Should people be forced to vote?

[Stravo]

I was just reading a book on Ancient Greece (been on an ancient greek binge since I saw Troy earlier this year) and they spoke of a team of slaves that would carry a rope between them painted with purple dye and walk through the city center, essentially herding people into the meeting hall for voting and debate, the purpose of the dye was to force people to move to avoid staining their clothes.

That got me thinking, US voter turn out is usually under 50%. What if we were to force people to vote, by that I mean gangs of police or volunteers that gather people at their work places or homes, brings them to a very conveninet voting center and makes sure that they vote, the goal to make voter turn out something like 90%.

Would that be a viable system? What right to people have NOT to vote? What would they argue against such a system? Afterall shouldn't something as important as a presidential election require a vast majority of people to vote?

Is this just? Moral? Immoral? What are your thoughts?

[Joe]

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. There are apathetic, ignorant people out there who know nothing about politics and don't care enough to vote, and I don't think it's a good idea to force people who really have no idea what they're doing to the polls - it can't produce a good result. Plus there's the fact that it's an infringement of liberty, but nobody probably cares about that.

[Phil Skayhan]

It would be unjust and immoral. Ignoring those who are two lazy to involve themselve in the political process (or perhaps for as stupid a reason as avoiding jury duty), assume that a person who refuses to vote is dissenting against the political system of the US.

If this person were arrested because he violated a law mandating he cast a vote and you had to defend him in court, wouldn't you claim that the law violated his First Amendment right to protest?

But I do find it sad that so few US citizens actually vote considering the amount of time the average person spends bitching about the government.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Austrailia has a "none" option on their ballots, because they fine people who do not vote.

This could work.

[General Zod]

forcing people to vote would be a bad thing, in that those making the votes wouldn't necessarily be informed to make their choices. however one system i would personally be in favor of is some sort of test that determines someones knowledge and qualifies them to vote, so that voting is then a privilege and less so a right. treat it as a privilege, and maybe more people would express interest in it.

that way you know the people making votes for your country are going to be informed on the issues and knowledgeable enough to make sound decisions. even those who do vote aren't all that knowledgeable about what they're voting on.

[Darth Wong]

I was just reading a book on Ancient Greece (been on an ancient greek binge since I saw Troy earlier this year) and they spoke of a team of slaves that would carry a rope between them painted with purple dye and walk through the city center, essentially herding people into the meeting hall for voting and debate, the purpose of the dye was to force people to move to avoid staining their clothes.

They did lots of things in Greece that we don't do today, like letting men keep boys for purposes other than parenthood.

That got me thinking, US voter turn out is usually under 50%. What if we were to force people to vote, by that I mean gangs of police or volunteers that gather people at their work places or homes, brings them to a very conveninet voting center and makes sure that they vote, the goal to make voter turn out something like 90%.

You would reduce the signal-to-noise ratio of the voting process below its already-poor levels.

Would that be a viable system?

Of course it would be viable, but it would also be foolish and unethical.

What right to people have NOT to vote?

That "freedom" thing. If you're going to force people to do something against their will, you'd better have a damned good reason, and "what right do you have to abstain" doesn't cut it.

What would they argue against such a system? Afterall shouldn't something as important as a presidential election require a vast majority of people to vote?

It should require a vast majority of informed people to vote, based on their conscience and rational decision-making process.

Is this just? Moral? Immoral? What are your thoughts?

The use of force to compel people to do things against their will is always assumed immoral by default, unless you can find some justification for it. Increasing the percentage of people voting without increasing voter awareness and understanding of current events and issues is a goal of rather questionable value, and is not a good enough reason to justify the use of force.

[Cao Cao]

Instead of forcing people to vote, putting in people actually worth voting for would be an infinitley better solution.
Not everybody who doesn't vote is lazy and ignorant. Some just do not see the point.

[Howedar]

How about this...

If you can get a certain percentage on a 20-odd question multiple-guess test about the candidates, administered at the polling center, then when you vote you get a hundred bucks off on your taxes.

I gave that about thirty seconds of thought, so don't assume I'd necessarily support this in ten minutes

[Solauren]

Encourage people to vote, don't force them.

Anyone that votes get a 5% reduction for the next 4 years on there Income Tax (i.e from 40% to 35%)


And/OR
Add the 'Abstain' and 'Vote Against' options

Voter turn out should increase.

