Mandatory Voting in U.S. Coming?

[xsedrinam]

Would you be for or against compulsory voting laws in U.S. elections?
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc07a.htm
"Among the long-standing democracies that make voting compulsory in elections are Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Other well established democratic nations - The Netherlands in 1970 and Austria more recently - repealed such legal requirements after they had been in force for decades. Mandatory voting is also used in Latin America. Examples there include Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Ecuador. In some countries voting has been made compulsory at the discretion of sub-national governments, or is applied only to certain types of elections."
X

[mactastic]

What's the enforcement mechanism? Jail? And isn't the act of not voting in protest a legitimate action?

IDK, I'm not big on forcing people to do things.

[blackfox]

for how many candidates?<ahem>


Personally I do not think that Civic participation can be mandated. It is the voluntary effort that makes the experience (and the person) meaningful, thoughtful and relevant.

You cannot coerce someone into thought or engagement in any meaningful way.

[solvs]

Never happen. You have the right to vote, but you also have the right not to.

[miloblithe]

Never happen. You have the right to vote, but you also have the right not to.

Well, except for places where voting is mandatory.

The enforcement is usually a tax, I believe.

I think more could be accomplished by making election say a national holiday and fining any company that does not allow their employees sufficient time to go vote. Same with local elections.

[Ugg]

Well, except for places where voting is mandatory.

The enforcement is usually a tax, I believe.

I think more could be accomplished by making election say a national holiday and fining any company that does not allow their employees sufficient time to go vote. Same with local elections.

I agree, the idea of a weekday election really sucks. Especially for those who work a long ways from where they work. It's a disincentive to vote but the Republicans want to keep it that way so i doubt it'll ever change. Although I'm all in favor of anything that increases the turnout.

[Desertrat]

"...the Republicans want to keep it that way so i doubt it'll ever change."

You're gonna have to a whole bunch of explaining for me to take that off my "cockamamie idea of the year" list. After all, the polls are open for twelve hours, and there are also two weeks' worth of time for early voting at (commonly) several places around one's county besides the courthouse. I don't at all see how the present system works to Republican advantage.

I have enough trouble with folks' reasoning that they won't register to vote in order not to be called for jury duty...

Purely personal opinion, with no sort of data: I think that in general, conservatives are less active, politically, than liberals, and thus are more likely to stay home on election day. If I'm anywhere near correct, then, it would be to the Republicans' advantage to have mandatory voting on a Saturday.

Anyhow, the idea of mandatory voting sucks. "Don't vote; it only encourages the bastards!"

:), 'Rat

[xsedrinam]

Anyhow, the idea of mandatory voting sucks. "Don't vote; it only encourages the bastards!":), 'Rat

:) So, it's the ol' Q&A from the past:
Q-Which is the greater problem in U.S. politics, ignorance or apathy?
A-I don't know and I don't care.
X

[mactastic]

Purely personal opinion, with no sort of data: I think that in general, conservatives are less active, politically, than liberals, and thus are more likely to stay home on election day. If I'm anywhere near correct, then, it would be to the Republicans' advantage to have mandatory voting on a Saturday.

That's actually untrue AFAIK. I'd have to go looking, but I've read that the Dems actually enjoy a registration advantage, however they suffer from a less-than-reliable voter syndrome much more than the GOP does.

The GOP, with fewer members nationwide, nevertheless can generally turn out a higher percentage of it's members reliably.

[clayj]

I completely disagree with the idea of mandatory voting. It's bad enough that I, who pay attention to the issues and do my homework regarding the candidates and what they stand for, regularly get my vote nullified by some moron who's picking his nose with one hand while pulling the lever that someone told him to pull with the other.

If it were up to me, you'd have to take (and pass) a short, easy test before being allowed to vote: Identify the candidates, identify their beliefs (multiple choice), etc.

Oh, and there'd be a requirement that all voter registrations be completed, without exception, 60 days before the election. No provisional ballots, no same-day registration, and for damn sure no illegal aliens voting (citizens only). I've had it up to here (gestures at forehead) with election day BS.

[mactastic]

Oh so that was YOUR vote I was invalidating... excellent. Hey, where's the Kleenex in these booths anyway? :p

[zimv20]

where's the Kleenex in these booths anyway? :p
someone's a little too into politics :-)

[Ugg]

someone's a little too into politics :-)


Are you sure he's talking about voting booths? ;)

[mactastic]

someone's a little too into politics :-)

For my boogers you pervert. ;)

My goodness this is a mature discussion!

[atszyman]

Would it be mandatory for all elections? i.e. local, state, and national?

If this is the case then we need to completely re-work the system so that it is easier to vote if you are caught last minute travel plans. There needs to be a way to vote remotely that is easier than absentee ballots. Oregon may have the right idea with voting by mail.

