What would happen if voting were made compulsory?

[Martin]

Apparently, that's the law in Australia. Would people take it more seriously?

 

[nageov3t]

say hello to President Beiber.

 

[ShawnD1]

Apparently, that's the law in Australia. Would people take it more seriously?

Sounds like a terrible idea.

With voluntary voting, we're left with a system where only people who care about the issues have any say on them.
With forced voting, people who have no clue what's going on will show up and mark down a random name simply because the law requires them to.

People are stupid. Do you really want stupid people voting? I don't. Keep voting voluntary and let stupid people watch reality TV while the rest of us are picking leaders

 

[dawp]

Sounds like a terrible idea.

With voluntary voting, we're left with a system where only people who care about the issues have any say on them.
With forced voting, people who have no clue what's going on will show up and mark down a random name simply because the law requires them to.

People are stupid. Do you really want stupid people voting? I don't. Keep voting voluntary and let stupid people watch reality TV while the rest of us are picking leaders

stupid people are already voting, but they are the vocal minority that get's the the say. we need more people voting. not saying making it compulsory is the way to go, but there is too much apathy in this country as far as voting goes.

 

[Acanthus]

There is no way to force people to know the issues, and more than half don't.

Hell, id wager most of the people who DO vote don't know anything about the issues.

People who are interested in the issues and policymaking are probably under 10% of the population.

 

[ShawnD1]

stupid people are already voting

True, but look at some numbers to see if you can understand what I'm thinking.

Suppose 10% of the population is really smart and the other 90% are profoundly stupid. The smart 10% will vote no matter what, so that's the same. Only about 50% of the population votes, so that means all of the 10% smart people are voting and the other 40% are dumb people. In this scenario, dumb people outnumber smart people 4 to 1. If you had 100% voter turnout where all of the dumb people are required to vote, you still have the 10% smart people voting but now you have 90% stupid people voting. Stupid people now outnumber smart people 9 to 1.

Colbert noted something interesting about this issue. If only half of people vote, it means my vote is twice as powerful. As fewer people vote, each vote have more weight. If only 1 person can vote, that 1 person makes all the decisions

 

[CanOWorms]

Australia isn't exactly a great example since they can't even vote for their head of state. Voting is just something for the peasants to think that they actually have some control.

 

[StageLeft]

On the contrary I think there should be some kind of basic skill testing questionnaire.

 

[Borealis7]

ancient Chinese proverb:
"No vote now, No bitch later".

and LOL @ president Bieber!

 

[boomerang]

Congress just "deemed" the budget to be passed. How about if they deem a candidate into office? Save all that campaigning and voting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/the_deemn_pass_budget.html

 

[ShawnD1]

Australia isn't exactly a great example since they can't even vote for their head of state. Voting is just something for the peasants to think that they actually have some control.

On top of this, Australia is an evil nation that hates freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Current_situation

Books
Although the Office of Film and Literature Classification Guidelines state that “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”, many books are apparently banned simply because they may offend certain segments of the population. Under particularly frequent attacks are books containing erotica, those concerning illegal drugs, and those discussing end-of-life issues. For example, in December 2006 the voluntary euthanasia book The Peaceful Pill Handbook was classified by the OFLC as X18+ and approved for publication. A month later, on appeal from the Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock and Right to Life NSW, the book’s classification was reviewed by the Literature Classification Board and rated RC (refused classification)

So they ban books that offend people. That's nice.

Enforcement of book bans is sometimes sporadic. In their book TiHKAL, Dr. Alexander and Ann Shulgin state that their earlier work PiHKAL, which was banned in Australia (I own this book), was apparently standard issue among police and lawyers attending a court case in which Dr. Shulgin served as an expert witness for the defense.

For those who don't know, TIHKAL and PIHKAL are memoirs of a chemist who chooses to test drugs on himself rather than test them on animals. In the opening pages he states that he does this because it's unscientific to say a dog looks confused and rule that a drug causes confusion. Australia hates science.

The Melbourne bookstore Polyester Books, which stocks unusual books of many genres, has been raided by police on two occasions for violation of censorship laws. In addition, several adult book stores have been raided by more than 60 police in Sydney. Australian customs also actively seeks and seizes books imported by individuals.

Only the upper class are allowed to learn things!

