Should voting be compulsory?

[Lee]

If you're on this forum, chances are you live in a democratic country. The UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the majority countries of our posters. In that we have a 50/50 split between eligible voters and ineligible. In the UK any citizen over the age of 18 is eligible unless they're a felon, this is the general consensus.

In Australia, voting is compulsory, in Canada voters are automatically registered. In the USA and UK voters must register and THEN vote, both countries have a declining voting percentage (aside from the major elections). Is this a true representation of the people? That only a certain percentage of people vote.

What I ask is should voting be made compulsory to finally get a representative in office "of the people, by the people, for the people?"

 

[blood and thunder]

no, it shouldn't be compulsory - if someone acknowledges the fact that they don't know enough about the issues to make a vote, then good for them, i'd rather that than people who aren't quite sure voting ucnertainly in, just becaused they're being forced to in the name of democracy. of course you can argue that what we vote for is not truly democratic if not many people are voting, but tbh it's the fact that we have the right to vote which is more important than whether people actually vote or not. and also abstaining to vote is also used by people who feel betrayed by first past the post/two party voting system.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

I like having to vote. It makes you actually think about the issues and who is best for the job. In Australia it is compulsary but I know people that can get around it if they don't care. We call it a 'donkey vote'. It's where you go into the booth to vote and you're meant to list in order of 1-10 (or however many candidates there are) who you prefer, 1 being the most prefered. If you go in and put 1 in every box they will disregard your vote but you still get marked off as having voted.

I personally think it's good to have it compulsary because as I said above it makes you not want to waste your vote so you'll look into it more and really think about it rather than just sitting at home playing xBox and then getting shitty because the one you didn't want gets elected.

Just vote, it's not that hard really...

 

[Razor]

I say no. Simply because most of America (something like 75%) are already to ******ed to know that the Constitution expressly forbids the creation of a national religion. Or the fact that over half couldn't name the 3 branches of our government. If you don't even know the 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, Legislative), let alone the god damned Bill of Rights, you have no place voting.

I'm a big proponent for a competency exam before someone votes, so compulsory voting would basically nix that idea. The basic questions, like "Can you read a ballot and tell that if you follow the line from the person's name to this chad, and put a hole in it, you voted for that person?" or "Hey, what branch of government would the President be serving in?" If you fail it, you can't vote. Because we don't need people who were herded into the polls by fear-mongers (from both sides, mind you) that don't even know for what they are voting.

I suppose compulsory voting could work with a nation that actually knew what was going on with their government. But for America, it simply wouldn't do any good.

 

[Tastycles]

No, people who don't care being forced to vote is dangerous. The european elections have a turnout of less than 50%. If you forced the other 50% to vote, the chances are that large numbers would vote for ******ed parties as a protest, and in a PR system, that means giving the raving loony monster party seats in government.

I think that voting is something that you should only really do if you have an actual opinion, and a basic understanding of what a vote means. The amount of people calling Gordon Brown unelected but saying Winston Churchill is our greatest leader is representative of people not understanding what they are doing when they go to the booth. Basically, no, voting should be opt in, and it is one of the few things the British system has right.

 

[blood and thunder]

I say no. Simply because most of America (something like 75%) are already to ******ed to know that the Constitution expressly forbids the creation of a national religion. Or the fact that over half couldn't name the 3 branches of our government. If you don't even know the 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, Legislative), let alone the god damned Bill of Rights, you have no place voting.

I'm a big proponent for a competency exam before someone votes, so compulsory voting would basically nix that idea. The basic questions, like "Can you read a ballot and tell that if you follow the line from the person's name to this chad, and put a hole in it, you voted for that person?" or "Hey, what branch of government would the President be serving in?" If you fail it, you can't vote. Because we don't need people who were herded into the polls by fear-mongers (from both sides, mind you) that don't even know for what they are voting.

no, just no. what you're proposing is akin to intellectual fascism, and is elitism, in the most shortsighted way possible. why should you have to know the three branches of government, and what their correct names are etc? I don't know about america, but here in the uk even really intelligent people, say at my university, studying courses like physics and medicine couldn't tell you that. you're expecting too many people to know information that really is irrelevant to them in any practical sense. sure, it does affect them, but no so much so that knowledge of the government and constitution and how it operates is required. given that much intellectual debate takes place regarding the constitution, what is classified as what, what the roles of each branch should be etc among intellectuals and experts in the field, don't you think it's a bit rich to expect the normal person on the street to know, or care for that matter? politics, for most people, is about making sure they get the best standard of living.

and i'm shocked you're proposing intelligence tests - i know that's all you're proposing ,but it's a slippery slope when you start deciding who is and who isn't worthy to vote. also, "******ed" people still have to abide by the laws and policies laid down by government/parliament, so they should get a say - what you're proposing is one group being ruled by another with no say in their fate - and that's very worrying indeed.