If you are talking strictly on the national elections we could eliminate the electoral college and go by popular vote. This would allow for voting regardless of location since one vote=one vote.

[xsedrinam]

For my boogers you pervert. ;)

My goodness this is a mature discussion!

" and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." May seem funny, but it snot :eek:

I'd be concerned where there were elitist, academic requirements (i.e. 'essays') to be passed in order to qualify for voice and vote, although I hear where the argument is coming from.
X

[fistful]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing as long as there is a check box to the effect of: "lousy good for nothing candidates, I'm voting not to vote [x]"

[mactastic]

That's what the write-in spot is for. ;)

Still shouldn't be mandatory though.

[Lyle]

If it were up to me, you'd have to take (and pass) a short, easy test before being allowed to vote: Identify the candidates, identify their beliefs (multiple choice), etc.Haven't things like that been proposed before? I think it's safe to say that a number of organizations that would shoot that idea down in a heartbeat, claiming that it's discriminatory.

[miloblithe]

Haven't things like that been proposed before? I think it's safe to say that a number of organizations that would shoot that idea down in a heartbeat, claiming that it's discriminatory.

Well, by definition it is discriminatory as it's distinguishing between people who can and can vote. Age requirements are discriminatory too. The key is to justify the discrimination.

There are a number of reasons not to have things like this. First off, who designs and who administers the tests? That alone should be cause enough for worry. Second, it is contrary to democratic principles--the idea that we are all equal under the law (that may not be a concern to elitists, but it should be). Another would be cost, for all the anti-government expansion types, adding another beaurocracy isn't cheap. Yet more reasons... what about some old person who can't read? In my experience as an adult literacy tutor, there are plenty of people who can't read more than a few words (and could read names on a ballot) and who have political opinions. Are you really saying that this person has no right to vote?


I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing as long as there is a check box to the effect of: "lousy good for nothing candidates, I'm voting not to vote [x]"

A lot of countries have "against all" as a choice on the ballot. I'd agree that should be included if there were mandatory voting.


Rat, lots of people have to work two jobs on election day. If you're up at 5 to go to your first job and come home from your second at 10, I'm pretty sure you'll have missed the 12 hour window. Others have long work days. Many people have just one job that keeps them busy all hours and won't have the time to vote. This isn't a huge percentage of the population, of course, but we're probably talking hundreds of thousands of votes, at least.

There are also lots of people who could vote, but are too tired from their jobs and might vote if they had the day off.

There are also people who currently vote, but given the day off might go to the beach. In total, I think having a holiday would increase voter turnout a couple percentage points, but it wouldn't be a huge change. Apathy is the main obstacle.

[zimv20]

Well, by definition it is discriminatory as it's distinguishing between people who can and can vote. Age requirements are discriminatory too.
it also discriminates against the illiterate.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Republicans will have none of this you can be sure and at the moment they run everything, kind of scary isnt it.

[Desertrat]

"Republicans will have none of this you can be sure..."

Seems to me the Dems pretty much ran the Congress from the 1930s until 1994...

The deep south had literacy tests. There's an ancient joke about it. No offense intended: A black guy goes to take the literacy test. The test would have overwhelmed a Nobellist in English and Literature. The testee was asked if he knew what the writing meant: "Yassuh. It means no ******'s gonna vote in Mississippi."

For all that my emotional views about voting are elitist, as to owning property or knowing the candidates and issues, there is NO way that any sort of testing before one can vote will ever be fair to all.

And the whole deal is to be as fair as humanly possible. Voting, in many ways, is exercising control over one's destiny. Nobody should be denied that right. That one exercises a right poorly, or doesn't bother to exercise that right, in no way obviates the existence of the right.

I dunno. To me, it's all part of "equality under the law"...

'Rat

[zap2]

anti, i don't like forcing things on people

[miloblithe]

For all that my emotional views about voting are elitist, as to owning property or knowing the candidates and issues, there is NO way that any sort of testing before one can vote will ever be fair to all.

And the whole deal is to be as fair as humanly possible. Voting, in many ways, is exercising control over one's destiny. Nobody should be denied that right. That one exercises a right poorly, or doesn't bother to exercise that right, in no way obviates the existence of the right.


Excellently put. On an emotional level, we'd like to disqualify some people (those we think disagree with us), but we know that's not right.

[Thomas Veil]

I'm not exactly sure what the objective of mandatory voting is supposed to be.

If it's getting people more involved or raising the awareness of the electorate, I have a better suggestion.

You know those presidential debates?

You know those web sites like factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)?

