Jump to content

Should voting be made compulsory

alchemi2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

One thing to consider in compulsory voting is how to legislate it and at what levels of government is voting mandatory? Specifically federal or including local elections (which I think affect the average citizen more than federal elections...)? Although I do think mandatory voting is an interesting idea - a sort of grid-iron democracy. Yet I'm frightened of what the majority of an unintelligent population would create.

Funny how far our society is from the society in Starship Troopers where you must serve your planet to be able to vote. People risking their lives so they can vote (among other privileges). As opposed to our fat asses not voting when we are free to do so because of the minimalistic view of an insignificant, single vote.

Khan

Khan

Posted
Posted

Damn you Edric! You just didn't work hard enough! Now us Londoners have to endure boris... When you come back you better win!

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
Damn you Edric! You just didn't work hard enough! Now us Londoners have to endure boris... When you come back you better win!

Well, you heard Ken - he took responsibility for the result! It wasn't my fault; the fact that I'm leaving town is no indication of anything. :P

He praised Ken in his acceptance speech, which I thought was quite good, as we've all had enough of the 'Punch and Judy' politics.

Meh, yes, but Boris' words ring a bit hollow after the relentless smear campaign run by his friends over at the Evening Standard, and by his own website.

Oh, and also, the BNP got a seat on the Greater London Authority. Considering how they're trying really hard to get rid of the Nazi image, I found it hilarious that their candidate seems to dress like a brownshirt.

But going back on topic:

One thing to consider in compulsory voting is how to legislate it and at what levels of government is voting mandatory? Specifically federal or including local elections (which I think affect the average citizen more than federal elections...)?

I would introduce it at all levels of government, and for enforcement I would use the Australian method (I don't know what it is, exactly, but it appears to be working). Also, I think the federal elections make far more difference in people's lives, though of course it may be more difficult to see that because the politicians are more distant.

Although I do think mandatory voting is an interesting idea - a sort of grid-iron democracy. Yet I'm frightened of what the majority of an unintelligent population would create.

What makes you think the majority of an unintelligent population has less judgement than the minority of an unintelligent population?

Funny how far our society is from the society in Starship Troopers where you must serve your planet to be able to vote. People risking their lives so they can vote (among other privileges). As opposed to our fat asses not voting when we are free to do so because of the minimalistic view of an insignificant, single vote.

Many people risked their lives - and died - in the 19th century so that we would get the vote. Voting is an absolute right; the most basic human right of all, in fact, since the right to vote is the right to influence decisions that determine all other rights. The society described in Starship Troopers is an unjust, evil and tyrannical one. Although I do feel that voting is an obligation, not just a right, so I would have no problem with a law saying that people have to serve the community for a certain amount of time if they don't vote at several elections in a row.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

On the matter of voting, I was curious about something. When people speak of the two-party system of America, do they mean there really are only two official parties or just that those are the only parties with a real chance of being elected?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
On the matter of voting, I was curious about something. When people speak of the two-party system of America, do they mean there really are only two official parties or just that those are the only parties with a real chance of being elected?

The American electoral system is designed so that only two parties have a real chance of being elected. There are many other legal parties besides the two main ones, but all those others are much, much smaller, have no representation in government (not a single elected member of Congress), and in some cases they are actively persecuted by the election authorities by not being allowed to register their candidates or participate in debates.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all those smaller parties are good - some of them, like the Libertarian Party, are truly awful, incredibly reactionary, and downright evil. But there are also moderate parties, as well as greens, social democrats, socialists, and even a communist party. And none of them stand a chance.

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

Hmmmm... Obviously, there are cases where if all voted for who they truly supported the most, this could result in a difference. However, there are cases where it can be all but guaranteed that the vast majority of the population will vote for one of a few parties (or any party excluding the one the next group to be mentioned is interested in) to the effect that even if all those who abstained along with all those who decided to vote for the least ''evil'' (in the sense of choosing btw lesser evils) party amongst the parties supported by the vast majority (in order to exert at least some influence towards one of their objectives) party all decided to vote for the party/s they truly supported the most this would make no difference (at least, in terms of elections).

Given that a vote placed in your most supported party may have no significant effect, it seems voting for a lesser evil may be reasonable.

Then there is the case that the ''evils'' you can choose from are so similar that the decision would have negligible consequence/effect. In this case, it seems reasonable to abstain.

Of course in reality, one's vote might always count toward a gained chair or increased popularity.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

I have started another topic to discuss the issue of voting for the lesser evil. In general, I believe that you should only vote for the lesser evil if your vote is actually needed to tip the balance between the lesser evil and a greater evil. If you live in an area where the lesser evil is going to win anyway (or lose anyway), with or without your vote, then why bother voting for them? You should give your vote to a small party that you agree with, and that needs all the votes it can get.

But going back on topic... do you believe voting should be mandatory? :) I definitely do, as outlined above.

bob_fox

bob_fox

Posted
Posted

Voting should not be compulsory until the majority votes for a party that would make it compulsory, even if it's a party representing neo-Nazi ideals. Isn't that democracy?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted
Voting should not be compulsory until the majority votes for a party that would make it compulsory, even if it's a party representing neo-Nazi ideals. Isn't that democracy?

A neo-Nazi party wouldn't make voting compulsory - quite the contrary, it would make it forbidden.

And yes, certainly the majority should have the right to decide, in a referendum, whether voting is voluntary or compulsory. But what should be the default until such a referendum is held? And for that matter, should voting in this referendum be voluntary or compulsory? That's the problem with rules about voting in a democracy: They are self-referential. You can vote on the rules for voting, but you really shouldn't go any further and vote on the rules for voting on the rules for voting. You should have elected representatives that decide the rules for voting on the rules for voting (which means the rules for the referendum mentioned above). And if I were the elected representative, those rules would include mandatory voting.

bob_fox

bob_fox

Posted
Posted
A neo-Nazi party wouldn't make voting compulsory - quite the contrary, it would make it forbidden.

You're right. Sorry, that was a silly thing of me to say. Of course, many totalitarian regimes have forced people to vote, but for their party (it's happened in a number of African states). I was just making the point (I didn't do it too well, though) that many would consider the idea of mandatory voting highly undemocratic. But it could be argued that it would be highly democratic. Forcing the people to make their choice would still result in a government chosen by the people, wouldn't it?

alchemi2

alchemi2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Forcing people to make the effort to vote so long as there is a none of above option, would be truly democratic, as the vast majority don't vote out of apathy, regardless of what excuse they make, if they actually had to go to the polling station and mark their ballot most would vote rather than just despoil their ballot, hence why the None option needs to be included.

alchemi2

alchemi2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's always a none of the above option, you just need to spoil the ballot.

True but some despoil it by accident, by giving the option not to vote for the parties standing you could encourage others to stand instead.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.