Video pornography

All the states actually go further than Commonwealth law requires and ban the sale of X18+ rated material, though possessing it and ordering it from elsewhere is quite legal. Therefore, all legal sale of X18+ rated material in Australia occurs by mail order from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. In practice, sex shops commonly carry extensive stocks of X-rated films regardless of the law.

So it's illegal to sell porn in Australia. I'm sure Hitler would approve of this.

The Internet

On December 31, 2007 the Telecommunications Minister of the newly elected Labor government, Stephen Conroy, announced that Australia would introduce mandatory internet filtering. Once more the reason given is that mandatory filtering is required to "provide greater protection to children from online pornography and violent websites".

I censor your internets because I care about you.

Video games

There is no R18+ or X18+ rating for video games, meaning that any game that exceeds the MA15+ classification would be automatically Refused Classification and banned

So the reason games are released in Australia sometimes 1-2 years after they are released in North America is because the government is a bunch of retarded assholes. Good to know.



Maybe this is why Australia is so totally broken when it comes to freedom. When you demand that stupid people vote, they'll probably vote for something stupid. Big surprise.

 

[Craig234]

On the contrary I think there should be some kind of basic skill testing questionnaire.

Our problem isn't people who lack basic skills. It's people who have basic skills but are overly influenced by the big money campaigns, ideologues, etc. It's money in the system.

 

[mrjminer]

Congress just "deemed" the budget to be passed. How about if they deem a candidate into office? Save all that campaigning and voting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/the_deemn_pass_budget.html

Wow...

 

[Craig234]

Wow...

Any less propagandistic news source? This one, let's see, 'how Europe invented civilization' (i.e. superiority/racism crap), 'kagan is unfit', ideological broadsides at liberalism, etc.

Anything they say sounds pretty clearly to be highly propagandistic probably, so it's a waste of time and worse.

Let's see, a majority of Congress voted yes to pass a bill, and the vote is said to threat our being a 'Banana Republic' because it somehow wasn't a majority budget vote. Ya, right.

 

[boomerang]

Wow...

Kind of gets your attention doesn't it?

Where's the media on this one? I'll answer. They're in full support and don't feel it's newsworthy. These shenanigans were pulled because the Democrat controlled Congress wants to put off a budget vote until after the November elections. With no intention of reining in spending, they "deemed" it in their best interests to put it off.

Now, be aware that the spin machine is turning at cyclonic speed. They were smart enough to come up with a spin on this before they did a deem and pass on the budget.

I'll leave it up to anyone interested to research the lies fabricated to cover this latest totalitarian move by our representatives.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sounds like a terrible idea.

With voluntary voting, we're left with a system where only people who care about the issues have any say on them.
With forced voting, people who have no clue what's going on will show up and mark down a random name simply because the law requires them to.

People are stupid. Do you really want stupid people voting? I don't. Keep voting voluntary and let stupid people watch reality TV while the rest of us are picking leaders

Very interesting - isn't this called communism?

You have an elite that make all the decisions and the rest are a just big group with no power and it is pretty impossible to move from the big group into the elite?


What we need is better education, better access to information and better informed media.

The truth is not even the people that are interested in policy making (and not even the politics - that is why any of us are bound to see some really stupid laws/decisions made in our area of interest that are clearly stupid, but the problem is how do we know about if the decisions about other areas of interest are stupid or not, since we don't understand those areas?) can begin to scope all the difficulties and problems of all the different quadrants and activities of our society.

 

[ShawnD1]

Our problem isn't people who lack basic skills. It's people who have basic skills but are overly influenced by the big money campaigns, ideologues, etc. It's money in the system.

The problem is stupid people. Too many stupid people.

Let me give you an example. During the republican debates of 2008, the simple question was asked: who here does not believe in evolution. 3 people raised their hands. So basically 3 people are up there in an attempt to control the most powerful office in the world and they don't even have a high school level education. Why are they up there? BECAUSE HALF THE COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION.

If you ran for office in a country like France or Belgium and you stated that you did not believe evolution or gravity or crystallization or any other thing like that, you would be laughed off the stage. New rule: high school diploma required before you can vote. People who are already registered to vote would be grandfathered in, but new people wanting to register would need a diploma.

Very interesting - isn't this called communism?

communism - A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

As I said, people should need a high school education before they can vote.

 

[mrjminer]

Any less propagandistic news source? This one, let's see, 'how Europe invented civilization' (i.e. superiority/racism crap), 'kagan is unfit', ideological broadsides at liberalism, etc.

