Should voting be compulsory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DL82

Guest
In some countries here in Europe, Denmark for example, it is a criminal offence not to vote in a General Election. That rule also applies, I think, in Australia, and a number of other countries with a proportional representation system.

If voting is seen as a duty, and any citizen has the right to stand for election if they don’t like the existing choices, shouldn’t the right to vote also carry a legal responsibility to vote?

An analogy could be made to education. Just as everyone has a right to a public education for their children, so likewise nobody can deny themselves or their children a decent education, otherwise there are legal consequences.

The right to work is another similar case.
 
No. If someone has no desire to vote, he is not gonig to invest much, if any, time in making an informed vote. If we are okay with encouraging uninformed votes, we might as well just start drawing the winning candidate out of a hat.
 
Some people have religious reasons for not voting. They should be given an exemption. What about alzheimers patients in the middle stages of the disease, do you want them voting?

If I am not confident that there is a pro-life candidate on the ballot I will not vote this November.
 
This question is about as strange as whether the poor should be allowed to vote. Everyone should be allowed but noone should be required. Simple.
 
Marsha_Adams said:
If I am not confident that there is a pro-life candidate on the ballot I will not vote this November.
Click to expand...
This is the problem with making voting optional. The majority (I think the turnout at the 2000 US Presidential Election was around 45%) feel like none of the candidates represent them, and they don’t believe that there’s anything they can do about it. If you have to do something about it or be forced to vote for one of the candidates on the ballot, then you’re more likely to make an effort to make a change.

On the other hand, maybe there should be an option to say “none of the above”, and if a majority don’t want any candidates, they have to re-run the election with new candidates? What would that say to candidates, if the electorate didn’t just say “I can’t be bothered voting for any of you” but could choose to say “I actively choose to vote against all of you!”

There can be exceptions, just like some people can opt out of jury duty on religious grounds.
 
If I were king, here’s how I’d reform the election process:
  1. Voting would be optional, but proof of having voted in the last federal election would be required before receiving any federal benefits (SS, Medicare, etc.). Exemptions for those who have legitimate reasons not to (senility, religious objections, etc.).
  2. Elections would be held over a 4-day weekend (Friday - Monday), to give everyone a chance. No returns announced until Monday night.
  3. Proof of identity and/or citizenship required.
  4. An iron-clad “none-of-the-above” option. If “none-of-the-above” wins, then the parties have to come out with a whole new slate.
Did I miss anything, my loyal subjects? 😃 😛

DaveBj
 
DL82 said:
In some countries here in Europe, Denmark for example, it is a criminal offence not to vote in a General Election. That rule also applies, I think, in Australia, and a number of other countries with a proportional representation system.

If voting is seen as a duty, and any citizen has the right to stand for election if they don’t like the existing choices, shouldn’t the right to vote also carry a legal responsibility to vote?

An analogy could be made to education. Just as everyone has a right to a public education for their children, so likewise nobody can deny themselves or their children a decent education, otherwise there are legal consequences.

The right to work is another similar case.
Click to expand...
Interesting topic. I wouldn’t go as far as to compare voting with the right to work or education. Those are “rights,” voting will always be a “choice.” (it’s a right, but u can choose to not vote, unlike not being able to choose to not send your child to school) Think I agree with goofyjim on this one.
 
Not only should people not be forced to vote, I think a mechanism should be put into place that only allows informed people to vote. I don’t know what this mechanism is or how it should work, so in the meantime, there’s nothing that can be done about it. I absolutely hate the fact that uninformed, ignorant people can affect the government.
 
Bataar said:
Not only should people not be forced to vote, I think a mechanism should be put into place that only allows informed people to vote. I don’t know what this mechanism is or how it should work, so in the meantime, there’s nothing that can be done about it. I absolutely hate the fact that uninformed, ignorant people can affect the government.
Click to expand...
there u go. now we’re talkin. 👍 (some) people seem to make voting out to be a popularity contest:rolleyes: , and it should be about the issues. I don’t think they (the ignorant) vote as often as u might think tho. That would be a stat worth seein, but how would u collect* that *data? lol Have someone at the polls shout out: Hey all the ignorant and uninformed ppl, raise your hands so we can take a head count…😃
 
Bataar said:
Not only should people not be forced to vote, I think a mechanism should be put into place that only allows informed people to vote. I don’t know what this mechanism is or how it should work, so in the meantime, there’s nothing that can be done about it. I absolutely hate the fact that uninformed, ignorant people can affect the government.
Click to expand...
Who is going to determine who else is uninformed and ignorant? Some may throw that accusation at the leftists who only get info from liberal media but what about the rightists who only survive off of Fox? Everyone makes up their voting decision based on some (name removed by moderator)ut and to accuse someone of being ignorant is just ignorant itself.
 
