Voting in Elections. Should it be Mandatory, Optional, Restricted, or none at all?

[TexRex]

I voted for optional, but if you think about it, it should be mandatory.

Didn't work. Thinking about it makes the notion of a mandate more absurd. How is compliance enforced? What is the penalty for failure or refusal to comply?

 

[FPV MIC]

Didn't work. Thinking about it makes the notion of a mandate more absurd. How is compliance enforced? What is the penalty for failure or refusal to comply?

In Australia you're automatically enrolled to vote at the age of 18 and then threatened with fines for not voting. Don't pay the fines and it escalates from there, up to jailtime for failure to pay the fines... or you have to lie and say you were sick or some other excuse, unless you have a legitimate reason. It's a stupid system.

There's a full run down of how it works here.

 

[TexRex]

In Australia you're automatically enrolled to vote at the age of 18 and then threatened with fines for not voting. Don't pay the fines and it escalates from there, up to jailtime for failure to pay the fines... or you have to lie and say you were sick or some other excuse, unless you have a legitimate reason. It's a stupid system.

There's a full run down of how it works here.

That's asinine. A bitch that tries to punish me for not participating in an election is getting shot.

 

[FPV MIC]

That's asinine.

I agree.

A bitch that tries to punish me for not participating in an election is getting shot.

With talk like that you'd lose your gun licence and you're guns as well having to pay the fine for not voting.

Like I said, it's a stupid system.

 

[TexRex]

With talk like that you'd lose your gun licence and you're guns as well having to pay the fine for not voting.

It still hinges on enforcement. There's a simple solution...don't start none, won't be none.

 

[FPV MIC]

It still hinges on enforcement. There's a simple solution...don't start none, won't be none.

They will enforce the payment of the fine though... or you just lie and use an excuse.

 

[TexRex]

They will enforce the payment of the fine though... or you just lie and use an excuse.

One shouldn't have to lie to avoid the state taking their property because they didn't comply with a bad law. Enforcement of the law violates individual rights. Use of force to defend against property rights violations is just, even when it's unlawful. Laws should preserve rights or provide remedy for rights violations in a manner that doesn't violate rights. Laws that preserve no rights and provide no remedy at the same time that they violate rights are bad laws. Good people break bad laws.

 

[FPV MIC]

One shouldn't have to lie to avoid the state taking their property because they didn't comply with a bad law. Enforcement of the law violates individual rights. Use of force to defend against property rights violations is just, even when it's unlawful. Laws should preserve rights or provide remedy for rights violations in a manner that doesn't violate rights. Laws that preserve no rights and provide no remedy at the same time that they violate rights are bad laws. Good people break bad laws.

I'm just giving you an example of how it works here as you asked @CTznOfTime how it would work. I'm certainly not agreeing with how it works here. I think it sucks.

 

[TexRex]

I'm just giving you an example of how it works here as you asked @CTznOfTime how it would work. I'm certainly not agreeing with how it works here. I think it sucks.

Then that user can offer a suggestion for how it would work and defend that suggestion.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Here goes...

Like I said before, I selected Optional Voting as it is right now in the US,
But i think, it should be in everyone's interest to vote and to take advantage of their privileges as a citizen to vote for something you participate in or benefit from, and it should be your responsibility to educate yourself to vote for what you believe, and not just blindly vote...
The state or government can benefit from a 100% participation rate...., because the voice of the population is fully communicated and the true choice of the people can be represented by the action of the true majority.

All voices heard and no one can complain that their voices were not heard.


How to effectively incentivize or encourage or enforce it you ask?

A) Monetary or financial burden? Maybe... Increasing due with each successive miss or non participating.
B) Jail time ? No, I don't think we need to go that far
C) Disqualification from government benefits, similar to or like access to libraries (inability to check out books or materials)
D) Inability to buy houses unless you pay your dues, which are quadruple or tenfold the amount originally due above.
E) Or any other administrative process would be hindered by your choice to not vote....

Make it just annoying enough that they will see how much simpler their lives would be if they just taken the time to vote....

 

[Danoff]

Here goes...

Like I said before, I selected Optional Voting as it is right now in the US,
But i think, it should be in everyone's interest to vote and to take advantage of their privileges as a citizen to vote for something you participate in or benefit from, and it should be your responsibility to educate yourself to vote for what you believe, and not just blindly vote...
The state or government can benefit from a 100% participation rate...., because the voice of the population is fully communicated and the true choice of the people can be represented by the action of the true majority.

All voices heard and no one can complain that their voices were not heard.


How to effectively incentivize or encourage or enforce it you ask?

A) Monetary or financial burden? Maybe... Increasing due with each successive miss or non participating.
B) Jail time ? No, I don't think we need to go that far
C) Disqualification from government benefits, similar to or like access to libraries (inability to check out books or materials)
D) Inability to buy houses unless you pay your dues, which are quadruple or tenfold the amount originally due above.
E) Or any other administrative process would be hindered by your choice to not vote....

Make it just annoying enough that they will see how much simpler their lives would be if they just taken the time to vote....

