Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

[AGENT J]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

I dont know anythign about austriala to really answer

some questions:

1.) can you vote for anybody you want including none of the above?
2.) what happens if you dont vote

IMO in the US I'd much rather have mandatory voting with the ability to vote forever or none of the above rather that gerrymandering and silenced voters :shrug:

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't understand the point of the OP then when he says voting is mandatory and that you are forced to vote. Apparently you're not.

True, it is not mandatory to actually vote. Once in a voting booth no one has the right to tell you what you must do with a voting paper. It is your choice whether to fill it out properly or leave it blank.
The op's author simply has no idea what the mandatory voting law is about.

 

[madasheck]

As a not-so-wise old philosopher once said, "Corporations are people too."

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm glad there are a lot of low information voters in the US who do not vote. I'd like to know that whoever casts a vote at least has a clue what is going on, even if they disagree with my interpretation of what is going on. People need to take voting seriously. If they can't do that then I don't think they should vote anyway and I'm glad if they don't. By the way, with very few exceptions, Republican lawmakers don't pass legislation to stop people from voting but we do have laws that only those people who are legally eligible to vote do. Many of the things you refer to are both checking to make sure only those eligible to vote do and also purge people from the rolls who have gone many elections without casting a vote. These people either don't want to vote or have other reasons for not voting, such as they don't live in that area anymore or maybe they are dead. And, people set for purging are notified of the purge and can stop the process if they want to. Many businesses purge files that have been inactive for long periods.

That is not the information i am seeing. It appears that republicans especially are passing laws that make it difficult if not impossible for eligible voters to vote, for example.
‘They Don’t Really Want Us to Vote’: How Republicans Made It Harder - The New York Times

Restrictions on voting, virtually all imposed by Republicans, reflect rising partisanship, societal shifts producing a more diverse America, and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in 2013.

In North Dakota, Republicans passed an ID law that disproportionally affected Native Americans, strong supporters of the state’s Democratic senator, Heidi Heitkamp, who is in an uphill fight. In Florida, New Hampshire, Texas and Wisconsin, among others, out-of-state university students face unusual hurdles to casting ballots.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nice try mate. Show me where in Australian law it is written that you have a right to deface your voting ballot or return it blank. This is not a given right to Australian citizens.

The way the law works is that you are legally required to attend the voting event and have your name checked off by collecting a card and approaching the ballot. Granted, what you do after that point cannot possibly be monitored so the government doesn't even try. But that doesn't mean you have the right to not vote. The way the law is currently is written is that you will be fined for not voting, which includes the intentional act of not selecting a given option. With electronic voting being rolled out and set to become the norm, the government will be able to track whether you voted correctly or not, which means you wouldn't be able to hide behind the red tape by casting an invalid vote or tearing up your card.

Even if none of the above was an option, it doesn't negate the fact that you are still required to attend an event you may not support and express an opinion you may not want to express. That's the definition of compelled speech - it was explained in the Wiki article you so thoughtfully ignored.

God I worry for the future of this country when so many citizens are willing to put up with restricted freedoms and make excuses for it. Unacceptable.

You do not have the right to deface your voting ballot. how silly can you be.
What you do have a right to is a right to privacy and anonymity in casting your vote. No one can tell you what you must put on your voting paper and no one by law can look at what you are putting on your ballot paper. if a person wants to scribble obscenities on it there is no way anyone can stop them from doing so. There is no way anyone can tell who has done so.

You really do not know how to make sense.

if it is the case, and it is the case, that they cannot monitor what you do in the voting booth then how is it possible for them to fine you for not voting. Are they just magically guessing what you have done?

And please do give me some bull**** about electronic voting systems being able to track voters. It is as you have already agreed, illegal for the government to track what a voter does in the booth. There is no reason to think and no one has made any claim that this will change just because voting is done electronically.

