to vote.
 
1) The freedom to not do something outweighs the compulsion to do something, regardless how well-intentioned.

2) Compulsory voting would not necessarily equate to better-informed citizens, and I don't want my carefully thought out vote watered down or canceled out by an uninformed person.
 
I don't think juries are always fair, nor particularly interested in freedom as anyone else.
Judges while being able to be swayed by emotion appeals, are more attuned to how things should work.
Although of course, I'm not a huge fan of them either, especially elected judges.

Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. In 19th century Britain people could be sentenced to death for theft. The law was only changed when juries started to refuse to convict thieves whatever the evidence. Of course juries can get things wrong but not having them is just one of the flaws in Swedish democracy.
 
Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. In 19th century Britain people could be sentenced to death for theft. The law was only changed when juries started to refuse to convict thieves whatever the evidence. Of course juries can get things wrong but not having them is just one of the flaws in Swedish democracy.

We could both point to examples of juries being good and bad.
It's really irrelevant.

Personally, I do not believe that humans are at that point to be effective jurors or voters.
 
I like American black olives but prefer kalamata and the various types of green olives.

I did not know there were American - North, South or Central - olives. I have only seen imported.
 
Back
Top Bottom