Should people be forced to vote?

[Joe]

The difference is, Crown, you have to coerce people into paying those bills/fees, or society will stop working. If the utilities don't get any revenue, they can't function, so it's necessary for the government to be willing to use force to ensure people will pay said bills.

I'm not saying all coercion is bad, you can't have government without it, in fact. But as DW said earlier in this thread, if you're going to force people to do something against their will, you'd better have a good reason to justify it, and voter apathy is not adequate cause for coercing uninterested, unwilling people into showing up at the polls.

[Crown]

The difference is, Crown, you have to coerce people into paying those bills/fees, or society will stop working. If the utilities don't get any revenue, they can't function, so it's necessary for the government to be willing to use force to ensure people will pay said bills.

Perhaps ... but it's still 'coercion' and therefore bad ... right

I'm not saying all coercion is bad, ...

Then I retract the above.

... you can't have government without it, in fact. But as DW said earlier in this thread, if you're going to force people to do something against their will, you'd better have a good reason to justify it, and voter apathy is not adequate cause for coercing uninterested, unwilling people into showing up at the polls.

Revenue building. $20 fine from 100 million people, $2 billion for medicare right there. It can be viewed as another form of tax, or citizen obligation.

Why do we have to have a 'damn good reason'? It's just a fact of being a citizen of Australia (like paying tax), I certainly don't feel coerced.

But if you are saying that we should have a damn good reason to introduce it in the States; then I believe that I already agreed with. Did I not?

[Perinquus]

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?

Of course this happens. No system is pefect or ever will be. Nevertheless, I think simple logic is enough to show that when voting is strictly voluntary, you will have a higher percentage at the polling place of voters who are concerned and informed, because the lazy and apathetic ones will stay home. Lazy, apathetic voters will not likely make wise decisions, so the more of them stay at home, the better.

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.

Knock off with the strawmen. I never said they were compelled to vote lazily or randomly, along party lines, or irresponsibly. Do not put words in my mouth. I said that people who would otherwise not show up, will be there because they have to be, and since they are there, they may decide they might as well go ahead and cast a vote. But since they are apathetic, they are unlikely to have taken the trouble to keep themselves informed about the issues, and thus unlikely to make considered, informed decisions. Again, simple logic.

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 as Mike pointed out, coercion is not acceptable by default; it has to be justified. We can easily justify it with most laws, because if you don't have and enforce laws against fraud, robbery, embezzlement, larceny, etc. etc. society cannot be maintained.

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.

Again, why is large voter turnout per se, a benefit? What positive, measurable advantage does having more people turn up ensure? Better decisions? Where is your evidence for this. Again, I point out that logic is not on your side. Simply forcing everyone to be there ensures that you will have a higher percentage of ill-informed and apathetic voters present. How does that confer any advantage? Vague mumblings about how it is in everyone's best interest do not answer the question. Why is it in everyone's best interests. Again I am indebted to Mike for pointing out that what is really in the people's best interests is getting the best government. You have not offered any convincing evidence that compulsory voting achieves this goal.

So far I have only heard one reason for it that is not mere rhetoric: it helps prevent voter fraud. Well does it? Evidently not perfectly, as you are apparently still finding it necessary to take measures to combat this problem (at least as recently as 2000):

Prevention of electoral fraud: parliamentary interim report, Queensland

I've been looking through articles on this since yesterday, and the only kind of voting fraud I can find any evidence that this inhibits is that of enfranchising the cemeteries.

Voting from the Grave is Dead and Buried

Well, if your politicians are corrupt enough to rig elections, that's hardly the only way they can do it. And there are, as others here have pointed out, alternate means to prevent this. So it does not look to me like this one reason justifies coercing people.

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

See above.

[Spyder]

I respect the rights of the person who's lost all faith in the system and simply doesn't give a shit anymore.

[General Zod]

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.

pitiful according to whom? what about unemployed individuals who are old enough to vote but don't give a damn, like high school seniors? they probably couldn't afford a fine, even if it was $20.00. or the elderly on disability checks, or the mentally infirm, etc. it's still using force, regardless of how much or how little is being applied. what if the fine for not voting was more than $20.00, like $50.00, or $100? i have yet to see tickets for anything beyond maybe jaywalking that's less than $50.00.

your analogy is also flawed, as most all laws carrying punishments i have seen say that if you do x, you get punished with y. they don't say if you don't do x you get punished with y. unless you'd care to point out some contemporary examples.

[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.

pitiful according to whom? what about unemployed individuals who are old enough to vote but don't give a damn, like high school seniors?

You mean like... ME? Yes, I am an unemployed Uni student (high schoolers graduate at around 18 years of age, which is election age anyway, but most of that 'demographic' you selected is acounts for Uni students like myself).

So it's a pitiful fine according to ME, a member of your select demographic. I am unemployed and a student. And you want to know something? It is rediculously easy to get unemployment benefits, you just don't have to be lazy.

they probably couldn't afford a fine, even if it was $20.00. or the elderly on disability checks, or the mentally infirm, etc. it's still using force, regardless of how much or how little is being applied. what if the fine for not voting was more than $20.00, like $50.00, or $100? i have yet to see tickets for anything beyond maybe jaywalking that's less than $50.00.

