Hello everyone! I would like to hear everyone's opinions on whether the government should make voting mandatory. I know there are tons of different viewpoints! I would like to hear them all if you can give them to me!
Thank You
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Having to do a debate for school, huh?
FG
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No we shouldn't.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
No. Freedom of speech (okay, not entirely the appropriate freedom, but I'm trying to be quick here) means also freedom to do nothing. Plus, how would we be expected to show our disapproval of our choices if we HAD to vote for someone. Sure, apathy drowns out anyone trying to make a stand against the choices, but still.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Shouldn't be mandatory because that's unfairly impinging on my sovereignty.
However, companies should consider donating 'gifts' to be given out to voters. You know, go vote and get this free basket of soap, candy bar, and razor.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Nah. But we should certainly stress the importance of voting more than we do now.
Hmm. We should think of a way to make it socially embarrassing to not vote...
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Plus, how would we be expected to show our disapproval of our choices if we HAD to vote for someone.
Why not turn in a blank ballot? The proposal is not (should not be) to make voting for someone mandatory, only to force people to actually show up and participate in the process.
Posted by Notorious Shira (Member # 6089) on :
Farmgirl, it's something like that. More of my first persuasive essay i need to write OY VEY! But thank you everyone! More people tell me your opinions!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Hmm. We should think of a way to make it socially embarrassing to not vote... "
By having candidates that are not embarrasing to vote for.
"Don't look at me, I didn't vote for Hitler. I voted for Stalin."
[ February 01, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, we should not and must not make voting mandatory. Democracy only works because the ignorant, unread, self-indulgent, immoral segment of society generally tends not to vote. The larger the percentage of voter turnout, the greater the likelihood that an unwise choice will be made in the election.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...well, I don't know, Ron. Wasn't the 2000 election a record low turnout of voters? And yet Bush still got into the White House...
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Hitler was elected by over 99% of the vote, with almost the whole population voting.
Ron, I think you are mis-informed.
quote:The best the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) could do in a election was 37.3 per cent of the vote they gained in July 1932. When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag.
quote:Although it was extremely difficult for the opposition parties to campaign properly, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party still failed to win an overall victory in the election on 5th March, 1933. The NSDAP received 43.9% of the vote and only 288 seats out of the available 647.
How about we send out the ballot with everyone's 1040 form?
If the government doesn't receive your ballot by April 15th (whether it's blank or filled in), the IRS will hunt you down...
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
In all reality, though, it'd be extremely difficult to make voting mandatory because it's handled at such a local level. It'd require that every county, township, district, state, etc. change their laws....which would probably take centuries, knowing government... Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: How about we send out the ballot with everyone's 1040 form?
Because the Libertarians would sweep all elections.(they want to abolish income taxes)
Also, what would be the punishment for not voting? Would we fine people or put them in jail?
[ February 01, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Hmm. We should think of a way to make it socially embarrassing to not vote...
For a long while I was insistent that I wasn't going to vote and trust me, all of the social embarrassment that's been saved up over the years was poured down on me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, Lalo, I think the 2000 elections had the highest turnout of any presidential elections in quite some time. I'll google for it if someone doesn't.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Force people to vote, and you may as well just give the office away by lottery. You can make them punch a ballot, but you can't force people to become informed on the issues. Certain people would be at an advantage under such a system.
A. The first name on the ballot B. Good-looking candidates C. Arnold Schwarzenneger
So if you want a Presienator, yeah, force the vote.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Huh. If you're right, Storm, looks like I owe Ron an apology. Never should've doubted him.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it could be okay to have compulsory voting, but only if someone can submit blank ballot.
* "VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population as reported by the Bureau of Census in their Current Population Reports, Series P-25. It is important to note that the VAP includes all persons over the age of 18 -- including a significant number of persons who are ineligible to vote in federal elections including legal and illegal aliens, persons under sentence of a felony conviction and those individuals who have been declared non compos mentis by a court of law. The VAP is therefore considerably larger than the pool of potential voters."
[ February 01, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's only 10%, Tristan. It's not *that* earth shattering. Could be some demographics and/or other factors at work here.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
What is only 10%?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The discrepancy between 1960 and 2000.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Ah, yes. Actually, I think it's rather a lot. Don't forget, a decrease of 10 percentages in this case means that ~17 percent fewer people bothered to vote.
(Don't hold me to the math. The long response time of this post is entirely due to me trying to calculate the percent/percentages, and I'm still not completely sure I got it right. Yay me.)
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Another site with statistics since 1924. It appears as if voter turnout for whatever reason hit a peak around 1960.
Posted by Notorious Shira (Member # 6089) on :
Thank You everyone! This is helping me out a lot, I think I may have to write you guys down as a source!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Tristan, that was the next logical question. You are the man for digging it up. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Check out Australia, your friendly mandatory-voting land.
Gabrielle Reilly, for your reading pleasure. [Warning: she's bending over while wearing a swimsuit, but don't let that distract you from her thoughtful take as an expatriate Australian.]
Posted by Notorious Shira (Member # 6089) on :
By the way, I just wanted to ask all of you if I could use some of the strong points you made in a paper I'm writing?!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Definitely not and when I get back on my own computer in my own apartment, I'll expand my reasons why.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
CT,
interesting article. I just had a lot of trouble getting past the memory of John Dean testifying in front of the Watergate Committee. For irrational reasons, it's hard to reconcile those memories with legal scholarship.
