Australia has had compulsory voting since 1924. Over 20 countries have some form of compulsory voting... Is it time we considered it?
A few interesting articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm
-- Modified on 2/4/2010 12:33:16 PM
I don't think people should be forced to do anything.
But...you can probably get a similar result by giving people a small tax break for voting. Say, you can deduct 50 bucks or something like that from your taxes if you vote.
I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not it's a good idea, but you're argument isn't a good one...
We're "forced" to get driver's licenses, we're "forced" to file a tax return, we're "forced" to register guns (I bet you don't mind that!)... there are a LOT things we are compelled to do by govt. in order to maintain society.
Just take a walk in a WalMart or Target. Do you really want those people to vote? Voting does require a certain comprehension level of the issues. And considering I vote for my self interests, the last thing I need is more uninformed electorate to have an adverse impact on my life, or should I say my money.
Maybe I'm just the eternal optimist, but I think the people in WalMart aren't informed because they don't vote, not the other way around. If they could get a tax break for voting, then I think they would make more of an effort to inform themselves.
Go into your local WalMart. Ask any of the current relevant issues, i.e. Cap & Trade, Financial Regulation, even Health Care. But on the latter, just don't ask if you want a public option. Do you honestly think they will provide you a coherent, either right or wrong, analysis of the issue?
Tax break for voting? Give me a break. Now that is a waste of money.
I think rather than forcing people to vote, we should make them pass a test on the issues, not their opinion on the issues, just a test to see if they even no what the issues are.
There are stupid people on both sides of the aisle, and we can only hope they cancel each other out, but the idiot that thinks that Obama is the "antichrist" and votes against him is no more deserving of a vote than the idiot redneck who won't vote for a person of African descent.
If you were to put a test on voters so they can vote, who would author the test and wouldn't their bias affect it?
I believe the SC has already struck down poll testing because it was used to keep blacks from voting in the south. I'm not sure we should go back to that.
But philosophically speaking, don't dumb people have just as much a right to say what goes on in this country?
I am just opining that they shouldn't.
My statement is just a pipe dream of course, probably as stupid as many of your ideas, the difference is of course that I admit it. lol
A point of clarification, I am not suggesting that smart people should have more of a vote than stupid people, just that there should be a minimum standard of at least knowing what the issues are, rather than voting for the guy/girl who smiles the nicest. Yea, yea, I know it will never happen, but a guy can dream, can't he?
people who feel powerless to affect the system have no reason to learn the issues that affect it, for the same reason that even though I own a car, I have no reason to learn about combustion engines. I leave that for the mechanic. But if there were no mechanics available, then I would learn about it.
Voter ignorance is the direct result of voter apathy. And they're apathetic for the simple reason that their vote doesn't matter. If you made it matter to them, then they would learn more about it.
If you figured the taxes so that this would be revenue neutral with 100% of the populace voting, then this wouldn't cost us a dime to give them a tax break for voting.
The people in Wal-Mart and Target have a right to vote, and many are more informed than the wackos that are showing up at the TEA Party rallies!
Just because they shop or work at a discount store does NOT make them uninformed or stupid!
Comments like YOURS shows a true lack of intelligence!
This is just elitist snobery.
The view is those plebian slobs who shop at Wal-Mart are just stupid jerks, too dumb to vote.
Usually, and I say "usually" This is the secret Democratic view, held by people on the two coasts about many of their fellow citizens. It was Obama's "clinging to guns and Bibles."
And now you are honest enough to just come out and say it. Ironically, 70 years ago, it used to be the GOP as the party of the elite that tended to bash the plebs. Now it tends to be the arugala munching Dems. And yes, I eat arugal, go to the ballet, have multiple degrees, and have all the credentials needed to join the elite class.
The attitude really suckss.
I understand and agree with "the secret Democratic view". I'm not a Democrat. I am a fiscal conservative. I vote for my self interests. When you marry the two it comes down to $$$$. My job is to protect my hard earned assets, i.e. Estate aka Death Tax, Marginal Tax rates, Bank Tax, and every other tax being proposed by the current administration. This is not to say other issues are not important, they just tend to take a back seat.
I'll tell it like it is. Look at the demographics of the those that shop at Walmart and Target. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if these people voted they most likely would vote for the Democratic ticket, hence it's not in my best interest. Granted, some will be dumb ass Republicans, and I hope they are not voting as well. I'm not against this demographic from voting. So yeah, it might make it an elitist, but not for the reasons mentioned in your post.
-- Modified on 2/4/2010 4:48:12 PM
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
The response from these Wal-Mart people would make the ones on Jay Leno seem like a genius 
taxation without representation. So, in my view, if a person is paying taxes s/he has a right to vote for those who will represent him/her. I just wish s/he was much better informed.
being able to "vote themselves a raise" just like Congress?
I know it's a slippery slope to disenfranchise millions of people who really contribute nothing to society, but doesn't it bother you that the crackhead/welfare mom with 7 kids has a vote equal to yours?
