Come to think of it, the reason old people vote in higher percentages is probably that they are more likely to have the time. Making Election day a holiday would probably equalize the percentages to a large extent.
People get tax rebates for all kinds of stupid crap. Why not give them a $100 tax rebate for voting?
Yes, I know this amounts to a reverse poll tax, but I’m okay with that; and if you phrase it this way, I think that it’d be easy to pass.
Daniel
Rights can and are lost all the time. A right is not an absolute; it’s just something that the state must have an overriding need to override. I have a right to free speech, but can’t threaten the President. I have a right to free movement, but not to smuggle bombs over a border for terrorists. I have a right not to be killed, but not if I start shooting people.
People do not have rights and no obligations; your logic could be used to oppose paying taxes ( and is ). People should vote, by coercian if necessary; I see it as no different than paying taxes. If you live in our society, you should contribute.
Also, as far as I can tell, in our system stupid people are more likely to vote; they are the ones who vote for people like Bush, while being wrong about what Bush supports or the facts on the ground. Finally, we already have most of the bureaucracy necessary, the same one that keeps track of votes now.
To all the people who say they don’t like the system : First, that’s something of a side issue, I think. More importantly, if you don’t vote, you give the people who control the system what they want. If those who oppose them abandon the field, they win by default. Besides, how is not voting going to change anything ?
Why can’t it be both? A technically irresponsible action that you have a right to.
This might seem like an impossibility, but when all possible remedies are worse than the disease, it’s better to suffer the disease. People not voting is bad, but letting them do this the least worst solution.
Errr. That’s privileges that are lost all the time, not rights. Nor is a right – as protected by government – necessariily absolute, true, but what is being acknowledged by this is the notion that rights themselves are somewhat limited when you participate in society where exercise of those rights might damage another. They are not taken away in their entirety at any time, or you are not discussing a right.
It is not contrary to protected free speech to verbally [or in writing] threaten the president, though if you do so, are overheard and assessed to be a risk, you will be dealt with as a security risk. This is not a free speech issue. What you claim as a right to free movement [huh?] has nothing to do with any restrictions on carrying dangerous materials with you so I’m not sure what you mean by that.
When you say you have a right not to be killed, you probably mean you have a right to life. As to whether your life is forfeit when you violate somebody else’s rights is in fact a matter for another debate.
So while voting is a privilege, it does not inhere any special obligations, although, unrelated to voting, I do have a right to express my political will or lack thereof as I choose, and that is certain and unimpeachable.
You simply cannot create a positive obligation for me to have a political will just because I am a citizen. Perhaps I just want to be led because I honestly don’t care. It’s not like you’ve offered up a “None of the Above” option in the booth. If we had that, out of 120m voters in 2004, I bet at least a quarter of those who did vote would have registered their dissatisfaction with the choices.
Rights often do imply obligations, true, but voting is a privilege, like driving or being seated and served in a restaurant. It is different from taxes. In fact, there are virtually no similarities at all. But forming my own political determination or lack thereof remains a right, my utilization of which does not harm or hamper anyone.
I’d like a cite on how you know stupid people are more likely to vote. I’d also like to know why you think this is good. I’m not sure what you’re saying about bureaucracy or keeping track of votes…
Protesting the electoral system itself is hardly a side-issue, especially if you wish to implement compulsory voting within its framework. Hell, the first thing I’d vote for in that system would be to have my right to opt out of the political process reinstated.
Regarding your final question there are two responses:
1 – Who says voting is the only way to change anything?
2 – Who says I even have an obligation to change anything?
Lay back and relax man, 'coz apathy’s back in style!
Old) America: Land of the free.
New) America: Vote! Or else.
Sorry, Der Trihs, way over the top. Although I’m all for getting as many people as possible to cast an informed vote.
I said as far as I can tell, not that I knew for sure; I certainly didn’t say it was good. Mostly, I was referring to the studies that showed that Bush supporters tended to be wrong about what he supported ( like thinking he was for multilateralism ), and wrong about what’s happening in the world ( like thinking Saddam was behind 9-11 ). Heres an article that mentions this :
We have a bureaucracy to handle elections; making sure people di vote isn’t much of a stretch.
I don’t think you have a moral right to drag the country down to collapse out of laziness.
Both are obligations; if enough people don’t contribute, the system collapses.
Not necessarily. We need a certain amount of money in the coffers. But who is to say that a better governement wouldn’t be in place if only 1% of the populaton voted? The greatest advantage to have as many people vote as possible is that they feel that they have had a say in things and are less likely to get pissy and storm the White House with rakes , shovels, and sickles. Not that we are guaranteed a better system.
I am not sure where you are going by implying that a majority of voters voted for the wrong reasons, except that it’s not a good sign in favor of encouraging more people to vote. But somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant to say at all…
Oh yes it is.
Elections will occur and candidates will be chosen and they will do what they do. As far as thinking goes, as I’ve already stated, I think we do have a right to determine our political wills or lack thereof. What’s a moral right?