"Maybe..." "What if..." Who cares? The fine ISN'T that expensive, and that's a fact. And like I pointed out - it may not even be enforced. And like I already said, if you can't afford a $20 fine for being lazy you should be in more trouble (how are these people going to afford anything if, as you say, a $20 fine is SOOO much to ask?)

your analogy is also flawed, as most all laws carrying punishments i have seen say that if you do x, you get punished with y. they don't say if you don't do x you get punished with y. unless you'd care to point out some contemporary examples.

If you do not pay your bills, you will be liable for them. In other words a 'if you don't do x you get punished with y' scenario. Who would have thought? You sign a contract with someone to meet mutual obligations; these are held under the law. If you don't meet your obligations the law can used against you, and vice versa (if they fuck around and don't provide what they say THEY will, then you can go after them yourself). So what the hell were you saying about my analogy being flawed?

I already concede that I am being 'coerced' into voting. But I certainly don't fucking feel 'coerced', any more than I feel 'coerced' into paying Telstra $70 a month for internet services.

[Darth Wong]

That's the thing, the 'threat of force' is a pitiful $20 fine which MAY get enforced.

According to this logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to slap a $20 fine on blaspheming the Lord, since it's a "pitiful" fine and we can't produce evidence that blaspheming the Lord is actually good for society.

[Stofsk]

*snip*

You said it quite well: no system is perfect, nor will there ever will be.

I've already conceded the debate, while I do not feel 'coerced' into voting it does fall true technically. And it's law in my country. It's something I have no problem with.

Knock off with the strawmen. I never said they were compelled to vote lazily or randomly, along party lines, or irresponsibly. Do not put words in my mouth. I said that people who would otherwise not show up, will be there because they have to be, and since they are there, they may decide they might as well go ahead and cast a vote. But since they are apathetic, they are unlikely to have taken the trouble to keep themselves informed about the issues, and thus unlikely to make considered, informed decisions. Again, simple logic.

Responding to the underlined section: I beg your pardon, I requote what you wrote and to what I was referring to:

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.

Since people are forced to vote, they will vote stupidly if they don't want to abstain. That was the claim you made, which I have now bolded, underlined, and resized to remind you. I accidentally distorted your argument. I am sorry.

Based off of what I have now quoted, in FULL, and so on, I would now like to ask you why would lazy, apathetic people who are uninformed of the issues would choose the path of MOST resistance (turning around and walking out the fucking building after getting a name ticked off versus going to a booth and filling out a ballot paper after getting said name ticked off)? These are lazy people, remember? They have to get their names marked off, but they don't have to vote. Why assert the opposite?

In any case I apologise for the earlier blunder; I worded it poorly. I hope there's no confusion now?

[Stofsk]

That's the thing, the 'threat of force' is a pitiful $20 fine which MAY get enforced.

According to this logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to slap a $20 fine on blaspheming the Lord, since it's a "pitiful" fine and we can't produce evidence that blaspheming the Lord is actually good for society.

I value my right to vote, and consider it a civic duty; the state is more an objective reality than god is, as the state can royally fuck me over more than an imaginary deity could (no offence to christians). That is why I consider the threat of force to be acceptable in this case.

You asked me to justify my position and I conceded I cannot; all I can say is I have no problems with my nation's political system.

[Darth Wong]

I value my right to vote, and consider it a civic duty

You have presented no objective evidence whatsoever that it is a civic duty, or that 100% voter turnout at the polls does anything to improve the condition of the state.

the state is more an objective reality than god is, as the state can royally fuck me over more than an imaginary deity could (no offence to christians). That is why I consider the threat of force to be acceptable in this case.

Irrelevant. Your claim that 100% voter turnout is a social imperative is no more objective reality than God is.

You asked me to justify my position and I conceded I cannot; all I can say is I have no problems with my nation's political system.

And neither would many people have a problem with a $20 fine on blasphemy.

[Stofsk]

I value my right to vote, and consider it a civic duty

You have presented no objective evidence whatsoever that it is a civic duty,

Of course not. In that post I made it clear it's something I feel, not something which is necessarily all-inclusive. It's therefore a subjective opinion. I concede that 'voting being a civic duty' is not necessarily felt by everyone.

or that 100% voter turnout at the polls does anything to improve the condition of the state.

The point I was trying to make with the 'large voter turnout' which usually ends up being around 96% down here, was that it aids in democracy. The only thing I can say to prove that is Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people' otherwise known as majority rule.

That's it. I can't think of anything else. If that isn't sufficient then my concession is put forward.

You asked me to justify my position and I conceded I cannot; all I can say is I have no problems with my nation's political system.

And neither would many people have a problem with a $20 fine on blasphemy.

I'm sure some people would be displeased at having to obey your hypothetical (at least I'm assuming it's hypothetical) law.