 

[soylentgreen]

I dont know anythign about austriala to really answer

some questions:

1.) can you vote for anybody you want including none of the above?
2.) what happens if you dont vote

IMO in the US I'd much rather have mandatory voting with the ability to vote forever or none of the above rather that gerrymandering and silenced voters :shrug:

1. Yes, you can scribble your cats name on the voting paper and vote for him if you want to.

2. There is the financially crippling death blow penalty of having to pay between $20 to $80 fine if they catch you.

The purpose of the law of mandatory voting is not so much about getting the voter to vote. Their are better carrots to offer to get people to vote that the small stick of a fine that most people ignore anyway.

The purpose of the law is to stop politicians from fiddling with the law so as to make it difficult for minority groups to vote. Which from what i can see is what politicians do in america.

 

[AGENT J]

1. Yes, you can scribble your cats name on the voting paper and vote for him if you want to.

2. There is the financially crippling death blow penalty of having to pay between $20 to $80 fine if they catch you.

The purpose of the law of mandatory voting is not so much about getting the voter to vote. Their are better carrots to offer to get people to vote that the small stick of a fine that most people ignore anyway.

The purpose of the law is to stop politicians from fiddling with the law so as to make it difficult for minority groups to vote. Which from what i can see is what politicians do in america.

thanks for the info
If thats true then i have no problems with it :shrug:
dont think it would pass constitutional muster though

and yes politicians do that in america, they do it against anybody they think isnt in their voting block

 

[joko104]

Forced voting is a terrible idea. Anyone who doesn't care enough to vote or too lazy shouldn't be voting.

 

[btthegreat]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

If you have the option of a. voting none of the above B. writing in a candidate/ name c. leaving the ballot blank then there is no compulsory speech. If none of those options is available, they wrote a dumb law. The only valid point to compulsory voting, is to make it as much trouble to not have your voice heard as it is to have your voice heard in other words just require they show up, stand in line, and do something with that ballot, or get the fined. Being lazy is what you may want to discourage. They can rip it into pieces for all I care, as long as they have to do the same work and stand in the same line as the rest of us do while doing our civic duty.

 

[Crusader13]

if a person wants to scribble obscenities on it there is no way anyone can stop them from doing so. There is no way anyone can tell who has done so.

If I shoot someone at 3am in a dark alley with nobody else around, there is no way anyone can find out what I did. That doesn't mean the government grants me the right to do it. You're missing the fundamental point here. You argued that Australian citizens don't have to vote. This is technically incorrect. They do. There is no right given to citizens to openly and proudly deface their voting card or to refuse to attend all together. That's the issue.

 

[Crusader13]

1. Yes, you can scribble your cats name on the voting paper and vote for him if you want to.

Again, either cite your sources or stop spreading lies. If voting cards recorded your personal details I guarantee you wouldn't be writing your cat's name on it or defacing it. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

2. There is the financially crippling death blow penalty of having to pay between $20 to $80 fine if they catch you.

That's subjective. You're not the judge of someone else's financial standing so that $20-80 fine could be the difference between a meal or a place to stay. Granted it's a small amount but it's still too much. It should be $0 in a truly free country. I shouldn't have to attend an event I don't agree with and cast a voting card (even if it is empty) if I don't support any of the candidates.

The purpose of the law is to stop politicians from fiddling with the law so as to make it difficult for minority groups to vote. Which from what i can see is what politicians do in america.

Nah, you're just wrong. I fail to see how forcing people to vote preserves their right to vote.

The purpose of the law is to simply favour major parties with easy votes. That's it. It ensures the most prominent/popular/heavily advertised parties will continue to get free votes from mostly uninformed citizens since most people who are there to avoid the fine will likely have the urge to tick the first name that that rings a bell.

This is a law designed by politicians for politicians to preserve the status quo and discourage the need for parties to change. That's why most of the major political parties in Australia are essentially the same old crap, and it's probably why our last X prime-ministers were voted in despite being so incompetent that they couldn't even finish their terms.

The worst tyrannical campaigns in history happened because of gutless people like you who make excuses for oppression. You are what's wrong with the world.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

If you force people to vote they'll just write in something silly like Mickey Mouse, so there's no point. If the public doesn't want to vote then the public doesn't want democracy and the public deserves whatever tyranny results.

