Forced Voting?

[imported_artemis]

The Peruvian elections are today, and I found out from my mother, who is Peruvian, that she is required by law to vote in Presidential elections. If she does not, she will receive a $1,000 solos fine and will not be permitted to enter into any legally binding contracts. What do you think -- forced democracy is a good thing or not?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: artemis
The Peruvian elections are today, and I found out from my mother, who is Peruvian, that she is required by law to vote in Presidential elections. If she does not, she will receive a $1,000 solos fine and will not be permitted to enter into any legally binding contracts. What do you think -- forced democracy is a good thing or not?

Everything is "forced", welcome to "Corporate Democracy".

 

[imported_artemis]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: artemis
The Peruvian elections are today, and I found out from my mother, who is Peruvian, that she is required by law to vote in Presidential elections. If she does not, she will receive a $1,000 solos fine and will not be permitted to enter into any legally binding contracts. What do you think -- forced democracy is a good thing or not?

Everything is "forced", welcome to "Corporate Democracy".

What I meant, is whether this is something we should incorporate in the US.

 

[Stunt]

No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

 

[magillig]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

mmmm...having no leadership would be interesting to say the least.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: magillig

Originally posted by: Stunt
I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

mmmm...having no leadership would be interesting to say the least.

It would be a good way to gauge if people are: a) lazy, b) don't care, c) don't have good options

 

[techs]

Going off topic for a moment, it would never happen in the U.S.
The reason may surprise you.
If voting were forced than the Republican party would be finished.
The percentage of non-voters is overwhelmingly poor and Democratic.
If forced to vote they would kill of the Republicans.
Which is why polls of "likely voters" are done and not polls of all those eligible to vote.
Which, btw, is why a Bush approval rating of say 37 percent while really bad does not reflect the actual voting percent who would vote for him. It is roughly 5-7 percent higher, according to data I have seen.
The reason Republicans vote at a greater percentage has been extensively researched and the primary reason is, you guessed it, money.
Seems that Republicans are richer and have more opportunity to get to the polls without hardship. Including transportation expenses and the freedom to take time off from work and the more traditional 9-5 jobs that allow voting access.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

 

[slash196]

I think that instead of simply electing whoever gets the most votes, we should require that candidates secure a percentage of the population. If no one votes, no one gets elected. I think it would motivate more people to go vote.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

And you think non-voters are more informed than these people?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

And you think non-voters are more informed than these people?

Of course not...but I'm not sure they are any LESS informed. I think most voters simply care more, but while there are certainly exceptions, I'm not really convinced the average voter knows what the hell they are doing. This certainly wouldn't be improved by making EVERYONE vote, but I'm not sure it would be all that much worse.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: techs
If voting were forced than the Republican party would be finished.
The percentage of non-voters is overwhelmingly poor and Democratic.
If forced to vote they would kill of the Republicans.

Exit polls

Median Income is $65,000

So while the Democrats are more popular with lower income people, the Republicans are equal or leading at $30,000 and above. This is under half the median income of $65,000. There would likely not be enough voters (taking into account another vote split) to change the outcome of the 2004 election.

Notice that the middle income (median) is higher in percentage voters on the low end. This means most voters were poor in 2004. For every one poor voter you think could vote, there will be at least one rich voter.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

And you think non-voters are more informed than these people?

Of course not...but I'm not sure they are any LESS informed. I think most voters simply care more, but while there are certainly exceptions, I'm not really convinced the average voter knows what the hell they are doing. This certainly wouldn't be improved by making EVERYONE vote, but I'm not sure it would be all that much worse.

If it certainly wouldn't improve, how can you assume it wouldn't be worse?

Even if you assume only 1% know what they are doing...that's far better than having the other 50% of the population blindly voting.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: techs
If voting were forced than the Republican party would be finished.
The percentage of non-voters is overwhelmingly poor and Democratic.
If forced to vote they would kill of the Republicans.

Exit polls

Median Income is $65,000

So while the Democrats are more popular with lower income people, the Republicans are equal or leading at $30,000 and above. This is under half the median income of $65,000. There would likely not be enough voters (taking into account another vote split) to change the outcome of the 2004 election.

Notice that the middle income (median) is higher in percentage voters on the low end. This means most voters were poor in 2004. For every one poor voter you think could vote, there will be at least one rich voter.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the voters, but here is one thing I find very interesting. The exit polls suggest that Bush was more popular with higher income individuals, but a coorelation of the state average income with their vote in the 2004 election shows almost exactly the opposite. States with higher average incomes lean very strongly towards Kerry, while states with lower average incomes lean very strongly towards Bush.

Of the top 25 states by average income, Bush only carried 8 of them. Of the bottom 25, Bush carried all but 2. It's interesting how that is exactly the opposite result you might expect from the exit polls...

 

[techs]

I also wonder what happens to people who are ill? Or get called away for work? Or are mentally retarded? Or too elderly to make it to the polls? Or mentally ill?
It would be a logistical nightmare if everyone were forced to vote.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: techs
If voting were forced than the Republican party would be finished.
The percentage of non-voters is overwhelmingly poor and Democratic.
If forced to vote they would kill of the Republicans.

Exit polls

Median Income is $65,000

So while the Democrats are more popular with lower income people, the Republicans are equal or leading at $30,000 and above. This is under half the median income of $65,000. There would likely not be enough voters (taking into account another vote split) to change the outcome of the 2004 election.

Notice that the middle income (median) is higher in percentage voters on the low end. This means most voters were poor in 2004. For every one poor voter you think could vote, there will be at least one rich voter.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the voters, but here is one thing I find very interesting. The exit polls suggest that Bush was more popular with higher income individuals, but a coorelation of the state average income with their vote in the 2004 election shows almost exactly the opposite. States with higher average incomes lean very strongly towards Kerry, while states with lower average incomes lean very strongly towards Bush.