 

[Big J]

There is already enough voter fraud forcing everyone to vote would just make it worse.

There was an election where a state assembly seat was decided by 290 votes. Sounds ok, BUT an investigation and recount found that some of those votes were from illegal aliens and some people had voted 3 times. The repub did nothing and let the dem get waway with it.

Look at the Minn. senate race, The Republican won and the democrats demanded a recount. What happened? They recount "FOUND" a bunch of new votes for the dem. I little town had more votes for the dem then there are PEOPLE IN THE TOWN. The stse supreme court, mostly appointed by dems, found NOTHING WRONG and awarded the election to the dems.

Everyone eligible to vote has the same chance, no one is keeping people away from the polls.

 

[gd]

I don't think that voting should be compulsory. There are obviously people out there who don't know enough or care enough to vote, so why should they be forced to? Just because voting becomes a requirment, it doesn't mean that people would educate themselves on the issues, it would just mean that we would have more uneducated votes. I am all for voting, I likely will vote when I can, but it obviously isn't for everyone.

As for Razor's idea of an intelligence test before voting, absolutely not. People have the right to vote, if you were to take that away from them because they don't pass a test, that'd be one of the most undemocratic things ever. Sure, some voters are morons, but it is still their right to vote.

 

[Razor]

no, just no.

I would say yes, just yes. But you know how it goes.

what you're proposing is akin to intellectual fascism, and is elitism, in the most shortsighted way possible.

How so? I'm not asking them 2+2, I'm asking them relevant questions to our government.

why should you have to know the three branches of government, and what their correct names are etc?

Because it's their damn government. You shouldn't be voting for anything unless you know how it works, and how your vote will effect the outcome of that process.

I don't know about america, but here in the uk even really intelligent people, say at my university, studying courses like physics and medicine couldn't tell you that.

..And that's not acceptable. People should know how their government goes about regulating their lives. To not know is to also not know when they overstep their bounds.

you're expecting too many people to know information that really is irrelevant to them in any practical sense. sure, it does affect them, but no so much so that knowledge of the government and constitution and how it operates is required.

1) How is it not relevant to them, if it affects them?

2) They live in the damn country, they should know how their country's government runs.

given that much intellectual debate takes place regarding the constitution, what is classified as what, what the roles of each branch should be etc among intellectuals and experts in the field, don't you think it's a bit rich to expect the normal person on the street to know, or care for that matter?

It doesn't take much to know that there are 3 branches of government, and that there exists a set of checks and balance to make sure that they do not overstep their legal bounds. Or that the President can't initiate war without Congress' approval, or that Congress is the one to make laws, not the Judicial or Executive. These basics should be known. Just because really smart people are discussing it doesn't mean that regular people shouldn't know these basics. That's like saying "Well....these really smart people are discussing Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, so I shouldn't bother myself with learning Algebra. They're learning it all so I don't have to." That's bullshit.

and i'm shocked you're proposing intelligence tests - i know that's all you're proposing ,but it's a slippery slope when you start deciding who is and who isn't worthy to vote.

Don't argue the slipper slope. That's not what I'm proposing. Just a simple government test that will ascertain that they know very basic knowledge about our government and how it's run. I'm not suggesting we start up the Jim Crow laws again.

also, "******ed" people still have to abide by the laws and policies laid down by government/parliament, so they should get a say - what you're proposing is one group being ruled by another with no say in their fate - and that's very worrying indeed.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that people who know what the fuck is going on with their government should vote, when the people who don't know shouldn't. How do we make sure that doesn't happen? Make them take a test. So if you want to vote, no one is stopping you. Open up a 5th grade social studies book and read up on what the Executive branch actually does. You're completely blowing my suggestion out of context.

 

[blood and thunder]

That's like saying "Well....these really smart people are discussing Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, so I shouldn't bother myself with learning Algebra. They're learning it all so I don't have to." That's bullshit.

how about you actually read what i wrote instead of just taking words i said and putting them into sentences that suit you - what i said was that, as intellectuals can't agree on definite roles for the branches etc, how can we expect ordinary people to? and differential equations and linear algebra are even more useless in my daily life than the finer points of the constitution tbh...

