Voting should be compulsory!

TheInquisitor

Australia force everyone over the age of 18 to vote . The same should apply over here. Even if someone wants to spoil their vote thats their right but they should be compelled to vote with fines if they don't! Would this work here?

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#Is%20voting%20compulsory

Fad

I don't think it should apply in these elections, but for general elections and referendums, I agree it should be compulsory.

turgon

If you make it compulsory you are going to have proportionally a lot more uninformed voters going to the polls. Which is bad.

TheInquisitor

turgon wrote: »

If you make it compulsory you are going to have proportionally a lot more uninformed voters going to the polls. Which is bad.

Well then they can spoil their votes or do the right thing...and get informed!!!

javaboy

If someone who doesn't understand the issues and isn't comfortable making a decision has the maturity to let others decide then fair play to them. I would hate to think that my vote in a referendum was negated by someone who was frogmarched to the polls randomly picking one side or the other.

Joey the lips

I always say it! Voteing should be compulsory if we lost it in the morning we would kick up!

stevoslice

turgon wrote: »

If you make it compulsory you are going to have proportionally a lot more uninformed voters going to the polls. Which is bad.

why so? this is a republic after all!!!

The Recliner

Why should voting be compulsory?

Joey the lips

The Recliner wrote: »

Why should voting be compulsory?

Well now there is an Irony! Your asking us to support a cause attached to your signature and then asking why voting should be compulsory!!!!!

Becuase it guarantees that the whole of society contribute and the true opinion of society is reflected!

The Recliner

Joey the lips wrote: »

Well now there is an Irony! Your asking us to support a cause attached to your signature and then asking why voting should be compulsory!!!!!

Becuase it guarantees that the whole of society contribute and the true opinion of society is reflected!

I am asking people to support a cause if they feel strongly about it, I am not compelling anyone to support it whether they want to or not

Making voting compulsory only makes people vote, it does not reflect the true opinion of society, people have the right not to vote and that is just as true a reflection of what society thinks as making everyone vote against their will

c-note

As it is now, i vote when i have an opinion, if i have no opinion i dont vote.

if i were forced to vote, i would spoil each and ever ballot paper in protest.

it wouldnt work for me!

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

Well now there is an Irony! Your asking us to support a cause attached to your signature and then asking why voting should be compulsory!!!!!

Becuase it guarantees that the whole of society contribute and the true opinion of society is reflected!

Many Irish people (myself included) can't see any real reason to vote on the general elections simply because they're essentially the same. They throw out the same promises, make the same sweeping criticisms against other parties, and fail to actually do anything once in power.

I know a rather large number of people who just can't be bothered to vote, because we don't see any change in the political parties in Ireland. We don't trust Irish politicians, and haven't seen a real alternative presented. So, we don't vote.

I vote for referendums. Although I was taken off the registrar without my consent, and now its too late to get back on. Even though I went into the Gardai and the Post office at the start of the month, to get the right forms, they gave me the wrong ones, and by the time, I was sent the right ones, the deadline had passed...

Note. Re Australia. people are fined if they don't vote. Its not that they have to vote. They still have a choice.

Joey the lips

The Recliner wrote: »

I am asking people to support a cause if they feel strongly about it, I am not compelling anyone to support it whether they want to or not

Making voting compulsory only makes people vote, it does not reflect the true opinion of society, people have the right not to vote and that is just as true a reflection of what society thinks as making everyone vote against their will

Not true either, A section can be added like the australlians do which has a box which says "I am voting cause I have to but am not giving it to any of these shisters" ### not exact text! but imo it reflects the opinion of society!

I also think if you dont vote twice without reason you should loose your vote! and believe it or not up north they are starting to remove people from the reg who dont vote! although they seem to be moving those who vote in nationalist areas

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

Many Irish people (myself included) can't see any real reason to vote on the general elections simply because they're essentially the same. They throw out the same promises, make the same sweeping criticisms against other parties, and fail to actually do anything once in power.

I know a rather large number of people who just can't be bothered to vote, because we don't see any change in the political parties in Ireland. We don't trust Irish politicians, and haven't seen a real alternative presented. So, we don't vote.

I vote for referendums. Although I was taken off the registrar without my consent, and now its too late to get back on. Even though I went into the Gardai and the Post office at the start of the month, to get the right forms, they gave me the wrong ones, and by the time, I was sent the right ones, the deadline had passed...

Note. Re Australia. people are fined if they don't vote. Its not that they have to vote. They still have a choice.

Wait!!! you dont vote! I am not interested in your opinion! you get the jist! either are politicians! and they do check the register to see if you vote. I know cause I do it for them!

The Recliner

Joey the lips wrote: »

Not true either, A section can be added like the australlians do which has a box which says "I am voting cause I have to but am not giving it to any of these shisters" ### not exact text! but imo it reflects the opinion of society!

But surely people not voting has the exact same affect?