Do you really want someone who doesn't want to vote to vote? That seems like exactly the wrong person to make a decision about how the government is run.

 

[Blitz24]

Here goes...

Like I said before, I selected Optional Voting as it is right now in the US,
But i think, it should be in everyone's interest to vote and to take advantage of their privileges as a citizen to vote for something you participate in or benefit from, and it should be your responsibility to educate yourself to vote for what you believe, and not just blindly vote...
The state or government can benefit from a 100% participation rate...., because the voice of the population is fully communicated and the true choice of the people can be represented by the action of the true majority.

All voices heard and no one can complain that their voices were not heard.


How to effectively incentivize or encourage or enforce it you ask?

A) Monetary or financial burden? Maybe... Increasing due with each successive miss or non participating.
B) Jail time ? No, I don't think we need to go that far
C) Disqualification from government benefits, similar to or like access to libraries (inability to check out books or materials)
D) Inability to buy houses unless you pay your dues, which are quadruple or tenfold the amount originally due above.
E) Or any other administrative process would be hindered by your choice to not vote....

Make it just annoying enough that they will see how much simpler their lives would be if they just taken the time to vote....

So what would you do about people who are intimidating voters that they are ineligible to vote? Do they become convicted felons and get thrown in jail?

 

[CTznOfTime]

Do you really want someone who doesn't want to vote to vote? That seems like exactly the wrong person to make a decision about how the government is run.

They could vote blank, and that's still be ok, as long as they voice their indecision, at least the government would know how many officially are undecided voters, rather than relying on inaccurate pollings Or stupid surveys...

So what would you do about people who are intimidating voters that they are ineligible to vote? Do they become convicted felons and get thrown in jail?

Voting interference... Why would anyone listen to anyone else about their right to vote... There are government websites that can help each individual know whether they are allowed or registered to vote....

Anyone intimidating anyone else about their voting rights should have their voting rights revoked for a certain period, long enough that would deter them from trying again in the future.

Why jail for such petty action... Preventing them from the exact rights they are trying to prevent other of, should be fair enough...

 

[Roo]

Anyone intimidating anyone else about their voting rights should have their voting rights revoked for a certain period, long enough that would deter them from trying again in the future.

Why jail for such petty action... Preventing them from the exact rights they are trying to prevent other of, should be fair enough...

It sounds like you're incentivising people who don't want to vote to intimidate whose who do, just so they don't have to vote. Which results in those who are indifferent to voting not bothering, because why would you want to if you're just going to be intimidated? Then they get punished because of the actions of others who didn't want to vote in the first place.

The punishment for intimidation can't be "fine, we'll give you want you wanted in the first place". That's not a punishment, that's an incentive.

 

[MatskiMonk]

All voices heard and no one can complain that their voices were not heard.

The degree to which this is true is also dependent on the electoral system being used. Votes lost at constituency level are not reflected in any way shape or form in the national parliament in the UK, for instance.

Do you really want someone who doesn't want to vote to vote? That seems like exactly the wrong person to make a decision about how the government is run.

You don't really want misinformed, uneducated or manipulated people voting either. There is no guarantee that a vote is of any kind of 'quality' at the moment, the solution to that isn't enabling people to not vote.

 

[Com Fox]

They could vote blank, and that's still be ok, as long as they voice their indecision, at least the government would know how many officially are undecided voters, rather than relying on inaccurate pollings Or stupid surveys...

A lack of attendees tells you that anyway. Don't need them to go in and fill it blank. 30% on non voters wouldnt be any different in the long run to 30% blank voters

However from anecdotal experience, it doesnt work, most people I talk to who dont want to vote but forced to just vote for what their families party is.

You don't really want misinformed, uneducated or manipulated people voting either. There is no guarantee that a vote is of any kind of 'quality' at the moment, the solution to that isn't enabling people to not vote.

That is true, though if the problem was solved with far better voting education on how it works, leaving it optional would still leave a bigger impact on the results (and also hoghlight the improvment that voting education provided) than if it was mandatory as regardless some people just won't care and they don't want to then I think they should be able too.

 

[Danoff]

You don't really want misinformed, uneducated or manipulated people voting either. There is no guarantee that a vote is of any kind of 'quality' at the moment, the solution to that isn't enabling people to not vote.

"Enabling people not to vote" is an interesting statement. I'd say they're "enabled" just fine without help.

I agree that just because people want to vote, that doesn't make their vote quality. It's a separable problem from the problem of not wanting to vote. I think you're probably aware that I wasn't trying to improve the quality of one person's vote, namely an uneducated or manipulated person who wants to vote, by not forcing a second person to vote, namely someone who isn't interested in voting. That argument naturally doesn't make sense and isn't what I was saying.

What I was saying was that someone who doesn't want to vote seems like exactly the wrong person to make a decision about how the government is run. Aside from it being their right to not be compelled to vote (compelled speech is not free speech), it's also just not a good idea to get a quality vote. Again, this says nothing about the quality of the vote of a different person who has different issues.