Case for Compulsory Voting (Full Version)

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



Message

Musicmystery -> Case for Compulsory Voting (6/1/2010 9:43:36 PM)

"William Galston thinks the key to less polarization in the electorate is compulsory voting. It's the disaffected, the angry, who vote. If everyone — including those in the less intense middle — voted, you would get fewer ideologues in office.

"The Brookings Institution scholar is among those who are dismayed at the turnout in this country. Those in the wide middle of the spectrum are the ones who abstain from voting, and Galston thinks that's not good. Get more people in the process by making it easier to vote through things like liberalized absentee voting.

"Galston wrote about these ideas in a Brookings policy brief that was released today, and he talked about them with NPR's Robert Siegel, an interview that aired tonight on "All Things Considered."

"Galston believes that the "participation of less ideologically committed voters" would lead to depolarization. He concedes that while "passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy," the U.S. electorate is as polarized as it was back in the 1890s, which "erects roadblocks to problem-solving." And while many "committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise," gridlock is "no formula for effective governance."

"Australia had voting participation at around 60 percent before it instituted mandatory voting, and now it's up to 95 percent. But, as Robert pointed out, an ABC News poll indicated that 72 percent of Americans are opposed to compulsory voting. Isn't this a non-starter? Galston conceded that it could be tough but added that perceptions change. Just look at the public's turnaround on "don't ask, don't tell," he said.

"Robert also asked about the non-voters. Are they of the same political persuasion of those who vote? Galston said they are more in the middle, less ideological than those on the right or the left."




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/1/2010 9:51:47 PM)

I seldom vote anymore, and if i were compelled to do so I'd probably just write in my own candidates for every office. One clown is the same as another clown as far as I'm concerned.



Arpig -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/1/2010 9:53:01 PM)

I think its a good idea.



Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/1/2010 9:55:24 PM)

Panda, you are, I think, missing the point.

Today, campaigns are run to fire up the extremes in order to get their base to the polls. If everyone voted, even as you describe, that would not only not be necessary, but also a foolish strategy.

And candidates more appealing to the moderate middle could again run successful campaigns.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/1/2010 10:02:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Panda, you are, I think, missing the point.

Today, campaigns are run to fire up the extremes in order to get their base to the polls. If everyone voted, even as you describe, that would not only not be necessary, but also a foolish strategy.

And candidates more appealing to the moderate middle could again run successful campaigns.




I know that that's the intended outcome, but I'm skeptical. No, cynical. I'll believe it when I see it. If they could manage to get better candidates on the ballot, they could change my view on voting, but if all they're going to offer me is a choice between the young black republican-pretending-to-be-a-moderate and the elderly white republican-pretending-to-be-a-moderate, I'll continue to abstain from pretending to feel any sense of ownership in the process.



NorthernGent -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 12:52:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

"William Galston thinks the key to less polarization in the electorate is compulsory voting. It's the disaffected, the angry, who vote. If everyone — including those in the less intense middle — voted, you would get fewer ideologues in office.



We have a similar issue over here......in that the turn out at general elections ranges from 50 to 70% dependent upon area.

I don't think compulsory voting is the answer. There's not a great deal of use in forcing people to vote who by and large don't care anyway.

But I would advocate a test being in place in order to establish the credentials of those voting......you can't be a doctor unless you pass an exam.....then you shouldn't be allowed to vote without a level of prerequisite knowledge. If people can't be bothered to inform themselves in order to exercise their stake in the nation then I think they don't deserve enfranchisement. And this may weed out the ridiculous situation we have here where people vote Labour because their grandfathers and fathers did.

I think part of the answer is local power....people with a chance to shape their community's future are more likely to take an interest.

But of course there's a huge barrier to all of this.........our political leaders (and yours)....don't want people to have ideals.....they want people to simply buy and sell...in order to maintain a peaceful society where people steer clear of sudden changes......and where people are mere consumers you're going to be hard pressed to get them interested in politics.

