This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Cumpolsory Voting

edited September 2008 in Politics
I was talking with some friends yesterday, and one of them mentioned that Australian citizens are required to vote. Considering that many Americans don't vote, this got me thinking. What if voting was cumpolsory in the US? Would requiring people to vote make them care a little more about politics, or would we simply see elections where the candidate who's name is more fun to say wins? Personally, I wouldn't mind, but then, I'm part of the 54% that votes.

Opinions anyone? Also, for people who live in Australia, do you find that making people vote makes them care?

Comments

  • No, It doesn't make them care - nor does it make the politicians care about anything but good PR and Pleasing the Majority.

    Not to mention, you end up with stupid, stupid laws - For example, the new Queensland system of licensing for motor vehicles. It used to be a tough, but thoroughly fair system, but it has now turned into a game of "How long can we deny anyone under the age of 35 a license?"
    Not to mention that it is filled with insane conditions - For example, a person just on their provisional license can not drive a Smart car(Because it has a Turbocharger) - however, you are perfectly fine to drive a monster RX-8, because it only has four cylinders and no turbocharger.

    I should note - I have not voted, and do no intend to until there is a candidate worth voting for in Australia. There may be compulsory voting, but there are ways around it.

    Lastly, I should note - People laughed(And told me I was a fool) when I said I'd leave the country if Kevin Rudd Was elected. Now, they have elected him, I left the country, and he's doing a spectacular job of doing four fifths of five eighths of fuck all.
  • That wouldn't work at all. It would actually make things worse. Now you have people who don't want to vote being forced to take time out of their day and do something they don't want to do. They didn't care enough to vote, so they're not going to care who they vote for. They'll vote randomly. They'll vote for whoever has a funny name. They'll vote for whoever promises to get rid of compulsory voting.

    Not only that, but there are a bunch of people who purposefully and intentionally don't vote to make a political statement. Those people would all protest, not vote, and go to jail.

    Also, I think compulsory voting would be unconstitutional.
  • jccjcc
    edited September 2008
    They'll vote randomly. They'll vote for whoever has a funny name.
    Don't some people vote like that already? President X because he tells funny jokes, or President Y because he's a member of a certain party, despite the fact the voter has no knowledge of his individual qualifications? I wouldn't be against something like requiring voting to maintain citizenship status in theory, but it would be too easy to abuse the system. Jail time would be a bad idea, as our jails are overcrowded already.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • Also, I think compulsory voting would be unconstitutional.
    Unconstitutional how? They're not telling us who to vote for, just that we have to vote. I guess it could be argued that not voting is a way of exercising free speech, but that's not exactly a popular reason for not voting (the survey that link goes to was only in California, but I hear a lot of people here in Texas citing the same reason for not voting).

    That said, I agree that it wouldn't work. Forcing people to vote doesn't really change anything. Improving the situation seems like a bit of a catch-22 though. You get more people to care by improving the country's educational system (since educated people are more likely to care enough to vote), but you have to vote the right people into office to make that happen.
  • So this is a case of trying to fix the top when it's all falling out the bottom (or the missing front)?
  • If you have a right that you may exercise freely, you really have to have the implied right to not exercise it, provided it's of your own choosing and you're aware of the consequences. Freedom to do something necessarily includes the freedom not to do that thing.

    Really, if someone doesn't care enough about the electoral process to vote, then I don't want that person participating in the electoral process anyhow.
  • If you have a right that you may exercise freely, you really have to have the implied right tonotexercise it, provided it's of your own choosing and you're aware of the consequences. Freedom to do something necessarily includes the freedomnotto do that thing.
    This is true, to an extent. There are rights you can't give up. Let's say we get a lawyer, and you willingly sign a contract agreeing to be my slave, and forfeit all your rights. Guess what? It doesn't count.
  • If you have a right that you may exercise freely, you really have to have the implied right tonotexercise it, provided it's of your own choosing and you're aware of the consequences. Freedom to do something necessarily includes the freedomnotto do that thing.
    This is true, to an extent. There are rights you can't give up. Let's say we get a lawyer, and you willingly sign a contract agreeing to be my slave, and forfeit all your rights. Guess what? It doesn't count.
    I know that's the way it is; I'm arguing about the way it ought to be. If someone really wants to give up all their rights, is of a sound mind, and thoroughly understands the consequences, why stop them? Besides, there are some people who already do this to an extent (24/7 master/slave BDSM couples are an example), though not in an official legal capacity.