 

[soylentgreen]

If I shoot someone at 3am in a dark alley with nobody else around, there is no way anyone can find out what I did. That doesn't mean the government grants me the right to do it. You're missing the fundamental point here. You argued that Australian citizens don't have to vote. This is technically incorrect. They do. There is no right given to citizens to openly and proudly deface their voting card or to refuse to attend all together. That's the issue.

Terrible analogy that does not fit the picture. The government has not made laws that do not allow them to look or find out if you shot anyone in a back alley. But they have made laws that do not allow them to look at what you write on your ballot paper.

Again i need to point out that you are being silly about rights. No one has given you a right to not vote. What they have given you is the right to do as you please with your ballot paper.

And no it is not technically incorrect. It is in fact correct. The compulsory voting law only deals with the registering of a voter and not with what is written on a voting paper

Nor have i said that a person does not have to attend all together. A person can be fined for not appearing at a voting station and getting their name crossed off the register. They are not getting fined for not filling out a voting paper.

When you find for me a law that makes it illegal to cast an informal vote then you have something to say. But you will not because it is not illegal to cast an informal vote.

 

[soylentgreen]

Again, either cite your sources or stop spreading lies. If voting cards recorded your personal details I guarantee you wouldn't be writing your cat's name on it or defacing it. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean you have a right to do it.



That's subjective. You're not the judge of someone else's financial standing so that $20-80 fine could be the difference between a meal or a place to stay. Granted it's a small amount but it's still too much. It should be $0 in a truly free country. I shouldn't have to attend an event I don't agree with and cast a voting card (even if it is empty) if I don't support any of the candidates.



Nah, you're just wrong. I fail to see how forcing people to vote preserves their right to vote.

The purpose of the law is to simply favour major parties with easy votes. That's it. It ensures the most prominent/popular/heavily advertised parties will continue to get free votes from mostly uninformed citizens since most people who are there to avoid the fine will likely have the urge to tick the first name that that rings a bell.

This is a law designed by politicians for politicians to preserve the status quo and discourage the need for parties to change. That's why most of the major political parties in Australia are essentially the same old crap, and it's probably why our last X prime-ministers were voted in despite being so incompetent that they couldn't even finish their terms.

The worst tyrannical campaigns in history happened because of gutless people like you who make excuses for oppression. You are what's wrong with the world.

It is not about having a right to do it. It is about the fact that there is no way anyone can actually check as to whether you have written your cats name on the voting paper. The government cannot enforce a law that says a person must cast a vote. So you do not need a right in this all you need is the balls to do as you please.

People often do not vote as politicians would want them. you have heard the term "donkey vote"?
How Compulsory Voting Works: Australians Explain - The New York Times

Australian critics of compulsory voting argue that as free citizens they should be allowed to choose whether to participate. Others argue that forcing apathetic or uneducated citizens to vote steers the nation’s political destiny toward populism.

But according to political scientists, the opposite is more likely true: Forcing people to engage in the process increases their knowledge of the issues and candidates.

Voters are compelled to appear at the polls, but they can cast a blank or marred ballot as a protest, which doesn’t count. Some apathetic voters simply number the boxes in the order the candidates appear, which does count and is known as a “donkey vote.”

You should pay more attention to americas voting system where there is no compulsory voting and politicians pass laws that stop people from voting. At least in australia the law prevents politicians from doing that which is its primary purpose.

 

[Xelor]

Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

No...

 

[Crusader13]

It is not about having a right to do it. It is about the fact that there is no way anyone can actually check as to whether you have written your cats name on the voting paper. The government cannot enforce a law that says a person must cast a vote. So you do not need a right in this all you need is the balls to do as you please.

People often do not vote as politicians would want them. you have heard the term "donkey vote"?
How Compulsory Voting Works: Australians Explain - The New York Times


You should pay more attention to americas voting system where there is no compulsory voting and politicians pass laws that stop people from voting. At least in australia the law prevents politicians from doing that which is its primary purpose.