Anything they say sounds pretty clearly to be highly propagandistic probably, so it's a waste of time and worse.

Let's see, a majority of Congress voted yes to pass a bill, and the vote is said to threat our being a 'Banana Republic' because it somehow wasn't a majority budget vote. Ya, right.

Take out the "propaganda" you want to shield whatever failure of an argument you're attempting to make to excuse this inexcusable behavior and you're left with this cold, hard fact (in it's original, "propagandistic" form):

Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.

If you to tackle the core of propaganda, which would be deception, what are your thoughts on bypassing the legislative process of passing budget by simply labeling it as something other than a budget? I only ask under the presumption that your eagerness to disregard propaganda is indicative of your willingness to disregard deception and not merely a mask for blind support of a political party or other governmental powers.

 

[GaiaHunter]

communism - A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

As I said, people should need a high school education before they can vote.

But is it just that?

If you look the higher ranks in communist regimes aren't deprived of private ownership.

And if you look how many of the leaders of communism aren't highly educated?

High education doesn't exactly mean people can't have stupid ideas and/or understand how society works, especially because society isn't just comprised of high level education people. And do you think smart people will allow themselves to be ruled by an elite and believe that elite has their best interests in their minds? And there are smart people that hasn't received/ was unable to pursuit education, the same way there is educated people that are simply dumbasses.

Universal voting is the best way to balance interests - of course it is representative so we are all still bond to a choice between of a small group, and higher levels of not only education but information will allow for people to see BS much more easily.

 

[PeshakJang]

Suppose 10% of the population is really smart and the other 90% are profoundly stupid. The smart 10% will vote no matter what, so that's the same. Only about 50% of the population votes, so that means all of the 10% smart people are voting and the other 40% are dumb people. In this scenario, dumb people outnumber smart people 4 to 1. If you had 100% voter turnout where all of the dumb people are required to vote, you still have the 10% smart people voting but now you have 90% stupid people voting. Stupid people now outnumber smart people 9 to 1.

So do you want representatives that represent the interests of the smartest, most powerful 10% of our society, or representatives that represent 100% of our society? Sounds like you are advocating the former.

 

[Linflas]

So do you want representatives that represent the interests of the smartest, most powerful 10% of our society, or representatives that represent 100% of our society? Sounds like you are advocating the former.

I want representatives that represent people that actually care enough to take a 10 minute break from American Idol and go cast a vote for something that actually affects their daily lives. If you can't be bothered to get off your ass and vote then just enjoy the consequences of that decision.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't like it. If I had to vote, I would have to learn who I am voting for, all the local politicians I know nothing about, like who to be on the port authority etc instead of leaving it blank. It's already a pain figuring out who is the least worst asshole among the big names.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't like it. If I had to vote, I would have to learn who I am voting for

Nowhere was intelligence mentioned as a requirement. In fact, the entire premise of the topic is quite the opposite. No need to try and spin this around, you can just go in there and randomly mark names.

 

[Anarchist420]

We're already too democratic as it is, more democracy will produce more of the same bad shit we've been suffering through since the Presidential election of 1860. If that election had been decided by the state legislatures, the Counter-Revolution would never have happened.

They need to repeal Amendments 14-27, and then replace them with Amendments that put more limitations on the Federal Government, like a balanced budget Amendment (expenditures shall not exceed more than 2% of previous year's revenue, except 5% during formally declared war time; the states shall fill in the deficit based upon their population) and a clarification Amendment for the interstate commerce clause (Congress shall make no law regulating interstate commerce; No State shall limit nor prohibit commerce with another state), and some national war powers limitations.

 

[dahunan]

Kind of gets your attention doesn't it?

Where's the media on this one? I'll answer. They're in full support and don't feel it's newsworthy. These shenanigans were pulled because the Democrat controlled Congress wants to put off a budget vote until after the November elections. With no intention of reining in spending, they "deemed" it in their best interests to put it off.

Now, be aware that the spin machine is turning at cyclonic speed. They were smart enough to come up with a spin on this before they did a deem and pass on the budget.

I'll leave it up to anyone interested to research the lies fabricated to cover this latest totalitarian move by our representatives.

Sad.. you see it as only democrats or only republicans.. they are citizens of the usa and are usually the ones who should always be on probation because if there is profit to be made they are ALL looking to sacrifice your family to make it