I would agree with making it more difficult to vote, though not with any ‘test’. We toss around the franchise a bit too freely it seems to me. Instead of making voting mandatory (which is a bad idea…smacks of big brother looking out for us to be sure we are ‘doing the right thing’) maybe we should simple say that if you DON’T vote for a certain period of time (say, in two consequtive elections) you lose your franchise TOO vote.
Voting shouldn’t be a “right”. It shouldn’t be a forced duty. Its a privilage that should be earned. If some folks can’t be troubled to vote, well and good, don’t make them do something that they find distastful and tiring…simply take them from the rolls. God knows, its a small enough ‘sacrifice’ to go to the polls, taking a few hours…every what, 2-4 years, depending on if its a local or presidential election?? What a horrible burden is placed on our citizens when they have to ‘sacrifice’ so much in the name of freedom and democracy…
Don’t want to vote for any of the bums on the list?? No problem. Do what I do (well, did once anyway). Go down to the polling booths. Check in. Get your little card. Go into the booth. Vote for no one, and turn the card back in (this is what I did in the last presidential, where even the Independant was a loser). You’ve done your duty as a citizen.
What about for those who fail to consider democracy to be fundamentally important to society? Should they receive an opt-out because they do not expect voting to be compulsory, and would write nothing on the ballot if they did? No, I suppose a supporter of mandatory voting would say; we give certain things up for a free society, including our time spent to vote.
That doesn’t seem right to me. I refuse to vote because my vote could not possibly change the government I live under to the sort of government I’d prefer to live under. What’ll change this society to my society is certainly not my vote - it’s trying to convince people that the libertarian point of view is the right one to take. I don’t even believe that government should be large enough that voting for politicians would really have an effect on any person’s normal, everyday life.
In my case, I guess, I’m voting against the system itself by refusing to go to the polls. Under your sort of compulsion I could make a big fuss about writing nothing on the ballot, but why should I be compulsed to go at all - why should I be denied that sort of protest when it seems viable to me, and when the effects of my vote are so minimal?
First of all, that’s not what you said earlier. You said that jury duty, conscription, and mandatory voting were all “prohibited” by the 13th Amendment. If you knew they were not “prohibited,” then why did you say they were?
Second, the Courts have never said that the 13th Amendment doesn’t apply to the government. For example, the government can’t force you to become a beaurocrat or work for the CIA. However, mandatory jury duty and conscription do not constitute involuntary servitude.
Third, what’s wrong with interpreting the Constitution? Do you think that you’re not “interpreting” the Constitution when you say that conscription constitutes involuntary servitude?
No, but if you can’t be bothered to read the Court’s decisions, I can argue that they are not “involuntary servitude,” as that phrase is used in the Constitution.
The ability to raise standing armies is a power specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. Similarly, the Constitution specifically provides for juries and grand juries. It’s ridiculous to assert that the Constitution would provide for juries and armies, but forbid Congress the means to gather those juries and armies.
In fact, juries and armies are so important to the preservation of our Union that forbidding conscription and mandatory jury duty would hamper the likelihood that our country can survive. If we can only indict criminals by means of a grand jury, and noone shows up for jury duty, then our government loses the ability to prosecute criminals. If we’re pulled into a war in Europe and the Far East, and our country’s survival depends on thousands of people running onto French beaches in the face of mines and machine guns, but noone volunteers to run onto those beaches, then our country will be overrun by opposing forces.
A similar argument could be made for mandatory voting. If we hold elections and noone comes, then our country loses the ability to hold the elections required by the Constitution. What do we do if, in a few years, noone shows up to the polls to vote for either Schwarzenneger or Mosely-Braun [ahem]? Does the incumbent stay in office? Do we declare a tie? In fact, the government must be given the power to assure its own survival.
“Our Constitution is not a suicide pact,” and it should not be read to deprive the country of the powers it needs to survive.
While I’m in favor of this in principle, it bears a creepy resemblance to the Jim Crowe laws of a (hopefully) bygone era. As often as you hear people today talk about cultural biases in the SAT, can you imagine what the fight would be like over what questions may be asked in a test that you have to pass before being able to vote? And who gets to decide what those questions are? Couldn’t one party skew the questions so that they favor the qualification of people from their own party and exclude the opposition?
While this may be true in some cases, I went to schools in America, and I can tell you that just because we were going to be tested on the materials didn’t mean that we read them. I see no reason why things would be different if we were being tested by secret ballot. In fact, I think that by and large, the voters would be less informed, and special interests would have a greater ability to sway elections in their favor if the voters were less informed.
How can you do a bad job of voting? You read the newspapers, watch the TV, and make a choice on the person or party you want to vote for, go to the polls on Election Day and vote. Not exactly rocket science.
