Voting is held in remote locations with no transportation and no day off. People still have to go to work or school, and the less comfortable you are in life the lower the chance you can get out of it, and the lower the chance you have a car.
Talking about forcing people to vote is ridiculous when you consider the fact that currently we are discouraging people from voting.
My suspicion is that the government doesn’t want the lower economic classes to vote. Both major parties are parties for the wealthy. That is why they have not eliminated the obvious barriers to voting as other countries have. And that is why it is disingenuous to speak of “forcing” people to vote, as if they even wanted them to in the first place or had not placed barriers in their way.
It would end a corrupted, bloated, outdated system. That would be of benefit to us all.
Of course not. You’re attempting to put words into my mouth (or at my fingertips, if you prefer) in an attempt to disprove my argument and strengthen your own. While I haven’t outlined a neat 16 step program to effectively transition from one government to another, neither have I suggested that a new one would magically appear at the exact moment the old one dies.
Nor have I suggested that the current system would just up and die. It’s a long, slow process of decay. It happens to everything eventually and one must adapt or die out.
Who’s overreaching now? Why is a desire to see the current system hurry up and finish it’s decline always associated with anarchy, and why is anarchy always associated with violence?
I don’t claim to know of a magical new system of government that is guaranteed to work. No one does. But I do know that the one we have does not work and that shuffling around the same bunch of politicians does not, and will not, change that.
Obviously.
I told you, I voted for Gumby.
Proving my point that when you mix manure with dirt and swirl it around, you still get dirty shit.
Where’ve all these bright and promising candidates been in the meanwhile? Are they out there, hiding and waiting for the masses to rise up against their oppressors… at the voting booth? Seems to me we’ve seen the best we can put out there. This is the best we can do, I’m afraid.
Forcing me “and the millions like me” to cast a vote we’re not willing to cast is not likely to lead to a positive result, despite your fanciful fantasy.
Pretty well actually. It’s got people talking and arguing, and that is what leads to change.
Everyone has the right to be irresponsible in all aspects of their lives, including government. With that irresponsiblity comes a consequence – in all aspects of life, including government. That’s the price you pay for living in the U.S.A. The old adage…“I’d rather let one guilty man go free than to jail an innocent man” can be switched around to read, “I’d rather put a bozo in office under the system we have than to FORCE anyone to participate in a process they are adverse to.” IT’s right up there with allowing Nazis to march on Skokie. Ya gotta take the good with the bad.
Actually, I think many people don’t vote because they’re afraid to. They don’t have time or the ability to absorb all the intracacies of government and rather than make a mistake, they just pass it off to those who are more comfortable with the process. Fact is, it IS overwhelming to try to check everyone’s record, listen to all the pundits, read the endless press pertaining to a candidate. It’s a crap shoot EVERY TIME. I can understand people who are intimidated by it all. I don’t get those who simply don’t give a shit, but it’s still their right.
I’m with the ‘none of the above crowd’. I vote, usually for the candidate that is least repugnant, but I’d like the chance to say none of the above. If NOTA wins then they rehold the election in that particular consituency, but none of the people on the first ballot are allowed to re-run. Maybe this would eventually help clear out deadwood politicians from the system. Adding a NOTA box to the ballot is the only way I’d approve of requiring people to vote.
Actually, the modification to voting I wish they would enact is to add “None of the above” and if there is a majority of votes for none of the above, they start the proceedure for another election and NONE of the previous cantidates are allowed to enter as obviously they couldn’t interest enough people to vote for them that we would be much better off with a new slate of cantidates.
Why the hell do you think there are so many write in votes for snoopy and bill the cat? At least that way there is some indication of how many people DON’T want the current slate.
Yes, we need a way to demonstrate negative in a vote.
The problem is, we are all FORCEed to live with the resulting government. Refusing to choose is still a choice; it’s simply impossible to opt out of the system without hiding out in the wilderness as a hermit.
Despite all that it’s really easy to live a lifestyle where the elected government is irrelevant. Have you gotten to know any local, non-elected officials working in your government? Perhaps you could talk to them about their work, help instigate some change.
Did I say there was any? I said that more ignorant people would be voting. I’m sure plenty of people don’t vote because their economic circumstances make it impossible, and I’m absolutely in favor of making it easier for them to vote. Have elections on Saturdays, make Election Day a federal holiday, organize bus routes to voting facilities in population centers, try anything. But I still think that some people who don’t vote do it because they can’t be bothered to, and I see no reason to make them vote. In particular, I would imagine this includes voters from, say, ages 18-25.
I didn’t argue against it. Is knowledge of how particular government services work the same as being informed about politics? Maybe we need a definition of what that means.
