Compulsory voting

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 14, 2020.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    I doubt it.

    It seems likely that it would add a variable partly founded on ignorance.

    But, then again
    I know people who have always voted a straight ticket---usually democrat---always have, and likely always will.
    If their party would put forth the devil as their candidate, (s)he would get their vote.

    Personally:
    I have been thinking about Iowa's caucus system.
    It seems grossly undemocratic. ---(not to mention the high level of incompetence)
    the delegates are apportioned via precinct, not population
    so, in some of the caucuses, you could get a delegate for your candidate with only 15 caucus goers, while in other precincts, you might need as many as 150 voters for one delegate.
    Our caucus required 89 voters to get your candidate a delegate.
    -----that is just the democratic caucuses---I have never attended a republican caucus---so of them, I am ignorant.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Just observing from an American perspective, I'm wondering if choosing to not vote is an illustration of the fact that many voters don't feel like their vote is being cast for a candidate, as much as against the other candidate. The entire process isn't very encouraging or uplifting, in other words. It's not a fair assessment to assume that most people who choose to opt out of voting, are just apathetic or lazy (although, some certainly could be)

    I'm an Independent, and don't care for Sanders or Trump, so where does this leave me? (if Sanders ends up being the Democratic frontrunner)
     
    Seattle likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    As previously elaborated on, while voting is compulsory, one can then do whatever he likes with the ballot paper. Back in the early seventies I received a notice via mail to show cause why I should not be fined for failing to vote in Federal elections. I replied and explained that I was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a square rigged barquentine and had no access to any polling stations. Fact! It was accepted without further question.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What little I know of American elections, I find it hard to fathom how and why your democrats can put forward a 78 year old man as a candidate. He maybe the most competent, but would the younger brigade be attracted to vote for someone at 78 years of age. Just my observations from 15,000 kms away.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Imagines a polling buoy floating out there as part of the governments legal responsibility to facilitate voting rights...lol

    just to reminisce:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Mary Ann (?)
    Random web image of a Barquentine

    I never had the opportunity to sail on a square rigger...I envy you...
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Keeping in mind that it is an evolved state that is evidenced in the current political farce. It will take quite a bit of time and work to bring in a fundamental shift in citizen responsibility.

    By maintaining a non-compulsory vote system means that the playing field is never level.
    Dis-disillusionment, apathy, dis-empowerment, and consequentially, bad government would be most likely IMO.
    At least if every citizen had to vote as part of their responsibility as citizens there would be no ability to blame the government for failure as is the case currently.

    Sure there would always be a % of citizens who cast donkey votes, protest vote or simply don't vote, but then the responsibility for the Government still falls on them because of not voting. Power to the people means power to all the people.
    Like I suggested earlier, there needs to be a provision for a donkey vote or protest vote as an option so that an election can be considered as a political referendum as well as an election.
    The historical protest vote could indicate how representative the candidates were and be invaluable to those taking their candidature seriously..

    protest vote = swinging vote perhaps?

    edit:
    Also would it be true to say that most people intending to donkey vote in the USA wouldn't bother to make the effort to vote in the first place?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    thats where most of sanders support comes from
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Actually your photo looks very much like the Eolus on which I served 4 months! Best 4 months of my life without any doubt!!
    26ft beam, 150ft long 90ft main mast...16 sails including 5 square sails...called the Eolus
    The Square rigged Barquentine Eolus from Portsmouth sailed into Sydney Harbour today after leaving England on 24th Dec 73.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is now a floating seafood restaurant in Malta with a name change to "The Black Pearl". I hope to visit later this year.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Even if it is the case that you don't support any of the candidates in an election, there's always a least-worst option. The rational thing to do in that case is to vote for the least worst candidate, not to throw your vote away.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Unfortunately for many people there is no such thing as a “least-worst”... there is either the Holy Grail that will lift them up from their political apathy, or there are the countless power-hungry elitists who they care nothing about, where they are all as bad as each other. Mandating that such people get up off their backsides and cast a vote is actually to give a false impression to the politicians that they are doing a decent enough job. If a country only has 20% turnout, for example, then it might be that all the parties are too close in what they offer that no one cares which one gets in to power.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, as a country, and if you don’t vote you have no right to complain.

    Mandating that people vote is, in my view, giving a somewhat false impression of voter’s actual views - and apathy is a valid view, even if there is no party for it. Now, if the ballot paper had an option of “none of the above” or “don’t care” on it, then I’d see that as a compromise, and in such a case I’d see that making the vote mandatory is simply the government wasting a few hours of my year. And I’d be reasonably apathetic about it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And I do dispute your notion that it would be “the rational thing to do”. It might be what you consider to be the rational thing, but other people have different priorities, different values, and thus what they deem rational might well differ from you deem rational.
     
    wegs likes this.
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I think that’s a reasonable take on it, Sarkus. It seems that when someone wins an election, they don’t assume it was because the voters were voting for the less of the two evils, they assume that they’re not evil at all and that their message was resonating far better with voters, than their opposition.