So, if you didn't like any of the candidates, you could at least vote against them but not for anyone else (i.e vote NAYE)

Either one is better than mandatory voting

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

First off, if you're going to force people to vote, you don't send thugs to round them up, you just make them REALLY want to vote. Like, I wonder what the voter turnout would be if you got a $5,000 tax rebate when you presented a receipt you get at the polls. Of course, you connive a receipt without actually voting, but who would do that? It's a lot less effort to just vote.

At the polls, you would take a quick one page critical thinking test. If you fail, they give you your receipt good for $5,000 and send you home. Obviously, taxes are quietly raised by about $5,000 per person.

Two goals are accomplished here:

1. Worthless votes are never casted. If you let the people vote THEN decided whether to count those votes, that introduces potential for a lot more corruption. Politics is improved immensly because the only people voting are those less likely to fall for bullshit, and far less likely to fall for some of the most egregious and dangerous types of bullshit.

2. High voter turnout means that all ethnic and socioeconomic groups interests are represented, and the problems with disenfranchisement and the fact that it doens't make logical sense for one individual to bother to cast a vote is solved. Politics is again improved immensly since it becomes much more representative of the populace. Exluding illogical thinkers will not screw this up since rich or white people do not do tend to do better or worse at critical thinking tests than anyone else.

That would be much better than what we have now.

[Darth Wong]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

Good point. It would have to be made into one.

[Galvatron]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

Yeah, like me.

I'll be working a 12 hour shift on election day from 10am to 10pm. And it's not the kind of job where I can just excuse myself for an hour and take off. I don't even get a lunch break.

[Knife]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

Unfortunately, on the flip side, if it is a holiday, you're going to get a bunch of people going out of town or camping or doing other shit besides voting if they don't have to work.

Sad, but I'm sure it would happen.

OT, force? No. But I could see some incentive to go to the polls and nothing partisan either. Hell, I don't know, a 'voting' write off on your taxes. *shrug*

[Darth Wong]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

Unfortunately, on the flip side, if it is a holiday, you're going to get a bunch of people going out of town or camping or doing other shit besides voting if they don't have to work.

Sad, but I'm sure it would happen.

True, but such people are obviously not serious, decided, or committed to the democratic process, therefore we're better off without their votes anyway. The goal is to reduce actual obstacles to voting for those who intend to.

OT, force? No. But I could see some incentive to go to the polls and nothing partisan either. Hell, I don't know, a 'voting' write off on your taxes. *shrug*

I dunno about that ... if people vote not because they're committed or serious but because they get money for it, does that really improve the democratic process?

[Durandal]

The right to vote is like the right to freedom of religion. Neither can exist without the right to abstain.

[Durandal]

Is the election day a national holiday? It can't help voter turnout if some people have to work a 12 hour shift that day.

Yeah, like me.

I'll be working a 12 hour shift on election day from 10am to 10pm. And it's not the kind of job where I can just excuse myself for an hour and take off. I don't even get a lunch break.

It's a federal election. Your employer is required, by law, to allow you some time off to get to the polls.

[HemlockGrey]

"Hmm...George Bush, or John Kerry? Well, my name's George...but then, my brother's name is John...but the wife kinda likes bushes, so maybe I should vote for George...oooh, what's this? 'Ralph Nader?' That's a funny name, maybe I should vote for him..."

[Cairber]

I agree with durandal.


its kinda weird that the most popular idea to get people to vote is money...but then again, i guess you gotta appeal to peoples values somehow

[RogueIce]

"Hmm...George Bush, or John Kerry? Well, my name's George...but then, my brother's name is John...but the wife kinda likes bushes, so maybe I should vote for George...oooh, what's this? 'Ralph Nader?' That's a funny name, maybe I should vote for him..."

Either that or Mickey Mouse would actually win on account of write-ins.

[Stravo]

What right to people have NOT to vote?

That "freedom" thing. If you're going to force people to do something against their will, you'd better have a damned good reason, and "what right do you have to abstain" doesn't cut it.

But all males must register for the military draft in the US. If I were to use my right to free speech and choose nto to register I go to jail. Yet we have no draft in place and have not had one in over 20 years. If you say the need for the government to look to its own defense is neccessary then I reply that it is even more neccessary to have every citizen truly have a say in his/her own government. You can exercise your freedom of free speech and protest by simply voting none of the above. Otherwise your requirement to register for the draft is at least as important as your right to vote and be heard.

And would your disatisfaction at the choices handed to you at the polls be even more pronounced if 40% of the voting population votes None of the Above? No one gives a shit if you don't come to the polls, you can say you're exercising your right to protest by not voting but it accomplishes NOTHING. If however, you gather a large enough None of the Above or Other vote you can restart the process and force the parties to take a long hard look at what they have to offer.

