Should people be forced to vote?

[PicardShark]

I think a lot of apathy comes from the thought that the person you are voting for is not such a good representative for you. I mean, realistically, the powers-that-be in Washington can only know so much and only be so sympathetic to middle and lower class people, especially those of minorities. When Dave Chappelle asked, "How can black people rise up and overcome?" and someone answered, "Get out and vote," he replied that answer was incorrect. Comedian or not, that's his view.

[CrimsonRaine]

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

Seconded.

I think with voting, we have the right to not vote. But at the same time, if one doesn't vote, I don't think they have the right to bitch about the outcomes either. They had no voice, they forfeited it. So when a person is in office who they don't like, they have no reason to complain.

Raine

[Darth Wong]

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

Seconded.

I think with voting, we have the right to not vote. But at the same time, if one doesn't vote, I don't think they have the right to bitch about the outcomes either. They had no voice, they forfeited it. So when a person is in office who they don't like, they have no reason to complain.

Raine

I've heard that argument before, and I strongly disagree with it. If you (for example) didn't vote because you felt that both parties were equally bad, why does that disqualify you from complaining about the government's treatment of you? They are taking your money, are they not? They are affecting your life, are they not?

[Joe]

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

Seconded.

I think with voting, we have the right to not vote. But at the same time, if one doesn't vote, I don't think they have the right to bitch about the outcomes either. They had no voice, they forfeited it. So when a person is in office who they don't like, they have no reason to complain.

Raine

If anything, it's the other way around; it's the voters who have no right to bitch about the way the system turns out, because they were the ones who put the people who screwed up in charge, not the non-voters.

[Mr Flibble]

I am surprised that none of the other Aussies has not commented on this thread. You see in Australia it is compulsorary to vote (hence we always have 96% voter turnout). Now although I said "compulsorary to vote" that is actually incorrect, what is compulsorary is to turn up at a polling station and get you name ticked off. f you don't put in a boloot, or put in a blank one etc there is no problem, so if you don't like any candidates you can still not vote.

Also it should be noted that the punishment for not showing up to polling is a small fine, which is very rarely enforced, so there is in reality you don't need a big threat to et most people to vote.

This system whilst highly criticised even here, been at times by me. Does have some advantages, first most obviously it gets the voice of most of the voting population, not easy in an apathetic nation like australia, whilst still allowing disaffected to cast a non vote. Secondly it can limit vote fraud, in non compulsory systems it is unknown how many people will actually turn up to vote, so "extra" votes are more easily slipped in. In the compulsorary sstem, the exact number of votes that should be made, is known prior to the vote, so if 1000 extra votes turn up in one both, it becomes pretty obvious (there are still ways to have electoral fraud here, ask queensland).

Personally I am happy with the Australian system, athough I would like some changes in other area. However whether it would suit the US I don't know.

[SirNitram]

If anything, it's the other way around; it's the voters who have no right to bitch about the way the system turns out, because they were the ones who put the people who screwed up in charge, not the non-voters.

Thank you for a position just as retarded as the one you speak out against. It's the fault of all those who voted against the groups in power? It's the fault of those who get duped? Please lay off the drugs.

[Peregrin Toker]

I consider it dumb to force people to vote, because some people may have a valid reason to abstain from voting - I suppose that many of them simply don't know who to vote for, or don't know enough about politics to know what they're supporting by placing their votes.

In fact, I think we should go the other way round and restrict the right to vote.

[jegs2]

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.

I am registered to vote in Broward County, Florida, so my vote is an absentee ballot, since I'm generally working elsewhere. Heavily suspect mine was one of the overseas military votes that were thrown out by Broward County in the last election (was serving in Korea at the time).

[Stofsk]

I consider it dumb to force people to vote, because some people may have a valid reason to abstain from voting - I suppose that many of them simply don't know who to vote for, or don't know enough about politics to know what they're supporting by placing their votes.

