Compulsory Voting

[The Magic Pudding]

Red = Compulsory voting, enforced.


I live in a red compulsory voting country and I'm OK with it.
It isn't actually compulsory voting, you just have to turn up and have your name crossed off, or face a small fine.
People whinge about it occasionally but change hasn't been seriously pushed.
Citizens have rights and obligations, I don't really see the obligation too get off your ass every few years as too burdensome.
The obligation should encourage an increased interest in politics which should be a good thing.

Views?

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think it's an awesome idea, I wish we had it in Canada.

Even if you don't want to support any of the candidates, at least show up and spoil your ballot to get your message across. I can understand being frustrated with your choices, but I can't understand total apathy towards who is running your country.

[Sandra Craft]

Views?

I don't know -- I can just imagine the shit storm the conservatives would kick up over it.  A lot of states, CA for one, is letting people vote by mail now if they prefer (it used to be you could only mail in your vote if if could prove yourself housebound or out of town during an election) and I'd like to see if that helps boost the voting numbers first.

[Stevil]

Seems wrong to me. There can be a definite reason why people don't vote e.g. they don't like any of the parties on offer.
But if people don't vote then they don't have a right to complain about a particular party.

It should remain as a personal choice whether to vote or not. I would certainly rather a person abstain than to turn up and through a dice.

[Tom62]

I think it is a bad idea. If people don't turn up to vote then this is an indicator about the popularity of the political parties. If they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse  ). 

[The Magic Pudding]

If they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse  ). 

You don't actually have to vote, just turn up and leave your ballot blank if you want, or write "a pox on all your houses" if you want.
There was a referendum in Tasmania giving the option between a couple of different damn locations, many people just wrote no damns as a protest.  It did make a difference in the end.

[fester30]

I don't like it.  To me, it's one more freedom for a government to take away.  Freedom to vote is a beautiful thing.  Freedom not to vote is also beautiful.  The Republicans would fight this with the idea that freedom is important, but only because the more people vote, the more Democrats win.  The Republicans don't like freedom when it infringes on their ideals... i.e. gay marriage.  

[skwurll]

As long as you can choose to leave your ballot blank, I really don't see anything wrong with the system.

[Tank]

Seems wrong to me. There can be a definite reason why people don't vote e.g. they don't like any of the parties on offer.
But if people don't vote then they don't have a right to complain about a particular party.

It should remain as a personal choice whether to vote or not. I would certainly rather a person abstain than to turn up and through a dice.

You don't have to vote, you can abstain if you wish. Thus one has a much clearer picture of what the opinion of the population actually is and you can't get pundits claiming to know what the 'silent majority' wanted.

I would be 100% for a 'must participate' law. You can vote or abstain, but you must take part.

[Tank]

If they are obliged to vote than the reluctant people may likely vote for weird or extreme politicians (like social democrats or worse  ). 

You don't actually have to vote, just turn up and leave your ballot blank if you want, or write "a pox on all your houses" if you want.
There was a referendum in Tasmania giving the option between a couple of different damn locations, many people just wrote no damns as a protest.  It did make a difference in the end.

damn or dam? Odd requirement to have a referendum about the use of bad language 

[Asmodean]

If the voter's options are covered, this is a good idea.

By "options covered", I mean a chance to vote against all candidates OR vote undecided.

[Tank]

If the voter's options are covered, this is a good idea.

By "options covered", I mean a chance to vote against all candidates OR vote undecided.

That's interesting. One could have a 'plus' vote and a 'minus' vote that balenced out to zero. So you could vote for the person you liked and against the one you don't thus rulling out extremeists!

[OldGit]

I agree with Asmo.  A lot of people in the UK would like a tick-box for None of the above.  The politians are dead against it, I imagine because the blow to their vanity would be unacceptable.

As for voting against a candidate, I've never heard of the idea before, but it's interesting.  I think people very often want above all to keep one of the candidates out.

[MariaEvri]

is cyprus red?I can't tell
strange since im 27 years old and so far I have voted only once in my life

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Against.  If someone doesn't care about the process enough to vote voluntarily, they probably aren't informed about the candidates/issues, and really don't have anything to contribute. Let those who are involved and actually care do the voting.  Plus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.