No. No they aren’t. Not both of them. Voting still isn’t, whether you insist or not.
What? This begs a few questions. First, has the system collapsed? Second, is it collapsing? Third, what is ‘enough’ in terms of this assertion you make?
I’m saying that because so many people don’t vote, easily manipulated fools are the ones who choose our leaders.
Not yet; I think so; I don’t know ( which is one reason why I think all should vote ).
And do you figure the folks who right now choose not to vote are less easily manipulated and as such, will deliver your preference of candidate to office?
The system hasn’t collapsed but you think it is, even though progress in the last century has enfranchised heaps of new voters through suffrage of women, improved access for blacks, and hell, we even added on direct elections of senators, which is barely 90 years old as a practice in the U.S.
Since you’re not sure what ‘enough’ is to qualify your eccentric claim, you’d like to say it should be everyone, but you’re going to have to formulate a suitable answer to my first new question [at the top of this post] to show that ‘everyone’ is at all better than what we’ve got currently.
You still haven’t properly dealt with why it’d be just to go ahead and make voting a requirement. I happen to think voting should be harder to do. Before people get caught up in federal elections they should demonstrate their fitness by voting in local elections but that’s a wacky idea of course.
If laws were implemented requiring all citizens to vote, would laws also be implemented to require all citizens to take measures to be informed voters?
I know if you forced me to vote, I’d write in a vote for Gumby because I don’t believe shuffling around the same manure every few years accomplishes anything, and maybe Gumby would fight for integrity.
There are those of us who choose not to “contribute” because we want the system to collapse.
And the collapse of the system would benefit you exactly how? Because your parents had the foresight to bring you up prepared for a lawless and violently anarchic environment? I’ll bet they didn’t. What’s more, I’ll lay odds that even if they did, there’s someone out there bigger and tougher than you, and then where’s your milk and underwear, huh? If there isn’t anyone tougher, well, there’s always someone sneakier. However you slice it, if your best bet is a world without civilization, you’re probably not smart enough, strong enough, bulletproof enough or persuasive enough to stay alive long enough to rule, and ruling for any length of time is dicier still. Put your trust in the weaklings who are strong enough to let a nonentity like you join them. And vote for your leader: it makes a difference, if you let it.
That’s a good point. If you start levying fines and tax breaks, how many people are just going to wander in, pull the first lever they grab, and leave? Who benefits from encouraging people to do that?
Putting aside the many arguments against anarchism, he’s still entitled to his views, and I do think it would abridge his freedom to force him to vote when he’s opposed to doing it.
It would benefit us all by forcing a newer, more up-to-date system. It is the natural state of things to decay and evolve, yet we cling to 200 year old ideology as if it were still effective.
Calling for the dismantling of the current system does not equate to advocating complete lawlessness. Or violence for that matter.
Presuming that were what I were suggesting, ruling would not be a personal goal. But that isn’t really relevant to the conversation at hand.
Well stated, but I respectfully disagree. Regardless of who is in office, my taxes will go up. My healthcare will become more expensive. My friends and family will go to fight someone else’s wars. I will cling to my middle-class, blue-collar job because my options dwindle around me faster than I can rack up debt just to be able to afford to eat, while my wages are not able to be increased at a level consistent with the rise in the cost of living.
As much as I dislike Bush, somehow I doubt that had Kerry won, my life would be any different.
No, once again, it isn’t. The ignorant non-voter argument hasn’t raised it’s ugly head since I killed it in post #35 of this very thread.
None. First of all, fines and tax breaks are the solution of a minority of the everybody-should-vote crowd. Second, see above. If politicians and would-be politicians knew that everyone was going to vote, they’d make it their business to educate new voters and respond to their concerns. That’s assuming ignorance on the part of the new voters, which ain’t nohow factual.
I’m entitled to the view that some people should be stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian as an example of willful ignorance, but I’m not entitled to implement that view. I think that democracy is the expression of a people’s collective responsibility to each other, not the denial of that fellowship. Again see above. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735559&postcount=34 To expect him to vote is an infringement of his freedom to ignore his obligation to the rest of us, that’s true, but I’ve already explained why that freedom isn’t what it seems to those who cherish it. And who are you to dismiss the arguments against anarchy without addressing them?
Well, if you said you killed it, it must be dead.
I’m not sure points 1 and 4 really respond to that argument, since the claim is that more uninformed voters would vote, not that everybody who voted would be ignorant. #2 requires that the people who “know some things they want out of life” know how the political parties correspond to those views. #3 is an interesting long-term supposition, but I’m not sure it’s anything but a supposition.
Why do politicians constantly promise things like lower taxes?
Your implementation of murder is certainly comparable to his expression of his political views. Very apt comparison.
