Mandatory Voting -- Vote here..... (1 Viewer)

[SacramentoBob]

The only way I would would even consider mandatory voting is if:

1- Each person took a required civics class that they had to pass. Re-testing every four years.

2- Each person sat through each candidates campaign speeches that were NOT debates- only what the candidate stood for.

3- Each person was educated in a non-biased way regarding every item on their ballot.

4- On-line voting was instituted. There is no way you could mandate voting without closing every single business including restaurants, retail, etc.

5- I think, even with that, I would be against it. I don't like the idea of a consequence being tied to what should be a right.

Just force everyone into reeducation camps while you're at it.

 

[Cjw_55106]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

This is a lame strawman argument. Since we already do things we dont like, lets add more!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The only way I would would even consider mandatory voting is if:

1- Each person took a required civics class that they had to pass. Re-testing every four years.

2- Each person sat through each candidates campaign speeches that were NOT debates- only what the candidate stood for.

3- Each person was educated in a non-biased way regarding every item on their ballot.

4- On-line voting was instituted. There is no way you could mandate voting without closing every single business including restaurants, retail, etc.

5- I think, even with that, I would be against it. I don't like the idea of a consequence being tied to what should be a right.

Just force everyone into reeducation camps while you're at it.

Problematically, and ironically, for many, the camps would not be for re-education, but for initial education. It is oxymoronic to suggest re-educating the uneducated.

 

[jonessed]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

This is a lame strawman argument. Since we already do things we dont like, lets add more!

Not a strawman. The fact that the government makes us do certain things isn't an affirmative reason to support compulsory voting, it's a response to the "FREEDOM!" argument that some seem to be making.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

Of course they are different. The point wasn't that all of those things are identical.

 

[jonessed]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

Of course they are different. The point wasn't that all of those things are identical.

Only that they have a similar need to be mandatory?

 

[Cjw_55106]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

 

[Jedi Knight]

The only way I would would even consider mandatory voting is if:

1- Each person took a required civics class that they had to pass. Re-testing every four years.

2- Each person sat through each candidates campaign speeches that were NOT debates- only what the candidate stood for.

3- Each person was educated in a non-biased way regarding every item on their ballot.

4- On-line voting was instituted. There is no way you could mandate voting without closing every single business including restaurants, retail, etc.

5- I think, even with that, I would be against it. I don't like the idea of a consequence being tied to what should be a right.

Just force everyone into reeducation camps while you're at it.

Problematically, and ironically, for many, the camps would not be for re-education, but for initial education. It is oxymoronic to suggest re-educating the uneducated.

My point exactly. This idea is about as dumb as the person who initially suggested it. He wouldn't be where he was if the public wasn't as un-educated as they are now.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

Of course they are different. The point wasn't that all of those things are identical.

Only that they have a similar need to be mandatory?

No, just that sometimes it's a good idea to force people to do something for the greater good.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

 

[Cjw_55106]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

 

[The Commish]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

comedy...let's face it, it really can't get much worse so I'm not worried about that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

Of course they are different. The point wasn't that all of those things are identical.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If you don't want to vote you shouldn't have to vote.

What about jury duty? Taxes? Register for the draft? Sometimes the government makes us do stuff we might not want to do. I fail to see why this is so different.

You don't see how voting is any different than paying taxes?

Of course they are different. The point wasn't that all of those things are identical.

I addressed this earlier. They are different in some ways, but they similarly require people to do things they might not want to do so that we can achieve some larger objective.

 

[The Commish]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

I personally think this is wishful thinking. However, I do think these things COULD be accomplished if a legitimate third party was allowed to take hold.....until said third party becomes just as corrupt as the two in power.

 

[snogger]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

Umm.. what color is the sky n your world

I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

 

[snogger]

Pie in the sky fix....

Get rid of the party designation behind a candidates name on the ballot, as well as get rid of the "Vote all Democrats or vote all Republicans" options.

Now when people show up to vote they will have to know at the least know the name of the person they are voting for..

IMO, that will get people more involved as they will need to know who they are voting for, rather then what party they represent ..

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

Umm.. what color is the sky n your world I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

Blue? I would rather have candidates spend money to promote themselves than spend money to try to convince people not to vote for his opponent.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Pie in the sky fix....

Get rid of the party designation behind a candidates name on the ballot, as well as get rid of the "Vote all Democrats or vote all Republicans" options.

Now when people show up to vote they will have to know at the least know the name of the person they are voting for..

