Compulsory voting

[Brainonska511]

Not as big an idiot as the better-than-thou elitist leftists who keep telling everyone they are too stupid to know what's best for them.

So you're happy with looking like slightly less of an idiot? I didn't realize it was a contest.

 

[Murloc]

people who don't care and don't want to spend time informing themselves will have to vote.
Who will they vote? the party with the best and simplicistic slogan, it will probably be some right wing people's party with strong ideological positions.
That's bad, because you are not making democracy stronger.

 

[dali71]

Protip: When you use phrases like this, you just look like an idiot.

And starting off a post with "protip" makes you look like a giant douche.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Another shining example of leftist elitism, folks!!!

The unwashed masses are too stupid to decide what is good for them!

I think that your avatar was created after you walked passed a mirror.

If you think that I am a leftist, you haven't been paying attention. If you get the impression that I am an elitist, well, you are probably right on that front.

I have very little tolerance for stupidity and even less for those that believe that they are enlightened and make generalized statements like you did without a single shred of basis for the opinion they are regurgitating based on some pre-programed diatribe that was heard over AM radio or some cable news channel.

 

[RightIsWrong]

What we need is a greater effective choice in parties. Of course Republicans and Democrats will oppose anything that threatens their oligarchy.

Now this is as true of a statement as can be said regarding the American political process.

 

[Zebo]

Fail. What if you don't feel the right to be governed. The very act of voting is a violation of that. Violation of personal liberty.

 

[Amused]

I think that your avatar was created after you walked passed a mirror.

If you think that I am a leftist, you haven't been paying attention. If you get the impression that I am an elitist, well, you are probably right on that front.

I have very little tolerance for stupidity and even less for those that believe that they are enlightened and make generalized statements like you did without a single shred of basis for the opinion they are regurgitating based on some pre-programed diatribe that was heard over AM radio or some cable news channel.

I've seen your posts. You're about as left as they come on the political spectrum.

And yeah, keep up the elitism. It's sure is winning the people over to your side!

 

[child of wonder]

Why vote? We get to pick between two corrupt douchebags who merely dance along party lines and try to screw the other party.

When we do get a rare alternative candidate who actually cares and wants to change things, he/she will quickly be swallowed up by the political machine and either corrupted or discredited anyway.

 

[freegeeks]

we have compulsory voting here in Belgium. Actually it's just compulsory to show up, not to vote. Plenty of people just make a nice drawing...

 

[dali71]

we have compulsory voting here in Belgium. Actually it's just compulsory to show up, not to vote. Plenty of people just make a nice drawing...

:thumbsup: to Belgium, your Trappist ales bring me much joy. :biggrin:

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

We should do exactly the opposite. Only those people who demonstrate literacy and basic knowledge of math, science, and global politics should be allowed to vote. If a person can't point to America on a map, they can't vote.

 

[freegeeks]

:thumbsup: to Belgium, your Trappist ales bring me much joy. :biggrin:

I have a case of Westvleteren ready for the taking!!!!!!

 

[Craig234]

You should not force someone to vote.

Now, removing the political party affiliation from being stated on the ballot might help.

This is a bad thing to do.

The goal: force the voter to not just vote ignorantly by party, but encourage them to know more about the candidate and vote for things unrelated to party.

The unintended consequence: the fact is, party does matter, to an extreme, and often does outweigh the 'personal' differences between the candidates.

This spreads the myth that 'party doesn't matter', and gets people voting for what they don't want if they don't know the party of the candidates they're voting for.

Making voters not know the party when they vote doesn't solve anything about the problems with parties - and benefits Republicans, since more people are Democrats.

People voting by party are not doing a well as knowing the candidates, but it's a lot better reason than many would have if they didn't know they party (not that guy, Mexican name).

If you have issues with the 'two big parties', do the the one thing that will help third parties: demand ranked voting so voters can pick whoever they really want.

Hiding the party from voters isn't even logical in that it'll leaver voters with no idea who they're voting for if they remain ignorant, and they'll know the party if they are informed.

 

[MotF Bane]

This is a bad thing to do.

The goal: force the voter to not just vote ignorantly by party, but encourage them to know more about the candidate and vote for things unrelated to party.

The unintended consequence: the fact is, party does matter, to an extreme, and often does outweigh the 'personal' differences between the candidates.

This spreads the myth that 'party doesn't matter', and gets people voting for what they don't want if they don't know the party of the candidates they're voting for.

Making voters not know the party when they vote doesn't solve anything about the problems with parties - and benefits Republicans, since more people are Democrats.

People voting by party are not doing a well as knowing the candidates, but it's a lot better reason than many would have if they didn't know they party (not that guy, Mexican name).

If you have issues with the 'two big parties', do the the one thing that will help third parties: demand ranked voting so voters can pick whoever they really want.

Hiding the party from voters isn't even logical in that it'll leaver voters with no idea who they're voting for if they remain ignorant, and they'll know the party if they are informed.

rofl.

 

[dali71]

I have a case of Westvleteren ready for the taking!!!!!!

:awe: Westvleteren 12? I've been dying to try one to see if it really is the world's best beer.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Making voters not know the party when they vote doesn't solve anything about the problems with parties - and benefits Republicans, since more people are Democrats...

Source?