It bothers the fuck out of me, I will admit I don't have a solution, but as more and more people flood into this country, some contributing, many not contributing, we have to draw the line somewhere or the decision will be taken out of our hands.
I doubt we will have a solution. Liberals use terms like shared responsibility, social justice and it takes a village. But when does it end? How much is enough? Should we just assume that govt should have a blank check, and that they are the best stewards of how to disperse funds. Conservative use terms like responsibility, accountability and restraint. I really don't want to come off as unsympathetic to the less fortunate, but how much is enough? (And willy, this is not an opportunity for your 94% top marginal tax rate crap). I think everyone needs to pay taxes, albeit a very small amount so each person has a vested interest in how the money is spent. I actually understand and agree with a certain degree of progressive taxation, but even those making less than $30K should pay a small nominal amount, i.e. $100 into the Fed Govt.
Otherwise, I'll take a line from Jack Nicholson in a "Few Good Men". "Just say thank you and move along".
Fuck....after today's market meltdown due to the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), people don't realize our percent of debt to GDP is the same as those countries. We are so screwed in a couple of years. And you wonder why I don't want Walmart shoppers, or the crackhead welfare mom with 7 kids voting on issues like this.
But, like you. I have no real answers. Even the crackhead/welfare mom with 7 kids does pay taxes, sales tax, and contributes to some sector in the economy that makes a product, but it's us tax payers that support her.
kind of an elitist response, don't you think? Crackhead or not, 7 kids or not, she's an American citizen with as much right to vote as you. Your argument is based on a selfish sense of what's in YOUR best interest & throws the Bill of Rights & the entire concept of democracy out the window... What you're saying is that your vote/opinion is more important than hers. The concept of democracy isn't based on the degree of contribution one makes.
I can see the concept scaring conservatives because I think compuldory voting would probably mean the end of the republican party.
personally I think that paying a hundred bucks to everyone who shows up at the polls is a better idea.
at the expense of those of us who actually contribute to society.
FWIW a dishwasher "does" contribute to society, maybe not as much as the guy that employs him, but even a dishwasher contributes. I am not suggesting that his/her vote be nullified.
Eddie, how do you feel about Congress voting themselves a raise even during tough economic times? That is what welfare recepients do every election cycle, what you propose would only encourage more of the same.
Sorry buddy, but just because you make money and pay taxes doesn't make you better than someone who doesn't. I know, I know... it isn't fair, but if you want to defend our oonstitution and Bill of Rights, you gotta take the good with the bad.
As for Congress voting themselves a raise, it sucks, and we, as their bosses, should take note of every one of them who votes "Aye" and kick their ass out of office... if we did that, it would put an end to THAT practice!
I believe you can purchase food with food stamps tax free, but the poor is going to pay consumption taxes somewhere, and chances are it will be a higher percentage of their income than you or I will pay GaG.
It doesn't bother me that a "crackhead/welfare mom" has an equal vote as me. Chances are she doesn't vote anyway. Personally, I would prefer the disenfrancised be the only ones who vote. I'd rather have someone who contributes nothing voting than someone who harms society, like corporate lobbyists.
It's like giving your child an allowance and then taking some of it back as room and board, your child isn't actually paying anything at all, and neither are these people who live on the generosity of the taxpayers.
...that someone on food stamps or other forms of welfare has a zero percent income. I mean, even the homeless panhandle. Most of the people on welfare have at least 1 person in the household who is working full time, or at least this was the case before this recession hit.
I have a deal for them. LOL
... democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Far too many voters out there have no clue about even the positions of candidates on issues.
I would restrict the vote, via a non-partisan literacy and issues test, to those who at least had comprehension of what they were doing.
Having people who can barely write their name vote is akin to statutory rape. Statutory rape is a crime because it is considered that the victim cannot give informed consent.
As the Declaration of Independence stated, government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.
Therefore, people who cannot give INFORMED consent ought not be voting.
And one that I would most definitely support.
Ill admit that the test a lot of us took a couple weeks back with the 12 questions was a real eye opener for me on how uninformed "the general public" really is these days.
The Supreme Court has already ruled any testing illegal!
I am not debating in the purely legal realm here.
After all, in the purely legal realm, if a USDA regulation says that a tomato is a vegetable rather than a fruit, then science flies out the window and for legal purposes a tomato becomes a vegetable; even though that is demonstrably untrue.
Same with the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that tests are illegal -- then they are illegal. But that doesn't mean their decision was RIGHT.
I live in a world where authority can and ought to be challenged on the basis of higher principles than the authority being challenged writes for itself.
I would gladly sell my vote to the highest bidder.
Instead of politicians buying advertising on the hope you'll vote for them, just offer them to buy it directly!
In Illinois senate seats were for sale and woman abusing steroid users win nominations for Lt gov seats. LOL
Maybe it should be good for us too.
OK...honestly I don't appreciate that their votes are for sale. And I hold my voting rights too sacred to want to sell them.
On the other hand , if you cant sell it , it is basically worthless is it not?
Offering to sell your vote is a felony.