    In any event, I would say that party to having the right to vote, you have the right to not vote. However, personally, if somebody doesn't vote, I don't listen to them when they complain about how things are, unless they're actively trying to change things through non-voting means.
  • I know that's the way it is; I'm arguing about the way it ought to be. If someonereallywants to give up all their rights, is of a sound mind, and thoroughly understands the consequences, why stop them? Besides, there are some people who already do this to an extent (24/7 master/slave BDSM couples are an example), though not in an official legal capacity.
    Because it's impossible to really know for 100% sure if someone really wants to give up all their rights, and is really of 100% of sound mind, etc. Therefore, you don't allow people to legally do something like that which can't be undone. It's such a severe thing that you wouldn't even want to take the .000001% chance of being wrong.

    That's also my major problem with the death penalty is that you can't undo it. If you put someone in jail, at least you can let them out and give them some money to make up for the mistake. If someone wants to be a slave, don't put legal backing behind it. You want them to keep the right to un-slave later. If they have the right to un-slave, they aren't slaves in the first place. Therefore, you don't let them legally slave in the first place.

    Without a system of absolute perfect justice, you can never do anything that can't be undone.
  • I know that's the way it is; I'm arguing about the way it ought to be. If someonereallywants to give up all their rights, is of a sound mind, and thoroughly understands the consequences, why stop them? Besides, there are some people who already do this to an extent (24/7 master/slave BDSM couples are an example), though not in an official legal capacity.
    Because it's impossible to really know for 100% sure if someone really wants to give up all their rights, and is really of 100% of sound mind, etc. Therefore, you don't allow people to legally do something like that which can't be undone. It's such a severe thing that you wouldn't even want to take the .000001% chance of being wrong.

    That's also my major problem with the death penalty is that you can't undo it. If you put someone in jail, at least you can let them out and give them some money to make up for the mistake. If someone wants to be a slave, don't put legal backing behind it. You want them to keep the right to un-slave later. If they have the right to un-slave, they aren't slaves in the first place. Therefore, you don't let them legally slave in the first place.

    Without a system of absolute perfect justice, you can never do anything that can't be undone.
    It's impossible to know anything, save for "cogito ergo sum," with 100% certainty. The only one who can understand a person's motivation is that person themselves, and even then, they still might not completely understand their motivation.

    No action can really be undone; you can apply another action, but you cannot remove the original action itself. If I wrongly jail you for murder and then let you out after 15 years when new evidence comes up, I have not undone 15 years of wrongful imprisonment. It's impossible.

    Yet, even though we can't demonstrate soundness of mind with 100% certainty, we continually allow people to make major irreversible decisions all the time. How about a woman who gets a hysterectomy? An abortion? Should we not allow people to have gender reassignment surgery? What about having a living will that dictates cessation of medical care if you fall into a persistent vegitative state? None of these things can be undone.

    Absolutely no decision, legal or otherwise, can ever be unmade. How, then, do we decide what decisions to "allow" people to make and which ones not?
  • I'm all in favor of cumpolsion. Ah heh heh heh.

    Seriously though.

    Compulsory voting would not solve any problems. It's impossible to force people to be free. If a person, for whatever reason, does not wish to exercise their rights and powers in the political arena, we cannot force them to do so. It's the same problem that presents itself in democracy-building in foreign nations. You can't make a people free and democratic; they have to want it for themselves. It goes against the very nature of political freedom to force people to exercise that freedom.
  • If we're talking about voting in federal elections, we don't have any Constitutional right to do so. The Constitution only provides that the states decide how they will choose electors. So far, we've all kept with the popular vote in a state = electoral votes.
Sign In or Register to comment.