It is not dumb to 'force people to vote' because it is within the best interests of the people to vote for themselves. By giving them an incentive - ie representation - the people have a vested interest in casting a vote. Abstaining is a valid choice.

Like Flibble said, here we have 'compulsory' voting - all that means is you're required to turn up on the day and get your name marked off a roster. Whether you vote for or against or simply wave goodbye and abstain, that choice is left to you. But like Flibble said, our system gives impressive voter turnout and makes it difficult to fake votes.

I frankly cannot see how that could be considered a bad thing. Those that are apathetic are only aided if turning up on the day isn't compulsory.

Unless you mean 'force someone to vote a particular party ie through coercion. That's a whole different kettle of fish...

In fact, I think we should go the other way round and restrict the right to vote.

One step forward, two steps back...

[Perinquus]

I consider it dumb to force people to vote, because some people may have a valid reason to abstain from voting - I suppose that many of them simply don't know who to vote for, or don't know enough about politics to know what they're supporting by placing their votes.

It is not dumb to 'force people to vote' because it is within the best interests of the people to vote for themselves. By giving them an incentive - ie representation - the people have a vested interest in casting a vote. Abstaining is a valid choice.

Like Flibble said, here we have 'compulsory' voting - all that means is you're required to turn up on the day and get your name marked off a roster. Whether you vote for or against or simply wave goodbye and abstain, that choice is left to you. But like Flibble said, our system gives impressive voter turnout and makes it difficult to fake votes.

I frankly cannot see how that could be considered a bad thing. Those that are apathetic are only aided if turning up on the day isn't compulsory.

It's a bad thing, because as Mike said, a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink. If you cannot see how that would be considered a bad thing, you must not have much imagination.

Unless you mean 'force someone to vote a particular party ie through coercion. That's a whole different kettle of fish...

I think forcing someone to vote at all, if they do not care to is not only unacceptable, and a violation of their civil liberties, but is also a bad idea for the reasons that I and others here have stated.

In fact, I think we should go the other way round and restrict the right to vote.

One step forward, two steps back...

This is actually an idea that has some merit. I don't mean restrict as in exclude people in the way of the Jim Crow laws, but devise some sort of test whereby you have to prove that you are sufficiently well informed to exercise your voting rights responsibly. I disapproved of the "motor voter" registration, whereby it was made easy to register at the DMV while you were there on other business, because frankly, I liked that registration required you to get up off your lazy ass and make the effort to go register - it weeded out a lot of the apathetic ones, who are probably too ignorant and ill informed to make good decisions anyway. I have doubts about the wisdom of extending the franchise to almost any warm body over the age of 18. The founding fathers did not extend the vote to everyone, and I don't just mean that they excluded blacks and women (which certainly was unjust); I mean they also extended the franchise only to landowners, or to people engaged in a journeyman trade, or who were otherwise gainfully employed and self supporting. It was an attempt to limit the vote to people who had some stake in the community, and would therefore have a vested interest in voting responsibly. I'm not sure that returning to that particular qualification would be best, but the idea of using some method of ensuring that voters have the necessary grasp of civic affairs and current events is an idea which has a good deal to recommend it. People who have jobs, or who own property, or whose taxes support all the government's spending are indeed perhaps less likely to vote themselves largesse from the public trough.

[Stofsk]

It's a bad thing, because as Mike said, a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink. If you cannot see how that would be considered a bad thing, you must not have much imagination.

The choice of abstaining is still open and available down here; or didn't you read that part of what you quoted from my post? I do not consider compulsory turnout, where abstaining still remains a choice, a bad thing. And nowhere is it stated that abstaining is excluded from our electoral process.

I think forcing someone to vote at all, if they do not care to is not only unacceptable, and a violation of their civil liberties, but is also a bad idea for the reasons that I and others here have stated.