Remember (older members) those Joe Isuzu commercials, where the car salesman made outrageous claims, and the text at the bottom of the screen said, "He's lying"?

Well...combine the three.

After the debates are originally broadcast...run 'em again. Only the second time, whenever one candidate or the other offers an exaggeration or lie, have the actual facts, from Factcheck.org, superimposed on the bottom of the screen. Call a lie a lie, no matter which candidate is doing it.

That's aside from the oldest and truest way of getting more voters involved...get better candidates.

[xsedrinam]

I'm not exactly sure what the objective of mandatory voting is supposed to be.

If it's getting people more involved or raising the awareness of the electorate, I have a better suggestion.

You know those presidential debates?

You know those web sites like factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)?

Remember (older members) those Joe Isuzu commercials, where the car salesman made outrageous claims, and the text at the bottom of the screen said, "He's lying"?

Well...combine the three.

After the debates are originally broadcast...run 'em again. Only the second time, whenever one candidate or the other offers an exaggeration or lie, have the actual facts, from Factcheck.org, superimposed on the bottom of the screen. Call a lie a lie, no matter which candidate is doing it.

That's aside from the oldest and truest way of getting more voters involved...get better candidates.

One of the "pro" position objectives is to address voter apathy and low turnouts at the polls. It's being debated in GB again this week:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436361/posts
'Getting better candidates' as mentioned, would be another facet of the debate, but that seems to be part of the "chicken or the egg" dilemma. I'm not necessarily for the idea, but just putting forth some of the "pro" position on it.
X

[stubeeef]

I would be for mandatory voting if they moved the election day to April 16th.

[Xtremehkr]

Some claim that freedom is not free. And yet in a world without ownership everything would be free, except for those who choose to try and own certain things. Which in a free world, they would be free to try and own.

So in a world divided between those who wish to share and those who wish to own, a conflict arises.

A Democracy tries (when it works best) to mediate between those who wish to exist based on what they can do and those who would dictate how others can live based upon what they own, or how much they own.

So in a way it does support the notion that freedom is not free. If those who wish to live and share do not stand against those who wish to own everything, they would quickly find themselves with nothing in which they could support themselves freely.

In one aspect, making people vote for representatives which are supposed to ensure their freedom would seem like a good idea, as they may not see the danger in not doing anything to ensure their right to freely exist.

In another aspect, it is inherently unfree to be made to vote in your own interests. Despite the fact that inaction is often as damaging acting in favor of those who are only acting in their own interests.

Sometimes, despite what I would like to see, I think that people have to experience the inequality created by inaction before they appreciate the qualities gained through action.

But since the latter seems to be almost necessary when it comes to convincing people that freedom is not free. I do not support mandatory voting, simply because the lesson is so much more appreciated when people learn the hardway.

The caveat being, some people never do seem to accept that their voices combined with others will make a difference.

I don't support mandated voting. I support educated voting. Education is often taught the easy way and just as often learned the hard way. Either way, you don't really appreciate what you have until it is gone.

[solvs]

Well, except for places where voting is mandatory.
I meant here in the US. ;)

And for those who think the Liberals or Conservatives would have anything to gain by this, remember it is the middle of the road people who don't vote. Based on the swing voters I know who didn't vote this year, they hated Bush but didn't like Kerry. I think they would have voted against Bush just because they didn't like him, though I'm sure Kerry would have won a couple for GW himself. But that's just this year. In 4 years it could be a different story entirely.

That's why they call them "swing" voters.

[yg17]

I don't support manditory voting. I'm only 19, but have ignored local elections since I registered. Why do I care who's running the school board when I don't have kids going there or some stupid proposition to raise property tax when I'm either living with my parents or a college dorm and don't own any property. I've got better things to do on my Tuesdays than decide who's going to be in charge of the fire department, as long as they're there if I ever need them, I don't care if a chimp who escaped from the zoo runs it. I don't want to be forced to waste my time to vote in those elections and I don't want to be punished for not voting.

[xsedrinam]

I was sort of hoping some Aussies would drop by and give us their 2¢ (Australian) on their dealings good/bad with mandatory voting in OZ. Maybe they have, and I didn't notice?
X

[skunk]

I would be for mandatory voting if they moved the election day to April 16th.What happened on April 16th? Which of these are you celebrating?