So..it's the system...that's the problem. There is no Democracy where the people exercise their stake in the nation (which formed the bedrock of Democracy as originally envisaged)......there's negative liberty which is a narrow version of political freedom. The alternative...however......such as left wing revolutions built on notions of equality and positive freedom....is equally hazardous.....so perhaps we are the problem rather than the system.......in that we're dangerous where untamed.



eyesopened -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 4:22:58 AM)

I think a better idea would be to revise the campaign process.  In my perfect world mud-slinging and smear would be illegal.  Television ads would have to be limited to the candidate him/herself providing their resume of qualifications and their views on issues and any special bills they would likely propose.  Period.  No dramatic music, no pics of the family, no dire warnings of what could happen if the candidate were not elected. 

I think the smear campaign tactic has gotten so out of hand that a lot of folks just assme everyone is an asshat so why even bother voting.



Newnshiny -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 4:40:37 AM)

I'm straddling the fence on this issue.

On the one hand, in Australia, yes, voting participation is that high, but there's still a good percentage of those voters who cast a donkey vote. So what's the point?

At the same time, I find that those who don't vote are often the ones who whine the loudest about the current government. (Whichever that is at any given moment.) If you choose not to vote, you don't really get to complain.

As things stand in the US right now, making everyone vote would be a logistical nightmare. We're talking buses needed, massive crowds, major confusion. It would be basically a big ol' mess.



Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 4:43:36 AM)


good idea and before the ink dried they would have a stack of class action suits on the bench from the nationals.

now back to your originally scheduled planting more government interference ideas into the minds of posters.








pahunkboy -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 5:20:08 AM)

So then more issues should come to national referendum?


That seems fair.



LadyEllen -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 5:41:37 AM)

Speechless NG. Still, its nice to know something of my ideas on the subject rubbed off on you after all.

I believe voting should be mandatory - subject to there being a "none of the above" selection available on the ballot paper, or in the case of any form of AV or PR, where 2nd choices become important, an option to select similarly to demonstrate disapproval of all candidates.

I also believe that PR is vital to improving participation - it is no motivation to vote, or even take an interest, if your point of view stands no chance whatever in the first past the post system of gaining any representation. If AV is the first step towards that then so be it - its not exactly what is needed but its a move in the right direction.

I also believe we have to ensure that voters are more politically aware and as far as possible more active too. PR would inevitably I believe lead to such improvements, because for millions of the disaffected it would suddenly become a distinct possibility that their view might make it through and a distinct possibility that they themselves might make it into politics outside of the traditional party system.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 5:53:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I believe voting should be mandatory - subject to there being a "none of the above" selection available on the ballot paper,



that would work great in your "pure" democracy in the UK however does not fly here in the REPUBLIC.

Unless of course the object is to destroy the republic and convert everything to the hopeless democracy you all have.



pahunkboy -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 5:55:36 AM)

Funding the beast IS voting.



Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 5:59:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

So then more issues should come to national referendum?


That seems fair.



National is a political status in the republic and has nothing to do with the democracy or referendums.

These grand ideas are covert movements to destroy the remaining foot hold of the republic and convert it to a full democracy which of course is totalitarianism under corporatism and complete disregard for the rights of the individual. 


In effect it would wipe out the majority of peoples "protected" rights starting with the 10th then 7th, 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st all of which are under great attack by these corporatists out here.


The attack is not a direct attack but lucrative suggestions as seen in the OP. 

The movement gains its strength when enough people do not oppose it then there is no fear of imposing it on the people.

The whole idea is that people are not fully aware of liberties they are sacrificing when going along with this sort.

Take note all the crown members are ALL for it!  Hmmm....






LadyEllen -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 6:06:24 AM)

What on Earth makes you believe we have a "pure" democracy RO? However one looks at it, its rotten and ripe for replacement in itself and so hardly pure by that definition, and it is governed according to law so the dangers you see in democracy cannot come to pass without removing those safeguards first, which in itself should provoke enough resistance to make it an impossible task.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 6:08:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

What on Earth makes you believe we have a "pure" democracy RO? However one looks at it, its rotten and ripe for replacement in itself and so hardly pure by that definition, and it is governed according to law so the dangers you see in democracy cannot come to pass without removing those safeguards first, which in itself should provoke enough resistance to make it an impossible task.

E


you do not have inalienable rights.  you have sanctioned privileges you "labeled" rights.

a label does not grant title.

Since you are into law I can take that one step further....