Doesn't mean the scholarship isn't there, it's just not what he's known for. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hooray for boobies!
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
No, dear God, absolutely not.
I have served on more precinct boards than I care to think about, in local, state, and national elections. I see the attitude of many people who do show up have to voting. I'd hate to see the chaos that would ensue if we were to force those people who really don't want to vote, to do so. The Bush-Gore election would look like kindergarten in contrast.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Notorious Shira, ideas are free for everyone to use; the question becomes whether or not you need to reference where you've got them. If you are writing a paper, references are good; however, a reference to a discussion board is perhaps not very impressive. If you use any of the facts given in the links provided, you should definitely give the source: that will increase your credibility. There's no need to mention how you found it, though. Also, Claudia Therese's link is probably a good reference if you find anything there you want to quote. As for the ideas in this thread, I don't think you necessarily need to provide a reference. As long as you don't take things straight off, and instead organize, develope and rewrite the ideas I believe your teacher would be satisfied. If this was a scholarly paper, everything would need to be referenced; with a (highschool?) persuasive essay you can get off easier (I hope).
(If someone more familiar with the american school system would weigh in here, that would be great. I don't want to unwittingly encourage plagiarism.)
[ February 01, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Notorious Shira (Member # 6089) on :
Terribly sorry, I phrased that wrong, i meant the links i recieved, and i just wanted to say thank you. Tristan, I understand that a forum is not a good reference, and I'm not using it, I found other good books and sites, i'm sry if i sound like a stupid freshmen high schooler Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Would there be an exception for those religiously opposed to political involvement? Or will we just throw them all in jail? It worked for Hitler.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Storm, in a country with a population of 285 million people, 10% is pretty significant.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
One solution is to link representatation in Congress to the percentage of adults eligible to vote who do vote. Due to it being not linked to gross population, the percentage could apply to weight the vote in the Senate.
Another quality idea from the woman who brought you the universal gamete storage/sterilization-based justice system.
[ February 02, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wasn't there a change in VAP calculations somwhere in the 60s or 70s when they lowered the voting age to 18?
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yes to Banna. That's one of the factors that I was thinking of, too.
Cow, thanks to the other figures Tristan provided, can't we see that 10% isn't really that great and that the percentage of people voting has remained pretty much constant over the last 60 years or so?
[ February 02, 2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Snuffles (Member # 4332) on :
::grumbles about homework::
grrrrr!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
1933 Election 43% voted for Nazis 1934 Plebiscite 89% (38m) voted `for' Hitler. 1936 Election 98% voted for the Nazis - people were obliged to vote, 99% turned out.
Here is one example in history of what happened when voting was made mandatory.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No to mandatory voting.
That way, only the people who care about the country get to decide what happens to it, and the ones who don't care (at least enough to get off the couch) can deal with the outcome. After all, they don't care. Wait, they care enough to gripe, but only to people that are in the same room as them, or at the other end of the phone. That means not me.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Ron Lambert,
I really begin to wonder. As far as I can tell, you pull your facts out of thin air. There WERE no general elections in Nazi-Germany after 1933. After the cancellation of all other parties (July 5, 1933) and the ban on new parties (July 14, 1933), the National Socialists was the only remaining political party (source). This situation remained until after the war.
Please provide some sort of reference to your facts. I've spent some time digging on the web now, and I can honestly say I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Edit: I did find a reference to the 1934 plebiscite. Since it was held to show approval of Hitler combining the offices of president and chancellor in his person -- basically only confirming a fait accompli (and with considerable pressure to do so) -- I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. (Source.)
No mention yet of an election in 1936, though.
[ February 02, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yes, yes and yes. (to the original question)
The answer is not to say "it's better for the non-educated not to vote" but rather "let's educate them all, given everyone has to vote".
We have compulsory voting in Australia, and I cannot imagine any other way.
Plus, after studying voting patterns, I can't think of system more designed to encourage the middle-class, predominantly white population to vote while simultaneously disenfranchising the marginalised, poorer and often black/ethnic minorities not to vote than non-compulsory voting.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I motion that we vote on the subject at hand. Then the original question becomes rhetorical. Unless of course, you prefer an oligarchy, or are too dulled into complacency to care how your country is governed.
[ February 03, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
However I do believe that mandatory voting should be mandatory.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
We had the idea that presidential elections would be part lottery. What if when you voted your social security number was entered in a lottery for your each state or so. Dunno how much money, but it really would increase voter turnout.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
What does australia do with people who are religiously opposed to political involvement? Is there an exemption you can apply for? I can't imagine australia just throws them in jail.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Nope, no jail.
If you don't turn up to vote, you get fined.
If you don't want to vote, but don't want to get fined, you turn up to vote (always on a Saturday), go into the booth, don't write on your ballot (or write in a way to render it illegal) then put that in the box.
Some people do this: but only a very small proportion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
imogen, what about people who want to vote but can't on Saturdays? Is there an equivalent to the US's absentee ballot system?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I phrased that wrong, i meant the links i recieved, and i just wanted to say thank you. Tristan, I understand that a forum is not a good reference, and I'm not using it, I found other good books and sites, i'm sry if i sound like a stupid freshmen high schooler ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Wait, they care enough to gripe, but only to people that are in the same room as them, or at the other end of the phone. That means not me.