Their civil liberties are at the basis of this discussion; they have a vested interest to cast a vote. What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

There's a difference between a pissy little fine for not taking 5 mins to get your name marked off for something you SHOULD do anyway, and a guy with a gun pointing it at your head and telling you who to 'vote' for. The latter is what I would call "Forcing people to vote."

[Rye]

I've always been against compulsory voting, and am actually for a starship troopers-esque "do something for the state" to show you care about the common good before you vote. I'm also against compulsory voting due to the nature of political systems having 2 main parties and being reduced to "anyone but Bush" situations.

Overall, I think a nationstates style mass-referendum software would be better, and largely dispense with the middlemen [politicians]. Though perhaps limit it to city-level governing, as i'm not sure how that would scale up.

[General Zod]

It's a bad thing, because as Mike said, a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink. If you cannot see how that would be considered a bad thing, you must not have much imagination.

The choice of abstaining is still open and available down here; or didn't you read that part of what you quoted from my post? I do not consider compulsory turnout, where abstaining still remains a choice, a bad thing. And nowhere is it stated that abstaining is excluded from our electoral process.

yet you'd still have morons that would simply pick based solely on the basis of what the guy's party is as opposed to any informed decision. personally i'd rather have only a handful of well informed voters making the choices than thousands of morons that don't know shit about the issues.

Their civil liberties are at the basis of this discussion; they have a vested interest to cast a vote. What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

and you don't see it as a bad thing to force someone to do something that may be against their will because it's for the so-called good of the country? how is it NOT coercion to tell someone that they have to vote or they'll get punished for it?

There's a difference between a pissy little fine for not taking 5 mins to get your name marked off for something you SHOULD do anyway, and a guy with a gun pointing it at your head and telling you who to 'vote' for. The latter is what I would call "Forcing people to vote."

you're still using force to get someone to do something they may not be informed to make the decision of. it's using force because it implies a punishment for not doing something that you may or may not want to do, regardless if that punishment is a fine, being sentenced to jail or being executed. the amount of force excised to enforce that law is still nonetheless force, regardless of how much is used.

[AdmiralKanos]

The choice of abstaining is still open and available down here; or didn't you read that part of what you quoted from my post? I do not consider compulsory turnout, where abstaining still remains a choice, a bad thing.

The use of force to compel people to do something against their will is never justified by default. You must SHOW THAT IT IS NECESSARY in order to justify this imposition upon their personal freedoms.

What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

How can something be "compulsory" without being "coerced?" What happens if you refuse to turn up? What happens if you refuse to pay the resulting fine?

There's a difference between a pissy little fine for not taking 5 mins to get your name marked off for something you SHOULD do anyway, and a guy with a gun pointing it at your head and telling you who to 'vote' for. The latter is what I would call "Forcing people to vote."

So the term "force" is inapplicable if you feel the use of force falls below a certain threshold? I'm afraid my definition of force does not incorporate any such disclaimer, nor does the one in the dictionary.

[Perinquus]

It's a bad thing, because as Mike said, a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink. If you cannot see how that would be considered a bad thing, you must not have much imagination.

The choice of abstaining is still open and available down here; or didn't you read that part of what you quoted from my post? I do not consider compulsory turnout, where abstaining still remains a choice, a bad thing. And nowhere is it stated that abstaining is excluded from our electoral process.

Of course I read that part of your post. Didn't you read the part where I said: "a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink"? So what if abstaining remains a choice? Not everyone who is forced to go there will abstain. Surely a significant number of people, having dragged themselves to the polling place under threat of fine, instead of abstaining would say to themselves: "well, I'm here now, so I may as well vote for someone", and then vote randomly; or vote on a shallow, superficial basis, such as who is more charismatic; or lazily vote strictly along party lines, no matter the competence or positions of individual candidates; or vote for the biggest panderer to their special interest or group. Frankly, I'd rather have people like this stay home and watch the footbal results, and leave the business of exercising the franchise to those who at least attempt to exercise it responsibly.

