Isn't it time to fine people for not voting?

[Narmer]

The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

 

[nageov3t]

no

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

I would prefer testing people before allowing them to vote. I would also go so far to say that if your primary source of income is the government you cannot vote for it. Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way.

As fo r making the politicians more accountable to our needs, FAT CHANCE. They will focus even more on groups that people adhere to. They will pander to the groups and not individuals as they know a bunch of idiots who just want handouts will vote for whomever gives them the most stuff!

Democracies fail when people realize they can just vote themselves money, and guess where we are going?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Why? Puff Daddy already threatens to kill you if you don't vote. That's enough motivation for me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

I had precisely two choices in Presidential canditates who had a chance of winning. One was Bush and one was Kerry. I thought both were crap. If I had been forced to vote, the selection process wouldn't have changed one bit. I'd have Bush and Kerry. Oh, I could have tossed my vote for someone virtually unknown as a protest, but my two real choices were between bullcrap and horsecrap.

Change the underlying mechanism by which candidates are picked, and maybe people will vote because they actually have a choice. Right now we don't.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

I had precisely two choices in Presidential canditates who had a chance of winning. One was Bush and one was Kerry. I thought both were crap. If I had been forced to vote, the selection process wouldn't have changed one bit. I'd have Bush and Kerry. Oh, I could have tossed my vote for someone virtually unknown as a protest, but my two real choices were between bullcrap and horsecrap.

Change the underlying mechanism by which candidates are picked, and maybe people will vote because they actually have a choice. Right now we don't.

Before the general election, there are the primaries. Those should be required as well. We should also give more time to other parties. Reform possibilities are endless.

 

[dullard]

No. Think about how stupid the average person is (can't find the US on a map of the earth, etc). Then think, HALF of all people are stupider than that. And you want these stupid people deciding the fate of our country?

If you are stupid enough not to vote, I damn well don't want you voting. Selective intelligence like this is the best thing about our election process.

Ask around near the next election about who people would vote for and WHY. Don't just ask your intelligent coworkers or friends. Ask the average Jane/Joe in the grocery store. You'll get repsponses from about half of all people that they'll vote for whomever is most attractive of the two main contenders. Why? Because they are more attractive. I have done this experiment myself. I'm so glad that many of those people aren't going to bother to vote. To bad, many do though (think about the two main presidential frontrunners, how often has the ugly one won since the days of TV?)

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

they require us to wear seatbelts because they are designed to save lives. voting doesn't save your life (now i just know some dumbass is going to say, "voting for bush cost us 3,500 lives." STFU). voting is a right and you can't make someone exercise a right they don't care about.

if you are so pissed about the government becoming more polarized then start asking for a viable third party. only 15% can truely call themselves democrats, only 15% can truely call themselves republicans, and the rest of us get stuck with their wonderful nominees.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dullard
No. Think about how stupid the average person is (can't find the US on a map of the earth, etc). Then think, HALF of all people are stupider than that. And you want these stupid people deciding the fate of our country?

If you are stupid enough not to vote, I damn well don't want you voting. Selective intelligence like this is the best thing about our election process.

Ask around near the next election about who people would vote for and WHY. Don't just ask your intelligent coworkers or friends. Ask the average Jane/Joe in the grocery store. You'll get repsponses from about half of all people that they'll vote for whomever is most attractive of the two main contenders. Why? Because they are more attractive. I have done this experiment myself. I'm so glad that many of those people aren't going to bother to vote. To bad, many do though (think about the two main presidential frontrunners, how often has the ugly one won since the days of TV?)

I don't mean to criticize but don't you think you're being a bit elitest? If people are required to vote, then they may take the time out to study the issues. If the fine was raised to 1% of annual nominal income, they will educate themselves quickly.

Here is an analogy. About two years agoI was on a bus in Forest Hills, Queens on my way to Flushing, NY. The bus driver had issues . He was going to turn a corner when this old lady in her walker was slowly crossing the street. Being impatient, he kept honking and driving ever closer to the old lady. That lady literally ran across the street, dropping the walker.

In the end, when push came to shove, she had more energy than a teenage girl at the mall. Incentives work.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I don't mean to criticize but don't you think you're being a bit elitest? If people are required to vote, then they may take the time out to study the issues. If the fine was raised to 1% of annual nominal income, they will educate themselves quickly.

Here is an analogy. About two years agoI was on a bus in Forest Hills, Queens on my way to Flushing, NY. The bus driver had issues . He was going to turn a corner when this old lady in her walker was slowly crossing the street. Being impatient, he kept honking and driving ever closer to the old lady. That lady literally ran across the street, dropping the walker.

In the end, when push came to shove, she had more energy than a teenage girl at the mall. Incentives work.

You certainly can use incentives to force most people to vote. But you can't use incentives to make them vote well. Why on earth do you think any of the people who don't care enough to vote now would do the research to vote later? No, they'll just complain as they are forced to vote and randomly select people.

