Should voting be compulsory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, of course not. It should be highly encouraged but not mandatory.
 
goofyjim said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say impossible, just hard. Here is a suggestion, 20 hours of community service should be required for voting.
 
DaveBj said:
  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.).
Click to expand...
Why? You’re paying taxes either way.
Steve40 said:
Too many idiots would vote. Voting should optional and hard to do.
Click to expand...
We’re all idiots. Some of us just happen to know it.
 
Steve40 said:
I didn’t say impossible, just hard. Here is a suggestion, 20 hours of community service should be required for voting.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, everyone with a full time job can put in 20 hours of service.:rolleyes: The only requirement should be legal citizenship and no criminal background.
 
Steve40 said:
Exactly, so voting should be discouraged rather than encouraged. Less idiots is better than more.
Click to expand...
Well that would leave us all out then. What gives anyone the right to call anyone an idiot? I though it was forbidden in these forums but I could be wrong. After all I’m just an idiot.
 
goofyjim said:
Oh yes, everyone with a full time job can put in 20 hours of service.:rolleyes: The only requirement should be legal citizenship and no criminal background.
Click to expand...
OK, what you said plus 1 hour of community service and I’ll throw in it’s OK to be an idiot for those of us with low self esteam.
 
DL82 said:
In some countries here in Europe, Denmark for example, it is a criminal offense 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...
Just a couple notes, here. The thread is based upon an assumption of rights that we don’t actually have, at least in the US constitution.

Nowhere does the constitution give us a right to vote for President or in a Federal election. Amendments do protect someone from being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, and age (over 18), but not for other reasons. A black woman could be denied the right to vote, but not on account of her color or sex (but perhaps for her criminal conviction or lack of photo ID).

We definitely do not have the right to work.

We also do not have the right to a public education (at least on a federal level - maybe a state or two have written it into theres). There are proposals for such an amendment, but none have had success.

This doesn’t negate what the OP is asking - just a note about the liberal use of “right” as an argument for compulsory voting.
 
I would say voting is over-rated. I would say everyone should be required to hold a local office, try to make and accomplish a proposal, and see what comes of it, and take calls from constituents and hear all of their ideas.
 
I do not believe that voting should be compulsory and I have my reasons for believing so. I just simply do not wish to go into those reasons here as I am not in the mood for a long debate about it.
 
Speaking as a citizen of the U.S., I wish more people did vote. I wouldn’t make it compulsory, and I wouldn’t want to see people fined for not voting.

I’d rather see voters get a few bucks back on their income taxes, maybe just fifty bucks, if they voted in the last election.

It’s a simple enticement that would encourage people to vote and to keep voting.
 
awfulthings9 said:
Just a couple notes, here. The thread is based upon an assumption of rights that we don’t actually have, at least in the US constitution.

Nowhere does the constitution give us a right to vote for President or in a Federal election. Amendments do protect someone from being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, and age (over 18), but not for other reasons. A black woman could be denied the right to vote, but not on account of her color or sex (but perhaps for her criminal conviction or lack of photo ID).

We definitely do not have the right to work.

We also do not have the right to a public education (at least on a federal level - maybe a state or two have written it into theres). There are proposals for such an amendment, but none have had success.

This doesn’t negate what the OP is asking - just a note about the liberal use of “right” as an argument for compulsory voting.
Click to expand...
Look I’ve participated in your other thread and I’ll make the same statement here. If we refuse someone their vote because of economic status or education level how is that not discrimination?
 
awfulthings9 said:
Just a couple notes, here. The thread is based upon an assumption of rights that we don’t actually have, at least in the US constitution.

Nowhere does the constitution give us a right to vote for President or in a Federal election. Amendments do protect someone from being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, and age (over 18), but not for other reasons. A black woman could be denied the right to vote, but not on account of her color or sex (but perhaps for her criminal conviction or lack of photo ID).

We definitely do not have the right to work.

We also do not have the right to a public education (at least on a federal level - maybe a state or two have written it into theres). There are proposals for such an amendment, but none have had success.

This doesn’t negate what the OP is asking - just a note about the liberal use of “right” as an argument for compulsory voting.
Click to expand...
First of all, I’m not an American, and I based my understanding of ‘rights’ not on what the US constitution says, but on what seems to be consonant with the dignity of the human person. I don’t have the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church in front of me right now, but I’m sure I could find some sections that relate to ideas like the right to meaningful work and education. This is a Catholic forum not an American politics forum after all.

I do know a bit about American political history though, and the kind of arguments put forward in this quote, about restricting the right to vote based on education, job, etc. are exactly the kind of things put forward by the Southern Democrats in the 1920’s, the so-called “Jim Crow Laws” to disenfranchise black voters by the back door. Saying that anyone can’t vote leads to the possibility for terrible discrimination on the grounds of whatever bias the ‘voting’ group might happen to share.
 
goofyjim said:
Look I’ve participated in your other thread and I’ll make the same statement here. If we refuse someone their vote because of economic status or education level how is that not discrimination?
Click to expand...
I did not get the idea that the poster was saying we should deny anyone the vote for the reasons you listed. He was merely defining what the Constitution says. We use the term “right” so frequently these days that it seems to have lost its meaning. IMO, we should not deny the ability to vote based on economic status, but it is not too much to expect, I think, that the voter be able to read the ballot. And I don’t think showing ID is out of line either.
 
mary_bobo said:
And I don’t think showing ID is out of line either.
Click to expand...
I work at the polls in different capacities depending on how many people we can cobble together. ID matters and is required. Strangers just don’t walk in and vote. If you recognize someone you don’t ID them. I know the people who vote where I vote. Their names and faces are familiar. There are lists that get initialed and checked and cards that get signed even before someone walks up to the machine.

But many people still show up at the wrong voting place and have to be directed to the proper voting station based on their residence.

If all else fails the person can vote provisionally and the matter is settled later. It’s a simple process. I’ve never had a single problem with a person exercising this most basic civic responsibility.
 
crowonsnow said:
I work at the polls in different capacities depending on how many people we can cobble together. ID matters and is required. Strangers just don’t walk in and vote. If you recognize someone you don’t ID them. I know the people who vote where I vote. Their names and faces are familiar. There are lists that get initialed and checked and cards that get signed even before someone walks up to the machine.

But many people still show up at the wrong voting place and have to be directed to the proper voting station based on their residence.

If all else fails the person can vote provisionally and the matter is settled later. It’s a simple process. I’ve never had a single problem with a person exercising this most basic civic responsibility.
Click to expand...
You must not live in Florida 🙂 🙂 Seiously, in that state there are folks who vote there and also at their home precinct by mail-in ballot. And at some voting places, people arrive and find that they are not registered there. Sometimes they have moved and have not changed their registration. I agree that many, many voting sites have no problems at all. Mine doesn’t. But there are states that are a real problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top