I read today that 35 countries have manditory voting laws. Canada is considering the idea. As our voting drops to 1 in 3 ,dont you think it is time to levy a fine against people who do not vote.
Hell, no. If people are uninformed, ignorant, or apathetic, I don’t want them voting.
Uh, it’s “mandatory”. Be sure to vote this Thursday.
That’ll make it easier to take away all their guns.
Voter turnout is low? Let’s look at our options: convince people that their votes matter and that the people running for office are honest and decent and want to help them, then make sure that people who are worried about losing money from taking time off work have a chance to get to the polls… or fine the people who don’t vote. Hmm. Which would be more effective?
I think that forcing people to vote reeks of compelled speech. If people don’t want to vote, I see zero value in forcing them to go down to the polling place and spoil a ballot, and I’m not convinced that forcing people to vote would force them to care. I’d much prefer we made Election Day a national holiday.
Come to think of it, maybe it’s a good idea. Since only 1/3 vote, that means 2/3 do not want to vote. and that 2/3 would be very unhappy about being forced to vote. This opens the door for a candidate—third party, no doubt, as the powers that be will seek to preserve the status quo—to campaign on abolishing the Mandatory Voting Law, sweeping their candidate in with 67% of the votes. It may be the one thing that will break the hold the reps and dems have on the elections.
Let’s do it!
In Australia so I read ,you are exempt from the voting rules if you are 500 miles away fronm the neatest poll. They have 501 parties .People who absolutely do not want to vote go to a shindig 501 miles away.They are clearly making a statement of some kind.
No.
That title is so 7400.
Get with the program. It’s the Aughties, not the Eighties!
Australia also has a parliamentary government and a different system of voting. It seems to me that Australians vote because their political culture is different from ours - not because they’re going to be fined $20 to $50.
Canada is considering mandatory voting? Since when?
I mentioned this in another thread: I’d support mandatory voting only if there was also a mandatory ‘none of the above’ (‘nota’) choice in the election. If ‘nota’ wins, maybe there should be another election or something.
I’m kind of pondering just what would happen, because if ‘nota’ wins, that indicates that the other candidates weren’t sufficiently interesting. Would there have to be different candidates, or would the some candiates (which ones?) be knocked off and their votes divvied up among the others, or what? I think greater reform of the voting system would be needed. Proportional or instant-runoff or something. I’m going to have to think about this.
On looking at Marley23’s link, I now see what shoud be done. Election day should be a holiday, and we have to have mandatory sunny skies and warm weather on each election day. 
Part of the difference is that voting takes place on Saturdays. So very often polling takes place in a school, and (as the linked article says) the school P & C (Parents & Citizens – equivalent of the PTA) can run a cake stall. This couldn’t happen if the ballot took place Monday to Friday.
One difference that compulsory voting makes is how the parties campaign. In the US, the main parties seem to campaign to their “bases”, and try toimotivate them to turn out to vote. In Australia, the parties can generally assume that their supporters will vote for them, and aim their campaigns at the middle ground – the “swing voters” – who could be persuaded to vote either way. (This is reinforced by the preferential system of voting, which encourages minor parties and independents, who are free to direct their preferences to either of the major parrties).
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/mandatory_voting_060118/20060118?s_name=election2006&no_ads=
There are lots of sites on this. Canada debate is on.
And there you have some ideas I could get behind. Vote on the weekends, or a national holiday (if it’s a weekend, I guess it would have to be Saturday - I can only imagine what some Christian groups would do if the government suggested we vote on Sundays) and use a preferential voting system. That might increase turnout.
Could you imagine what some Jewish groups would do if the government suggested we vote on Saturday? Or what some Muslim groups would do if we voted on Friday? No, Tuesday is the best day for us. I’d prefer we switched to mail-in ballots. I’ve been voting by mail for the last 3 or 4 elections cycles. I get to vote on whatever day I choose-- usually a week before the “real” election.
If you can’t vote on election day for religious reasons, then you can have a postal ballot – just like you do for other reasons.
Incentives would be more popular, like iPod raffles for voters.
I dont really believe it is that hard to vote. I have voted absentee for about 5 years. I get to go over tyhe proposals with great care.
But when I went to the polls ,on big turnout elections I waited a long time. Moving the day wont get people to vote. A fifty dollar fine might help. Some have suggested a lottery ,where one voter gets a million bucks .
Ummm…no.
Your link was from a couple of days before our last general election (January 23 2006), when anything election-related was fair game for news. And it dealt mainly with Australian mandatory voting, with plenty of background on Australian elections and quotes from Australians.
But it did speak–slightly–to mandatory voting in Canada. Let’s see how:
First of all, the “chief electoral officer” is a neutral civil servant. He doesn’t make policy as to who can vote or whether or not they must. After Parliament has been dissolved, requiring an election, his job is to ensure that all citizens who wish to can vote, and to ensure a fair election. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but it carries just as much weight in Parliament as that of any other ordinary Canadian: very little.
As for the “think tank,” well, it’s no different than any other similar organization. Just because it thinks something is a good idea, doesn’t mean that idea will become a law. Its opinion carries as much weight with Parliament as the Chief Electoral Officer’s–that is, very little.
It’s Parliament’s job to debate bills that may become laws, and unless and until Parliament does so in this matter, the debate is not on. Oh, it may be discussed between Canadians around election times, and usually with plenty of references to Australia (as the news story does), but we don’t hear about it at any other times from the news media or our government. Nor, I’d say, do we even think about it; it is completely off the radar to average Canadians and their government. Hardly what I’d call “the debate is on” and we’re “considering the idea.”
Sorry for the hijack, folks, but this needed addressing.