Compelled voting and protecting the right to vote are two very different things. Conflating them is asinine.

Further, your citation proved my point entirely. Mandatory voting only increases the number of random or easy votes a party gets. It destroys the incentive to actually give a damn about the people and suggest good policies while rewarding sneaky marketing tactics and slander campaigns. It is good for nobody except the politicians wanting to stay at the top.

 

[Moderate Right]

That is not the information i am seeing. It appears that republicans especially are passing laws that make it difficult if not impossible for eligible voters to vote, for example.
‘They Don’t Really Want Us to Vote’: How Republicans Made It Harder - The New York Times

I don't believe Republicans were purposely targeting Native Americans in North Dakota. Maybe I'm wrong. Often when you pass laws there are unintended consequences. New Hampshire and Wisconsin are either purple states or lean to the left so it wouldn't be easy for any one party to push through whatever they wanted. Even Florida could be called a purple state. I'm all on board to pass laws making sure that only eligible voters vote. Many arguments of the left are absurdly partisan. I also have no problem purging people who have not voted in many elections. The left try to make a mountain out of a mole hill in regards to these matters.

 

[Visbek]

Even if none of the above was an option, it doesn't negate the fact that you are still required to attend an event you may not support and express an opinion you may not want to express. That's the definition of compelled speech....

Uh huh.

Here's the thing: Governments are legitimately empowered to compel citizens to do lots of things they may not want to do, or may not agree with. They can compel you to sit on a jury; they can compel you to perform military service; they can take your property from you, for a cause that you do not support; they can compel you to pay taxes that are spent on functions you do not support, including the state making utterances you disagree with.

The government can even compel you to say things you don't want to say. For example, if you are a witness to a crime, the state can subpoena you to appear in court and state what you know (as long as you are not incriminating yourself). In the US, Congress can subpoena individuals to testify, in public, on various topics.

I also don't see compulsory voting as a speech act or expression; you're merely fulfilling a civil duty which is also a legal obligation. Showing up for jury duty doesn't mean you believe the justice system is perfect; paying your taxes doesn't mean you support the state; showing up at the draft board doesn't mean you support the war.

God I worry for the future of this country when so many citizens are willing to put up with restricted freedoms and make excuses for it. Unacceptable.

Huh? Which country?

Australia has had compulsory voting for decades (since 1911, right?), and somehow it hasn't turned Australia into a totalitarian state. Nor has there been any major public groundswell to eliminate it.

 

[Hypothetical]

I dont know anythign about austriala to really answer

some questions:

1.) can you vote for anybody you want including none of the above?
2.) what happens if you dont vote

IMO in the US I'd much rather have mandatory voting with the ability to vote forever or none of the above rather that gerrymandering and silenced voters :shrug:

I would not , simply because it goes against the spirit of individual rights to begin with.

 

[soylentgreen]

Compelled voting and protecting the right to vote are two very different things. Conflating them is asinine.

Further, your citation proved my point entirely. Mandatory voting only increases the number of random or easy votes a party gets. It destroys the incentive to actually give a damn about the people and suggest good policies while rewarding sneaky marketing tactics and slander campaigns. It is good for nobody except the politicians wanting to stay at the top.

There is no such thing as compelled voting. You are confusing the register to vote with actually voting.

Please point out where my citation proved your point. All you have is a belief that that is what will occur. Where as what i cited stated quite clearly that the opposite occurred. Allow me to post that bit of the citation again;

Australian critics of compulsory voting argue that as free citizens they should be allowed to choose whether to participate. Others argue that forcing apathetic or uneducated citizens to vote steers the nation’s political destiny toward populism.

But according to political scientists, the opposite is more likely true: Forcing people to engage in the process increases their knowledge of the issues and candidates.