IMO, that will get people more involved as they will need to know who they are voting for, rather then what party they represent ..

I'm not a fan of this. The party ID provides useful information to voters.

 

[Fennis]

terrible idea. we need less people voting not more

 

[snogger]

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

Umm.. what color is the sky n your world I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

Blue? I would rather have candidates spend money to promote themselves than spend money to try to convince people not to vote for his opponent.

You really think that is what would happen?? I don't see it happening.. negative ads work, and whether it is directed to all people, or a select group they will continue to be used.

 

[GoFishTN]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

As best as I can tell, Australia's citizens still have a lot of problems with their government. Mandatory voting isn't some panacea for a better world.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

Blue? I would rather have candidates spend money to promote themselves than spend money to try to convince people not to vote for his opponent.

You really think that is what would happen?? I don't see it happening.. negative ads work, and whether it is directed to all people, or a select group they will continue to be used.

Negative ads help to depress voter turnout. "I'm not voting, these guys are all terrible!" They're more double-edged if people are required to vote.

 

[humpback]

Pie in the sky fix....

Get rid of the party designation behind a candidates name on the ballot, as well as get rid of the "Vote all Democrats or vote all Republicans" options.

Now when people show up to vote they will have to know at the least know the name of the person they are voting for..

IMO, that will get people more involved as they will need to know who they are voting for, rather then what party they represent ..

I'm not a fan of this. The party ID provides useful information to voters.

It's hard to pick just one of your posts in here, but this one is as good as any.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As best as I can tell, Australia's citizens still have a lot of problems with their government. Mandatory voting isn't some panacea for a better world.

Oh, I agree with this. I think it would be better than what we have now but it wouldn't fix everything.

 

[snogger]

Pie in the sky fix....

Get rid of the party designation behind a candidates name on the ballot, as well as get rid of the "Vote all Democrats or vote all Republicans" options.

Now when people show up to vote they will have to know at the least know the name of the person they are voting for..

IMO, that will get people more involved as they will need to know who they are voting for, rather then what party they represent ..

I'm not a fan of this. The party ID provides useful information to voters.

Not really.. Some democrats don't tout the party line fully( Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota comes to mind) as some republicans( Jon Huntsman) don't tout the party line..

The issue, IMO, is voters who align themselves as Democrats refuse to vote for anyone who has R behind their name, same for some Republican voters, regardless of their stance.

Another "pie in the sky" ... Fix the Electoral College.. No more winner takes all..

Split the Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes received.

 

[Righetti]

I can't even imagine how disruptive it would be if you were forced to vote in every meaningless local election for dog-catcher or comptroller of your town in addition to all the federal, state, county and local elections.. if so we might as well make the entire country have a four day workweek because nobody would ever work on Tuesday's..

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Pie in the sky fix....

Get rid of the party designation behind a candidates name on the ballot, as well as get rid of the "Vote all Democrats or vote all Republicans" options.

Now when people show up to vote they will have to know at the least know the name of the person they are voting for..

IMO, that will get people more involved as they will need to know who they are voting for, rather then what party they represent ..

I'm not a fan of this. The party ID provides useful information to voters.

Not really.. Some democrats don't tout the party line fully( Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota comes to mind) as some republicans( Jon Huntsman) don't tout the party line..The issue, IMO, is voters who align themselves as Democrats refuse to vote for anyone who has R behind their name, same for some Republican voters, regardless of their stance.

Another "pie in the sky" ... Fix the Electoral College.. No more winner takes all..

Split the Electoral College votes based on the percentage of votes received.

I'm with you on the electoral college, except I don't like your fix. Just get rid of the whole thing and go with popular vote.

I don't see anything wrong with a person who always votes for a particular party. Even if your Senator or Congressman bucks his or her party sometimes, as long as they are caucusing with that party they are empowering it. A vote for Klobuchar is a vote for Harry Reid to be majority leader.

 

[bigbottom]

I think mandatory voting would reduce the effectiveness of the campaign tactic of putting a controversial topic on the ballot for purposes of driving voter turnout that, as an intended side effect, benefits a particular party.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I can't even imagine how disruptive it would be if you were forced to vote in every meaningless local election for dog-catcher or comptroller of your town in addition to all the federal, state, county and local elections.. if so we might as well make the entire country have a four day workweek because nobody would ever work on Tuesday's..

