RE: Case for Compulsory Voting

RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 7:40:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened I don't believe television campaign restrictions would violate the First Amendment. There are still 6 words you can't say on tv and that has never stood the test of First Amendment rights. There's no real reason why it couldn't be done. Yes, it would move to the internet... it already has but at least most intelligent people know the internet has more mis-information than information anyway. But if we did go with compulsory voting then we would have to figure out who would be exempt, how it would be enforced, and what the penalties would be. In my perfect world, the penalty would be losing the right to bitch and moan about politics until the next election but that's just a dream. I suppose all the new poll cops could help unemployment figures in November. We could solve the logistic problem by voting via secure website. In the United States the most important elections are decided this way and by that I mean American Idol. If it went through it would blow the fraud perpetrated upon the people in the name of democracy (corporatism) wide open. Democracy made its debut in the form of legislation under the guise of the people "re-presented". However lets take a physical count the non-existent votes of the people sanctioning said legislation... The problem with "re=presenting" the people is that they convinced us they can read our minds. Then there is the other crowd who sees government as leaders, sort of leaves out the re-presenting altogether. Any wonder nothing ever works? All sounds good on paper and never works. Better yet who would the penalties be against? Nationals wouldnt vote in a million years. Its not within their jurisdiction. Penalties would still be against club members. I cant imagine why someone outside the jurisdiction would destroy their liberties by voting?

pahunkboy -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 7:51:35 AM)
Compulsory voting would never work in the US. 1. we can barely do a census. 2. not voting is a form of free speech.

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 8:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Compulsory voting would never work in the US. 1. we can barely do a census. 2. not voting is a form of free speech. and a matter of jurisdiction and a matter of religious choice. keep in mind that any body politic is by function a religion system. Atheism is a religion for instance. You dont get hindus punishing catholics for disobeying hindu laws. In todays world its construed that if you do business with one religion or another you are part and party to said religion and hence in their jurisdiction. You can see this in the definitions for law. One of the best I have seen is the catch all word residence. that definition traps anything and everything on and in the world to the coporatists juridiction it has been changed and expanded so many times in fine news paper print the full range of legal definitions for residence is ready for this? About 25 pages thick!

Moonhead -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 9:13:49 AM)
I completely disagree with Galston. There are enough idiots voting every time an election is staged without forcing the rest of them to cast a ballot, and the right not to vote is also a basic right in a democracy or republic. If there's a chunk of the electorate refusing to vote because they feel that nobody standing for office represents them, trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power would be an abomination.

PeanutTigerinBox -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 9:26:07 AM)
Well, before the election was here recently I have seen once a TV programme at my night shift (after about 3 hours work I don't have much else to do the 7 remaining hours) where they explained teenagers how election works...which was quite funny actually, I tried to send it to my ex who is in politics, but sadly it wasn't on iplayer... one example (sorry for that little explanation) they used was taking 10 or 12 teenagers to a pizza restaurant and then letting them chose between 4 sorts of pizzas, kind of pizza margarita are the libdems, pizza fungi are the labour, etc.). Then the pizza which was chosen most often was used which was quite disappointing for some of them as that was not what they wanted....but it was lovely to see to explain it that simple... On that programme they also explained different systems in different countries where they mentioned that it is compulsary in australia, saying that there it would be seen not only as an option to vote but also a responsibility to vote and to take part in the decision....and I quite liked that view...back home I always voted, over here I didn't feel it that necessary as personally it does not feel important to me here, when I know I am only temporary here (though, I do know it is important as such)...now I did start to vote here on the last 2 occassions, but that's only to support my ex and his party....if I would not know him, I would not vote here....

pahunkboy -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 9:39:32 AM)
I do tho think that elections should have a quorum to be valid. Maybe 70%. It is rather pathetic that 2 congressmen (out of 3 there) installed the Federal Reserve.

Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:33:14 PM)
quote: trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power Nonsense. You can vote for anyone you wish. Ask for a pen and write in a name.

Moonhead -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power Nonsense. You can vote for anyone you wish. Ask for a pen and write in a name. Not how it works over here, unfortunately. That just lead to a wasted ballot.

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power Nonsense. You can vote for anyone you wish. Ask for a pen and write in a name. Not how it works over here, unfortunately. That just lead to a wasted ballot. more propaganda and foolishness. vote for leftee rightee or its a waste.

Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:53:15 PM)
Imagine all those disenchanted middle voters picked third party candidates. Things would have to change. First, though, third parties will have to start advancing realistic candidates. So far, they act as single issue special interest groups much more than political parties.