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that people who know what the fuck is going on with their government should vote, when the people who don't know shouldn't. How do we make sure that doesn't happen? Make them take a test. So if you want to vote, no one is stopping you. Open up a 5th grade social studies book and read up on what the Executive branch actually does. You're completely blowing my suggestion out of context.

yes you are - saying you're not doesn't make it so. unless your plan means people wo don't have the right to vote don't have to follow the law, which isn't what you're suggesting. if stupid people have to be governed by the government, they should get their say in who the government is. i don't see how you are overlooking this. if only cleverer people vote, then they are effectively running the country, as politicians will have no incentive to cater to "******ed" people, and they will fall by the wayside when it comes to legislative reforms etc.

 

[Razor]

how about you actually read what i wrote instead of just taking words i said and putting them into sentences that suit you - what i said was that, as intellectuals can't agree on definite roles for the branches etc, how can we expect ordinary people to? and differential equations and linear algebra are even more useless in my daily life than the finer points of the constitution tbh...

Oh look at you, getting a set of balls on ya. I did read what you wrote, and you made it sound like if others whom are smarter are discussing and figuring out the more intricate parts of a topic, the normal public shouldn't figure out the basics of the topic.

Then I, because I believe you don't know what you're talking about, went on to give the example of Linear Algebra and Differential Equations. If professors and intellectuals are still figuring out the intricacies of those subjects, then why learn Algebra, a basic building block? Oh. Because that logic doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and the intellectuals don't disagree on the roles of the American branches of government. Those roles are pretty clearly outlined in the Constitution. It's at what point do governments overstep that bound. We know Congress can make laws, but what can they make laws about? That's a discussion point, not "Can Congress make laws?" That's a basic truth. I'm arguing that people should know that basic truth before they can vote. Which just makes fucking sense.

yes you are - saying you're not doesn't make it so.

Actually, because I know what I'm arguing, it does.

unless your plan means people wo don't have the right to vote don't have to follow the law, which isn't what you're suggesting. if stupid people have to be governed by the government, they should get their say in who the government is.

You're not paying attention. If someone doesn't know how a specific topic will affect the outcome of government, then they won't know how it affects their lives, and how to vote accordingly. If you just believe what the nearest partisan person tells you, then you shouldn't be voting.

i don't see how you are overlooking this. if only cleverer people vote, then they are effectively running the country, as politicians will have no incentive to cater to "******ed" people, and they will fall by the wayside when it comes to legislative reforms etc.

They aren't "cleverer" people. I'm not giving an IQ test. I'm giving a basic knowledge test. A "This is Congress. What does it do?" test. If you can't answer that, then you don't know the basics of government, and you can't even begin to fathom how your vote will affect your life. If you don't know that, then how can you even begin to develop a stance? Listen to the loudest person?

Oh, and I don't understand why you keep bringing up ******ed people. I'm sure they can learn that Congress is a bicameral legislature just as easily as I can.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Well that would just be silly. 90% of the people who don't vote make that decision because they don't have the slightest idea about the countries Government or opposing political parties. You'd see people voting for idiots, the BNP would probably get a lot more votes than they do now. Do you really think forcing people to vote would be a good thing?

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

I don't think the vote should be made compulsary, simply because of the peoples right to free speech: if someone doesn't want to vote, why make them? It would serve only a negative purpose.

 

[blood and thunder]

not "Can Congress make laws?" That's a basic truth. I'm arguing that people should know that basic truth before they can vote. Which just makes fucking sense.

someone shouldn't have to know that tbh. what difference does it make, if they want to vote for someone they have the right to do that - and tbh do you really think a "test" is necessary to communicate stuff like that? how about just a sign/writing that basic stuff on the voting form? there's no need to patronize the population by making them take a test "can congress make laws? lolz i r smart".

You're not paying attention. If someone doesn't know how a specific topic will affect the outcome of government, then they won't know how it affects their lives, and how to vote accordingly. If you just believe what the nearest partisan person tells you, then you shouldn't be voting.

wow, more elitist bullshit. a lot of opinions are from other people, whether the opinion be from the guys you work with or karl marx's book, discussing and listening to toher people is a valid way or forming an opinion. just because someone doesn't have access to books/info on certain issues, or prefers to listen to someone they trust or whatever doesn't mean they should be ineligible from voting. i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a lot of people's opinions are based on others - not necessarily the "best" way to form an opinion, but that's the way it works, and there's little sense in trying to oppress people and force them to research every issue before voting.