You are chattel of the crown and a beneficiary to that trust.

Now being into law yourself what rights do you have?  :)

(others I am sure do not, but I bet you realize the significance of that little tidbit)






LadyEllen -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 6:18:55 AM)

Youve never heard of the Human Rights Act 1998?

And you truly, honestly believe that rights are inalienable? That absent the means to maintain and defend them they should endure against those hostile to them?

And what happens to these inalienable rights, when one right comes up against another? Being inalienable the situation is beyond remedy surely? And if remedy be found then one or the other must be alienated to some extent to that end.

E



Real0ne -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 6:25:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Youve never heard of the Human Rights Act 1998?

And you truly, honestly believe that rights are inalienable? That absent the means to maintain and defend them they should endure against those hostile to them?

And what happens to these inalienable rights, when one right comes up against another? Being inalienable the situation is beyond remedy surely? And if remedy be found then one or the other must be alienated to some extent to that end.

E



well then you make a good case for the need of peoples militias if you are claiming that we are in an uncivilized world and have a need to take up arms to protect our liberties.


An act is legislated... Meaning parlimentary..... and you validated my statement. 

Anything parlimentary is a grant from government to the governed.

The constitution here is a grant (of authority NOT right) to our military styled government from people to the extent they can govern the consenting.  Precisely the opposite yours is.

When one right comes up against another it is governed by whom has incurred an injury.  (or used to be before mechantile law was the law of the land)



Musicmystery -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 6:48:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
"William Galston thinks the key to less polarization in the electorate is compulsory voting. It's the disaffected, the angry, who vote. If everyone — including those in the less intense middle — voted, you would get fewer ideologues in office.

We have a similar issue over here......in that the turn out at general elections ranges from 50 to 70% dependent upon area.

I don't think compulsory voting is the answer. There's not a great deal of use in forcing people to vote who by and large don't care anyway.

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.

quote:

But I would advocate a test being in place in order to establish the credentials of those voting.

We can't do this--in the past, various tests were used explicitly to weed out black voters. It's a civil rights issue here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
In my perfect world mud-slinging and smear would be illegal. Television ads would have to be limited to the candidate him/herself providing their resume of qualifications and their views on issues and any special bills they would likely propose.

I hear ya, but this violates the First Amendment. I'd like to see truth in advertising laws apply, but that also stretches the First Amendment for a campaign, and would result in mountains of legal challenges to various allegations. Perhaps we could see television ads banned, but it's a major money maker for broadcasters, and anyway, everything would just move to the Internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Newnshiny
As things stand in the US right now, making everyone vote would be a logistical nightmare. We're talking buses needed, massive crowds, major confusion. It would be basically a big ol' mess.

Not necessarily. We could (and already should, I think) make Election Day a national holiday. We could also (Galston alludes to this) increase absentee voting (and, essentially, voting by mail).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
good idea and before the ink dried they would have a stack of class action suits on the bench from the nationals.

The threat of a potential suit is no reason not to act. If it were, nothing would ever be done. If the courts need to sort it out, so be it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
So then more issues should come to national referendum?

That seems fair.

Not at all. That's a separate topic--and one I'll always oppose. Governance is making choices, and as California demonstrates all too well, pulling apart separate matters for independent popular votes is a recipe for ongoing disaster.

The founders opposed this too. We vote for representatives. Those representatives then exercise their best judgment. If we don't like the results, we can change representatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I think part of the answer is local power....people with a chance to shape their community's future are more likely to take an interest.

I can't speak to this issue in the U.K., but here, people do have local power. They all too rarely use it, perhaps, but it's not at all difficult to do, and effectively.

Many voters, too, are happy with their local representatives. The mess we're seeing is the overbearing nature of national party politics, especially since "entertainment" became accepted as "news" and "commentary" became consumed as "fact."

Beyond education, I don't see what can realistically be done about that. But Galston's point about minimizing the effect of dragging out an angry base is interesting--with everyone (or most) voting, the main tool of the ideologue is dulled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
I think its a good idea.

Me too--at least one that deserves serious national discussion.





eyesopened -> RE: Case for Compulsory Voting (6/2/2010 7:19:10 AM)

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.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02