Should We Have Compulsory Voting?

Wayn-O wrote: Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for, rather than simply opting out. This means candidates need to appeal to a more general audience, rather than a small section of the community.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters also have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

(from the link)

IF people WON'T research the credentials of the doctor they are giving FISTFULS of money to,what makes you
think they would research a candidate's platform(NO money being handed over,in general)?.............................................

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Compulsory voting. Now there is a definition of freedom. Simply stupid.

Yep. For some people there's just never enough government control.

Some of these posts sound almost elitist.

And for those that support it just shows how dumbed down we are becoming.

Why of course. Having every citizen vote would take power away from the political elitists.

Wayn-O wrote: Why of course. Having every citizen vote would take power away from the political elitists.

Where do you get that idea?

Ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? The principle there is that the electorate gets more and more stupid since high IQ people stop having kids, and wrestling stars start winning elections.

Personally I respect people that choose not to vote because they don't care enough to research the election.

I would oppose mandatory voting, and what would be the penalty? $100 fine? Sounds like a pretty regressive tax to me, since the poor and uneducated are the least likely to vote, and may not be able to take off work to vote or even have transportation to polling sites.

I think if people are forced to vote, they will also be much more easily swayed to vote with whatever crowd they hang with. I think it's better to have informed people voting for what they really believe in and not what their friends, family, or neighbors believe in.

Wayn-O wrote: Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for, rather than simply opting out. This means candidates need to appeal to a more general audience, rather than a small section of the community.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters also have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

(from the link)

Lots of "may" statements in there, don't you think? They "may" do this, they "may" do that - not that they will mind you, just that they "may".

Is it somehow better to intimidate them into voting using the force of government than to allow any possibility that they may have been intimidated to stay away from the polls?

What isn't addressed in this author's foray into fractured logic is how someone can be intimidated into not voting but not intimidated into voting either for a particular person or intimidated into casting a spoilt or blank vote.

If "None of the Above" wins the election because most people have chosen to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list, would one of those candidates still end up holding the position despite the clear indication of the voters that they were not satisfied with having any of the candidates hold that position?

I personally would rather see incentives TO vote, than punishment for not voting.

All I know is that our electoral system is screwed up three ways from Sunday.