Should voting be mandatory?

[1PeaceMaker]

When, in American history?

Back when I was researching Libertarianism I read about alternative voting systems in California, and just now I found a report on Australia.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/09/the-alternative-vote-system-explained/

In that setup you'd still have "the guy with the most money wins" because he/she would be able to buy an overwhelming amount of media airtime, and get his/her name on the minds of the most voters.

I want a chance for us to vote for the guy(s) we really want or nobody at all, and I want our votes to be really counted, not faked. I realize that the media will push their guy. As long as the media is free, thinkers can still access the information they need to make good decisions from.

 

[Jedidiah]

Statistically, a 37% representative sample is plenty large enough to measure what America collectively wants to happen in government. That statistic alone is telling, only 37% of America cares enough about doing anything at all about the status quo. Tells me that 63% of America are fine with how things are going.

Even if you had just 3.7% of America voting, you'd probably wind up with much the same people in office as now. 100% isn't going to move things much, it may sway a tightly contested election here and there, but it's not going to do what the President says it would do.

 

[elohiym]

Me: So how does this work?

Them: Here are our choices: vanilla, chocolate, a woman. Now vote or else you'll lose your "freedom."

Me: Can I write in Mickey Mouse?

Them: Yes.

Me: Okay, then it's just a minor inconvenience of fascism. However, I'm still concerned because my voter registration information will be sold to corporations in my state and I am losing an aspect of privacy I consider part of my freedom.

 

[Buzzword]

Back when I was researching Libertarianism I read about alternative voting systems in California, and just now I found a report on Australia.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/09/the-alternative-vote-system-explained/

...I know how it works. I also know that it would provide a stable alternative to our current system of third-party candidates "stealing votes" from one or the other oligarchical party.

To quote the article:
"How voters cast their subsequent preferences is far more difficult to ascertain—or even to influence. None of the mainstream parties wish to be associated with, for example, extremist parties. Nor are they likely to appeal to such voters to gain their subsequent preferences."

This sounds pretty close to ideal to me, especially after decades of watching the Republican party continue to plow toward the cliff at the conservative end of the political spectrum.

I realize that the media will push their guy. As long as the media is free, thinkers can still access the information they need to make good decisions from.

You do realize the majority of voters in this country aren't "thinkers," right?
The majority are uneducated compared to what is needed for responsible citizenship, and are easily swayed by the indoctrination of their childhood.
They still rely on the mainstream media, which masquerades as "journalism," and hasn't been "free" (read: objective) in a generation or two.

And thus under your system will be just as easily swayed to the candidate the wealthy want them to support as they are under the current system, and nothing would change.

 

[Buzzword]

Statistically, a 37% representative sample is plenty large enough to measure what America collectively wants to happen in government. That statistic alone is telling, only 37% of America cares enough about doing anything at all about the status quo. Tells me that 63% of America are fine with how things are going.

That 63% isn't necessarily "fine with how things are going".
Speaking for my generation, many of whom barely remember a time before Bush Jr.'s fascist "War on Terror," we have become convinced through a long series of life experiences unrelated to politics, but demonstrated in the political arena, that we are powerless to effect any kind of change to the terrible conditions inflicted upon the country by the Baby Boomers.

If the you feel powerless, what is the point of participating in the system which makes you feel powerless?
Especially if that powerlessness is combined with one's conscience demanding that you not support either corrupt bureaucrat running for office?

Even if you had just 3.7% of America voting, you'd probably wind up with much the same people in office as now. 100% isn't going to move things much, it may sway a tightly contested election here and there, but it's not going to do what the President says it would do.

You'd just have people protesting outside the polls that they have a right to abstain from unjust voting just as they have a right to abstain from unjust war; the demands of the conscience take precedent.

 

[elohiym]

That statistic alone is telling, only 37% of America cares enough about doing anything at all about the status quo.

Among the non-voters are those who see voting for politicians as choosing industry's puppet based on questionable promises that will not be kept, and those who believe real problems and solutions are being masked by manufactured problems and solutions. Sure, there could be many that are fine with the status quo. Making me vote will not change that.

I would be happy to vote on issues I care about and effect my community if the voter registration records in my state were not being made available for sale. Consider that there is a percentage who don't vote because their voter registration information wouldn't be completely private.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How?
Mandatory voting in the current system simply leads to the government forcing the public to continue to the cycle of insanity instead of individual citizens being able to abstain if their conscience does not allow them to vote for anyone running.
There is nothing inherent in mandatory voting to force qualified candidates, candidates who are not openly self-serving, or candidates who are not openly corporation-serving, to run or be elected.

Also, "at least it would be different" seems to me to be the absolute worst motivation for changes in or additions to government policy.
Especially if that's all the motivation you can find.

How could it not? It might result in a third party actually winning. It might put enough of a third party into the the House and Senate that neither party could control legislation. I don't know what would change, but I know that doing the same old same old results in the same old same old.

 

[republicanchick]

Obama thinks so. . .

.html[/URL]

ant to travel?

actually, I think everything should be mandatory

[so say libs]



moron city

 

[Tyrathca]

It seems most of you objecting to this are objecting on irrelevant grounds. Obama seems to be quite clear in suggesting an Australian like "mandatory" voting system which makes most of your objections moot.

To be clear in Australian mandatory voting is is NOT mandatory to vote, it is mandatory to show up to the voting station and have your name ticked off. It is quite fine to show up to the voting station, get your name ticked off and then rip up the voting card in the officials face if you so wanted. Most who truly don't want to vote however just do whats called a "donkey vote", hand a blank (or fill it in with a joke/invalid way) card in. On the whole though most people having shown up tend to vote.

(Note : I am Australian)

 

[republicanchick]

I think this whole topic is COMICAL

b/c when I first heard this, I KNEW the reason (who wouldn't?)

