Why wouldn’t the “none of the above” option cover that?
My form of protest is to not participate in the system at all. If I can burn a flag, then surely I can refuse to enter a polling place.
Not participating in the system at all? So what about draft registration, jury duty, taxes…??? Of course you can choose to protest them by refusing to comply, but the govt seems to think it can penalise you as a consequence.
Most of the countries with mandatory voting have provisions for extenuating circumstances. You could try to argue your flag burning analogy and take your chances… 
I still think “none of the above” or writing in a protest vote covers your first amendment rights. Poll place phobic? Vote/protest by mail…
Where’s the incentive for anyone to actually set difficult questions? Why would any of the parties wish to exclude stupid voters?
Two pages in and still not even the OP himself will dare propose even one such question? A sad performance indeed.
Read Twain’s The Curious Republic of Gondour. This subject has been satirized much more expertly than the best Dopers can manage, long ago.
The draft is justified as a necessity during national emergencies. Few people would call for a peace-time draft. Jury duty and taxes are necessary for the functioning of society. There is no **just **way of exempting some people without exempting everyone. Voting doesn’t meet any of those criteria.
I have to say that the list of countries with mandatory voting is not an impressive bunch, taken as a whole. I see no reason to want to be in that group, as it has nothing to recommend itself.
“Name the last Democratic US President.”
“Name the last Republican US President.”
“How long is a single term for a US Senator?”
“How many justices make up the Supreme Court?”
“What document constitutes the supreme law of the United States?”
C’mon, at least give me a hint!
Daniel
Would those be the Conservative questions or the Liberal ones?
What connection do they have with the issues of the day and the candidates’ stands on them - remember, the problem you based your OP on?
You definitely need a brush-up on the history of the civil rights movement too, pal.
On the subject of the history of civil rights, I was under the impression that poll tests in the past were applied inequally: blacks were subjected to more rigorous tests than whites were.
That’s the problem I’ve always heard with them, and that would be a problem today with any voting measure: if black people were required, for example, to show three forms of ID to vote whereas white people didn’t have to show any ID, that would be a problem, even though requiring voters to show some form of ID is not itself an odious proposition.
I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a poll test, but not because of race-based civil rights reasons; I’m uncomfortable with it because I believe it’s curing measles by cauterizing the sores. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.
Daniel
I’m not solving my problem… I’m happy with the way the people vote. I’m trying to solve your problem – the one where masses of stupid people in Jesusland voted a brutal idiot dictator back into power – remember?
Voting is not necessary for the functioning of a democratic society? Sorry, but I call bullshit.
Since that group includes my homeland, in addition to the land of my mother’s birth, I suppose we should end it here, since you seem incapable of debating without resorting to xenophobic ridicule. Pity.
Or a bare majority of swinging voters decided:
“The Iraq war: It’s the Republican’s problem. We’ll keep that clear.”
And the questions you propose would address that how?
The problem, since you bring it up, is the glorification of ignorance, and demonization of alternative views, that you yourself so energetically espouse.
Irony sense–tingling!
Daniel
I’m not demonizing a fucking thing, just pointing out that **Bricker ** has no facts to support his allegations. Facts are good, remember?
It’s not necessary that ALL citizens vote. Unless you don’t think the US is a functioning democracy.
I call BS on that! Why don’t you tell me what that group of countries has, as a group, that suggests we should emulate them? I’ve said nothing xenophobic. I just don’t see a lot of countries in that group who have created a better political system than the US. Do you?
What allegations, exactly?
What is your rational argument that all citizens shouldn’t vote? Who exactly are the people who’s votes aren’t necessary? Are you saying that every vote doesn’t count, or isn’t warranted or necessary? On what basis?
I’ve got a libertarian bent to me. I see elected officials as employees. That is why I see voting as a responsibility rather than a priviledge. You still have not provided an answer to my response as to the first amendment. There is nothing specific in the constitution that says not voting is a right. Yes or no? Do you feel capable of arguing that there is a right to not vote?
Italy has one of the highest, if not the highest, voter turnouts. Over 90% on average. Tell me why this is undesirable for the US.
I have no problem with the way people vote. I have problems with the way politicians represent themselves in order to garner votes, and the relationship of those representations to actual performances.
I’ve been mulling over an oddball idea for a few days, and this is as good a place as any to throw it into the mix and see how people respond.
What if we elected two Presidents?
The first President will be exactly like the one we have now, with all executive power, military authority, and associated privilege. The second President has absolutely no power and no authority except the ability to say anything he wants to the press without reprisal. The second President sits by the side of the first President, seeing and hearing everything the first President does, learning the same information, watching the chosen responses. If the first President is in a meeting, the second President is there. If the first President gets a memo, the second President reads it. (And vice versa, of course. The point is for the second President to be a watchdog, not for people to start going to the second President behind the first President’s back.) If at any time the second President believes the first President is behaving improperly, misrepresenting facts or overstating information, he can say so. That’s all the power he has; but what a power, eh?
Naturally, you’d want a responsible person in the second President position, someone who wouldn’t blab classified information. The second President, when seeing something land on the first President’s desk, must be able to distinguish between something that must legitimately remain secret, and something that the first President is improperly concealing.
And you wouldn’t have to change the current election system at all. One voter, one vote. You are voting for your candidate to become first President, and to be in charge. The candidate who comes in second will be the second President. That’s it.
So right now we’d have George Bush in charge, with John Kerry sitting off to the side of the Oval Office, listening to everything he hears, reading everything he reads. A fly on the wall. Four years ago, Gore would have been second President. Four years before that, Dole would have been second President. And so on.
Personally, I think has some potential. It’s simple, it’s elegant, and it’s easy to explain (unlike many of the mathematically complicated voting schemes that have been proposed, where in the booth you make lists or whatever and after some secret sausage making a name emerges at the end). You are voting for your candidate to be in charge, or if he comes in second, to keep the top winner honest. That’s it. That’s the whole system.
It wouldn’t work for the legislature, but all the powerful executive positions should be considered: governors, mayors of big cities, county leaders, that sort of thing. And of course there would be attempts to game the system, same as we have now, to run fake candidates designed to come in second and then act as a yes-man.
The only possible downside, it seems to me, is people being worried about the second President spoiling all the first President’s plans, revealing secrets improperly and otherwise making a mess of things. While this may be raised as a concern, I frankly don’t see a likely problem here. The first President is a public servant, and must be acting in the public interest; anything he does should be fair game for public disclosure short of current national security issues. Knowing that, knowing that you’re voting for a candidate to be in charge or failing that to act as a watchdog, there’s no way a major national candidate is going to be a contender if he seems to be that sort of a loose cannon, somebody who’s going to call Newsweek with the nuclear launch codes or whatever.
This solves the informed-voter problem; they don’t have to be. They just need somebody mature and responsible to be that for them, and who they trust to tell them if something hinky is going on.
Like I said, this notion only occurred to me a few days ago, so it’s still kind of half formed. I welcome comments, criticisms, and such. Still, there’s something really appealing to me about it, and unless somebody comes up with an obvious and fatal flaw I’ve somehow missed, I will continue to find it appealing.
Thoughts?