Moonhead -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:58:02 PM)
Sadly, unless somebody has put down a deposit, they can't stand for a seat over here. That cuts down on the number of independent third party candidates right off the bat, though it did lead to the amusing spectacle of Esther "Fangs" Ransom losing her deposit.

Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 1:59:55 PM)
Here, they just need enough signatures and they're on the ballot. They do have to do it in every state and the District of Columbia for national office.

Moonhead -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 2:04:16 PM)
I was forgetting, they need (I think) 25 signatures to stand for a by election or local government seat here as well.

NorthernGent -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 4:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Before I heard this argument (and granted, Panda, beyond an interesting take, nothing guarantees it would work as described), I'd have opposed mandatory voting too. Why herd the apathetic and ignorant to the polls? But his case for disenchanted voters has me reconsidering. Yes, it's a civic duty in my view, but as economist Buchanan pointed out, some people will weigh the benefits of doing other things vs. going to vote, especially if they see the process as holding little meaning. The problem with this is the coercion aspect.....which...as others have pointed out.....is anti-democratic. And really.....this is a more respectable version of the 'we must force the people to be free' line that middle class revolutionary leaders impose upon the wider population. You can't force people to exercise their stake in the nation.....they have to want to do it for themselves....whether disaffected....disinterested...or otherwise. The one thing we would all agree on is that political freedom is irretrievably bound up with the freedom to choose.....I'd take it on a step and say the freedom to make a choice with all of the information at hand.....but at the very least we'd agree on the freedom to choose.

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 6:27:33 AM)
thats not quite right NG. It is democratic, what you just expressed is not republican, meaning not of a republic. In a democracy the mob 51% can make a law that anyone who is bald must wear a wig or they will be hung. Trust me you will be hung. In a republic you stand up and say bullshit and stand on your rights, not privileges. In a democracy your privileges only extend to the the codification, while in a republic your rights are what you claim until someone proves the right you chose is s trespass on others. No trespass its your right. The best thing to do is spend an afternoon in the law library or maybe even cross referencing words in the legal dictionaries would do it. Tough the dictionaries often times do not describe the exact defacto process. basically democracy = corporatism and is the basis for total communism.

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 6:29:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power Nonsense. You can vote for anyone you wish. Ask for a pen and write in a name. and write on the electronic voting machine? LMAO

Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 6:31:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I was forgetting, they need (I think) 25 signatures to stand for a by election or local government seat here as well. thats called an assembly as well or could be a civilian grand jury if you take oaths to go along with it.

Moonhead -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 7:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I was forgetting, they need (I think) 25 signatures to stand for a by election or local government seat here as well. thats called an assembly as well or could be a civilian grand jury if you take oaths to go along with it. I'm not talking about America, you blinkered little fuckwit.

Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 8:16:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: trying to force them into voting for somebody they don't wish to see in power Nonsense. You can vote for anyone you wish. Ask for a pen and write in a name. and write on the electronic voting machine? LMAO Personally, I'd ask for a paper ballot too. I can't speak for you.

Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/3/2010 8:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Before I heard this argument (and granted, Panda, beyond an interesting take, nothing guarantees it would work as described), I'd have opposed mandatory voting too. Why herd the apathetic and ignorant to the polls? But his case for disenchanted voters has me reconsidering. Yes, it's a civic duty in my view, but as economist Buchanan pointed out, some people will weigh the benefits of doing other things vs. going to vote, especially if they see the process as holding little meaning. The problem with this is the coercion aspect.....which...as others have pointed out.....is anti-democratic. And really.....this is a more respectable version of the 'we must force the people to be free' line that middle class revolutionary leaders impose upon the wider population. You can't force people to exercise their stake in the nation.....they have to want to do it for themselves....whether disaffected....disinterested...or otherwise. The one thing we would all agree on is that political freedom is irretrievably bound up with the freedom to choose.....I'd take it on a step and say the freedom to make a choice with all of the information at hand.....but at the very least we'd agree on the freedom to choose. I understand the point, but characterizing it as coercion misrepresents the reality of democracy. We get to choose, and one of those choices could be the importance of participation in the elections. Just as we can't "choose" whether to be counted in the census (legally), as it's important to representation, so too is voting. If the group so decides, "coercion" becomes "complicance." As I mentioned earlier, I'd have been flatly against this before. But while granted, hardly conclusive, it's an interesting point that has me rethinking the merits. And at this point, polarization is so freezing up governance that some measure to address it will have to come about sooner or later, barring one group managing to finally seize one-party rule.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875