I think forcing someone to vote at all, if they do not care to is not only unacceptable, and a violation of their civil liberties, but is also a bad idea for the reasons that I and others here have stated.

Their civil liberties are at the basis of this discussion; they have a vested interest to cast a vote. What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

Of course it does. ANY use of force to make some one do what he would not otherwise do is coercion. The difference is only one of degree, not of principle.

And why, incidentally, is huge voter turnout per se a benefit? It does not imply greter virtue or devotion to civic duty in your populace, since the people are compelled to be there. Why is having 20 million people vote, many of whom are ignorant of events and apathetic, better than having 10 million who are well informed and responsible voters? frankly, I'd rather have the ten million deciding the course of public affairs. At least they, being there voluntarily, will more likely be well informed about the issues and the candidates, and will likely make better considered choices.

There's a difference between a pissy little fine for not taking 5 mins to get your name marked off for something you SHOULD do anyway, and a guy with a gun pointing it at your head and telling you who to 'vote' for. The latter is what I would call "Forcing people to vote."

See above. Any use of force is coercion, whether that's what you'd call it or not. You say that voting is something they SHOULD do anyway. I agree. But forcing people to do something doesn't make them virtuous and responsible, it just makes them go through the motions. I'd rather have genuinely virtuous and responsible people voting than people who are merely putting on the appearance of being so because they are trying to avoid a punishment.

[Mr Flibble]

Of course I read that part of your post. Didn't you read the part where I said: "a large number of people, instead of abstaining or voting none of the above, would simply vote either randomly or out of regional groupthink"? So what if abstaining remains a choice? Not everyone who is forced to go there will abstain. Surely a significant number of people, having dragged themselves to the polling place under threat of fine, instead of abstaining would say to themselves: "well, I'm here now, so I may as well vote for someone", and then vote randomly; or vote on a shallow, superficial basis, such as who is more charismatic; or lazily vote strictly along party lines, no matter the competence or positions of individual candidates; or vote for the biggest panderer to their special interest or group. Frankly, I'd rather have people like this stay home and watch the footbal results, and leave the business of exercising the franchise to those who at least attempt to exercise it responsibly.

Excuse me while I laugh, I here many of you complaining about the fact that people vote along party lines in the US already, whatever elctoral system you have that is going to happen. As for random voting, in the Australian system, what is called a "donkey vote" is more likely than an absolutely random vote, that is numbering the votes from 1-4 straight down the page (we have a preferential system) any other random vote is pretty much a waste of effort on the part of the lazy, it has been found that donkey votes do give the first person on the ballot a 2% advantage (my source is wikpedia). However this is negated by the fact that more than 2% more people are voting than there would be without compulsorary voting.

As a result of compulsorary voting, Australians all know they are going to vote at the election, and therefore are more likely to take an interest in the election. I see no evidence of the large majority of Australian voters being more uninformed than american voters, you just have uninformed voters choosing to vote.

And why, incidentally, is huge voter turnout per se a benefit? It does not imply greter virtue or devotion to civic duty in your populace, since the people are compelled to be there. Why is having 20 million people vote, many of whom are ignorant of events and apathetic, better than having 10 million who are well informed and responsible voters? frankly, I'd rather have the ten million deciding the course of public affairs. At least they, being there voluntarily, will more likely be well informed about the issues and the candidates, and will likely make better considered choices.

The advantage of compulsorary presence at a polling station (which is what it really is, not compulsorary voting) of all those eligible to vote has already been stated: IT REDUCES ELECTORAL FRAUD. Also that is my answer to Mikes question on how the coercion is justified, it is to help prevent corruption of the voting process. I see this as justification enough for the minor inconvenience of getting your name ticked off a list on a Saturday. In Australia it is also seen as a persons DUTY, not priviledge to vote, as many have sacrificed their lives to preserve our right to vote, we have a duty to exercise them.

Large voter turnout, means that a greater proportion of the population is able to have their say, and that elections are not dominated by groups with the time to vote more easily.