I don’t see how anybody else’s vote fulfills an obligation they have to me. If your obligations to yourself don’t make you decide to vote, I can’t imagine why these proposed obligations to anyone else would be persuasive. And besides, if soulmurk was arguing for anarchy (which I guess he isn’t), he’d probably say that he was fulfilling it by not supporting a system that hurts me.
They don’t need to be addressed. I said that irrespective of the validity of that view, which I was placing at nil, he shouldn’t be compelled to speak in contradition to it.
Okay, soulmurk, let’s take it from the top: how would the collapse of the political system benefit you?
So when you destroy something, something better automatically appears to replace it, without any action on your part? Get me the biggest hammer on the shelf, 'cause I want a better house!
Because there’s an alternative system of law, known somehow to all, that doesn’t depend on the government and its supporters to enforce it? Because the current system, with all its army/navy/air force/marine/coast guard /merchant marine municipal/ county/ state/federal police/secret service/ and every other armed person with a vested interest in the status quo would just disappear without violence? Or are we maybe overreaching just a little bit?
You know, I think you’re absolutely right. I got a little caught up in the whole anarchy thing. But if you’re not ruling at this point, who is?
You think? Maybe, but let’s remember that Kerry was part of the same low-vote culture that produced his opponent.
There have been U.S. governments under which wages went up, home ownership was more possible, the likelihood of seeing your children shipped off to fight on other continents went down, and the wealth of the country did not get funneled to a carefully selected 3 1/2% of the population. There are no guarantees, but think of what new candidates might have happened along, what new ideas might have been broached, what promises might have been considered necessary, if you and the millions like you had been guaranteed to cast a vote, informed or not. Someone would have been dispatched to find out who you are, what problems you face, why you are afraid for your and your childrens’ future. Candidates would have emerged to take advantage of a sudden doubling of political capital. Even if they had to guess, politicos of all stripes would have had to consider for once what people in your position might want out of their government, and they’d have been forced to talk to you about it. Would that have made things better or worse, or left them the same?
On the other hand, how’s apathy working out for you? Seeing any cracks in the foundation yet?
This is both right and wrong. Technically, if you’re on the electoral roll then you have to vote (and, generally speaking, all Australian citizens over the age of 18 have to be enrolled). This means, in theory, filling out the ballot paper with the correct number of preferences as required by the electoral legislation. The legislation varies by jurisdiction e.g. for Commonwealth elections you need to place the numbers 1, 2, 3, …n, in order of preference, against every candidate’s name until you have filled in all n boxes. For New South Wales state elections, you need only specify your first preference.
However, as the ballots are secret, you can write whatever you like on the ballot paper: obscenities; non-existent candidates’ names; inconsistent preferences; or simply nothing. You can’t actually be forced to vote. If you choose to spoil your ballot paper then that’s your decision. Your vote will then become an “informal” vote and be excluded from the count. In reality the compulsion simply forces you to attend a polling place and go through the motions of voting. Because of this compulsion, the voting process is made very flexible. You can vote:
- on the day of the actual election (by law, always on Saturday), either within your own electorate, or as an “absentee” voter at any electorate within your state;
- during the week prior to the election at special “pre-poll” booths;
- using a postal ballot if you’ll be out of your state, or overseas, or otherwise unable to get to a polling place on the day of the election;
- overseas at Australian consulates and High Commissions.
If you don’t vote and don’t have a valid excuse (e.g. sickness), then you can be fined.
As noted, elections are required to be held on Saturdays. They’re not declared special public holidays. Polling hours are from 8.00am until 6.00pm. This allows most people to be able to cast a vote on the day without too much trouble. If you’re going to be working all day on the Saturday, then you use one of the alternative arrangements.
Feel free to resurrect it, if you can. If you don’t like the argument, and here it is again: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735559&postcount=34 , you can always try answering it.
Just plain silly. There’s no evidence (the burden of proof is on those who make this argument, by the way) that current non-voters are more ignorant than current voters, so there’s no reason to exclude them. If a significant segment of non-voters is actually *more * knowledgeable about how government works, (as I suggest, but if you can disprove it, go ahead) the ignorance argument is turned completely around.
Once more unto the breach. The idea is that if these perennial non-voters (who really aren’t ignorant and inferior, regardless of your assumption) became voters, politicians would be forced to pay attention to them. Campaign promises are campaign promises, but if candidates have to make the same promises enough times to enough people, eventually performance will become an issue. Show me a politician who lasted more than a couple of terms promising lower taxes and then not voting for them.
Incoherent and unpersuasive. If everyone voted it would improve the political democracy of the country because even without the force of the new electorate, and regardless of their political savvy, politicians would be forced to consider the needs of groups that can currently be relied on not to vote. A considered “vote withheld” is assumed to be a valid vote, so long as it appears on a ballot, and fulfills the freedom of speech mandated by the first amendment. Voting should be made easier for all citizens, commensurate with precautions against fraud. “Freedom” does not mean the absence of any obligation to one’s fellow citizens, and failure to vote is an abnegation of basic civic responsibility. Nyah, nyah, nyah.