Of the top 25 states by average income, Bush only carried 8 of them. Of the bottom 25, Bush carried all but 2. It's interesting how that is exactly the opposite result you might expect from the exit polls...

That's an interesting correlation, but I would go further and point out the lines are not drawn by states but by rural and urban. Even though you would assume the wealthier would be found in cities.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: techs
I also wonder what happens to people who are ill? Or get called away for work? Or are mentally retarded? Or too elderly to make it to the polls? Or mentally ill?
It would be a logistical nightmare if everyone were forced to vote.

I assume the ill, mentally ill and elderly are low income earners and would still have little impact if forced voting was enforced. But I agree, these people must have a very difficult time voting. Although I don't know how much I trust the mentally ill to elect our leaders.

 

[johnnobts]

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

______________

because those media outlets are upset people aren't watching them as much as they think they should. so the media says, "voters are just dumb b/c they aren't informed by us."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

______________

because those media outlets are upset people aren't watching them as much as they think they should. so the media says, "voters are just dumb b/c they aren't informed by us."

Except for faux news they say voter are dumb because they listen to them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There are a number of nations that require voting. Some enforce the punishments if you fail to vote, some don't. Surprisingly, most required voting nations are democracies of some sort.

Research indicates that in more established (ie been around for more than a couple generations) democracies required voting brings a very large increase in turnout (up to the 80-95% mark). In newer democracies, however, the opposite is true (turnout will drop below 50%).

Read Democratic Phoenix by Pippa Norris, and follow up with the suggested readings if you want to do more study on it.

Personally I'm not thinking it's a great idea for America, though if other nations want it that's fine. America is far more individualistic and less collective/nationalistic than most other nations. I think that even though we're an older democracy it wouldn't bring the numbers up like it does in other countries.

 

[johnnobts]

yeah, i'd like to see what happens to the political party that passes legislation requiring americans to vote or face a financial penalty... lot of spiteful forced voters would quickly vote them out of office, lol.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: techs
Going off topic for a moment, it would never happen in the U.S.
The reason may surprise you.
If voting were forced than the Republican party would be finished.
The percentage of non-voters is overwhelmingly poor and Democratic.
If forced to vote they would kill of the Republicans.
Which is why polls of "likely voters" are done and not polls of all those eligible to vote.
Which, btw, is why a Bush approval rating of say 37 percent while really bad does not reflect the actual voting percent who would vote for him. It is roughly 5-7 percent higher, according to data I have seen.
The reason Republicans vote at a greater percentage has been extensively researched and the primary reason is, you guessed it, money.
Seems that Republicans are richer and have more opportunity to get to the polls without hardship. Including transportation expenses and the freedom to take time off from work and the more traditional 9-5 jobs that allow voting access.

You're overstating it a bit, though I agree with your overall conclusion.

In actuality the largest percentage of non-voters are unaligned. In fact, we're currently entering the largest period of party de-alignment in our history...even among those who do vote.

You're actually wrong on the money thing too, though not severely. Money is one of the primary factors (it's actually the third largest demographic affector) which causes people to become involved (both by voting and other ways), and when controlling for all other factors money matters more to Republican votes than Democratic votes...but not by much. There are a number of very affluent states that vote severely toward Democrat, while many of the poorest states vote Republican. The actual key is the disparity between incomes of richest to poorest in the state. Furthermore there are other factors which are as important and sometimes even moreso. Rove's tapping of evangelicals for instance. Other major factors are education (the actual largest demographic factor to voting), religiosity, age (the second largest demographic factor to voting), efficacy, etc.

If your conclusion was fully accurate then any attempts to make voting easier and/or more accessible should boost Democrat turnout, but this has not been the case in studies. The only times the Democratic vote was boosted was by adding blacks and women to the polls, both of which vote overwhelmingly Democrat (which is scary since the Republicans are the decendents of the party that freed the slaves in the first place). Other legislation to increase the vote (moter voter, vote by mail, etc) has had little impact overall, and where impact was recorded it has been in years of a Republican increase (actually due not to ease of voting access, but because of mobilization efforts by the campaigns like the evnagical courtship).

While we're talking about mobilization efforts, it's important to point out that this is the single largest factor affecting voter turnout.

If you'd like to do more study, I suggest:

Democratic Phoenix - Pippa Norris (looks at worldwide comparisons)
Mobilization, Participation & Democracy in America - Rosenstone & Hansen
Political Behavior of the American Electorate - Flanigan & Zingale

also follow up with their suggested readings.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
No.
In a democracy we should be free to vote or not vote, besides who wants people who don't pay attention to the issues voting anyway?

I would however like a section where disgruntled voters can vote against current parties and candidates (ie. none of the above).

As opposed to now, when all the voters are well informed and make an educated decision about the best candidate based on a variety of weighted traits and positions on important issues?

Yes.
I think the vast majority of voters have a legimate reason for voting who they vote for.

Really? I keep seeing polls and surveys that suggest that American voters are very poorly informed about the important issues of the day, I can't imagine their voting choices are done any more intelligently.

And you think non-voters are more informed than these people?

Ok, again, people are oversimplifying. Only a portion of the non-voters or non-aligned voters are considered uninformed. A larger percentage are actually informed, but choose to vote unaligned or not at all, and that number is growing rapidly (causing quite a stir among the parties btw).

Being informed is one of the smaller factors affecting peoples participation in a democracy. In fact, after controlling for all other factors it's almost non-existent. See my previous post for a reading list to give you more information.