WHY the pres wants this..

he knows (as most of us do) that the LOW info people, the ones who don't read factual books (only fiction) and ... well, let's call them Watter's World voters... would vote for people like HIM!!

Wow... it's funny (LOL) how he insults his own party...

people like this would vote for people like him!

LOL

hey, but u gotta give the dude credit... he's even willing to INSULT HIMSELF

to get his party into office...


____

 

[rexlunae]

According to the article only 37% of Americans voted in last year's mid-term. 144 million Americans skipped out.

Is this a road we want to travel?

Most of us live in districts that have been drawn to make it almost impossible to change the winner. People correctly perceive that their vote doesn't make much difference, and they stay home. It is actually perfectly rational behavior as far as that goes, and I think the right way to address it is not to try to punish people for making that rational decision, but to change the elections to give people meaningful choices at the polls.

I think the only way to do that that makes sense is STV.

 

[Word based mystic]

I think this whole topic is COMICAL

b/c when I first heard this, I KNEW the reason (who wouldn't?)

WHY the pres wants this..

he knows (as most of us do) that the LOW info people, the ones who don't read factual books (only fiction) and ... well, let's call them Watter's World voters... would vote for people like HIM!!

Wow... it's funny (LOL) how he insults his own party...

people like this would vote for people like him!

LOL

hey, but u gotta give the dude credit... he's even willing to INSULT HIMSELF

to get his party into office...


____

:up:
image and charisma/charm

not character and long term planning.

 

[elohiym]

To be clear in Australian mandatory voting is is NOT mandatory to vote, it is mandatory to show up to the voting station and have your name ticked off. It is quite fine to show up to the voting station, get your name ticked off and then rip up the voting card in the officials face if you so wanted.

So it's basically a pointless exercise where the government is saying, "See, we can make you show up and get your name ticked off." That's not freedom, in my opinion.

 

[republicanchick]

:up:
image and charisma/charm

not character and long term planning.

you mean with libs only Appearances matter?

I know...



__

 

[1PeaceMaker]

...I know how it works. I also know that it would provide a stable alternative to our current system of third-party candidates "stealing votes" from one or the other oligarchical party.

To quote the article:
"How voters cast their subsequent preferences is far more difficult to ascertain—or even to influence. None of the mainstream parties wish to be associated with, for example, extremist parties. Nor are they likely to appeal to such voters to gain their subsequent preferences."

This sounds pretty close to ideal to me, especially after decades of watching the Republican party continue to plow toward the cliff at the conservative end of the political spectrum.

The problem, Buzz, is not voting style as much as an honesty and trust issues. On both sides there is voting fraud. Until they make it an honest affair they will encounter resisters. Unless they push the issue; then there will be more than resisters, they will suffer an influx of politically active reformers breathing down their necks the rest of the way.

You do realize the majority of voters in this country aren't "thinkers," right?
The majority are uneducated compared to what is needed for responsible citizenship, and are easily swayed by the indoctrination of their childhood.
They still rely on the mainstream media, which masquerades as "journalism," and hasn't been "free" (read: objective) in a generation or two.

And thus under your system will be just as easily swayed to the candidate the wealthy want them to support as they are under the current system, and nothing would change.

There is a large contingent of sincere, passionate non-voters. Force them to come to the polls and that minority will be found to be quite vocal and influential.

They will meddle and mess up the plans of the vote-fraudsters.

 

[Nick M]

If everybody over the age of 18, citizen or not, was supposed to make a critical decision, then that is how the constitution would have been written. High voter turn out in fact favors the wicked.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Obama thinks so. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html

I've heard this idea kicked around a few times on this board.

How do we offset the influence of big money in politics while fixing the country's abysmal voter turnout rate? President Barack Obama suggests it might be time to make voting a requirement. "In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle-class economics. "It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything." The clout of millionaires and billionaires in campaign funding has been enormous, and many claim the uber wealthy have undue leverage in politics. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison.

According to the article only 37% of Americans voted in last year's mid-term. 144 million Americans skipped out.

Is this a road we want to travel?

Says the president who spent more money on campaigning than any other in history.

No, it should not be mandatory.

 

[Daniel1611]

I refuse to vote. Last time I voted was 2010, and will not vote again. I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evil" because however I vote, I would be voting for evil.

 

[rocketman]

Obama thinks so. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html

I've heard this idea kicked around a few times on this board.

How do we offset the influence of big money in politics while fixing the country's abysmal voter turnout rate? President Barack Obama suggests it might be time to make voting a requirement. "In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle-class economics. "It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything." The clout of millionaires and billionaires in campaign funding has been enormous, and many claim the uber wealthy have undue leverage in politics. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison.

According to the article only 37% of Americans voted in last year's mid-term. 144 million Americans skipped out.

Is this a road we want to travel?

Should have made this a poll Shaggy...and no, voting should not be mandatory. Voting is a privilege that is extended to all citizens but, it is not, nor should it ever become a legally mandated duty, liberty kind of works that way. I do find it curious though that the same man that opposes voter identification to vote wants to mandate that all legally have to vote...without I.D. how will they assure all vote? How does that work? :think:

 

[rocketman]

It seems most of you objecting to this are objecting on irrelevant grounds. Obama seems to be quite clear in suggesting an Australian like "mandatory" voting system which makes most of your objections moot.

To be clear in Australian mandatory voting is is NOT mandatory to vote, it is mandatory to show up to the voting station and have your name ticked off. It is quite fine to show up to the voting station, get your name ticked off and then rip up the voting card in the officials face if you so wanted. Most who truly don't want to vote however just do whats called a "donkey vote", hand a blank (or fill it in with a joke/invalid way) card in. On the whole though most people having shown up tend to vote.

(Note : I am Australian)

Than what is the point?