This Day in History > April 16th

April 16th in History
1705: Isaac Newton is knighted. From then on, just call him Sir
1883: Paul Kruger becomes the first President of South Africa
1917: Lenin returns to Russia to start Bolshevik Revolution. Workers feel a sense of unity
1981: The first American space shutte, Columbia, returns safely to Earth


April 16th birthdays
1844: Anatole France, French writer
1867: Wilbur Wright, American aviation pioneer
1889: Charlie Chaplin, American silent film actor and director
1921: Peter Ustinov, Bitish actor and novelist
1955: Ellen Barkin, American actress :confused:

Ah, just sussed it: as a "flyboy", do you revere Wilbur Wright, the second man to achieve a powered flight (after that Kiwi bloke)? Obviously it's not Lenin.... :rolleyes:

[anonymous161]

I agree that election day should be the day after Tax day. People need to vote when they are angry, not when the holidays are coming up.

Good candidates. Give the people someone to vote for and they will vote. What the hell difference does one vote make in a presidential election when both candidates suck (and have more money than God)? The first sign of a decent candidate these days might be one who is willing to work for free. Another good sign might be that he/she is not related to any former presidents, just a thought.

[Lyle]

The first sign of a decent candidate these days might be one who is willing to work for free.This is just a side note, but the U.S. President draws a relatively low salary; it's the other perks of being the President that make up the difference. Here's one (non-political) article (http://people.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm) that talks about their compensation. My point is that if you're a rich guy already (as most Presidents are), working for free is not such a big sacrifice (IMO).

[mactastic]

How 'bout we vote the day after the federal budget is signed into law instead? ;)

[Desertrat]

yg17, does it not occur to you that your vote could affect the quality of life for your parents? Or, for the parents of your friends? Don't be too self-centered about what is in your best interest. There's not only today, but there are many thousand tomorrows for one of your age.

Your parents pay property taxes, and I imagine they hope that qualified people run their city...

'Rat

[tristan]

The less people that vote the better - it makes my vote count that much more. The next election, I hope nobody votes except me.

Actually, i'd like to see more electronic voting, either by computer or phone. It's simpler and more efficient. Of course, hackers would take over the system and make Kevin Mitnick our next president.

[anonymous161]

This is just a side note, but the U.S. President draws a relatively low salary; it's the other perks of being the President that make up the difference. Here's one (non-political) article (http://people.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm) that talks about their compensation. My point is that if you're a rich guy already (as most Presidents are), working for free is not such a big sacrifice (IMO).

Obviously it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, but I would be a symbolic jesture at least. I don't see W turning down the salary or the expense accounts. I don't know about you, but $400,000 is just a tad more than I make.

[Thomas Veil]

Voting the day after April 15th would be yet one more guarantee of a GOP win, since they're usually the ones who are so uptight about paying taxes (despite the fact that the US has one of the lowest taxation rates of any industrialized country in the world, and despite the fact that many of the richest pay little or no taxes anyway).

Another problem with forcing people to vote is that they may protest being forced by picking just anybody, not the candidate they truly prefer. And, of course, you're are adding to the voting pool a large number of people who don't have the ambition or curiosity to look outside to see if it's raining, much less bone up on a candidate's position.

But as I said earlier, the best way is to get better candidates. Obviously, the number 1 reason folks don't vote is they feel that all politicians are corrupt...so much so that even when a candidate promises to be different, they automatically don't believe it. You can't correct that by forcing people to vote, but you can get rid of the lobbyists in Congress and the corporate money in elections.

[Lyle]

Obviously it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, but I would be a symbolic jesture at least. I don't see W turning down the salary or the expense accounts. I don't know about you, but $400,000 is just a tad more than I make.What does "W" have to do with this? Has any U.S. President ever turned down the salary or expense account? (I think Perot pledged to do so, if elected).

And sure, $400k is a good bit more than I make as well, but that's not the point. That amount of money is a drop in the bucket to pretty much any candidate, and to turn it down would be (as you correctly noted) little more than a symbolic gesture.

The more interesting question you asked (sort of) is, what would have to change in the system to allow good candidates -- who don't have oil or ketchup-based fortunes to draw from -- to run a viable campaign and stand a chance at getting elected?

[mactastic]

The more interesting question you asked (sort of) is, what would have to change in the system to allow good candidates -- who don't have oil or ketchup-based fortunes to draw from -- to run a viable campaign and stand a chance at getting elected?

Precisely the changes those same monied folks who run the show would never allow - publicly financed campaigns. Arizona did it, as did Maine IIRC.

It's not a panacea for complete change, but it's a step in the right direction. Forcing candidates to spend a minimum of 6 hours a day playing 'dialing-for-dollars' really cuts into the time they should be spending studying policy options or finding out what their constituents (the ones without the resources to buy access) want from their elected reps.

[Lyle]

Precisely the changes those same monied folks who run the show would never allow - publicly financed campaigns. Arizona did it, as did Maine IIRC.I know absolutely zero about this, so thanks for the heads-up. I need to read up on this, even if (as you predict) it never takes hold on a national level. It sounds interesting.