Take the typical high-school dropout. Did having detention as a punishment get them to study for their exams? Nope, they just took them if they had to and failed, or they took the punishment and didn't care.

Even look at me. I'm educated. I like politics enough to come to this forum and participate. I vote. Yet, on the local ballot even I don't know who half of the unimportant people are or what they stand on. I don't care whether Joe Blow or Joe Suck gets elected to be the personal assistant to the assistant to the jailhouse janitor. So I leave it blank. I'm apathetic when it comes to those meaningless elections. If you forced me to vote on that issue, I'd flip a coin in the voting booth.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Forcing the uninformed to vote is much worse than them not voting at all. This is a horrible idea.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Forcing the uninformed to vote is much worse than them not voting at all. This is a horrible idea.

They do it in Belgium.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Forcing the uninformed to vote is much worse than them not voting at all. This is a horrible idea.

They do it in Belgium.

Do we really want to model ourselves after Belgium?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

The government doesn't "cater" to americans, it babysits us. And no, it's your right NOT to vote if you choose to.

 

[ProfJohn]

You are a little naive if you think that forcing people to vote will result in these people looking at the issues and making an informed choice.
If anything we will get a bunch of people voting for the person who promises to give them the most.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You are a little naive if you think that forcing people to vote will result in these people looking at the issues and making an informed choice.
If anything we will get a bunch of people voting for the person who promises to give them the most.

lol. I guess you must be a realist, right?

 

[Genx87]

This is the United States right? We still have freedoms right? This includes the right to not participate in our govt right?

What happens if I dont vote? Going to hold a gun to my back and make me do it?

Terrible idea.

 

[Harvey]

The right to vote includes the right not to vote for any of the candidates.

I'd like to see ballots that include an option to vote for "None of the above." In such a system, if "None of the above" wins a plurality (more votes than any other candidate, but less than 50% of the votes), a new election would be called. If "None of the above" wins a majority (more than 50% of the votes), the original candidates would not be eligible to run for the same office in the follow up election.

 

[Kntx]

A pretty bad Idea. If people don't want to vote that's their choice.

But if you're really looking to increase turnout I think postive reinforement would be better than negative. Give everyone who votes 20 bucks, some BK coups and a tshirt.

 

[Vic]

Not voting IS voting. It's called voting for "None of the Above." A law fining people for not voting would only increase partianship and polarization. No one should be forced to choose solely from the choices given to them.

 

[azazyel]

Actually Lee Iacocca had a small section about this in his new book. A lot of other countries have some of these types of fines or punishments for not voting.

"About thirty countries have some form of mandatory voting, with various (usually mild) penalties for slackers. In Belgium, if you don't vote in at least four elections within a fifteen-year period, you get kicked off the voter rolls. In Greece you may have a hard time getting a drivers license or a passport if you don't vote. In Singapore, you're removed from the voter register and must reapply and give a good reason fro not have voted. And in several countries, small fines are imposed.

These penalties are not exactly draconian, but the have one advantage: They remind people that freedom is not free" p41

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Actually Lee Iacocca had a small section about this in his new book. A lot of other countries have some of these types of fines or punishments for not voting.

"About thirty countries have some form of mandatory voting, with various (usually mild) penalties for slackers. In Belgium, if you don't vote in at least four elections within a fifteen-year period, you get kicked off the voter rolls. In Greece you may have a hard time getting a drivers license or a passport if you don't vote. In Singapore, you're removed from the voter register and must reapply and give a good reason fro not have voted. And in several countries, small fines are imposed.

These penalties are not exactly draconian, but the have one advantage: They remind people that freedom is not free" p41

That's exactly what I was thinking. Who is Lee Iacocca? Nevermind. I'll google him

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

I would prefer testing people before allowing them to vote. I would also go so far to say that if your primary source of income is the government you cannot vote for it. Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way.

As fo r making the politicians more accountable to our needs, FAT CHANCE. They will focus even more on groups that people adhere to. They will pander to the groups and not individuals as they know a bunch of idiots who just want handouts will vote for whomever gives them the most stuff!

Democracies fail when people realize they can just vote themselves money, and guess where we are going?

for the first time...I agree with you

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The gov't looks after us by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt. We must also have car insurance if we hit the road. So why not turn that around by forcing the people to police the government by requiring eligible individuals to vote or face a fine?

Our system of government is becoming more polarized. If we require everyone to exercise their right to universal suffrage, it'll force our politicians to behave better and not pander to the extremes. In the end, we get a responsible government that caters to the majority of Americans. Any thoughts on this?

Ummm No.. I can imagine Paris Hilton elected to President with Brittany Spears as the VP with Richard Gere as the Secretary of Defense, and El Rushbo as the White House Spokesman

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Why? Puff Daddy already threatens to kill you if you don't vote. That's enough motivation for me.

damn straight.