Compulsory Voting

[pytheas]

Accidental Death of an Anarchist  by the Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo.

"If ballots could change things police would not carry guns"

That disconcerting truth said, I believe compulsory voting is beneficial as public education policy

the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)

Also invalid voting of caricatures and curses are an indirect rejection of the system, or an indication of incompetence

------------------
In greece white/blank votes could sum up to 50 %, that should mean that the politicians are out and new faces come forth.
instead a 30% of the 50% of all votes, ie 15% of the population dictates a ruling government. Just like it would be if the 50% did not turn up.

Not only everyone should cast "something" choice or scorn, also the ancient idea of "exostrakismos" should be brought back.
The negative vote, that blackens the reputation and leads corrupt politicians to exile, jail or indeed, execution.
After all, they do swindle millions

And the voters/public are not smart, they are manipulated and short-sighted and with no memory

democracy is a good idea, that is why it is NOT happening actually

[Tank]

the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)

I don't agree. One can't assume anything of a 'null' vote. If you could assume something from nothing God is a reasonable concept.

[pytheas]

the provision is that white/blank votes count for rejection of all candidates (and that actually matters and is not written off as non-votes)

I don't agree. One can't assume anything of a 'null' vote. If you could assume something from nothing God is a reasonable concept.

well, you may not, but when called to vote there are usually more than 2 piles of printed papers, if you want to call the procedure democratic and not a joke.
Next to the piles of actual parties that are up for selection there is (and should be) a pile of blank pieces of paper.

Casting one of the papers provided, and following the instructions of checking -or not- up to a number of candidates printed upon it, is a valid selection.
Casting a blank piece of papers -also provided means that you select none of the candidates and your presence is NOTED. It implies quite a lot actually:
1-you respect and abide by the procedure(i.e. democratic election procedure) since you did actually vote in a valid manner
2-you did not choose any of the candidate parties because you DONT WANT TO, hence your vote denotes them as NOT WORTHY for your political oppinion and expression

on the contrary, if you dont show up there can be no conclusions as to if you were bored to go, if a bus stepped on you and you are dead, or if you believe in a dictatorship and think voting is an unjustified right for individuals

Also strict as it may be, mistakes, caricatures, non-valid entries, entries that are not on the official provision and anything other than the above, is deemed inappropriate and discounted because there must be some measure of voter competence in understanding and following the procedure to minimize instances of misunderstandings and misinterpretations and doubt in correspondence.

So the blank piece of paper matters, irrespective of our agknowledgment

[statichaos]

I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting.  If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot.  We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there.  I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers.  They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.

[Firebird]

While I get the freedom argument about not forcing someone to vote, I think it would have some positive effects in the US, so I'm not against it. For example, Election Day is on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November (yes, that's really the rule). It's only one day, which is also not a holiday, so people still have to go to work, which is one reason so many people don't bother to vote. It needs to either be on a weekend or its own holiday, but there's never been a big push for it. If voting were mandatory for everyone, I guarantee there would be a push to finally fix this stupid rule. Not only that, but elections could not be so easily manipulated by campaigns and organizations with the money to transport voters to the voting booth who otherwise would not vote but still share their ideals. So overall, it would make the system more democratic.

[pytheas]

I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting.  If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot.  We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there.  I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers.  They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.

unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and  uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.

I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting,  for parenting

...

[statichaos]

I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting.  If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot.  We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there.  I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers.  They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.

unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and  uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.

I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting,  for parenting

...

I'm not saying that they should be barred from voting.  That would go against everything that I believe regarding the democratic process.  I'm saying that I won't encourage them to do so, and that forcing them to do so would be frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.

[pytheas]

I strongly dislike the concept of compulsory voting.  If someone can't be bothered to actually care about public policy, then I don't want that person casting a ballot.  We already have far too many uninformed and frankly ignorant voters out there.  I can't see any possible good coming from increasing their numbers.  They're doing me and every other voter a favor by staying out of it.

unfortunately, if uninformed and frankly ignorant people surround you, then uninformed and frankly ignorant voters they are, and  uninformed and frankly ignorant participants they must become, in order to call it a democracy.

I must say that "uninformed and frankly ignorant" is a policy result and not an outcome of neglection. Time, energy and money have and are continually spent to keep people "uninformed and frankly ignorant", to sustain and preserve "uninformed and frankly ignorant" choices.
Imagine a participation exam, like an entry test, a judgement qualifier
for voting,  for parenting

...

I'm not saying that they should be barred from voting.  That would go against everything that I believe regarding the democratic process.  I'm saying that I won't encourage them to do so, and that forcing them to do so would be frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.

maybe I am, there are many definitions of democracy and it gets fuzzy with the numbers of people involved
in compulsory army all have to go but you are exempt if you have a disability

epicuros said stay away from politics, it is one of the languages of war.

forcing them to do so without forcing them to a critical education is both ridiculous and proscribed, counteproductive as far as genuine human progress goes, not so for smart agentas

it is not enough that democracy is the only best acceptable option

it needs zen maintenance and a lot of shape-up exercise

[Dobermonster]

I say we go total Greek, and just pick names out of a phonebook for our politicians. It would be like those sweepstakes lotteries, and much more interesting - imagine a random person being rudely awoken the next day with cameras and orders to show up at City Hall on Monday. 