I made no such assumption, and I find this string of argument dishonest. I’m getting the sense that you’re just saying “you think poor people are ignorant and inferior!” to make people look bad, not because anyone actually said it.
As I said above, I’m in favor of making it easier to vote for people who want to vote. I suspect that would embrace the people you’re talking about, and it would be good if politicians had to look out for their interests.
I’m not convinced of that.
If people who actually have an interest in politics voted, then yes. If you’re forcing people to vote when they don’t care or want to do it, I’m not sure it introduces anything but randomness.
I think it still qualifies as compelled speech.
Poetry. I’m still waiting for an argument that people should vote because they have an obligation to each other.
I’m no political economist, but do you have a model that shows that 100% voting will improve the utility of voting or the credibility of the results?
Somebody not showing up at the balloting place is a considered “vote withheld.” You mean to tell me that now, everybody needs to drop what they’re doing and inconvenience themselves just to register their apathy when they can do that perfectly just by remaining apathetic? This is compelled speech and it is wrong.
Voting should be made easier with precautions against fraud. That is of course 100% gold. But it has no link whatsoever to who votes, or whether people ought to be compelled to vote.
Uhh… you might want to look up the word “Freedom.” Try this one. Since you put it in quotes, we gotta hold you to it.
If you meant to allude to some social contract we take on as citizens, I would point you to the Bill of Rights, which, following a long and storied history of jurisprudence tells us we cannot compell speech.
Nope, I’ve just got this here argument, which you’ve heard before, and apparently are still either ignoring at the top of your game or still figuring out: If everyone was guaranteed to vote, candidates would have to respond to the new voters’ concerns.
No, it isn’t. There is no such thing, currently, in American politics as a “withheld vote.” Let’s try to keep closer to reality, okay?
Wow, did you ever miss an important step while dodging the dual opportunity/responsibility to speak out. The basis of freedom is not the lack of obligation to one’s fellow citizens, it’s the ability to exercise their rights in concert to protect their liberties. Your ability to ignore that obligation ain’t speech, it’s just paperwork. Your apathy is interesting only insofar as you equate freedom with your personal convenience.
And this argues for non-voting how?
I put that in quotes? I think not. This doesn’t quite seem to tell me why any definition of freedom requires or even allows anyone to refrain from voting, but if all freedom means to you is the ability not to do something, exercise your rights, by all means.
I wouldn’t enter into any contract which requires any action at all on your part. The Bill of Rights does not compel (“Compel,” by the way, has only one “L.”) speech, action or thought on the part of anyone whatever. Nor does it prevent me from ridiculing idiotic puppies who think their lack of participation will precipitate some brave new world even though the new heroes are devoting their lives to wanting no part of it or anything else.
Marley23, I think we might meet amicably on the grounds that voting should be made as easy as possible and that voter ignorance should not be an issue. Agreed?
Like, say, the personal freedom, and convenience, of religion? Or speech? The U.S. was founded on matters of personal convenience. It has nothing to do with apathy.
I still don’t get this argument. You seem to use “ability” and “obligation” synonymously. Because one has the capability to do something, one is not required to do it. Making it an obligation removes the whole basis of freedom, now, doesn’t it?
That’s funny, your own definition of freedom above describes it handily.
Nor does it keep the “apathetic” from rolling their eyes at blind participation in and perpetuation of an obviously failing system.
Perhaps the idiotic puppies who don’t vote (I’ll not say “participate” as you so freely do, because as has been pointed out, there are other ways of participating that do not include voting) should rise up and overthrow the government!
Obviously that is the only option involving action if they choose not to vote, no? :rolleyes:
You have yet to describe how mandatory voting would be for the better. You’ve suggested that it would force the candidates to address new issues. Like what? What issues exist for non-voters that are not also issues for voters?
If I say I’m not a political economist, you win no points by petulantly saying “Really?” unless you are a political economist and you’re about to deliver the smackdown with a dazzling formal rendering of your ideas.
There are 2 responses, since I don’t want your idea to go neglected any longer. I am sorry I didn’t address this directly before.
1 --This is not at all true if people are allowed to enter no-preference votes. Suppose in your system, the 40% who don’t vote now just entered a no-preference vote? How would this change what politicians do in any way whatsoever?
2 --This is also not true if those communities of people don’t raise money for campaigns. Votes don’t count for much, mate. Generating money does. Every politician will talk about fighting poverty, improving race relations, reducing crime, winning jobs or easing pressure on the middle class. But they respond to people who deliver the goods. That’s the way of things.
Look here for an explanation of voter utility and the credible commitment problem from somebody who is, in actual fact, a political economist.
