I guess this is where we disagree. I view any voluntary participation within a system as, inherently, acceptance of that system. So, in order to disapprove of or change the system, it has to be done on the outside. Mandatory voting takes away the legal right to voice opposition to the electoral system and, at least symbolically, the government.
Again, voting to abstain from voting is a catch-22 – it’s a nonsense situation, and has no meaning.
Thank you, Yossarian.
Who the heck is Yossarian?
Have an vote to implement it, that’d mess with people’s heads.
nm
The main character from the book/movie Catch-22. See the post immediately above mine.
(if you have to explain the joke, it sucked…
It sucks even worse when you’re ninja’d in the explanation :(:()
Most people don’t vote do to broken electoral system. There only two parties to vote for but mostly the same.
Not the case in Europe. Also there a lot more rallies and protests in Europe than the US and people more politically active thanks to the media and schools.
Put me down in the voting should be mandatory camp. One’s duty is one’s duty.
Australia simply levies a fine on those failing to vote. The clodhoppers who don’t vote could always fall back on that while still contributing something. Googling, I see the fine works this way:
**"Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
“If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.”**
I think voting should be mandatory.
In addition to all the arguments presented thus far i want to add that it will also have a moderating effect on the rethoric. Witness what happens in the primaries in both parties now: the arguments made by the candidates are fairly extreme right or left. Mandatory voting would have the effect of diluting the influence of extremists, who now are bothered to take part of the elections process earlier than the average voter. These “early-involvers” however are not necessarily informed voters. Mathematically speaking the non-voting block now would, if required to vote, add a substantial moderating effect. The fringe ideologues would lose out.
Now THAT’S a benefit I hadn’t thought of. Thank you.
It’s not a duty to vote. It would be if it were illegal not to, but it isn’t.
Yeah, because our courts are pretty much sitting idle most of the time, this will finally give them something to do.
So, how exactly would mandatory voting work in a primary? In addition to abolishing the right to vote, it would require abolishing the right to free association (on the part of political parties) as well.
So one’s duty is always and only what one is legally coerced to do? Okay, got it. Thanks. :rolleyes:
Any time!
Glad to disabuse you of the belief that something is a duty just because you say it is.
Cayman does not have mandatory voting. Recently there was a referendum and the results called into question whether those who choose to not vote were supporting one particular position.
The basics:
The question is shall voting districts be reorganized to single member constituency with one man, one vote? The current system has multi-member constituencies and each voter may cast as many votes as there are representatives in his constituency.
15,161 Eligible voters
8676 turnout for referendum (57.2% of eligible voters)
Of those who voted:
5631 voted ‘Yes’ - in favour of the referendum (64.9% of votes cast. 37.1% of total electorate)
3001 voted ‘No’ - against the referendum ( 34.6% of votes cast. 19.8% of total electorate)
44 ballots were spoiled
The result:
The referendum failed to pass. The threshold was 50% +1 of the total electorate must vote in favour for public petition initiated referendum to pass.
The government of the day campaigned against the referendum and their interpretation was that the 6485 people who did not vote were staying home to show their lack of support for the referendum.
Mandatory voting very well may have resulted in this referendum passing.
Good point. I dont know. Maybe mandatory voting in primaries if you are a registered partisan.
I do not think it should be mandatory. Undecided or woefully uninformed voters should be allowed to refrain from being forced into a choice that they feel unprepared to make.
Can any of the pro-mandatory folks explain how the SCOTUS upholds such a law on constitutional grounds? That is, how such a law would not violate the first amendment?
Why is it a violation of the first amendment? In countries where voting is mandatory, you can vote for no one. You are just required to partake in the process, much like a civic duty to serve in a jury.