[pytheas]

I say we go total Greek, and just pick names out of a phonebook for our politicians. It would be like those sweepstakes lotteries, and much more interesting - imagine a random person being rudely awoken the next day with cameras and orders to show up at City Hall on Monday. 

that is an exceptionally superb idea, putting a personal iD number in proper use. Every term , just like a lottery, your number may be up. The selected though, would have to have compulsory voting in parliament for policies, and compulsory attendance, and compulsory financial scrutiny

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

I'm sorry, this is simply one of those statements that annoys the hell out of me. Why do those of us who don't vote have no right to complain with the results of the elections or the B.S. the president signs and promotes, or the wars he starts? Most people who don't vote due so because non of the options are worthy of their vote.

I could have voted in the 2008 presidential election, but I would have complained regardless of if Obama or McCain won. They are both equal amounts of shit. Just as this next election cycle, unless Ron Paul happens to steal enough delegates at the Republican election, we will be left choosing between the Shitty Obama (who is pro-war, anti-liberty) or one of the many shitty Republican candidates who are pro-war and anti-liberty.

When you are going to be unhappy with the result regardless of who wins, you have every right to bitch despite not voting for the least shitty shit.

/rant.

That statement simply annoys me every time I read it. It's on par with, "if you dislike (insert country) why don't you just leave."

[Firebird]

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.

Most people who don't vote due so because non of the options are worthy of their vote.

I don't think that's really true. As far as I can tell, most people don't vote because they're too lazy or wrongly think it doesn't affect them at all. While that's clearly not the case with you, I have to ask why you chose not to vote instead of writing in the candidate that you preferred, whether it be Ron Paul or someone else? Also, it's not just about who's president; there's also voting for your congressman/woman, senators, town government, ordinances, etc. It does matter.

There was a non-binding resolution on our last presidential ballot (I think) asking if we supposed abolishing our current system of state government and having a few hundred people picked at random like they do for jury selection to serve in government. While I voted no, there's clearly a part of it that does sound kind of appealing.

[ThinkAnarchy]

...I have to ask why you chose not to vote instead of writing in the candidate that you preferred, whether it be Ron Paul or someone else?

The short answer is that my participation legitimizes the state. There are many aspects of live I can't voluntarily avoid the state. For example: run-ins with pigs, TSA (if I absolutely have to fly and can't afford a charter jet), government run roads, etc. Voting is one of the few areas I can simply ignore and not get harassed by the state. I also get to ignore jury duty until the fateful day they send the letter certified mail...

There is actually a heated debate that occurred awhile back on another forum about anarchists voting for Ron Paul. There are two sides of the argument, with most of the principled anarchists refusing to vote regardless of the candidate. Part of the argument is that the Empire is likely to collapse soon, and if it occurred under a Paul presidency the sheep would blame the collapse on Libertarianism as opposed to the historical documented U.S. decline. The other argument is purely a principled one in that anarchist's don't participate in state sponsored elections.  

Also, it's not just about who's president; there's also voting for your congressman/woman, senators, town government, ordinances, etc. It does matter.

I completely ignore local elections and don't bother to vote even when there is something that extends liberty on the ballot. Take for example local tax cuts. Yes, it is beneficial in my view if taxes are lower, but I refuse to vote for lower taxes since I would essentially be saying the government has a right to steal. I would simply be voting on how much they can steal, and in a sense, personally legitimizing the states theft.

By voting to extend liberty, you are saying the government can legitimately curtail liberty. By voting to lower taxes, you are saying the government can legitimately tax.

There was a non-binding resolution on our last presidential ballot (I think) asking if we supposed abolishing our current system of state government and having a few hundred people picked at random like they do for jury selection to serve in government. While I voted no, there's clearly a part of it that does sound kind of appealing.

I have to say I hate that idea for the following reasons.

1. I despise jury duty because it forces members of the population to miss work because they were compelled by the government to sit for a jury.

2. If the individuals do not voluntarily submit their names to the poll of potential politicians you would have the same problem. The state would compel individuals to participate in something they don't want too, by way of force.  

3. If the state decided to not use force and asked people to submit their name into the pool, you are left with people who seek power in office. On top of that, you now have power hungry people who may not be able to read or write. Actually, I would prefer a government of individuals who can't read or write. That would actually be ideal...

Added:

I'm still deciding if I will vote for Dr. Paul if he gets the nomination. I don't mind being viewed as hypocritical in that regard, I'm simply not sure it would even be worth it. There have already been reports of voter fraud in the primaries and I'm positive those in charge would ensure Obama got a second term if it came between him and Paul. Not to mention I don't know of a single election that was decided by one vote in my state.