    Evil might be a strong word, but you know what I mean?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The reality is that they are never all as bad as each other, even if they are all bad (which is rarely the case in practice).

    Essentially, you're just reminding me that some people are too lazy to do their homework on candidates or policy positions. Actually, it's worse than that. There are plenty of people who can't name the two houses of Congress (or Parliament, if we talk about Australia instead), or identify their local representative. They are almost completely disengaged from the political process. What little they know about policy debates or what any politician is doing comes via ill-informed word-of-mouth on social media, or courtesy of paid advertisements from special interest groups. They might be vaguely aware that Trump is tweeting regularly, but they don't know enough to put any of those tweets into any sort of context, even if they could be bothered to read them. They don't really believe that what somebody does in Washington makes any difference to their daily lives even though, in the end, it often does.

    The strongest message that can be sent to a politician that he or she is not doing a decent enough job is to vote him or her out of office. They tend to receive that message loud and clear. Not getting off your backside to vote is what allows lazy politicians to remain cozily in office for decades without ever really doing anything beyond voting along party lines.

    You live in the United States, don't you? Are you telling me that you can't see the stark differences between what the Democratic party and the Republicans are promising for you and your nation?

    I disagree. For instance, where I live you have to be 18 years or older to be allowed to vote. I don't think it follows that a 16 year old has no right to complain.

    But probably you're thinking of people who are eligible to vote and choose not to do so. I agree with you on that.

    As I explained above, in Australia there is effectively a "none of the above" option. You can cast an informal vote, or simply screw up your ballot paper and drop it in the nearest bin. You can even scrawl "DON'T CARE" across the ballot paper and deposit it in the ballot box.

    Out of interest, do you vote, Sarkus, or are you an apathetic non-voter? My impression of you is that you're reasonably intelligent. If it turns out you choose not to vote, I'll make a mental note and adjust my personal assessment of you accordingly.

    Rationality isn't a democracy. You don't get to choose what is rational and what isn't. You can certainly be mistaken about what is rational.

