No, YOU are. But I’d be very interested to hear how you think this change would give them more power. This should be interesting.
That has nothing to do with changing the system to a one person one vote system. I live in the Netherlands, where we have a true one person one vote system, a parliamentary democracy with coalition governments (at this moment, a coalition of three runs the country, and about 14 parties have seats in Parliament).
At the same time, we have government at three different levels. We have national government, provincial government, and communal government. I know the U.S. system is similar in that it has layers like these as well. Now which layer has something to say about which issues, is a different discussion from how the election system for each layer should work. I’m not sure why this is hard to understand, but for some reason you seem adamant about it.
Actually, a federalist model (with lots of autonomy at the local level) is the only system with any chance of wokring in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
In point of fact, it really doesn’t matter. If you don’t have any interest in the topic of my posts, just don’t respond. But please don’t tell what subjects I may and may not post about in any given thread. Happy New Year.
Voting is so ridiculously easy that I can’t imagine why you would want to offer someone an incentive to vote. If a person doesn’t care enough to go to a voting station or to request a mail-in ballot, we’re probably better off with that person NOT voting. It’s one thing to offer services to people with physical disabilities or whatever, but most nonvoters are just plain lazy.
First, I want them to do it because it ties the social fabric together more tightly; I figure that I benefit from their voting.
Second, voting is much easier for some people than for others.
I don’t see it as a privilege; I see it more as a necessity.
anna, the political leanings of twelve-year-olds would be interesting, but I’m not sure why they’d be relevant to the issue of whether they should be allowed to vote. (I put the limit at twelve because I figure there are very few precocious kids who’d be ready to vote before adolescence strikes). Even if they’d vote overwhelmingly for Beyonce, I’d rather have them get started on voting as early as possible.
Oh, and the tax incentive would apply equally, anna: almost everyone is required to file a return, and some folks would be due $100 more of a refund than they’d otherwise be due.
Note that I’m not saying to give a $100 writeoff, which would have little effect for poor folks; I’m saying to give $100 cash, via the IRS.
You can raise everyone’s taxes by $100 to accomplish this, so in effect it’s an additional $100 on people who can’t be bothered to make it to the polling booth.
So, you’re not rewarding people for voting, you’re punishing them for not voting. How is that supposed to tie the social fabric together?
BTW, do you realize that this proposal would have absolutely no chance of being enacted in the US? That is not a criticism, per se, of your proposal. I’m just curious if you have put this in perspective.
Sure, I know it’s not entirely likely. I’m just tossing ideas around.
How does it keep the social fabric tighter? Simple: it keeps people invested in the process. Yes, it is de facto punishing people for not voting; however, the punishment is sufficiently sugarcoated that most folks won’t respond viscerally as if to a punishment. Most folks will say, “Joy! Free money!”
If you doubt me, look at how people respond to income tax refunds :).
Can’t argue with that one. I’ve stopped trying to explain to people that they just gave the gov’t a no interest loan for a year-- the blank stares told me all I need to know.
Well, it’s pretty much a pie-in-the-sky scheme at this point, as John points out; I’m just saying it’d make me happy. But for the purposes of discussion, I’m guessing it’d be easier to implement on a state-by-state basis, inasmuch as there’s nothing in the Constitution to prevent giving a tax break for folks that vote (as far as I know). On a federal level, I’m guessing an amendment would be the way to go to introduce it.
Politicians who are opposed to it would point out, and rightly so, that it’s a tax increase masquerading as a tax rebate. They’d suggest that people should be free not to vote (note that my scheme includes the “none of the above” option, which meets this objection nicely). They’d say that people too lazy to vote shouldn’t vote.
As for making voting compulsory, how would you do that? Are you talking jail time for nonvoters? How much jail time?
Nah, I want felons voting. 'Course, with the way prisons work, the felons would need to be compelled to go into the voting booth for long enough to cast a vote–if felons could choose not to go into the booth, then prison gangs could prevent certain prisoners from exercising their obligations.
So it’s more of a “one strike and you’re in” system :).
No jail time! Other countries have mandatory voting (all democracies, btw), with various levels of enforcement, but none AFAIK involve jail time. A nominal fine (say, the same $100. you propose as tax incentive) should be sufficient.
As long as there’s a “none of the above” option as you say, no one is forced to vote for any particular candidate/party/position, if none are acceptable. Do US citizens have a right not to vote?
I like mandatory better because it sets a standard. Voter turnout in countries that have the law is much higher than US, even when the law is rarely or minimally enforced.
Also, eliminates (or at least diminishes) the problem of voter suppression. Saves campaign funds spent on GOTV efforts.
Here’s a few I know of: Italy (still on the books although it’s not enforced), Australia, Belgium, Greece, Brazil…
One correction: Some non-democratic countries have it as well. Or debatable democratic countries (don’t want to get sidetracked with that inevitable nit-pick)…
Countries that have some form of compulsory voting include:
Argentina
Australia (see the Australian electoral system)
Belgium (see the Belgian electoral system)
Bolivia
Brazil
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Fiji
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Lebanon (compulsory for men only)
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Panama
Philippines
Singapore
Some parts of Switzerland
Uruguay
Venezuela
Countries that have ended compulsory voting include Austria and the Netherlands.
In New Zealand (Aotearoa) eligible voter registration is compulsory but voting is voluntary.
In some countries in which voting is compulsory, penalties for not voting are not stringently enforced. Such is the case in Australia and Argentina (though in Argentina, this has somewhat to do with an inability to enforce). Indeed in Australia fines can be avoided with an explanation, citing extenuating circumstances or religious prohibition. In any case, the fine is generally minimal and not excessive (less than a speeding ticket).
But I am and I even asked you specific questions. It’s just that I don’t understand why you have to bring in an issue that has nothing to do with what I propose, or at least, my limited mental capacities prevent me from seeing the connection.
