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

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: 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.

For the person intentionally not voting, they and the people they talk to (relatively few) would know they did it out of some flavor of protest ... not effective.

IMHO, there should be a checkbox / choice on the ballot (in whatever form it takes) specifically for "None of the Above" so that it's officially recorded that none of the candidates are suitable in the minds of the voters who care enough to vote.

Then they must drop out, another slate of candidates take the field or they have another primary ... whatever.

Make "None of the Above" a real choice and more people will turn out to vote.

.02

Why should they have a checkbox for something that is done automatically through abstaining?
And quite frankly, why are we trying to force people to vote on issues/for candidates that they may not have educated themselves on beforehand. I vote every election, but I frequently abstain from voting for those candidates or for those issues for which I have not formulated a complete opinion on or educated myself fully on.
We should not encourage knee-jerking nor partisanship.

"None of the above" as a voting option could be powerful if it was actually acted upon. Currently abstainers are simply ignored. If "None of the above" won an election, forcing all candidates to be taken off the ballot and a new election run with new candidates, it would go a long way towards ending the lesser of two evils situation we seem to be stuck in lately.

I disagree. It sounds good, but the likely result is that you'd get the usual crop of tools who'd vote "none of the above" in droves just to lock up the system.

I saw that movie... it was called "Brewster's Millions"

Like I said earlier... voting is a right, not an obligation. Much like free speech is a right, not an obligation. You can not incentivise nor can you penalize people for voting or not voting. It has to be a neutral process that allows for those who just don't care.

Liberty goes both ways, even if one choice seems counter to the concept that enabled the person to make it.

 

[Vic]

Huh... I actually had to look that movie up on Wiki. I remembered Richard Pryor was in it, but I'd never seen it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Vic
Huh... I actually had to look that movie up on Wiki. I remembered Richard Pryor was in it, but I'd never seen it.

He has to spend $30 million in 30 days with nothing to show for it at the end in order to inherit $300 million. As part of his spending he entered the mayoral race and urged everyone to write in "none of the above" on the ballot.

None of the above won the race. It was a good movie.

I win the "obscure reference of the day" prize!

 

[ericlp]

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?

Yeah, I agree with this... One of the questions on test should be...

Do you believe that earth is 6,000 years old? Yes or No...

Yes? Well, then your disqualified to vote...

Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way. WAHT? So you think we should stop pulling the voting bus up in front of the church and loading them up to go vote what the preacher told em all to vote for??? Shame!!!!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ericlp

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?

Yeah, I agree with this... One of the questions on test should be...

Do you believe that earth is 6,000 years old? Yes or No...

Yes? Well, then your disqualified to vote...

Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way. WAHT? So you think we should stop pulling the voting bus up in front of the church and loading them up to go vote what the preacher told em all to vote for??? Shame!!!!

:disgust:

No tests
No penalties
No incentives

When you take the freedom of choice away or enact some legal issue that coerces people to vote, you ruin the process. The idea of some sort of IQ test is stupid. And basing their right to vote on the amount of money they receive from the government? Wow. How about just doing means testing? "You must have this much in the bank to vote. Are you upside down in your finances? Sorry... No ballot for joo!"

Come on guys... It can't work that way. Even if a guy is a drooling idiot who believes the earth is 6000 years old or that trees have spirits and need to be protected by living in them or that someone has a right to a post birth abortion, he has a right to vote. Radical views are not and should not be a disqualifier for voting.

What happens when you start excluding whole groups of people because you don't like they way they think?

Finally! We can have a legitimate Nazi comaprison ont his forum.

 

[will889]

If it's time to fine people for not voting then it's time to fine and jail public officials for not serving the public.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Come on guys...
Radical views are not and should not be a disqualifier for voting.

Very true

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

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?

Yeah, I agree with this... One of the questions on test should be...

Do you believe that earth is 6,000 years old? Yes or No...

Yes? Well, then your disqualified to vote...

Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way. WAHT? So you think we should stop pulling the voting bus up in front of the church and loading them up to go vote what the preacher told em all to vote for??? Shame!!!!

What about people who blame Bush for a Pennsylvania law, a state run by Democrats? Should idiots like you be allowed to vote?