Also from a purely Australian justification, most Australians are so apathetic about everything that voter turnout at none compulsorary elections would be pathetically low.

[Stofsk]

yet you'd still have morons that would simply pick based solely on the basis of what the guy's party is as opposed to any informed decision. personally i'd rather have only a handful of well informed voters making the choices than thousands of morons that don't know shit about the issues.

Oh I'm sorry - this somehow DOESN'T happen in your non-compulsory voting process? Did I say this magically DOESN'T happen in our compulsory voting process? The truth of the matter is there will ALWAYS be a bunch of uninformed citizens who make their choice based on party lines, whether the voting is forced or not. My mum will never vote for anyone other than a Liberal. I've told her all the shit John Howard has done, she won't budge nor will she vote any different.

What is gained through compulsory turnout is this: most if not all of the population has it's say in the choice of leadership, and it is harder to fake votes because of the fact you have to get your name ticked off. SO again, how is this not a valid justification?

Their civil liberties are at the basis of this discussion; they have a vested interest to cast a vote. What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

and you don't see it as a bad thing to force someone to do something that may be against their will because it's for the so-called good of the country? how is it NOT coercion to tell someone that they have to vote or they'll get punished for it?

Bolded: When it's beneficial for the fucking country? No, I don't see how that's bad. You have an incentive to get something done which is already in your best interests, and is considered a duty here.

Bolded and Underlined: NO-ONE IS BEING FORCED TO VOTE, FOR THE FUCKING THIRD TIME! You are required by law (compelled to, coerced to, forced to, whatever - it's the fucking law) to attend the nearest election booth to get your name marked off a fucking roster. After that, you can CHOOSE to vote, or you can go off and do whatever the fuck you want.

you're still using force to get someone to do something they may not be informed to make the decision of. it's using force because it implies a punishment for not doing something that you may or may not want to do, regardless if that punishment is a fine, being sentenced to jail or being executed. the amount of force excised to enforce that law is still nonetheless force, regardless of how much is used.

First Bolded: How do you know the majority of our population make uninformed votes simply because they have to get their name marked off a roster on a saturday (when usually most people aren't working)? It is of little inconvenience, everyone is required to do it, and it's part of everyone's civic duty to choose who will represent us. As has been said before, the 'threat of fine' is rarely enforced.

Second Bolded: Except it's within people's best interests to vote for a leader they want. Those that don't want to vote, like my brother, simply turn up, get their name signed off, and then turn around and walk away.

Third Bolded: So what you're saying then is that force is force, and a rarely-enforced fine is on the equivalent of unjust imprisonment and even execution. Right. Bravo. No shit sherlock. Except the problem is this is a Law, and like all laws is enforceble. So please tell me how enforcing this law is somehow unjustified, given no-one is imprisoned for not voting nor are they executed.

The choice of abstaining is still open and available down here; or didn't you read that part of what you quoted from my post? I do not consider compulsory turnout, where abstaining still remains a choice, a bad thing.

The use of force to compel people to do something against their will is never justified by default. You must SHOW THAT IT IS NECESSARY in order to justify this imposition upon their personal freedoms.

I never said the use of force was justified by default. Actually I did justify why we have compulsory voting above, but I'll do it again:

• 1. It is within a voter's best interests to take part in the electoral process.
  
  2. It is within the electoral process's best interests to be secured from corruption and fraudulent voting.
  
  3. It is within a democratic nation's best interest to get the maximum amount of it's population possible involved in deciding their next leader.

So we force everyone to turn up on election day, and it's made as convenient as possible for all concerned. So what? What is the big deal? How is it 'against a person's will' to do their civic duty? When it's in their best interests? When such an act determines who runs the country for the next 3 years?

What I am saying is compulsory turnout, where EVERYONE is on the roster and has to get his name ticked off (which lessens the chance of faked votes, as has already been stated, also a huge voter turnout being another benefit) does NOT IMPLY COERCION.

