Should We Have Compulsory Voting?

Rockdoc Franz wrote: How does compulsory voting put more power to the people? Don't they already have the power to vote? How are you giving them anything new????

I'm surprised I have to explain this...

It gives EVERYONE a vote for our elected leaders -- not an opportunity to vote -- but an actual vote.

Yes, they have the power to vote, but if they don't use it, it's no power at all. They are governed by people they didn't elect, if they don't vote.

The smaller the percentage of the people voting, the more easily the votes can be manipulated by outside forces and political machines. The more people that vote, the harder that becomes.

Again, they don't have to vote for any of the candidates. They just have to vote so that they participate in the process.

Arlen wrote: How elitist of you!

I'm starting to think a nice spell of "elitism" might be a refreshing change from the populist glorification of stupidity and lunacy that seems to be the current trend. Where's William F. Buckley when you need him?

Yes, the downside of compulsory voting is that the candidates would have to dumb down their message.

It is a sad state of affairs when intelligence and scholarly achievements are portrayed as elitism.

Conservative Voice wrote: Yes, the downside of compulsory voting is that the candidates would have to dumb down their message.

Seems to me it's already pretty well dumbed down - if it can't be turned into a sound bite, it's too long.

AspenValley wrote:

Arlen wrote: How elitist of you!

I'm starting to think a nice spell of "elitism" might be a refreshing change from the populist glorification of stupidity and lunacy that seems to be the current trend. Where's William F. Buckley when you need him?

William F Buckley would not propose that anyone be forced to vote. If that is what you believe that he thought, then you are mislead.
The reason that liberals want to force everyone to vote is because that most recepients of their largess do not vote. The force-vote would reduce our democracy to the essence of "circus and bread" politics.

Conservative Voice wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: How does compulsory voting put more power to the people? Don't they already have the power to vote? How are you giving them anything new????

I'm surprised I have to explain this...

It gives EVERYONE a vote for our elected leaders -- not an opportunity to vote -- but an actual vote.

Yes, they have the power to vote, but if they don't use it, it's no power at all. They are governed by people they didn't elect, if they don't vote.

The smaller the percentage of the people voting, the more easily the votes can be manipulated by outside forces and political machines. The more people that vote, the harder that becomes.

Again, they don't have to vote for any of the candidates. They just have to vote so that they participate in the process.

And you would rather take choice away from people is what I hear. A non vote may well be a protest vote. Clearly from your statements above you are not interested in government by the people as much as you are interested in large number of voters. That way you can say, look at the popular vote, or look at how many people voted. Absurd. And how is it different if someone votes, but not for any candidate that ends up representing them because they did not vote for any candidate at all and they still end up being represented by someone they did not vote for. The only difference is you can pretend that everyone voted and then claim that the elected are truly what the people want. No matter how you twist it, compulsory voting is stupid and deprives one of choice. I want ability to chose.

Conservative Voice wrote: I think they should lose their citizenship if they don't vote. Not voting shows no interest in the country and who leads it, so they shouldn't have the privilege of living here.

might mandatory voting work in the United States? It's a tempting quick fix to our low levels of voter turnout. Also, imagine our political parties freed from the burden of having to energize their base. Candidates could focus on converting voters, rather than trying to get them to the polls. As for concerns that mandatory voting represents government coercion, one might argue that our government coerces its citizens to perform many duties: pay taxes, attend school, serve on juries and, in times of war, fight and die for the nation.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... e_law.html

So it's OK to force any dumbo citizen to serve on a jury but not to require them to vote?

Not everyone needs to serve on a jury. Additionally, have you heard about jurors getting selected? There is a process involved. You just are not called up and end up serving. So, do we have people interview you before you vote to determine if you are fit to do so? If you want to make comparisons for consistency sake then lets do so.
So if we serve our country during times of war, does this mean we only need to vote during times of war also? Again, special circumstances call for special responses. Again , not a valid comparison.
There is such a thing as home schooling. People do retain a choice.

Conservative Voice wrote: The same way the federal speed limit works... local enforcement.

Don't all of you find it rather embarrassing that the greatest country on earth has one of the world's lowest voter turnouts?

Oh my. I'm embarrassed that we have low voter turn out. Now there you have it, the real motivation for compulsory voting. The fact that Joe Blow hasn't got a clue of what he's voting about, or the fact there are no viable candidates, or the fact that politicians elected fail to represent the will of the people are subsidiary to embarrassment. I'd think it was better to have people who made intelligent decisions about politics vote as opposed to Joe Blow going in there and punching buttons or putting x in spaces at random. If you want to see uninformed voters voting, why don't we save everyone some time and just flip a coin? In the end that is what it comes down to.

Let's face it. You advocate more government in private life, I want less government and more choice in my private life.

You said you wanted a discussion, but I note you do not address issues like voter apathy and the reasons for them. But why search for the cause of an issue when you can just mask the stink by spraying a deodorizer? Apparently that is not an important consideration to solving a problem. Rather than address the the broken arm you are content with putting a band aid on it.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Perhaps the popular vote ought to determine all our elections and perhaps popular vote ought to sign off on major pieces of legislation. It would accomplish a couple of things. Firstly, legislation would have to be well defined and properly explained both in terms of pros and cons to the people, (no more Obamacare approaches where no one knows what is included and how it is supposed to work) and secondly, people would actually have a say in how they are governed. The majority would rule, not special interest groups or groups who shout the loudest. That is what I think.

Careful Doc - the last thing we want is a nation that is a tyranny of the majority democracy capable of determining the rights of the minority by simple majority vote.

If changes are desired, we might attempt to affect change by repealing the 12th Amendment and returning to the original process of having the electors cast two equal votes for president to encourage the parties to allow more than one candidate from their party to appear on the ballot. Another option would be to amend the Constitution such that the EC vote that represents any given congressional district is given to the winner of that particular district with the votes representing the Senators in the federal congress going to the overall winner of the most congressional districts. Such an amendment would remove the ability of any candidate to count on a single large state padding their totals as they can at present with the current winner take all scenario.

Let's face it, the conservatives in California and the "progressives" in Texas realize that their vote has little effect on how their state will be casting their votes for the next executive, which is part of what contributes to their apathy. In a conservative district, such as Park County, there is also little to gain by showing up to the polls and voting for a "progressive" candidate for a local office unless it happens to be a year where federal offices are being decided and the race for that federal office is a close one.

If I were to start tinkering with the current voting methods, this is where I would begin. The repeal of the 12th Amendment would make it more likely that a candidate from outside of the two major parties would receive some of the votes for the federal executive office as well as remove some of the power the two major parties have managed to secure for themselves that all but guarantee that one of their members will end up occupying every office for which there is an election. Liberty is best served by a decentralizing of power in all instances regardless of whether that power rests in a political party or one of the various levels of our coordinate republican government structure.

Once upon a time in this nation, it was the local government, the most responsive form of government, that was the one that levied the lion's share of the taxes the citizens paid, followed by the State government, the next most responsive level, and bringing up the rear was the federal government, the least responsive of the three. That is how it should be in a nation where the founding premise is bottomed on self government to the greatest possible extent, don't you think?

Thanks PS. This topic of conversation is truly not my intellectual strength. It is a source of considerable frustration, however.

It would be Ok with me to pay my taxes to the local government and have them decide on how much to send to the federal government. Perhaps then we could pare the fate of our bloated Federal government?

After discussing issues with license plate tracking, and considering that government agencies complain about never having enough money, it is obvious, that much of what is needed to support a viable government agency is overwhelmed by ever increasing new ways of invading our personal lives. Hence, another good reason for keeping tax burdens local so that the people have a real voice.