The only evidence I have is not citeable, but observations I have made during the lead up months to elections in Australia. Maybe not good enough for great debates, but then again I never stated that it was right, I only made the suggestion. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?
Plus your analogy seems flawed. Driving is a skill, some people will be good at it, some people will not. What skill is there is voting?
It was meant as a summary of my post. What we need are not more people to show up at the polls but rather for more understanding of the world around us when people show up at the polls. I think the later would lead to the former.
I’m not sure how I feel about the argument that people tend to think about politics more if they expect to vote. That certainly doesn’t address my concern that too many Americans don’t have enough knowledge of the past to grasp the politics of today.
I don’t know that they are not “prohibited.” In fact, I am quite certain that they are. As I have said many times before, I refuse to believe that you can construe a meaning into the words contrary to their clear meaning. Define involuntary and define servitude. That should get you far enough to determine what does and does not fall under the heading of “involuntary servitude.”
Okay, I should have added “in this case” or some similar modifier. However, my point was (and I’m sure most here were able to get it) is that the basic argument why jury duty and conscription (and if it were allowed, mandatory voting) are not under prohibition is that the Supreme Court says so. That is not enough for me.
Why can the government force someone, against their will, to serve on a jury or in the military but not as a bureaucrat or in the CIA? All are forms of service; all are essential to the workings of our current manifestation of government. What’s the difference?
I put the word “interpreting” in quotes to seperate it in terms of conotation. If by interpreting you want to refer to the act of defining the words used and placing them in the context of the clause/phrase they appear, fine. If by interpreting you want to refer to the process of making the clause/phrase fit your own ends, forget it.
That’s why I asked for someone to explain, without merely repeating “because the courts say so,” why jury duty, voting, conscription, etc. would not be involuntary servitude. Don’t try to make the constitution fit what you want to do (except through the process of amendment), make what you want to do fit the contitution.
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.
Congress is not forbidden the means to gather juries and soldiers, just that one. Slavery is also specifically referenced in the Constitution, does that mean slavery can exist today? No, because we amend the constitution to change the original document. Hence, we have the 13th Amendment, which alters certain parts of the original constitution and places certain limits and grants certain powers to the government beyond what was originally there.
And before our country is even pulled into this war, young American men crossed borders to enlist and fight voluntarily with other nations. And when we have a draft to fight a war in a tiny jungle in SE Asia, young American men burn their draft cards and run off and hide. No system made by man is perfect, but that is not a reason to irreperably harm our founding basis.
And how many elections have we held in which no one has voted? But, to answer your hypothetical (as outlandish as it may be), if no one votes, then yes, by definition that would be a tie, and most elections have a process for deciding the winner of a tie election.
\Democ"racy, n.1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
“by the people”, not a subset of the people, but all the people.
What is the point of the USA constitution? If it is not about a government elected by ‘the people’ then it is not democracy. Surely democracy is important to the USA constitution.
There are many obstacles in establishing mandatory voting in the USA. I am arguing that philosophically voting should be mandatory for the benefit of democracy. Practically it would be a problem (c.f. introduction of metric).
Fines are only small, enough to administer the system, not a tax for the right to vote.
If someone is an anarchist, say, then they can write something whacky and zany like ‘kiss my arse’ on the ballot paper. Someone else said earlier Australia only gets a couple of percent donkey votes.
Do any US people find that some segments of US society are not encouraged or given a good opportunity to vote? Are some segments focussed on and encouraged to vote by candidates with greater resources?
I am asking this because if we had voluntary voting in Austraila, I imagine that a lot of people in the outback, in remote communities, would not vote because of the difficulty in getting to a booth, due to isolation.
This would rule out a lot of the aboriginal population and some farmers, which in turn would not be represented by the government and thus would receive poorer services.
Just wondering if a similar problem could ever exist in the USA.
Gee, it seems to me like this is saying the following:[ul][li]Freedom is a very important thing.[/li][li]Democracy gives us freedom.[/li][li]Therefore, democracy is an important thing as well.[/li][li]Since democracy is so important (because it guarantees freedom, remember), let us… deny people a particular freedom.[/ul]Hello, throwing the baby out with the bath water![/li]
There seems to me to be utterly no moral justification for such a stance. If the reason democracy is so important is that it guarantees freedom, then denying people the freedom to participate in that democracy as they see fit is the height of hypocrisy. If, on the other hand, democracy is the end in and of itself, then I would suggest that with all due respect, your priorities be whack.
Good greif, you think having to spend a little time filling out a ballot an infringement of your freedom?
Don’t you think the benefits of democracy outweight this minor inconvenience.