Certainly more productive than a bunch of lazy asses sitting at home swilling beer and bitching about a government they had no hand in making. And it makes the right to protest more powerful.

What would they argue against such a system? Afterall shouldn't something as important as a presidential election require a vast majority of people to vote?

It should require a vast majority of informed people to vote, based on their conscience and rational decision-making process.[/quote]

And in this you and I are of one mind, I would rather have an informed populace that votes, that knows the issues than a herd that will vote ona whim or on what someone tells them.

And BTW at no point in my hypo would force be used, police officers would bring people along for the simple reason that they're trained to deal with crowds but if you choose not to vote you can be either fined or imprisoned.

[Darth Wong]

What right to people have NOT to vote?

That "freedom" thing. If you're going to force people to do something against their will, you'd better have a damned good reason, and "what right do you have to abstain" doesn't cut it.

But all males must register for the military draft in the US. If I were to use my right to free speech and choose nto to register I go to jail. Yet we have no draft in place and have not had one in over 20 years.

That isn't ethical either.

If you say the need for the government to look to its own defense is neccessary then I reply that it is even more neccessary to have every citizen truly have a say in his/her own government.

No it isn't. It is not necessary or beneficial for society for people who are ignorant, apathetic, or uninvolved to have a say in government.

You can exercise your freedom of free speech and protest by simply voting none of the above. Otherwise your requirement to register for the draft is at least as important as your right to vote and be heard.

"Right to vote" != "Obligation to vote"

And would your disatisfaction at the choices handed to you at the polls be even more pronounced if 40% of the voting population votes None of the Above? No one gives a shit if you don't come to the polls, you can say you're exercising your right to protest by not voting but it accomplishes NOTHING. If however, you gather a large enough None of the Above or Other vote you can restart the process and force the parties to take a long hard look at what they have to offer.

This is an argument for voting "none of the above" if you don't like the candidates. It is NOT an argument for forcing people to vote against their will.

Certainly more productive than a bunch of lazy asses sitting at home swilling beer and bitching about a government they had no hand in making. And it makes the right to protest more powerful.

Not when you consider the number of people who, instead of voting "none of the above", would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink.

It should require a vast majority of informed people to vote, based on their conscience and rational decision-making process.

And in this you and I are of one mind, I would rather have an informed populace that votes, that knows the issues than a herd that will vote ona whim or on what someone tells them.

And BTW at no point in my hypo would force be used, police officers would bring people along for the simple reason that they're trained to deal with crowds but if you choose not to vote you can be either fined or imprisoned.

Fining and imprisoning people is force.

[Knife]

True, but such people are obviously not serious, decided, or committed to the democratic process, therefore we're better off without their votes anyway. The goal is to reduce actual obstacles to voting for those who intend to.

I dunno about that ... if people vote not because they're committed or serious but because they get money for it, does that really improve the democratic process?

In both cases, I understand your point, just that the OP seemed to want some sort of incentive to go vote and since I think 'force' is ridiculous in this instance, a monetary incentive seems best.

I would be opposed to say, the Dems or Repubs handing out $20 bills at the polls but some sort of tax write off would get those people who need a tax break to atleast pay attension to the canidates when they talk about taxes.

Perhaps put a cap on that according to income since the wealth will more than likely vote anyways or atleast buy a politician for their needs.

[Master of Ossus]

That's seriously immoral. You shouldn't force anyone to participate in a democratic process, and frankly it often seems that too many stupid people vote as it is.

[Perinquus]

And BTW at no point in my hypo would force be used, police officers would bring people along for the simple reason that they're trained to deal with crowds but if you choose not to vote you can be either fined or imprisoned.

You think having police herd people along would not be perceived as at least the threat of force? As coercion?

I agree with many of the others here. If you are too lazy and apathetic to get your ass up off the couch and vote, you are probably too lazy and apathetic to keep yourself informed on the issues and current events. If that is so, I don't want you making decisions that affect the rest of society. Why you would ever think that increasing the amount of input of uninformed opinion in an election is good idea I can't imagine. What good could possibly come of having people who don't understand affairs helping to decide them? People who make decisions in ignorance usually make extraordinarily bad ones. Do you seriously want to facilitate that?

And speaking as a police officer, I'll be damned if I'd have any part of such a scheme. The day I am ordered to round up people and herd them along to a polling place under pain of fine or imprisonment is the day I turn in my badge. It's also the day I seriously contemplate moving to another country.