Again, I am sorry I didn’t point this all out to you earlier.
You suggest a sweeping change to how things are done. I could easily tell you to fall back on reality but at the very least, I respond with a suggestion that does precisely what you require [enter non-votes as non-preference votes] with less of a hassle.
I’ll help your imagination along… let’s do a little creative book keeping. Every voting precinct has that familiar book with pages full of registered voters. When you show up at your polling place, you sign your name in the book and make your selection. Now suppose, just suppose, the unsigned names in that book were collated and entered, by default, as no-preference?
Is this easier or harder than dragging people out of their homes, offices, schools or other locations? What makes this tortuous process you recommend at all worthwhile?
What is this concept you claim I dodged and what does it have to do with freedom? I’m a bit confused. I gave you a definition of the word “Freedom” which you placed in quotations in post # 60 of this thread. I assume the word is held to have a stable enough meaning, which can be verified easily enough. I gave you a link to a dictionary. You are apparently alluding to some other concept which has no basis in our situation as citizens of the U.S. and obviously, no precedent in law, jurisprudence or even tradition.
What I was saying is that your calls to improve voting are distinct from making it a mandatory participaton. Through my suggestions or by agreeing with certain statements of yours, I have already achieved any improvement you can attain but I make a point of doing it without making voting compulsory. I do not argue for non-voting. I argue against your idea that it should be required.
You force me to condescend to quote a definition of the word “Freedom” now, because you apparently didn’t look at the link. Do you see what you’ve made me do?
Then you would not, in fact, demand a vote out from everyone? Good. Ironic you’d correct the spelling of the word “Compel” but you don’t evince understanding of what “Freedom” is.
I don’t recall at any time advocating not voting or even speaking about my voting record or any potential lack thereof. I vote early and often. In fact, I even alluded on another thread to voting for McCain in 2000, which obviously had strategic implications I wish more people had considered at the time. I was, however, defending the right not to vote.
That you feel you have been ridiculing me is not to your credit. It shows you do not act your age. That you call names is more of the same and grounds for your expulsion from MENSA.
Ahh, an olive branch for Marley23 but you’re so intent on your puerile attempt to “ridicule” me as an “idiotic puppy” that you miss what I already said:
The very least you could do, man, is pay attention.
I will have you censured if you do not stop name-calling.
Yes, I agree. I don’t think that The Ignorant Voter is the best argument against compulsory voting and I probably should have made that clear. I’m more interested the freedoms of the comparatively few people who don’t want to vote because of principles.
First off, I retract and apologize for any insults on my part.
Second, my argument is not that freedom can’t be defined as the ability* not* to do something, it’s that such “freedoms” can’t be equated with affirmative political rights. Political inactivity and disinterest is freely allowed almost everywhere and encouraged in a lot of places – despots love it. The freedom to not vote is enjoyed by huddled masses the world over. So congratulations – you’ve achieved for yourself the liberty of the gulag.
Third, here’s the difference between a none of the above ballot and simply not showing up. The latter, as noted, has no meaning: it could be that the non-voter dislikes all the candidates, doesn’t care about the issue/s, got hit by a car, thinks his abstaining will bring the government to its knees, simply forgot, et cetera. There’s no message there.
Fourth, if non-voters began voting, politicians would have to find out about them and respond by taking their needs into consideration. To think that if you once got all the non-voters to the polls they would still fail to vote or would uniformly indicate no preference isn’t reasonable. Certainly candidates could not count on that. The mere fact that a constituency could not be safely ignored any more would require politicians to be responsive to it, and that’s a good thing.
Fifth, the spectre of compelled speech is not, well, compelling. I’m not at all sure, legally, that it is compelled speech if the content is left up to the individual. The choices are more restrictive on most legal forms you might be required to fill out as you go through life’s grand progress, and if you find yourself at the wrong table in a courtroom you’ll be required to enter a plea – very few choices there.
Sixth, the argument isn’t that people should be forced to vote, it’s that everyone should vote. Your freedom to sleep in on election day is yours to keep, but it doesn’t rank very respectably among the liberties for which you probably won’t be required to fight. In short, sure you have the right to be a bad citizen: you just can’t expect the rest of us to pretend you’re not.
Freedom can be defined to do as one likes, absent [free] of restraint. This is an affirmative political right – to determine one’s own course of action. I never argued that one should not vote or that there is a particularly good reason for this. It may even be true that communities of race, class or otherwise that don’t tend to vote are underserved and I may even agree that this is a serious problem. I just don’t think you’re touching on a reasonable solution. I cannot deny that voter participation is unfortunately low in poorer communities which are as a result underserved. Perhaps you want to think of other ways to include them in the political process. These are the people who may be hurt the most, economically, by being dragged from their workplace for the purpose of voting.
