Compulsory Voting

**PointOfViewGun** · September 05, 2012, 09:42 PM

Not a lot of states have it:

Yet, it's a crucial part of a democracy. Though some would argue that forcing people to vote is also against democracy. I beg to differ. People, mostly people from U.S.A., talk as if just because they don't vote they're not gonna be subject to the authority of the elected officials. They are and will be. In countries like U.S.A. we're basically electing officials based on the laziness of the public and how much of an excitement the candidates can provide, turning the whole process into American Idol.

By the way, compulsory voting doesn't mean holding a gun to you head and order you to vote. The idea is to simply provide an incentive by law to have people show up.

Are you for or against compulsory voting?

**Vanoi** · September 05, 2012, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

Not a lot of states have it:

Yet, it's a crucial part of a democracy.

Not really.

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

Though some would argue that forcing people to vote is also against democracy. I beg to differ. P They are and will be. In countries like U.S.A. we're basically electing officials based on the laziness of the public and how much of an excitement the candidates can provide, turning the whole process into American Idol.

And to make the situation better, we will make voting compulsory, and have millions of uninformed people voting for the next person to help lead the country. Sounds great

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

Are you for or against compulsory voting?

Against.

**PointOfViewGun** · September 05, 2012, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Azoth

Not really.

Voting is not a crucial part of a democracy? Because that was what meant by "it"...

Originally Posted by Azoth

And to make the situation better, we will make voting compulsory, and have millions of uninformed people voting for the next person to help lead the country. Sounds great

As if every single person voting at the moment have a clue what they're voting for? Quite a large potion of the public are voting because of the general values. Such an "awareness" does exist in all of us. By your logic we'd have to make everyone take a test on politics before voting...

**Vanoi** · September 05, 2012, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

As if every single person voting at the moment have a clue what they're voting for? Quite a large potion of the public are voting because of the general values. Such an "awareness" does exist in all of us. By your logic we'd have to make everyone take a test on politics before voting...

The American public are very misinformed or just un-informed about politics. My generation hates politics and wants nothing to do with them. And you want to make these people vote? Compulsory voting will not solve anything. It will make what you described as American Idol even worse. The un-informed will just end up voting for who is the most popular. And thats what the elections will become. Popularity contests.

**PointOfViewGun** · September 05, 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Azoth

The American public are very misinformed or just un-informed about politics. My generation hates politics and wants nothing to do with them. And you want to make these people vote? Compulsory voting will not solve anything. It will make what you described as American Idol even worse. The un-informed will just end up voting for who is the most popular. And thats what the elections will become. Popularity contests.

Seriously? As if it's not a popularity contest at the moment? Candidates know that they don't have to worry about running out of voters. However, if everyone gets their asses to the voting booth candidates would actually need to argue for their viewpoint and not try to look good on camera.

**CrabPope** · September 05, 2012, 11:25 PM

If that was instituted in my country I would vote for a joke party just to spite the government.

You only want this to happen because you think 'your' party has more to gain from lethargic voters.

Let people do what they want.

**Vanoi** · September 06, 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

Seriously? As if it's not a popularity contest at the moment? Candidates know that they don't have to worry about running out of voters. However, if everyone gets their asses to the voting booth candidates would actually need to argue for their viewpoint and not try to look good on camera.

Why? Why would they need to suddenly argue their viewpoint because more people are voting? These people are not informed as i have said. All the election will become is an even bigger popularity contest.

**chilon** · September 07, 2012, 12:34 PM

I don't think you can have compulsory voting but what you can have is the Federal Gov. implementing a "fine" if you didn't vote.

But what level of voting are you going to fine to make "compulsory"?

Just Presidential elections?

State elections?

Or local elections which typically get under 40% turnout.

What about primaries? Are only general elections going to be fined/mandatory or does this include primaries too?

**Phier** · September 05, 2012, 10:26 PM

Forcing people to vote is fine if you give them a test to show they have a SLIGHT clue what they are voting for.

Otherwise its retarded.

**SLN445** · September 05, 2012, 10:52 PM

So its only representation for those who we actually want to vote rather then the general stupid population?

**SLN445** · September 06, 2012, 01:00 AM

On a serious note, theirs much more pressing matters to fixing voting then making it compulsory...such as fixing the American system.

**Veliky Kaiser Theos** · September 06, 2012, 01:33 AM

Doesn't really matter if it's compulsory or not. If you hate the major parties and you have to vote, donkey vote.

**SLN445** · September 06, 2012, 01:35 AM

Whatever happened to voting for the party you hate the least? Is there not one group that may benefit you slightly more then the other?
As someone in further education, id at least vote for the guys who would cut my TAFEs funding the least.

**Dejeyo** · September 06, 2012, 02:08 AM

I don't support compulsory voting. You must have right to abstain. What if there is no suitable candidates?

**PointOfViewGun** · September 06, 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by CrabPope

You only want this to happen because you think 'your' party has more to gain from lethargic voters.

I don't have a party that I support inherently. So far, I've always voted for different parties. What do i want?

Originally Posted by Enemy of the State

Would I get punished If I wrote obscenities on the ballot?

No.

Originally Posted by Dejeyo

I don't support compulsory voting. You must have right to abstain. What if there is no suitable candidates?

What do you mean? There won't be an election if there are no suitable candidates.

**Dr. Croccer** · September 06, 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by TheSutekh

What do you mean? There won't be an election if there are no suitable candidates.

Suitable candidates which I want. What about a country like America or Britain where there are only two choices, why should I be forced to participate in this joke of an election instead of protesting way more effectively by not voting for either.

**SLN445** · September 06, 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Suitable candidates which I want. What about a country like America or Britain where there are only two choices, why should I be forced to participate in this joke of an election instead of protesting way more effectively by not voting for either.

Not much of a protest

neither party is going to give a

aslong as you aint voting for the other guy.

**Claudius Gothicus** · September 06, 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by SLN445

Not much of a protest

neither party is going to give a

aslong as you aint voting for the other guy.

That depends, coalitions with few votes and narrow percentages are often the most unstable and weak.

**xcorps** · September 06, 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Suitable candidates which I want. What about a country like America or Britain where there are only two choices, why should I be forced to participate in this joke of an election instead of protesting way more effectively by not voting for either.

Only 2 choices is a fallacy. There are more than two choices in just about every election at every level, including the Presidency. You can in fact in all but 8 states write in the name of the person you wish to be elected for President.

In the upcoming POTUS election you can vote for Tom Hoefling, Merlin Milller, Will Christensen, Jim Carlson, Dr Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson, Tom Stevens, Peta Lendsay, Rosanne Barr, Lowell Fellure, Andre Barnett and about 40 other candidates who have gone through the hoops of making themselves contenders for the Presidency.

To the OP:

Mandatory Voting is a very bad idea.

**Dr. Croccer** · September 07, 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by xcorps

Only 2 choices is a fallacy. There are more than two choices in just about every election at every level, including the Presidency. You can in fact in all but 8 states write in the name of the person you wish to be elected for President.

In the upcoming POTUS election you can vote for Tom Hoefling, Merlin Milller, Will Christensen, Jim Carlson, Dr Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson, Tom Stevens, Peta Lendsay, Rosanne Barr, Lowell Fellure, Andre Barnett and about 40 other candidates who have gone through the hoops of making themselves contenders for the Presidency.

I meant realistically. Of course you can still vote for a third party, but it's entirely pointless because it's guaranteed that the two major parties will end up in the final race, just as in every other electoral year.

Originally Posted by The Sutekh

Living is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die

No.