Compulsory Voting

[The Magic Pudding]

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. 

That is a fair point.

Plus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.

We'd probably disagree on this, obligatory seat belts for motorists, helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists I'm OK with, as for conscription and national service I'm dubious. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

Plus, things that the government can make people do should be kept to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.

We'd probably disagree on this, obligatory seat belts for motorists, helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists I'm OK with, as for conscription and national service I'm dubious. 

We have police road blocks from time to time to check for drunk drivers - technically, unless the police have "just cause", they have no legal right to stop my car. But society has decided that the slight imposition of stopping an innocent driver versus the benefit of weeding out drunk drivers makes this "injustice" acceptable.

How many "civic duties" do most of us actually have to participate in, and how much do they actually distrupt our lives?
Forcing someone to take an hour out of their day, once every couple of years, to tell the government how they feel about their political representation (whether positively or negatively) doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

[Melmoth]

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.

This. The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter, and all that jazz.

I don't vote myself, not just because I'm apathetic, but because I simply don't know enough to make a responsible decision. I also think this is the case with most people, even those that do vote, so if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.

[OldGit]

... if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.

I agree.  It should be limited to taxpayers who pass a simple examination on current affairs.  And it should not be compulsory.

[Asmodean]

I think voting should indeed be limited, however, all those worthy of voting should be under the obligation to do so.

[xm1]

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.

This. The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter, and all that jazz.

I don't vote myself, not just because I'm apathetic, but because I simply don't know enough to make a responsible decision. I also think this is the case with most people, even those that do vote, so if anything voting should be limited and discouraged.

So if people all had to vote anyway, wouldn't it at least help encourage a greater number to get involved or be more informed. 

Seems like by allowing people to not show up because they are too dumb, you are complaining about the result of the thing you support.

I think the forced voting thing has merit, though I can't imagine it working out in the states for the numbers involved.

I also think the greater powers in this country want as few people voting as possible.

[Melmoth]

So if people all had to vote anyway, wouldn't it at least help encourage a greater number to get involved or be more informed.

If someone is uninterested in the world of party politics, it's probably because they have other interests that take up their time. It's naive to imagine that anyone will want to "get involved" with something they normally wouldn't care about just because one of its most tedious and insignificant aspects has been made compulsory.

I think the forced voting thing has merit, though I can't imagine it working out in the states for the numbers involved.

I also think the greater powers in this country want as few people voting as possible.

Why would they? Personally, if I were a dishonest 'greater power', I'd rather the easily swayed, ignorant majority were all voting. That way all I'd have to do is focus on presentation, talk lots of nice-sounding, meaningless pap, make sure I look young and attractive for the cameras, and never have to worry about that small, educated minority of people who can see past my bullshit.

[not your typical...]

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

I agree. At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.

[Melmoth]

^ True. Unless there is no political party to represent your point of view. OR unless the voting system has failed entirely, leaving only two parties, say, that both fail to represent the wishes of the whole population. Maybe with a third, minor party who's voters are unwittingly damaging their own interests by dividing the votes at their end of the political spectrum, ensuring that the other extreme gets in (*cough* Liberal Democrats *cough cough*). Sometimes you can't vote for what you believe in because the option isn't there, and sometimes when it is, it's actually counter-productive to do so.

[xm1]

So what if voting was mandatory but veto was an option?  What if you could make your vote count against one or more or everyone on the  ballot? Would that make it fair and would that help generate a wider range of representation?

[Melmoth]

@xm1: I think there are various ways of making it fairer, sure. I showed a crumb of political interest only recently when they tried to introduce Alternative Voting in my own country, which I thought that was a brilliant idea. It makes a lot more sense than 'first past the post', which is too mathematically crude to possibly say anything about a populace. Only a credulous twit would think that such a simple system amounts to real representation. And while AV isn't much better, it at least does away with the problem I mentioned in my last post, where votes get divided among smaller parties at one end of the spectrum to ensure that the other end gets in.

Re your suggestions, I don't see them having much affect on fairness. Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible. You can't make a vote count against everyone because what matters is the balance of votes not the overall number, and vetoing one person is not much different from voting for their opponent (emphasis on the singular, for you may have noticed, there are usually only two).

A fair system would be one that removes all motive for 'strategic' voting. One where the only sensible strategy, in all cases, is to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. If there can be any disadvantage in doing that, or any advantage in not, then ultimately that system cannot be called fair or representative. Therefore, NO current democracy has a fair or representative voting system, and I doubt whether such a thing is even possible.

[launion]

in Straylia  voting is compulsory  ,  which is a double edged sword as yes you make people get off  their arse and participate  but you also get a problem with the  donkey vote ie people  who just vote 1 2 3.

so it is vital for a candidate o get the no.1  position on the ballot paper.

also voting is on preferential basis  , sometimes voluntary sometimes compulsory depending on which state / fed gov election is on.

preferential voting is supposed to give the same result as the french system of a runoff between the top two candidates by using a formula for distribution from failed candidates without the need to keep going back to the polls in a weeks time to finish the voting .


but a good numbers man can work wonders with the distribution of preferences if they are allowed in to the tally room ..

[Sandra Craft]

At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.

I haven't missed voting in a single election in some 36 years, and there were plenty of times when that was the only reason I voted. 

[not your typical...]

At least show up, cuz six months down the road, if you didn't vote, you don't have the right to bitch about what's going on.

I haven't missed voting in a single election in some 36 years, and there were plenty of times when that was the only reason I voted. 

Good. Now you can bitch and moan about the government all you want to because at least you did put some effort into it. (Effort besides taxes, of course)

[The Magic Pudding]

in Straylia  voting is compulsory  ,  which is a double edged sword as yes you make people get off  their arse and participate  but you also get a problem with the  donkey vote ie people  who just vote 1 2 3.

so it is vital for a candidate o get the no.1  position on the ballot paper.

also voting is on preferential basis  , sometimes voluntary sometimes compulsory depending on which state / fed gov election is on.

preferential voting is supposed to give the same result as the french system of a runoff between the top two candidates by using a formula for distribution from failed candidates without the need to keep going back to the polls in a weeks time to finish the voting .

The donkey vote is worth something but it isn't "vital"
Voting in Aus isn't actually compulsory, only turning up is. 
You can leave your paper blank, draw a picture or make a statement.
Your ballot paper can't be identified as yours, no one is supposed to know what you did with it.

but a good numbers man can work wonders with the distribution of preferences if they are allowed in to the tally room ..

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, the system is somehow rorted?
The preference system is very simple, there is no room for creative interpretation.