State and local elections are often, but not always, held at the same time and place as federal elections. My preference would be for this just to be a once-every-two-years thing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd like to see increased voter turnout (even though I haven't voted myself since 1996). But I'm against the draft. If you want to recruit more soldiers, I think paying them more is nearly always a better alternative than drafting them. And if you want to increase voter turnout, I think reducing the inconvenience of voting should be the preferred way to do it. There are still a lot of things we could do to reduce inconvenience. Let's do them before we resort to making it mandatory to vote.

The counterargument, I suppose, is that reducing the inconvenience of voting is politically difficult because it helps one party and hurts the other party, so there's always going to be one party that resists greater convenience. Then again, you have the same problem with instituting voting mandates, don't you?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd like to see increased voter turnout (even though I haven't voted myself since 1996). But I'm against the draft. If you want to recruit more soldiers, I think paying them more is nearly always a better alternative to drafting them. And if you want to increase voter turnout, I think reducing the inconvenience of voting should be the preferred way to do it. There are still a lot of things we could do to reduce inconvenience. Let's do them before we resort to making it mandatory to vote.

The counterargument, I suppose, is that reducing the inconvenience of voting is politically difficult because it helps one party and hurts the other party, so there's always going to be one party that resists greater convenience. Then again, you have the same problem with instituting voting mandates, don't you?

I'm not really considering political feasibility. This is not happening in my lifetime for sure. Still fun to talk about.

How would you feel about paying people to vote instead of making it mandatory?

 

[Keerock]

I'd like to see increased voter turnout (even though I haven't voted myself since 1996). But I'm against the draft. If you want to recruit more soldiers, I think paying them more is nearly always a better alternative to drafting them. And if you want to increase voter turnout, I think reducing the inconvenience of voting should be the preferred way to do it. There are still a lot of things we could do to reduce inconvenience. Let's do them before we resort to making it mandatory to vote.

The counterargument, I suppose, is that reducing the inconvenience of voting is politically difficult because it helps one party and hurts the other party, so there's always going to be one party that resists greater convenience. Then again, you have the same problem with instituting voting mandates, don't you?

I'm not really considering political feasibility. This is not happening in my lifetime for sure. Still fun to talk about.

How would you feel about paying people to vote instead of making it mandatory?

How about if politicians buy my vote... highest bidder... I'm good with that.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm old fashion. People have given their life for us to have the right to vote. I do it for them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How would you feel about paying people to vote instead of making it mandatory?

I'd be worried about skewing the pool of voters. You'd get a non-representative sample of the population that way. Voters are already a non-representative sample of the population under the current system, but I think it's better to try to eliminate factors that result in skewing rather than adding to them. (This is, of course, one of the benefits we'd get from mandatory voting. We'd finally have Unskewed Polls.)

The other problem is candidates running on a platform of increasing the payment for voting.

It might be a decent idea anyway (I'd have to think more about it), but those objections come immediately to mind.

 

[RCon]

For the less than 20% that voted yes....what are you hoping to gain from this?

A better country.

How would that be accomplished?

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all of those claims are false.

 

[RCon]

We would have a more engaged citizenry. Our government would have greater legitimacy. Our politicians would adjust their attention to issues based on population, not who is likely to vote. Campaigns would likely be run very differently (money would likely be less important, there would probably be less negative campaigning). The wikipedia entry somebody posted earlier identified some other reasons to do it.

Umm.. what color is the sky n your world I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

Blue? I would rather have candidates spend money to promote themselves than spend money to try to convince people not to vote for his opponent.

You really think that is what would happen?? I don't see it happening.. negative ads work, and whether it is directed to all people, or a select group they will continue to be used.

I'd venture to say that negative ads would become even more prevalent. Uninformed voters are great targets for negative ads.

 

[RBM]

I'd think having everyone vote would mean even more money spent as everyone would spendeverything they could to prove to everyone they should vote for them..

Blue? I would rather have candidates spend money to promote themselves than spend money to try to convince people not to vote for his opponent.

You really think that is what would happen?? I don't see it happening.. negative ads work, and whether it is directed to all people, or a select group they will continue to be used.

Negative ads help to depress voter turnout. "I'm not voting, these guys are all terrible!" They're more double-edged if people are required to vote.

And how would forcing everyone to vote stop negative ads? Makes no sense.

 

[Jack White]

Forcing every serf to vote seems appropriate, considering voting is, in effect, voicing one's opinion on who his next plantation owner should be.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

money would likely be less important

People keep saying this, but I don't see it. If anything, I think the opposite would be true.