If you don't know that, then how can you even begin to develop a stance? Listen to the loudest person?

while i agree that voters ideally would have an understanding of these basics, you're living in a fantasy world - evidently not everyone knows or cares if we have a bicameral legislature etc, hell i didn't know what that meant until i studied it at uni. i was still capable of forming an intelligent opinion on basic topics such as immigration and stuff, and therefore should probably be considered "appropriate" by someone like you to vote.

if one party is saying "i think we should shut our borders 100%" whilst another party is saying "we should allow assylum seekers and skilled workers in", you don't need to know about the constitution and parliament etc to know who you agree with. what's so difficutl to udnerstand about that?

typical kid who learnt a bit about goverment and politics and now feels superior to all the "******s" and has lost touch with what politics means to the masses tbh.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

Forcing people to vote? Oh god. No, no.. I like the way we do it now just fine. If we start forcing people to vote than Presidents are going to start getting into office for even weaker reasons than they do now. It wouldn't be about substance, it would be about who looked more suave, who seemed more hip, who appeared to have the cooler slogans and bumper stickers. They'd get elected on raw cult-like appeal than any kind of serious stance on issues. They'd...

...
...
...wait. Oh yeah. 2008. Nevermind.

 

[Razor]

I would first like to point out that you completely ignored me wiping the floor with you when you tried to get all high and mighty earlier, and you're trying to do it once more here. I'll have to do it all over again, won't I?

someone shouldn't have to know that tbh. what difference does it make, if they want to vote for someone they have the right to do that - and tbh do you really think a "test" is necessary to communicate stuff like that? how about just a sign/writing that basic stuff on the voting form? there's no need to patronize the population by making them take a test "can congress make laws? lolz i r smart".

It is necessary when the general public doesn't know that truth. It shows how stupid we are as a country when we don't even know basic truths about how our government is run. What better way to teach people about our government then make it mandatory for them to remember it? How do we do that? Make them pass the test before they can vote.

wow, more elitist bullshit. a lot of opinions are from other people, whether the opinion be from the guys you work with or karl marx's book, discussing and listening to toher people is a valid way or forming an opinion. just because someone doesn't have access to books/info on certain issues, or prefers to listen to someone they trust or whatever doesn't mean they should be ineligible from voting. i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a lot of people's opinions are based on others - not necessarily the "best" way to form an opinion, but that's the way it works, and there's little sense in trying to oppress people and force them to research every issue before voting.

Yeah, pay attention. I said that you should know the basics of government, not believe a certain way. Fucking read, then come back to me.

Also, this isn't some insider knowledge that I'm trying to trick people with here. This information is taught in what, 5th grade Social Studies? Then again in 9th grade Civics? If you can't remember it and fail the test, here's a solution. Fucking stop being an idiot and crack open an elementary textbook. It's all there for you.

while i agree that voters ideally would have an understanding of these basics, you're living in a fantasy world - evidently not everyone knows or cares if we have a bicameral legislature etc, hell i didn't know what that meant until i studied it at uni. i was still capable of forming an intelligent opinion on basic topics such as immigration and stuff, and therefore should probably be considered "appropriate" by someone like you to vote.

Not at all. You need to have a basic understanding of our government is run, or you don't know the implications of your vote. If you don't know that the President can't just declare war on whomever he wants, then vote for the President who claims he'll do just that, you're voting for a law-breaker. A treasonous law breaker at that.

if one party is saying "i think we should shut our borders 100%" whilst another party is saying "we should allow assylum seekers and skilled workers in", you don't need to know about the constitution and parliament etc to know who you agree with. what's so difficutl to udnerstand about that?

Yes, you do. You need to know if Congress can even make that distinction. In this case, they can. But if we as a whole didn't know that, and just allowed Congress to make that distinction without telling us or allowing us to vote (if necessary), then we're allowing them to trample on our rights. Then, when we vote for re-election, we don't know that we should be sending the people who violated our rights out of office. We assume they did a fantastic job.

Such as when Congress passed the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. It was a huge violation of our civil liberties as a nation. If you didn't know that Congress couldn't vote for increased surveillance and other breaches in personal privacy, you'd assume that the Act was legal. Get my point?

typical kid

I'm 19, and studying to be a Biological Engineer at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. I am no kid. In fact, in 10 years I'll be developing a procedure to grow you fucking replacement organs. Don't even begin to patronize me.

who learnt a bit about goverment and politics

What? That the Congress and pass laws and the President can't? Or that we have basic human rights, as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I learned that in fucking 5th grade, if that late. I didn't go researching and find this in some back corner of the library.

and now feels superior to all the "******s"

I still don't know where this "******s" is coming from. If you want to call people who don't know their basic civil liberties ******ed, go right on ahead. I never called them that.

and has lost touch with what politics means to the masses tbh.

I argue that if you don't know your basic legal rights, then your vote isn't really a vote at all. It's just a blind tally on a sheet that the pundits managed to rope in for their side. You could very well be voting for legislation that undermines your rights and the Constitution, and not even know it because you don't know the basics of government.

Then again, I've "lost touch." Sure. Keep telling yourself that.