 

[freegeeks]

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.

not true

I'm Belgian an you are not forced to vote, you are forced to get up from your lazy ass and go to a polling station. There you can still do whatever you want like fill in the ballot blank, spit on it, make a nice drawing on it ...

 

[Superrock]

I don't think people should be penalized 500 dollars for voting but maybe there could be a voting measure for a tax break for voters.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

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.

not true

I'm Belgian an you are not forced to vote, you are forced to get up from your lazy ass and go to a polling station. There you can still do whatever you want like fill in the ballot blank, spit on it, make a nice drawing on it ...

You still have to turn in a ballet though, correct?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Come on guys...
Radical views are not and should not be a disqualifier for voting.

Very true

What's your point? Bigots, KKK guys, Arian Nation guys, Nation of Islam guys... they get to vote too. You might hate their message (I know I do) but you can't take away their right to vote just because you disagree with them.

FWIW... Hitler wasn't elected. He was appointed. Then the guy in front of him left due to scandal and he assumed the post. Then von Hindenberg died and he became The Furer. So if you're using Hitler as an excuse to bar people with radical views from voting, try again... and read a book.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp

Yeah, I agree with this... One of the questions on test should be...

Do you believe that earth is 6,000 years old? Yes or No...

Yes? Well, then your disqualified to vote...

Face it, too many people are too stupid to make a choice or they are easily intimidated into voting a certain way. WAHT? So you think we should stop pulling the voting bus up in front of the church and loading them up to go vote what the preacher told em all to vote for??? Shame!!!!

What about people who blame Bush for a Pennsylvania law, a state run by Democrats? Should idiots like you be allowed to vote?[/quote]


Got your knickers all in a wad? Poor baby... Now we have to resort to name calling?

I think your breaking the rules here space ranger...

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: 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.

don't be surprise if you get respond from someone saying is not bad idea point gun at your head to go vote..

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Got your knickers all in a wad? Poor baby... Now we have to resort to name calling?

I think your breaking the rules here space ranger...

My knickers are fine thanks, but it sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't worry, I believe all Americans should have the right to vote, even stupid people like you.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp
Got your knickers all in a wad? Poor baby... Now we have to resort to name calling?

I think your breaking the rules here space ranger...

My knickers are fine thanks, but it sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't worry, I believe all Americans should have the right to vote, even stupid people like you.

Don't worry I won't stoop to your level...

Please attempt to keep your comments within the scope of the thread original post intent.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Come on guys...
Radical views are not and should not be a disqualifier for voting.

Very true

What's your point?

My point is that what you said is "Very true". Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp
Got your knickers all in a wad? Poor baby... Now we have to resort to name calling?

I think your breaking the rules here space ranger...

My knickers are fine thanks, but it sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't worry, I believe all Americans should have the right to vote, even stupid people like you.

Don't worry I won't stoop to your level...

Please attempt to keep your comments within the scope of the thread original post intent.

How am I any more off topic than you are? You're an imbecile, and a perfect example of why Democrats can't even unseat the worst president in recent history.

 

[palehorse]

I hereby nominate this thread for the annual "Dumbest Thread of the Year Award"!

congrats...

 

[BoomerD]

How about, instead of forcing people to vote...we change the system that allows people to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ to get an office that pays $400K/year?

Find the business man whose companies are the most productive and profitable, and drag them (kicking and screaming if necessary) into office. IF they do a good job, then after 4 years, they get a pension...if not...well, I'm sure their heirs will miss them...


OK, not really serious about that, but there IS something wrong with the system that allows people to spend hundreds of millions of $$$ of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to get a job that will only pay $1.6 million over 4 years...

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I hereby nominate this thread for the annual "Dumbest Thread of the Year Award"!

congrats...

A thread that makes you think= dumbest thread of the year? Oh, I forgot, you claim to be a soldier-boy, always following order.

 

[palehorse]

I believe that even considering a law that forces someone to vote is beyond ridiculous, and it smacks of authoritarianism.

it also smacks of ignorance.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Man, this is the dumbest idea I have ever read on ATOT.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Man, this is the dumbest idea I have ever read on ATOT.

You should read the forum more... Non-voting fine isn't the dumbest by far.