The California Secretary of State reports that this initiative is currently being circulated for possible inclusion on the 1994 primary election (or possibly November general election) ballot.
I don’t know whether similar measures are being considered in other states, but I wonder what Dopers think about making the right to vote a mandatory duty.
My emotional reaction to the low voter turnout after each election is that everybody owes his/her vote as one the primary responsibilities of citizenship. It pisses me off that so many people simply neglect to take part in what I believe is the most precious right we have as Americans. Nevertheless, after I think about it (after each election) I realize that, for many people, abstention is a kind of vote. Sometimes it’s easy to think that none the choices we are offered is desireable or even acceptable. Perhaps to some people abstaining from voting is a choice which is actually a manner of participating.
Is the right to vote the same as a duty to vote? And if it is, should those who abstain, for whatever reason, be punished? I’m inclined to think not. What are your thoughts.
I appologize for the lack of a link. I couldn’t get it to work. I Googled the California Secretary of State and checked ballot measures now being circulated. The quote, taken from that page, is complete.
If they could somehow also force people to be informed when they vote, it might be a good idea. Making people go the polls and randomly pick a name to avoid a fine won’t improve matters in any way.
Oh, just what we need, force all the ignorant, uninformed people who obviously don’t care about what happens to vote. That’ll surely help matters.
I can see it now, 10 years down the line California has the highest turnouts for votes, but is the State with the crappiest budget, schools, and taxes in the US. Sounds great.
What a wonderful idea. If so, I could include the fact that I would scrap this scheme deep in my campaign, so all the apathetic voters forced to be there would give me power. Bwahahahah.
Like most electoral laws, it depends entirely on what kind of democracy you want. I suspect, however, that it’s merely a case of treating the symptoms to the neglect of the disease.
They’re certainly free to do it…any country that can compel me to military service for the national good is presumably also empowered to make me vote for the national good. On the plus side (arguable, but go with me), it would require candidates in general election to appeal to the broadest range of individuals. It would presumably result in elected officials who more clearly reflected the mass concensus.
But of course, most democracies count on on the fact that the electors are at least somewhat educated in the issues being voted upon. Voluntarily voting, in this model, represents a critical mass of interest required to be worthy of the act.
It’s for that reason that some oppose internet voting-it’ll make it too easy, and the riff raff who couldn’t be bothered to drive to the local library in years past will surely vote for some underqualified nut. As for me, I consider myself an extremely educated voter and I’d love to not have to get off my fat ass to do so.
I think if election day were a holiday, that would go a long way
toward inproving turnout. Far too many people have to squeeze
it in around work and face long lines because of the competition
the face for voting booths during the peak hours.
Australia has compulsory registration and compulsory voting. I dont think we are better for it, the apathetic are still apathetic and the ignorant are still ignorant. I havent seen anything to indicate that we are better served by our politicians as a result.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Eolbo *
**Australia has compulsory registration and compulsory voting. I dont think we are better for it, the apathetic are still apathetic and the ignorant are still ignorant. I havent seen anything to indicate that we are better served by our politicians as a result. **[/QUOTE
Can you explain the details of how you Aussies work that?
I can’t imagine this being constitutional in the US. It’s a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. Those who don’t care shouldn’t vote. And we have thousands of people on welfare. How are they supposed to pay a $500 fine if they don’t vote?
Personally, I like low voter turnout. Makes my vote count more.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Mace *
**
[/QUOTE
Can you explain the details of how you Aussies work that?
I can’t imagine this being constitutional in the US. It’s a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. Those who don’t care shouldn’t vote. And we have thousands of people on welfare. How are they supposed to pay a $500 fine if they don’t vote?
**[/QUOTE]
When we turn 18 we are eligible for voting, and must register with the Australian Electoral Commision (AEC) the body that maintains the electoral roll. In practise we are identified via residential address ie John Doe of 6 Whatever Street and Australians who shift residence often are likely familiar with AEC letters requiring updating of address details or complaining that no one is any longer registered at this address. Voting itself is compulsory for federal, state, and local government elections, and not voting attracts a fine. The fine itself is fairly small, and IIRC is < $100. The fine is collected by local government, although its not always enforced and can also be avoided by presentation of a statutory declaration with reasons why you couldnt vote on the day.
It does have one distorting side effect which we call the donkey vote. A donkey voter is one who doesnt care who wins and just numbers the candidates 1, 2, 3 etc straight down the ballot paper. I dont want to exaggerate this as its generally a small factor but it has at times decided elections here, and the AEC has a procedure to fairly determine the order of candidates on the ballot as the first ones do have an advantage.
As an Australian I think it’s a good thing. It makes a lot of those apathetic voters think some before they vote, so it’s good for democracy.
And there is no argument about the government’s legitimacy or mandate (as there is with Dubya, for instance).
And the other good thing compared with the US system is that your name and address are on the electoral roll all the time, as a check on whether you voted. So you don’t have to register to vote before each election.
So… All the lazy, stupid, ignorant people will select random strings of meaningless alphanumerics instead of keeping their uninformed asses at home watching America’s Top Model?
Excelsior! I always wanted a government run by a random system! Hooray!
That’s not entirely true. There were concerns over the mandate of the 1998 Howard government because he lost the popular vote to Beazley just as Bush lost it to Gore. Granted we didnt have the quibbling over voter registration ala Florida but we did have the fundamental issue the US had.
Thanks for the link, Mr. Duality. This quote says what I have thought was a good idea for some time:
The system we have in the US now too often provides us with two idealistically unattractive to downright unacceptable candidates (with a handful of “other” candidates equally unappealing for one reason or another – the luinatic fringe). If we could say so on the ballot clearly and unambiguously perhaps more people would go to the polls. Then perhaps the mediocre people who call a plurality of a minority of voters a “mandate” could be encouraged to go back to practicing law, where they would do less harm, or at least do harm in a smaller venue. I would much prefer the “no-vote” category to mandatory voting and fines for those who opt out.
I started this thread because of the specific attempt in CA to mandate voting. I did look for other recent threads on that specific issue, but I’m afraid I didn’t scan for a more general debate on the idea of mandatory voting. Sorry about that.
To which I’d add: 1. the notion of “mandate” is incoherent in a representative democracy such as ours; and 2. In a representative democracy such as ours, there’s no such thing as a popular vote for leader anyway.
So there’s still quibbling.
I managed to get myself fined for failing to register a postal vote in the last local council elections. I just forgot they were on. You can get out of it fairly easily if you so desire (I paid up).
Not in the slightest. Makes me think of the old line about the Soviet Union: “everything not forbidden is mandatory.”
I can see it’s been said earlier, but there is nothing to be gained by increasing voter turnout. That’s not a good thing in and of itself. Greater participation in the electoral process, which involves being INFORMED, is a good thing. That should be encouraged. I think many of us here have been to public school, and as such we know how much you really learn when it’s required - not to mention how ably and enthusiastically people tend to discharge requirements.