goofyjim said:
Who is going to determine who else is uninformed and ignorant? Some may throw that accusation at the leftists who only get info from liberal media but what about the rightists who only survive off of Fox? Everyone makes up their voting decision based on some (name removed by moderator)ut and to accuse someone of being ignorant is just ignorant itself.
Click to expand...
True. I was jokin in my above comment.😊
 
goofyjim said:
This question is about as strange as whether the poor should be allowed to vote. Everyone should be allowed but noone should be required. Simple.
Click to expand...
When I first heard of compulsory voting, I thought it was the strangest thing. But after I got used to the idea, I was struck by the similarity to compulsory jury duty - a civic responsibility which many people want to avoid.

If voting is optional, should jury duty also be optional?
 
Never would I want to encourage anyone who does not care to vote to do so, let alone force him/her. What would such votes mean? Would they just pick a name at random? Would they pick in the most perverse manner possible just to show their irritation at being forced to be there? Or would they all vote for the first candidate whose only platform is to give each voter $1,000 for showing up. Then next year another who promised $5,000.00, and so on.
 
Steve40 said:
Too many idiots would vote. Voting should optional and hard to do.
Click to expand...
While it should be optional I hope you are not serious about hard to do. Unless you wish to be one to relinquish your vote as well.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Never would I want to encourage anyone who does not care to vote to do so, let alone force him/her. What would such votes mean? Would they just pick a name at random? Would they pick in the most perverse manner possible just to show their irritation at being forced to be there? Or would they all vote for the first candidate whose only platform is to give each voter $1,000 for showing up. Then next year another who promised $5,000.00, and so on.
Click to expand...
Yet isn’t that how it is done here, by both parties?
 
DL82 said:
In some countries here in Europe, Denmark for example, it is a criminal offence not to vote in a General Election. That rule also applies, I think, in Australia, and a number of other countries with a proportional representation system.

If voting is seen as a duty, and any citizen has the right to stand for election if they don’t like the existing choices, shouldn’t the right to vote also carry a legal responsibility to vote?

An analogy could be made to education. Just as everyone has a right to a public education for their children, so likewise nobody can deny themselves or their children a decent education, otherwise there are legal consequences.

The right to work is another similar case.
Click to expand...
No way. We should all be grateful that many people don’t vote. Do you want the uninformed and ignorant casting a vote based on looks or what there friends say? Of course not. Voting is a right not a requirement.

Mel
 
As someone from Australia, where voting is indeed compulsory, I’m all in favour of it for a few reasons. The way it’s run here, you’re obliged to turn up to the polling booth and submit a ballot paper.

Since it’s a secret ballot which no-one sees, it’s up to you whether you choose to actually select a candidate (ie you can return a completely empty paper, known as an informal or donkey vote).

True, many voters are idiots. But I’d rather have idiots all together make their best efforts and collaborate in choosing a government that can be voted out in three or four years, and thus have no real complaint if the government is idiotic, than idiots deciding that because they weren’t involved in the process at all they can and should mount a coup or revolution!

And who’s to say that even if 40% of voters turn up that those 40% are the more intelligent and well-educated sections of the population anyway? I don’t think the results of past US elections give any credence at all to that theory.

I like the comparison with jury duty - it’s one of the responsibilities we have, I think, in return for the benefits society grants us.

The difference being that jury duty is more onerous, it can involve days, weeks or months out of your life away from family and jobs. Voting takes a few hours maximum (if you’re smart you can do a prepoll or postal vote a few days early and avoid the lineups which are the only time-wasting aspect of voting).
 
DaveBj said:
If I were king, here’s how I’d reform the election process:
  1. Voting would be optional, but proof of having voted in the last federal election would be required before receiving any federal benefits (SS, Medicare, etc.). Exemptions for those who have legitimate reasons not to (senility, religious objections, etc.).
  2. Elections would be held over a 4-day weekend (Friday - Monday), to give everyone a chance. No returns announced until Monday night.
  3. Proof of identity and/or citizenship required.
  4. An iron-clad “none-of-the-above” option. If “none-of-the-above” wins, then the parties have to come out with a whole new slate.
Did I miss anything, my loyal subjects? 😃 😛

DaveBj
Click to expand...
I would add:

4a. In the case that “none of the above” wins and a runoff election is held, only those who voted in the first election would be eligible to vote. In the case that a second runoff election is necessary, only those who voted in the first runoff election would be eligible to vote, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top