Except that current non-voters already have indicated a lack of preference. I am not convinced that there are any positive effects of dragging people who feel this way to the ballot. Folks don’t vote because they don’t know, don’t care or at least, can’t be bothered next Tuesday. It’s not necessarily because a candidate didn’t connect with them – that is not the only reason.
Moreover, I think you really should read post #33 in the thread I linked for you to see how and why candidates make promises and how and why voters choose their [wo]man. If you can make something of your notion of improving access to government policy for the disenfranchised through commonly accepted voter preference theory, you might have something, but I am definitely still unconvinced this idea has merit.
Oh, but it is compelling. Your comparison to one’s participation in criminal legal proceedings is somewhat bunk for a few reasons.
i - a defendant, who is possibly already incarcerated and is compelled to appear before a court of law for an alleged transgression is relieved of some of his/her rights only in the interest of the state; it is not a natural state of being for him or her if one should remain a lawful individual citizen of the U.S.
ii - a defendant, on the stand, has a right to withhold speech that might self-incriminate. this extends to speech which may incriminate a spouse as well. this is a reasonable limit on court-compelled speech.
iii - by definition, appearing at your day in court is mandatory; if you should choose not to show up, a guilty plea can be entered for you.
iv - certain professions, by definition, are shielded from compelled speech. clergy, physicians, lawyers. some issues may be confidential work-product and cannot be discussed in open court.
I think you’re doubling back here. You argue against the notion of ‘compelled speech’ being a danger and yet say you wouldn’t compel anyone. I never even said I pretended non-voters were either good or bad citizens.
I have, however, said in a few places that I don’t even really think voting’s where it’s at. If your senator, representative, or executive knows who you are because of all the letters, phone calls, and rallies that you organize, you’re a good citizen. Otherwise, voting is just a placebo to make people feel like good citizens because they took part in entering a statistical preference for which individuals they’d like to run amok for a term of 2-6 years.
I don’t think there’s any difference between not showing up and entering a no-preference vote. Why? They produce the same result, statistically. If we started counting non-votes, it would still produce the same statistical result whether we get a warm body through the booth or just a cold, unsigned page of the voter registry to consider.
We need not compel a message from all citizens. We only require their statistical preference.
As it happens, I voted for George W. Bush in NYC. Why? While I’m disappointed that he won the election, I am thrilled that Kerry lost. Does that mean I voted for Bush to win the whole election?
Not quite.
I entered a statistical preference for Kerry to lose my state. I knew I wasn’t going to change who the 2004 winner would be [or even who the NY State Electoral winner would be] and I wanted to protest how shitty my choices were. MsWas and I developed “Anarchists For Bush!” t-shirts which we sold downtown at the RNC last August and that platform was the only one I could vote on without feeling queasy.
So is there a reasonable way to extrapolate a “message” from voters… or are we just looking at the statistics? I’d say the latter.
My liberty is more valuable to me than your intellectual satisfaction regarding voting.
Candidates are created by two megalithic marketing firms, the Democrats and Republicans that acquire their statistical analysis from the same places. Such as Acxiom.
Members of both parties hold stock in the same fund management companies such as the Carlyle group.
When I vote, I know that I am voting for a Coke or a Pepsi, not a Coke or a Martini.
People vote for who engages them. As we can see from the previous 6, a politician selectively engages a constituency. Most people will not maintain a vigilant eye over their candidate during his term, in order to maintain a sense of accountability.
It does not damage the democratic process at all to not convince someone to vote who does not want to vote. I maintain that we’d have a better system if only people who WANTED to be engaged voted.
You need to revise your argument to recognize that you aren’t arguing for universal suffrage, because no one is arguing against it. You are arguing that voting is virtuous. I personally think it is more responsible not to affect the outcome of a decision you do not understand.
This is wrong. the despots don’t give these people the right to not vote, they compel them to not vote. It would only be the freedom to not vote if the huddled masses had the choice to vote or not. Following the same logic not having the right to not vote dilutes the freedom of voting, as we no longer have the choice of whether we do it or not.
Yes, we’d still have the freedom to choose who we vote for, but we would still be compelled to vote, and lose the freedom of the choice.
Why would politicians be any more compelled to cater to people who check “no preference,” than they are compelled to those who don’t vote?
The bottom line is: while you may feel that it is in my best interest to vote, it is no skin off your nose if I don’t. It creates no harm to the country if I don’t vote, and there’s no reason to compel me to do so.