Do you think having to go to school is an infringement on you freedom.
Do you think having to stay under the speed limit is an infringement on you freedom.
Do you think having to get a licence for your <insert weapon of choice> is an infringement on you freedom.
What about having to pay tax?
Cost-benefit
Compulsory voting - little cost, big benefit
I think plenty of Aussies have made the point that our method of compulsory voting does not compel one to cast a valid vote. The main purpose of the practice is to maintain the integrity of the electoral rolls - making sure that you are registered and that you only vote once. The simplicity of registration is what allows the system to be successful. If I move I can go to the Post Office and fill in a form that makes the government keep track of my voting particulars - removed from the roll in one electorate and added in another. In European countries where voter registration is as simple similar voting percentages are found. Countries with entirely voluntary voting achieve over 90% turnout if there are simple registration methods.
In my own case I turn up to “vote” at every election but mostly vote for no-one. I am deeply distrustful of every aspect of party politics. I can’t vote Liberal because they stand for too many things I despise. Every once in a while I have to vote Labor to stop the Liberals but then every Labor government I have ever voted for has proved to be incompetent. A vote for anyone else is a waste of time.
It should be trivially obvious that it is an infringement on freedom; people are being forced to do that which they may or may not wish to do. It’s not a terrible infringement, by any means, but to suggest that it’s not an infringement at all is pretty silly, yes?
In and of itself, I don’t see why democracy is any better than any other form of government. It’s only when it maximizes freedom and happiness of the governed that it is actually worthwhile, surely. So I guess I’m not seeing any real benefits to such a scheme.
The only people worth contemplating here are the ones who wouldn’t choose to vote if given the option; those who would choose to vote are admirable, but aren’t really affected in any meaningful way. Of those people who don’t vote, some are lazy, some are apathetic, some have problems with the entire system… Why are these things not valid choices in your scheme of the world? What possible gain is there in forcing these people to do that which they do not wish to do? You keep on babbling about minimal cost, which is true, and great benefit, but I’m not seeing what benefit there is in forcing people to vote against their will.
And really, given that it’s not the law here, and this country is, presumably, a democracy, it seems pretty silly to say that democracy requires us to do a certain thing when we have democratically chosen not to, yes?
Can you suggest with a straight face that these things aren’t? If so, I suggest you get thee a bloody dictionary. They may be infringements that we’ve decided are acceptable, but Christ on a cracker, man, the more options are unavailable to me, the less freedom I have, by definition.
No, but having the government require me to go to the polls infringes on my freedom.
I don’t consider it a minor inconvenience. Voting is a right. It is my right to exercise it as I see fit. It is also my right to not exercise it as I see fit.
Compulsory education is not the same issue as compulsory voting.
Driving is not a right. It’s a privilege and the government is well within its delegated authority to regulate it.
Some may argue yes, but IIRC the SCOTUS does not consider it a violation of the Second Amendment.
It’s a necessary evil for society and its administrative arm, the government, to function.
I lived long enough in Australia to obtain Australian citizenship. I’ve lived and voted under two different systems. Being forced by the government to go to the polls violates my freedom to choose.
antechinus, the cultures of Australia and America are different enough that what may “work” in one country does not mean it will “work” in the other.
Didnt you understand the cost of losing a little freedom versus the benefit to society of a more representative democracy?
It seems like you have a very simplistic concept of freedom. You say that any restriction on what you can do is an infringement on your freedom. Buddah on a biscuit, man, there are restrictions all around you. Some are agreed by society (rules, mores, etc), some are physical.
Obviously some restrictions have been decided as acceptable in the USA, and mandatory democracy isnt one of them. I know this. I know some have been agreed on as acceptable. We are not debating whether there are or are not agreed restrictions, or whether democracy is one of them.
You may see freedom as being able to do whatever you want. There are some restrictions in small amounts that actually make life, in the long term, less restricted for you.
For example, if I lived in a city like Bagdhad, with every man and his dog carrying a gun, I would not be free to walk down the street at night (or day for that matter). Yet people there have the freedom to walk around with guns, plant bombs etc. …yay… shit, how free is that.
The trade off of one small freedom for a larger one is obvious. It isnt as simple as saying anarchy is freedom. I have to point this out to you as you seem to have missed it.
Well, have you seen any better form of government. You agree yourself that we want to maximise freedom and happiness - I think democracy is the clear winner there.
I’m Australian so you will have to excuse my ignorance, but wasn’t the
Florida election fiasco more to do with dodgy voting machines than the
actual people voting?
I would also like to put forward the idea that you cant vote badly.