    Your values don't impact on it being rational to vote, at least not in the United States at the present time under current conditions.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    And, there you have answered the question as to why Republican Senators voted to acquit Trump. In this case, voting to get someone out of office backfires. Sadly, the system can actually work against itself to keep corrupt politicians in power.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Not objectively, sure, but once things get below a certain point, they can tend to become indistinguishable in terms of which ****ers they think they'd prefer to get shafted by.
    Most are too lazy to do it fully. Most only do it to the level that satisfies their situation. And then only on a key issue they think is to their benefit, ignoring all the others that might more than outweigh it in adverse.
    That's true of those people whether they vote or not. Why mandate that they vote if you accept that they have little to no true understanding of what they're voting for?
    And if you really couldn't care less if they were in office or not? If you felt that no matter who was in office your life would still be pretty much the same? Why vote simply to replace one person you couldn't care about with another? Or one person you don't know anything about with another?
    I think you're confusing people who don't vote yet want to have a say, and those who don't vote because they honestly couldn't care less. Sure, if you want a say then go and vote. If you don't, then don't vote. Mandating that one votes, as this thread is about, means that you are forcing people who don't know and don't care to make a choice that they don't want to make. Why force them?
    No, I don't live in the US. I must have posted enough times on this website about the UK position that it should be reasonably obvious where I'm from.
    And whether or not one can tell the stark difference between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK, it doesn't mean that one needs to actually care about either position sufficiently to want to vote for it. I know the stark difference between plum tomatoes and tapioca, but it doesn't stop me throwing up whenever I eat either of them. Why force me to go to a restaurant when they're the only things on the menu, just so I can opt to not choose them both? Seems daft.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    For Pete's sake, JamesR. This thread is about compulsory voting, so I think you should assume by default that we are indeed talking about those who are eligible to vote. Or should the thread be so caveated that we are not talking of making babies have to vote?
    In the UK you can do this from the comfort of your own home.
    My position is that I believe everyone has the right to vote (yes, if so eligible as dictated by the laws of the country etc). But thanks for telling me that some information I give will cause you to adjust your personal assessment of me accordingly. As if that isn't how things work anyway!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Where did I say one decides what is rational? Rationality is subjective, however, as what is rational to one might not be to another, due to the information they each have, and the values they assign that information. It might be rational for one person to vote Labour, another to vote Conservative. Are you suggesting that one of them is necessarily wrong?
    Sure they do. Values impact on what is rational for us all the time, and voting is no exception. If I happened to be in Nebraska's 3rd congressional district, and I was confident enough that there were enough active Republican voters to carry the day, why would I bother if my values meant I had something else to do that day? I'm not saying I personally would choose not to vote, nor that I would choose to vote, only that you can't judge what is rational for everyone simply by what you consider to be rational. It may come as a surprise to you, JamesR, but not everyone has the same values, interests, or concerns as you do.
    So do you actually advocate compulsory voting, or is it just something you're used to?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I see voting as a right, a privilege and a duty of the country of which you are a citizen.
    I'm all for Australia's system of compulsory voting even though as James has mentioned, once registered and received the ballot papers, you can literally do what you like with them.
    So in effect the compulsory voting system in our country is not actually "forcing" a choice...not that I see too much wrong with that anyway. We are forced to do many things that we may otherwise not do.
    I was standing at a pedestrian crossing yesterday, and was just about to cross against the "Don't Walk" sign, when I noticed a female cop standing behind me...I said, "oops sorry about that love, didn't see you standing there" to which she smiled and in humour shook he finger at me in admonishment.
    How many of the eligible citizens voted in the last US elections? 53% I read somewhere?
    While I always know my local candidates, at all levels, council, state and federal, my main concern is the party that they represent. A poor representative of any particular party will not be given any portfolio by his or her party and will probably be overthrown in short time anyway.
    In Australia, it is the party that elects its Prime Minister and other representations.
    The important issue is the policies that the party stands for and which your local representative is also more then likely supporting.
    The main drawback in this of course is that if descent or division does occur in any party, the sitting Prime Minister can be given the boot in favour of another.This has been taken to extreme in both Australia's two major parties in recent times, with 6 PM's in 10 years.
    Finally the compulsory system will generally keep the representative party on its toes.
    If Australia had elections tomorrow, the ruling Liberals, would be kicked out of office by a huge majority, due to the delay in action taken re recent bushfires and ignoring climate change science. But by the same token, our elections are not for another 2 years, and if all stabilizes, you can bet your short n curlies that many will have forgotten those issues. Sad but true.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Your Liberal party ignored climate change science?? I'd hate to see the medieval thinking of your Conservative party. Mandatory praying at schools and work? Witch burnings?
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Our Liberal party, despite what the name suggests, is our conservative party...The other main party is the Labor party.
     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Lol. So, they're fake Liberals. Pretty funny. I watched a series called "Rake" in which one season the main character, a lawyer, runs for Senator and wins. It gave me a bit of a taste for Aussie politics.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I feel compelled to mention is that while I agree the Australian Governments record on climate change is very poor, and I do not seek to condone their inaction, it is worth stressing that they, like the opposition parties including the independents are HUMAN.
    I have been dealing with the climate change issue for nearly 30 years and even today I have great difficulty attempting to inform my children and grandchildren of the likely future or lack of it that they must endure. I couldn't 30 years ago and I still can't discuss it with them properly today.
    I guess what I am attempting to suggest is that everyone handles this catastrophe in their own ways. True leadership, when traumatized just by the thought of it all, is hard to find.
    Our current PM, Scott Morrison, has two young daughters, daughters he no doubt loves dearly and the last thing he would want to do as a protective father is destroy their childhood with a too harder dose of reality.
    So instead they put up a front that says "Business as usual" and reach out for other like minded ministers.
    Political positioning has a strong tendency to always move to the right and become more authoritarian in times of crisis and evident catastrophe. The population seeking strong leadership to assuage their fears of losing control of their lives. Unfortunately strong leadership does not equate necessarily to good leadership.
    So we have a government of both major parties paralyzed from taking the wisest long term path but lead they must.

    The "human dilemma" has never been so evident as it is now.
    Opinion:
    Australians voted in a conservative right wing tending, religious biased party, because they wish for a strong leadership team that is more authoritarian, pragmatic and has a religious morality bias because they need spiritual faith and hope to quell their despair. (even if they are atheists) and they needed a government that was strong on border protection (anti-migration) so as to protect what is perceived as a threat to the Australian way of life (what ever that may be) due to the threat of mass migration caused by increasing political, climatic upheaval around the globe.
    They are prepared to tolerate the unethical and immoral indefinite detention of asylum seekers because of their fears of being overwhelmed by desperate people. ( regardless of race or religion)

    The same issue can be demonstrated by Trumps multi-billion dollar Southern Border wall.
    Unethical, immoral, but tolerated by the majority of USA voters because of the fears of being inundated and overwhelmed by desperate people mass migrating from South of that border some time in the future. A collective paranoia perhaps.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Is it worth considering that an election can also be considered as a referendum? A chance to discover what is right and what is wrong about government according to the people?
     

Share This Page