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't believe Republicans were purposely targeting Native Americans in North Dakota. Maybe I'm wrong. Often when you pass laws there are unintended consequences. New Hampshire and Wisconsin are either purple states or lean to the left so it wouldn't be easy for any one party to push through whatever they wanted. Even Florida could be called a purple state. I'm all on board to pass laws making sure that only eligible voters vote. Many arguments of the left are absurdly partisan. I also have no problem purging people who have not voted in many elections. The left try to make a mountain out of a mole hill in regards to these matters.

Americans do not take voting seriously. Understandable when you look at the politicians you have to vote for. Your own attitude of either do it or lose it reflects that quite well.

But voting is actually an important process in any country that desires a good representation of the people in government.
In countries like australia where there is compulsury voting laws the turn out for federal election is 90+% high. The turn out in countries where there is no such law as america is around 50% .

Your argument that it is better to purge eligible voters who have no interest has nothing to back it except opinion. Where as research and statistical information shows that laws such as compulsory voting actuially generate interest in politics by the people.

 

[Moderate Right]

Americans do not take voting seriously. Understandable when you look at the politicians you have to vote for. Your own attitude of either do it or lose it reflects that quite well.

But voting is actually an important process in any country that desires a good representation of the people in government.
In countries like australia where there is compulsury voting laws the turn out for federal election is 90+% high. The turn out in countries where there is no such law as america is around 50% .

Your argument that it is better to purge eligible voters who have no interest has nothing to back it except opinion. Where as research and statistical information shows that laws such as compulsory voting actuially generate interest in politics by the people.

The huge majority of those who do get purged (and they are notified of the impending purge) are people who haven't voted in several elections because they either don't live in that particular voting district anymore or have died or some other such thing. There is no reason to keep dead people on the voting rolls indefinitely. I don't understand the point of forcing people to go in and vote that have absolutely zero interest in voting and don't know the issues from a hole in the ground. I'd rather those people don't even vote. What would be the point, to get your voting statistics up to 90%? If Russia had a 90% turnout, would you trust their election results?

 

[AGENT J]

I would not , simply because it goes against the spirit of individual rights to begin with.

thats fine by me, you are free to not agree . . . you must be against quite a lot then if your subjective feelings about the "spirit of individual rights" set the bar then

 

[soylentgreen]

The huge majority of those who do get purged (and they are notified of the impending purge) are people who haven't voted in several elections because they either don't live in that particular voting district anymore or have died or some other such thing. There is no reason to keep dead people on the voting rolls indefinitely. I don't understand the point of forcing people to go in and vote that have absolutely zero interest in voting and don't know the issues from a hole in the ground. I'd rather those people don't even vote. What would be the point, to get your voting statistics up to 90%? If Russia had a 90% turnout, would you trust their election results?

Again it needs to be pointed out that no one is being forced to vote. Whether a person votes or not is still a choice that they have.

The compulsory voting laws effect only the registering of voters. The purpose behind that is that politicians cannot effect laws to make it difficult for minority groups to vote which does happen in america. The other reason for it is outlined below in a conclusion to a study done on compulsory voting.

Where as studies on compulsory voting show a better outcome for the democratic process and a fairer representation of the classes of citizens. The only thing that those apposed to compulsory voting have to back them is their own personal opinion that they do not wish to go to the effort of voting.



https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/westminster_model_democracy/files/fowler_compulsoryvoting.pdf

‘‘Democracy’s unresolved dilemma’’ is that elections do not accurately
reflect the preferences of the citizenry (Lijphart, 1997). Systematic turnout
inequality means that some citizens will be better represented than others.
In this study, I exploit a rare opportunity to test the extent of this dilemma.
Before the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, election results
and public policy were drastically different from the preferences of the citizens. When near-universal turnout was achieved, elections and policy shifted
in favor of the working-class citizens who had previously failed to participate. While Australia has largely resolved the problem, inequalities in voter
turnout remain in most advanced democracies. Increased turnout has tangible effects on partisan election results and public policies, and those effects
will benefit the disadvantaged subset of citizens who otherwise would have
abstained from the political process.

 

[spud_meister]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

No. Here in Australia you can vote informally if you don't wish to vote for any of the candidates. You're compelled to get your name ticked off, not to vote.