How can something be "compulsory" without being "coerced?" What happens if you refuse to turn up? What happens if you refuse to pay the resulting fine?

They're called laws. Laws are compulsory too, and if you break them you get punished. If you refuse to turn up you get fined. If you don't pay the fine you get summonsed to appear in court. Laws are enforceble. If we are 'coerced' by our society into obeying laws then what of it? Explain to me how this is a bad thing.

So the term "force" is inapplicable if you feel the use of force falls below a certain threshold? I'm afraid my definition of force does not incorporate any such disclaimer, nor does the one in the dictionary.

You're right, actually. It does come under the definition and is thus applicable. We are forced to decide who will run our country for a set length of time. Given this is in our best interests I see no problem with that, given the 'threat of force' is a fine for not turning up, and the benefit for casting your vote is representation by our leadership.

[Stofsk]

So what if abstaining remains a choice? Not everyone who is forced to go there will abstain. Surely a significant number of people, having dragged themselves to the polling place under threat of fine, instead of abstaining would say to themselves: "well, I'm here now, so I may as well vote for someone", and then vote randomly; or vote on a shallow, superficial basis, such as who is more charismatic; or lazily vote strictly along party lines, no matter the competence or positions of individual candidates; or vote for the biggest panderer to their special interest or group. Frankly, I'd rather have people like this stay home and watch the footbal results, and leave the business of exercising the franchise to those who at least attempt to exercise it responsibly.

So in your non-compulsory voting process people DON'T vote 'on party lines' hmm? Nor do they vote based on a 'shallow, superficial basis' hmm? Or vote randomly? Or lazily?

You just asserted that a "Significant number of people" under our system are compelled to vote randomly, lazily, along party lines, or irresponsibly, WITHOUT A SHRED OF FUCKING PROOF.

Of course it does. ANY use of force to make some one do what he would not otherwise do is coercion. The difference is only one of degree, not of principle.

Conceded. All laws operate under 'coercion' or 'compulsion' etc.

And why, incidentally, is huge voter turnout per se a benefit? *snip*

Flibble said it best, but I'll repeat. Because it's within those voter's best interests. That's it. Simple. This is a democracy, the only chance we get to make a decision is on Election Day, where we choose who runs our country.

The further justification of lessening the chances of electoral fraud have been stated already.

[Darth Wong]

Bolded and Underlined: NO-ONE IS BEING FORCED TO VOTE, FOR THE FUCKING THIRD TIME! You are required by law (compelled to, coerced to, forced to, whatever - it's the fucking law) to attend the nearest election booth to get your name marked off a fucking roster. After that, you can CHOOSE to vote, or you can go off and do whatever the fuck you want.

Nice hair-splitting: "You're not being forced to vote! You're just being dragged kicking and screaming to the voting centre!"

Actually I did justify why we have compulsory voting above, but I'll do it again:

1. It is within a voter's best interests to take part in the electoral process.
2. It is within the electoral process's best interests to be secured from corruption and fraudulent voting.
3. It is within a democratic nation's best interest to get the maximum amount of it's population possible involved in deciding their next leader.

Wrong, irrelevant, and completely unsupported:

1. It is within a voter's best interests to get the best government elected. Taking part in the electoral process is only relevant to that goal if the voter in question actually has some conviction about which government is best, and has researched the issues enough to actually make a sound decision in that regard.
2. There are better methods of preventing corruption and fraudulent voting than forcing everyone to visit election centres. If you have so little trust in the conduct of voting officials, what makes you think forcing everyone to show up will change anything? If the centres are that corrupt, they can just change peoples' votes.
3. Two words: prove it.

You're right, actually. It does come under the definition and is thus applicable. We are forced to decide who will run our country for a set length of time. Given this is in our best interests I see no problem with that, given the 'threat of force' is a fine for not turning up, and the benefit for casting your vote is representation by our leadership.