The great thing about Democracy is that (in theory) it gives everyone a
chance to voice their opinion on how they want their country run by voting
for a representative that best suits their own or country’s needs. Everyone
will have different opinions on how this should be done, but whose opinion
is the right one?
There are no right or wrong decisions when it comes to voting (of course
with hindsight there is). If somebody wants to vote for a candidate because
of what they can gain from that person being elected then that is their
choice. Nobody can say that this is right or wrong as it’s up to the person
who is casting the vote to decide that.
If someone votes for a candidate based on appearance, race or religion then
again that is their choice and this choice is neither right or wrong. Of
course I’m sure 99.999% of the people on this message board know that this
is probably a bad idea, but unfortunately with democracy you have to take
the bad with the good and the good with the bad.
A percentage of people will vote without being informed of the candidates,
but with the media (TV, newspapers, radio and internet), usually following
elections quite closely I find it hard to believe that this will be a very
high percentage, not enough to sway the election results (I would think).
I love the fact that we are able to live in a society that runs this way,
and I think it’s a shame that so many people in the U.S don’t take the chance to voice
their opinions for whatever reason, but I do think that if voting were compulsory it would give a wider spectrum of opinions and ideas for the politicians to consider, which can only be a better thing.
This is the sticking point between the two sides. Those in favor mandatory voting feel that society can infringe on the rights of the individual for their own ends. Those opposed think that there must be something more. For me, that something more is the passage of a constitutional amendment. I know the slippery-slope argument is often over-used and trivialized, but it is very valid. We have twisted around the clauses and phrases in the constitution so much that there seems little reason to even have it around.
I am curious, what is the inherent benefit of mandatory voting? It seems that you are assuming that those who do not now have the inclination to vote will, when forced to, vote in a manner that is meaningful or positive. I know someone posted numbers about Australian voting where they hav only about 5% blank ballots and about 1% defaced, but this doesn’t really say much. What percent of ballots are punched randomly, or by voting for every 5th person, or some other means that takes no effort and reflects no true choice?
The ideal of democracy is not, in my opinion, massive voting, but informed voting. If the turnout is only 10%, but those ten percenters represent the informed public then I am happier than if 100% vote, but only 10% are informed.
But what we are debating, at least as it appears to me, is what types/level of restrictions are warranted. My answer is fairly simple. I believe that no form of government has any authority to act in any case except through those powers explicitely delegated to it and for the specific ends for which those powers where given in the first place. I believe that any question of extent of power should be decided by determining the meaning of the wrods used to form the clause in question, and always erring(when necessary to err) on the side of limiting government powers. It is much easier to later delegate more powers to the government than to reclaim those that are lost.
How, exactly, does the presence of an armed populous deny you the freedom to walk down the street? You making the decision not to walk down the street is not a denial of your freedom, but a personal decision not to exercise your freedom. I may not agree with your decision, but I respect your right to make one - much like I would like my decision not to vote (if I so chose - although I don’t) to be respected, and that freedom not denied.
It may be the winner of those that have been tried, but that certainly doesn’t make it unconditionally the best. How many nations practice some form of democracy? Are they all at a level of maximum personal freedom? Are we?
Our constitution provides a framework that could, if it were followed, provide such a higher measure of freedom than we know now. We have abandoned this dream for a reality in which many expect the government to provide them with alll of the comforts of life, rather than just the protection for their ability to get those comforts.
Perhaps were you to establish that this is a benefit rather than merely claiming such, this would be a point worth discussing. As it is, I don’t think you’ve established any benefit worth the name, and so it’s a case of losing a little freedom for no meaningful benefit at all. Why, then, would I want to support such a silly thing?
Perhaps, but then it’s not like freedom is a particularly difficult concept to grasp. But apparently, being forced to do something you would choose not to do is not, in fact, infringing on your freedom at all! In other news: peace is war, love is hate, truth is death.
You say this as if you somehow think this has escaped my notice. To put an end to any such misapprehensions, let me state now that this, too, is trivially obvious. The existence of some restrictions on freedom is in no way a valid justification for further restrictions, however; the restriction has to live or die on its own merit.
I thank you for this illuminating and enlightening point which had hitherto flown right over my poor idiotic American head. I’d never, in all my days, realized that one may sometimes trade smaller freedoms for larger. The very concept shocks me to the core!
Geez.
Of course we may trade smaller freedoms for larger ones; you’re trading a smaller freedom for none at all, though, so why in the thundering heck is this aside relevant?
Indeed, democracy is the worst form of government except for of all the others that have been tried.
But so what? How is this relevant? Freedom and happiness are the desired ends; democracy is only a means thereto. Any measure we adopt should be measured against the former, not against the latter. And you’re conflating the two.