 

[freegeeks]

:awe: Westvleteren 12? I've been dying to try one to see if it really is the world's best beer.

yes the 12, I have to drive 90 minutes to the abbey to get it but its worth it!!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a bad thing to do.

The goal: force the voter to not just vote ignorantly by party, but encourage them to know more about the candidate and vote for things unrelated to party.

The unintended consequence: the fact is, party does matter, to an extreme, and often does outweigh the 'personal' differences between the candidates.

This spreads the myth that 'party doesn't matter', and gets people voting for what they don't want if they don't know the party of the candidates they're voting for.

Making voters not know the party when they vote doesn't solve anything about the problems with parties - and benefits Republicans, since more people are Democrats.

People voting by party are not doing a well as knowing the candidates, but it's a lot better reason than many would have if they didn't know they party (not that guy, Mexican name).

If you have issues with the 'two big parties', do the the one thing that will help third parties: demand ranked voting so voters can pick whoever they really want.

Hiding the party from voters isn't even logical in that it'll leaver voters with no idea who they're voting for if they remain ignorant, and they'll know the party if they are informed.

Part of the problem is that quite a few people will vote D or R because that's what everyone said they should do. At the minimum they should reshuffle things so that straight party voting is a thing of the past. Then it takes at least ten seconds of thought to cast a ballot.

 

[JS80]

I've seen your posts. You're about as left as they come on the political spectrum.

And yeah, keep up the elitism. It's sure is winning the people over to your side!

It's funny because he doesn't think he's a leftist. I bet he think he's a centrist.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally Posted by Amused

I've seen your posts. You're about as left as they come on the political spectrum.

And yeah, keep up the elitism. It's sure is winning the people over to your side!

It's funny because he doesn't think he's a leftist. I bet he think he's a centrist.

I don't think that I'm a centrist because there is no such thing. And it would be impossible for me to attempt to "win people over to my side" because I refuse to choose a side when the options are as horrible as the only two that are viable choices to gain office.

What I am is someone that can decide which side of an issue to support based on my personal beliefs, thoughts and opinions of what should be and on the merits of the arguments because I am not so beholden to my beliefs, thoughts and opinions that they cannot be swayed and/or changed by someone making a more compelling and reasonable argument.

On a lot of social issues, I probably would be more likely to be aligned with the left side (but not with the Democrats) and on a lot of the fiscal issues, I might tend to categorize myself as more in line with what the right is saying (but not the Republicans).

The problem comes from narrow minded fools that think that a person is what they believe on a very small sample of topics (the guns, gays, God, abortion, etc segments) and as a result, we end up with narrow minded politicians pandering to them because they are more motivated to vote because their lives revolve around these few concepts. What you end up with is a couple of marketing machines (the DNC and RNC) leading a nationwide blitz of campaigns geared at making candidate X on the other side look drastically different from candidate Y on their side when in reality, they are almost mirror images of one another.

The only ones that benefit are the corporate leaders that have spent billions to get them elected and will make trillions over the next couple of decades by having these people in there passing legislation that benefits or deregulating their industry to benefit the corporation as a whole and the leaders of the corporation personally.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Not as big an idiot as the better-than-thou elitist leftists who keep telling everyone they are too stupid to know what's best for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZiDPOyorp4

 

[Amused]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZiDPOyorp4

So says the biggest elitist here. How's that ego stroking going for ya?

 

[lothar]

Do a wikipedia search on it-I'd link but Andatech's dynamite linker seems to be fubared today. Quite a few countries have this-lots don't enforce it, but some major democracies do, like Australia.

I'm undecided about this-I think voting is a social obligation in a democracy, as well as a privilege, but I can understand the impediment to civil liberties argument. No way such a system would decrease our flood of political commercials.

How about a penalty for not voting, as you are acting as a lesser citizen/freeloader then. Maybe a xx% discount (or fixed amount discount) on federal taxes for those who do vote & you claim it just like you claim your exemptions? Lie on the tax return and it's tax fraud-and easily checked against the voter rolls in an audit.

How is this enforced in Australia?
Do they put people in jail/prision who refuse to vote?
Do they fine them $1,000 dollars?
What is the repercussion? or did they just put "voting is mandatory" on the books without mentioning any punishment for violators?
Has compulsory voting proven to work? Does Australia have a 100% voter turnout? If not, then I assume the remaining people who didn't vote were either fined or put in prison?

Your idea would be impossible to enforce.
What if the voter only answers one ballot question of the 25 or so questions/votes of candidates on the list?
What if the voter bubbles all the ovals?
What if the voter answered "None of the Above" to every question?
What if the voter didn't answer any questions but there are pencil marks all over the ballot which is not enough to signify voter intent?
What if the voter voted in the primary, but not the general election?
What if the voter votes for local council elections but chooses not to participate in(or skips entirely over federal and state candidates running for office on the same ballot?
What if the voter is unemployed and therefore won't be able to receive your XX% discount on income tax?
What if the person is a college student who his parents claim him as dependent on their taxes meaning he doesn't have to file anything with the IRS? Would the XX% discount(or fixed amount) be awarded to the parents who filed taxes or the student?
What if the person was in a Surgical ICU unit for a month and didn't get the chance to vote?

 

[lothar]

I do support moving election day to a Saturday or Sunday, however I don't see how compulsory voting makes any sense.

 

[DominionSeraph]

So says the biggest elitist here. How's that ego stroking going for ya?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrP0StT4NU