You have been repeatedly challenged to show why it is in the best interests of the nation. You have utterly failed to do so. Instead, you simply package your conclusion as a premise (claim #3 in your little list). In short, your argument is that "it is in the best interests of the nation to make everyone show up because it is in the best interests of the nation to make everyone show up".

Nice one.

[Stofsk]

Nice hair-splitting: "You're not being forced to vote! You're just being dragged kicking and screaming to the voting centre!"

No-one is being dragged kicking and screaming anywhere.

Wrong, irrelevant, and completely unsupported:

1. It is within a voter's best interests to get the best government elected. Taking part in the electoral process is only relevant to that goal if the voter in question actually has some conviction about which government is best, and has researched the issues enough to actually make a sound decision in that regard.
2. There are better methods of preventing corruption and fraudulent voting than forcing everyone to visit election centres. If you have so little trust in the conduct of voting officials, what makes you think forcing everyone to show up will change anything? If the centres are that corrupt, they can just change peoples' votes.
3. Two words: prove it.

1. Agreed. How does compulsory attendance somehow diminish a voter's ability to determine who is the best candidate?
2. You assert "there are better methods" but don't list them.
3. You're asking me to prove why a Democracy needs it's majority of citizens to vote?

You have been repeatedly challenged to show why it is in the best interests of the nation. You have utterly failed to do so.

In a democracy people decide who represent them via elections; those who are elected to represent the population are then held accountable. So it is within a citizen's best interests to take part in the electoral process because they're the ones who hold the representatives to account.

Those who attack our compulsory elections haven't shown why it's a bad thing. Voter turnout is massive and as an added boon electoral fraud can be safeguarded against.

Instead, you simply package your conclusion as a premise (claim #3 in your little list). In short, your argument is that "it is in the best interests of the nation to make everyone show up because it is in the best interests of the nation to make everyone show up".

Nice one.

Claim 3 was worded poorly. It should be reworded to state: "A democracy allows for it's majority to be represented" - something compulsory attendance at elections allow.

Neither claims 1 or 2 were refuted by you. For claim 1 you basically said "Voters need to know who they're voting for to get the best choice" but don't make a connection with this being diminished under our system. For claim 2 you basically said "There are other ways to defeat fraud/corruption" but then don't bother to list them.

[Darth Wong]

No-one is being dragged kicking and screaming anywhere.

Oh yes, they're just being forced against their will. You seem to be working hard on your Hair-Splitting Masters degree.

1. Agreed. How does compulsory attendance somehow diminish a voter's ability to determine who is the best candidate?

It doesn't. The point is that it does not INCREASE it, hence you have a lot of votes from people who ordinarily wouldn't have voted and therefore obviously have neither the dedication or knowledge to cast useful votes.

2. You assert "there are better methods" but don't list them.

Personnel selection is one rather obvious one. And the point is that your preferred method won't help.

3. You're asking me to prove why a Democracy needs it's majority of citizens to vote?

Yes. I am. You say quantity is the most important thing. I say quality is the most important thing. You seem to think that my position is so absurd that it doesn't even merit rebuttal; I say "bullshit".

Those who attack our compulsory elections haven't shown why it's a bad thing.

You're forcing people to do something against their will. That is ALWAYS a bad thing unless you can produce some justification. For the umpteenth time, the onus is on you. Coercion is NOT acceptable by default: something you acknowledged previously in words but apparently not in spirit.

Claim 3 was worded poorly. It should be reworded to state: "A democracy allows for it's majority to be represented" - something compulsory attendance at elections allow.

Here's a piece of news for you: "allow" and "force" are two different things.

Neither claims 1 or 2 were refuted by you. For claim 1 you basically said "Voters need to know who they're voting for to get the best choice" but don't make a connection with this being diminished under our system.

Already dealt with above.

For claim 2 you basically said "There are other ways to defeat fraud/corruption" but then don't bother to list them.