Think about it, if you made your wife vote for NFL MVP who would she vote for, Tom Brady or JJ Watt? It's Tom Brady every time no matter how they're playing because Brady is more well-known, better marketed.

If you force people who don't follow politics to vote on politics they're going to be much more apt to pick the name they've heard of. The one they saw on all those billboards or all those TV commercials. Money becomes MORE important, not less.

The idea that everyone is going to suddenly start caring about politics because they're forced to vote is a pipe dream. For every one person that takes it as a serious new responsibility and does their research, there are 10 more that are just going to walk in there and tick a random box or pick the only name they heard on TV so they can hurry up and get on to dinner. It's a net negative on getting an accurate result.

To me, there are two changes that would immediately aid in election reform.

1) Don't notate party affiliation on the ballot. If a person can't identify which candidate for a position is the democrat or the republican when they walk into the ballot room, then they shouldn't be voting on that position.

2) Don't let people use private money or accept money for campaigning. Run this thing like the NCAA. Everyone gets a set amount to spend on campaigning and can't accept outside gifts. If you want to donate, your donation gets split among all candidates for that position rather than going to one specific candidate. It's absurd that candidates for political office aren't meant to run on level ground.

Either way, getting MORE voters is not the problem. Getting more EDUCATED voters is. I can't even begin to imagine how many people there are that vote Republican despite being fiscally castrated by Republicans because they saw that the candidate said he loves Jesus.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think mandatory voting would reduce the effectiveness of the campaign tactic of putting a controversial topic on the ballot for purposes of driving voter turnout that, as an intended side effect, benefits a particular party.

This is the only point I've seen for mandatory voting that actually makes sense.

All of the rest are just ridiculous.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Don't blame me I voted for Kodos

 

[RCon]

To me, there are two changes that would immediately aid in election reform.

1) Don't notate party affiliation on the ballot. If a person can't identify which candidate for a position is the democrat or the republican when they walk into the ballot room, then they shouldn't be voting on that position.

2) Don't let people use private money or accept money for campaigning. Run this thing like the NCAA. Everyone gets a set amount to spend on campaigning and can't accept outside gifts. If you want to donate, your donation gets split among all candidates for that position rather than going to one specific candidate. It's absurd that candidates for political office aren't meant to run on level ground.

I like #1 a lot.

I don't think #2 helps. This would simply give more power to the media. Also, what's to stop a wealthy candidate from simply buying a media outlet (local radio station, newspaper, whatever) to promote himself in a positive fashion and/or the opponent negatively?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We would need a Constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court to enact #2. The party thing was mentioned above, seems like a terrible idea to me.

 

[otello]

Will we need our national ID to vote?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think mandatory voting would lessen the need for money and reduce negative campaigning for the same sorts of reasons. There is a ton of spending on getting out the vote for people that are likely to vote for you. There's also a ton of money spent trying to persuade people that might otherwise vote for your opponent to just stay home because he sucks. All of that would go away with mandatory voting.

In my view there are more useful negative ads and less useful ones. "This guy did something bad" often isn't useful because there's no context. "He voted for the war but I didn't" is helpful. I think the second type would be more likely with mandatory voting because it presents a contrast that could persuade people -- it says something positive about you at the same time it says something negative about your opponent.

Obviously this is speculative, it might not work out that way at all. It isn't my primary reason to support compulsory voting, just a side effect.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think mandatory voting would lessen the need for money and reduce negative campaigning for the same sorts of reasons. There is a ton of spending on getting out the vote for people that are likely to vote for you. There's also a ton of money spent trying to persuade people that might otherwise vote for your opponent to just stay home because he sucks. All of that would go away with mandatory voting.

In my view there are more useful negative ads and less useful ones. "This guy did something bad" often isn't useful because there's no context. "He voted for the war but I didn't" is helpful. I think the second type would be more likely with mandatory voting because it presents a contrast that could persuade people -- it says something positive about you at the same time it says something negative about your opponent.

Obviously this is speculative, it might not work out that way at all. It isn't my primary reason to support compulsory voting, just a side effect.

It's not just speculative, it's a pretty big leap.

No one knows for sure what would really happen, but reasonable logic dictates that MORE money would be spent and MORE negative campaigning would take place. You have to make some pretty large leaps in logic to get to the opposite. Of course, it's possible.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think my logic is more reasonable than your logic.