posted
Hello everyone! I would like to hear everyone's opinions on whether the government should make voting mandatory. I know there are tons of different viewpoints! I would like to hear them all if you can give them to me!
posted
No. Freedom of speech (okay, not entirely the appropriate freedom, but I'm trying to be quick here) means also freedom to do nothing. Plus, how would we be expected to show our disapproval of our choices if we HAD to vote for someone. Sure, apathy drowns out anyone trying to make a stand against the choices, but still.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shouldn't be mandatory because that's unfairly impinging on my sovereignty.
However, companies should consider donating 'gifts' to be given out to voters. You know, go vote and get this free basket of soap, candy bar, and razor.
quote:Plus, how would we be expected to show our disapproval of our choices if we HAD to vote for someone.
Why not turn in a blank ballot? The proposal is not (should not be) to make voting for someone mandatory, only to force people to actually show up and participate in the process.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, it's something like that. More of my first persuasive essay i need to write OY VEY! But thank you everyone! More people tell me your opinions!
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we should not and must not make voting mandatory. Democracy only works because the ignorant, unread, self-indulgent, immoral segment of society generally tends not to vote. The larger the percentage of voter turnout, the greater the likelihood that an unwise choice will be made in the election.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...well, I don't know, Ron. Wasn't the 2000 election a record low turnout of voters? And yet Bush still got into the White House...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hitler was elected by over 99% of the vote, with almost the whole population voting.
Ron, I think you are mis-informed.
quote:The best the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) could do in a election was 37.3 per cent of the vote they gained in July 1932. When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag.
quote:Although it was extremely difficult for the opposition parties to campaign properly, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party still failed to win an overall victory in the election on 5th March, 1933. The NSDAP received 43.9% of the vote and only 288 seats out of the available 647.
posted
How about we send out the ballot with everyone's 1040 form?
If the government doesn't receive your ballot by April 15th (whether it's blank or filled in), the IRS will hunt you down...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all reality, though, it'd be extremely difficult to make voting mandatory because it's handled at such a local level. It'd require that every county, township, district, state, etc. change their laws....which would probably take centuries, knowing government... Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmm. We should think of a way to make it socially embarrassing to not vote...
For a long while I was insistent that I wasn't going to vote and trust me, all of the social embarrassment that's been saved up over the years was poured down on me.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Lalo, I think the 2000 elections had the highest turnout of any presidential elections in quite some time. I'll google for it if someone doesn't.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Force people to vote, and you may as well just give the office away by lottery. You can make them punch a ballot, but you can't force people to become informed on the issues. Certain people would be at an advantage under such a system.
A. The first name on the ballot B. Good-looking candidates C. Arnold Schwarzenneger
So if you want a Presienator, yeah, force the vote.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
* "VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population as reported by the Bureau of Census in their Current Population Reports, Series P-25. It is important to note that the VAP includes all persons over the age of 18 -- including a significant number of persons who are ineligible to vote in federal elections including legal and illegal aliens, persons under sentence of a felony conviction and those individuals who have been declared non compos mentis by a court of law. The VAP is therefore considerably larger than the pool of potential voters."
It's only 10%, Tristan. It's not *that* earth shattering. Could be some demographics and/or other factors at work here.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes. Actually, I think it's rather a lot. Don't forget, a decrease of 10 percentages in this case means that ~17 percent fewer people bothered to vote.
(Don't hold me to the math. The long response time of this post is entirely due to me trying to calculate the percent/percentages, and I'm still not completely sure I got it right. Yay me.)
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another site with statistics since 1924. It appears as if voter turnout for whatever reason hit a peak around 1960.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank You everyone! This is helping me out a lot, I think I may have to write you guys down as a source!
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out Australia, your friendly mandatory-voting land.
Gabrielle Reilly, for your reading pleasure. [Warning: she's bending over while wearing a swimsuit, but don't let that distract you from her thoughtful take as an expatriate Australian.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I just wanted to ask all of you if I could use some of the strong points you made in a paper I'm writing?!
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely not and when I get back on my own computer in my own apartment, I'll expand my reasons why.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
interesting article. I just had a lot of trouble getting past the memory of John Dean testifying in front of the Watergate Committee. For irrational reasons, it's hard to reconcile those memories with legal scholarship.