Don't have to. The point is that your system won't help for shit. If people are corrupt enough to invent votes for people that don't shot up, they can change peoples' votes too. If you're worried about corruption, try looking at rules for audits and personnel selection background checks rather than saying "if everybody is forced to show up ... there will be no corruption!".

You have repeatedly committed the "burden of proof fallacy". You want people to be forced to do something against their will and demand that we prove there's something wrong with that. You say that it will make corruption go away and then demand that we prove other methods of combating corruption are better apart from the obvious advantage that they don't involve forcing the public to do things against their will. You say that it will increase the strength of democracy and then demand that we prove it will DECREASE the strength of democracy or (once again) it wins by default. Get a grip.

[Crown]

This is ridiculous. Democracy by definition is nothing more than 'mob rule' mentality.

Short of elitistism (not meaning this in a negative context), or minimum intelligence tests, whether you have voluntary voting or compulsory it's still going to be a mob rule mentality, and the morons/idiots are still going to outweigh the informed.

The arguement against compulsory voting seems to hinge on civil infringement, force or coercsion. Which is all true - however there is a big difference between inconvinience and coersion, a fact I think we can all agree on. Unless somebody is willing to actually say that we Aussies are coerced everytime we go to the polls

The arguement for compulsory voting is based around vague 'make sure citizens excercise their democratic rights', protect against electral fraud. Which really is a rather weak arguement. A better one would be that voting is payment to the state for services rendered (say like a gas bill), we do it once every four years (just speaking federal elections here and ignoring state), afterall no one wants to pay a gas bill do they?

I mean we pay the gas bill because that's what commerce and capitalism market economy is all about; I missed the part where democracy was exclusively defined as volunatary voting. Perhaps that is more a justification/rationalisation after the fact, and certainly not a reason to initiate compulsory voting.

Personally both arguements are weak enough, that I am at a loss as to why anyone cares.

So to answer the original question;

• They actually still do that in modern Greece (minus the purple rope thing) - they still have compulsory voting.
• There is no reason why it should be initiated in the States, all it does is increase the voter turn out, but I would hardly say it would massively change the election result by any significant margin.
• All it would accomplish would be to make the States look interested in politics (by having high voter turn out), and bump it up the ladder a bit.

EDIT :: 'bumb' 'bump' - makes more sense that way!

[Joe]

The arguement against compulsory voting seems to hinge on civil infringement, force or coercsion. Which is all true - however there is a big difference between inconvinience and coersion, a fact I think we can all agree on. Unless somebody is willing to actually say that we Aussies are coerced everytime we go to the polls

The definition of coerce from MW:

1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>

If there is some sort of threat of punishment that the government will enforce in the event that you fail to show up at the polls, yes, anyone who does not want to go to the polls is being coerced.

[Stofsk]

If there is some sort of threat of punishment that the government will enforce in the event that you fail to show up at the polls, yes, anyone who does not want to go to the polls is being coerced.

That's the thing, the 'threat of force' is a pitiful $20 fine which MAY get enforced. It isn't a 'open/shut' case - ie "you don't vote you get fined!" All laws have a 'threat of force' to them, and this one in particular is a pitiful one.

In any case I concede this debate. I don't know enough to keep going.

[Crown]

The definition of coerce from MW:

1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>

If there is some sort of threat of punishment that the government will enforce in the event that you fail to show up at the polls, yes, anyone who does not want to go to the polls is being coerced.

Then add;

• Phone Bills
• Electricity Bills
• Water Bills
• Drivers Licence
• Identification Cards

All of them have a threat behind them should one not comply (pay bills, get licenced, carry an ID card). I don't understand what you were trying to say here, other than playing sophistic games. It's part of the law of the land, it hardly causes me harm, so 'coercsion' would be better replaced by 'inconvenienced' because the fine isn't exactly poverty making here.

Fine, they are being 'coerced' (:roll:) to go to the polls, they certainly aren't being coerced to actually vote a certain (or any) party are they?