Doesn't mean the scholarship isn't there, it's just not what he's known for. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have served on more precinct boards than I care to think about, in local, state, and national elections. I see the attitude of many people who do show up have to voting. I'd hate to see the chaos that would ensue if we were to force those people who really don't want to vote, to do so. The Bush-Gore election would look like kindergarten in contrast.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notorious Shira, ideas are free for everyone to use; the question becomes whether or not you need to reference where you've got them. If you are writing a paper, references are good; however, a reference to a discussion board is perhaps not very impressive. If you use any of the facts given in the links provided, you should definitely give the source: that will increase your credibility. There's no need to mention how you found it, though. Also, Claudia Therese's link is probably a good reference if you find anything there you want to quote. As for the ideas in this thread, I don't think you necessarily need to provide a reference. As long as you don't take things straight off, and instead organize, develope and rewrite the ideas I believe your teacher would be satisfied. If this was a scholarly paper, everything would need to be referenced; with a (highschool?) persuasive essay you can get off easier (I hope).
(If someone more familiar with the american school system would weigh in here, that would be great. I don't want to unwittingly encourage plagiarism.)
posted
Terribly sorry, I phrased that wrong, i meant the links i recieved, and i just wanted to say thank you. Tristan, I understand that a forum is not a good reference, and I'm not using it, I found other good books and sites, i'm sry if i sound like a stupid freshmen high schooler Posts: 53 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would there be an exception for those religiously opposed to political involvement? Or will we just throw them all in jail? It worked for Hitler.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One solution is to link representatation in Congress to the percentage of adults eligible to vote who do vote. Due to it being not linked to gross population, the percentage could apply to weight the vote in the Senate.
Another quality idea from the woman who brought you the universal gamete storage/sterilization-based justice system.
posted
Yes to Banna. That's one of the factors that I was thinking of, too.
Cow, thanks to the other figures Tristan provided, can't we see that 10% isn't really that great and that the percentage of people voting has remained pretty much constant over the last 60 years or so?
posted
1933 Election 43% voted for Nazis 1934 Plebiscite 89% (38m) voted `for' Hitler. 1936 Election 98% voted for the Nazis - people were obliged to vote, 99% turned out.
Here is one example in history of what happened when voting was made mandatory.
[ February 02, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That way, only the people who care about the country get to decide what happens to it, and the ones who don't care (at least enough to get off the couch) can deal with the outcome. After all, they don't care. Wait, they care enough to gripe, but only to people that are in the same room as them, or at the other end of the phone. That means not me.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I really begin to wonder. As far as I can tell, you pull your facts out of thin air. There WERE no general elections in Nazi-Germany after 1933. After the cancellation of all other parties (July 5, 1933) and the ban on new parties (July 14, 1933), the National Socialists was the only remaining political party (source). This situation remained until after the war.
Please provide some sort of reference to your facts. I've spent some time digging on the web now, and I can honestly say I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Edit: I did find a reference to the 1934 plebiscite. Since it was held to show approval of Hitler combining the offices of president and chancellor in his person -- basically only confirming a fait accompli (and with considerable pressure to do so) -- I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. (Source.)
posted
Yes, yes and yes. (to the original question)
The answer is not to say "it's better for the non-educated not to vote" but rather "let's educate them all, given everyone has to vote".
We have compulsory voting in Australia, and I cannot imagine any other way.
Plus, after studying voting patterns, I can't think of system more designed to encourage the middle-class, predominantly white population to vote while simultaneously disenfranchising the marginalised, poorer and often black/ethnic minorities not to vote than non-compulsory voting.
posted
I motion that we vote on the subject at hand. Then the original question becomes rhetorical. Unless of course, you prefer an oligarchy, or are too dulled into complacency to care how your country is governed.
posted
We had the idea that presidential elections would be part lottery. What if when you voted your social security number was entered in a lottery for your each state or so. Dunno how much money, but it really would increase voter turnout.
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I phrased that wrong, i meant the links i recieved, and i just wanted to say thank you. Tristan, I understand that a forum is not a good reference, and I'm not using it, I found other good books and sites, i'm sry if i sound like a stupid freshmen high schooler ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Wait, they care enough to gripe, but only to people that are in the same room as them, or at the other end of the phone. That means not me.