By not voting they are making the statement that they either couldn't be arsed or don't think that any of the options are worth voting for

I don't see how forcing people to tick a box makes this any clearer

Why do you want to force people to validate their discontent?

legologic

Compulsory democracy?

I think you're missing the whole point.

Joey the lips

The Recliner wrote: »

But surely people not voting has the exact same affect?

By not voting they are making the statement that they either couldn't be arsed or don't think that any of the options are worth voting for

I don't see how forcing people to tick a box makes this any clearer

Why do you want to force people to validate their discontent?

Because the validation of non support is used as an indicator of the support of the public and think about it! if you were a councillor and had more people showing non support that support you would do your upmost to tap into that support!

Its the lazy ones sitting at home who are impossible to tap into!

keane2097

Joey the lips wrote: »

Well now there is an Irony! Your asking us to support a cause attached to your signature and then asking why voting should be compulsory!!!!!

What's ironic about it? How is there even a connection?

Joey the lips wrote: »

Becuase it guarantees that the whole of society contribute and the true opinion of society is reflected!

How the randomly chosen votes of the huge number of people who don't care about or understand the issue yet have been forced to scratch something down on the ballot paper can be seen as a contribution is beyond me.

As javaboy said, if people are wise enough to admit they don't have enough knowledge about something, or that it's an issue in which thay have no real vested interest and they're happy for more informed/interested people to make the decision for them that is to be commended imo.

The Recliner

Joey the lips wrote: »

Because the validation of non support is used as an indicator of the support of the public and think about it! if you were a councillor and had more people showing non support that support you would do your upmost to tap into that support!

Its the lazy ones sitting at home who are impossible to tap into!

The lack of voting shows non support, forcing people to the polls does nothing to improve this

Plus just cos people do not go to the polls does not mean they are lazy (some are of course) but that they just don't care and they are perfectly entitled not to care

Joey the lips

legologic wrote: »

Compulsory democracy?

I think you're missing the whole point.

No! if you dont vote you end up with the system of voting used in the us now there is someone missing the whole point! you can have more votes then your apponent but because you have failed on the popular vote you lost!

Thats what you end up with when democracy does not vote!

Joey the lips

The Recliner wrote: »

The lack of voting shows non support, forcing people to the polls does nothing to improve this

Plus just cos people do not go to the polls does not mean they are lazy (some are of course) but that they just don't care and they are perfectly entitled not to care

agreed and the fact that people dont care is reflected in the amount of attention there areas get! This is why working class areas get the lowest support by politicians cause they have the lowest turnout

where as if they were forced to vote a politician could not tell!

legologic

Joey the lips wrote: »

No! if you dont vote you end up with the system of voting used in the us now there is someone missing the whole point! you can have more votes then your apponent but because you have failed on the popular vote you lost!

Thats what you end up with when democracy does not vote!

No you're wrong there. They have the electoral college system, an wholeheartedly undemocratic method of election and one that is not even part of their constitution. This is actually impossible in our constitutionally enshrined, proportional representation system.

TheInquisitor

Its hardly as if voting happens many times a year! It happens every few years so it should be people have to vote. Even if thats to go up to the poll station, tick an extra box saying they're not voting for any canditate. Forcing people to vote might actually make people read up on who to vote for etc, learn their policies make the right choice for themselves. I actually enjoy voting, its something different to do. And my E20 bet for a no outcome on the lisbon vote paid off quite nicely!

thebman

lol only if we can have an exam to test that they know what they are doing when they vote too.

Fail the exam, vote doesn't count.

Of course there is no way to do that so I guess we have to put up with our current system that lets those people work instead of voting.

A better idea would be to just move elections to the weekend so people could turn up.

Morzadec

Couldn't disagree more with the OP.

If you are uninformed and clueless about politics, I would encourage you not to vote.

Morzadec

thebman wrote: »

lol only if we can have an exam to test that they know what they are doing when they vote too.

Fail the exam, vote doesn't count.

Of course there is no way to do that so I guess we have to put up with our current system that lets those people work instead of voting.

A better idea would be to just move elections to the weekend so people could turn up.

I've said this before. A very basic test at the very least, like say a Junior Cert CSPE exam. Fail and you lose your vote.

Some people might see this as anti-democratic or even fascistic in some ways but I can only assume the reason we get poxy government after poxy government is that people are voting for certain parties based on family allegiances or some sort of other ridiculous reason.

If people knew what they were voting on maybe we'd see some improvements, and removing votes from those totally clueless would be a starting point at the very least.

TheInquisitor

Morzadec wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more with the OP.

If you are uninformed and clueless about politics, I would encourage you not to vote.

Yes but forcing people to vote might just force them to become informed about politics! Everyone should know who the people are that are managing our country and their taxes!

The Recliner

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes but forcing people to vote might just force them to become informed about politics! Everyone should know who the people are that are managing our country and their taxes!

Being more informed could also make more people not want to vote, some of the people who vote do so based on who their parents voted for, that is uminformed to say the least

Morzadec

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes but forcing people to vote might just force them to become informed about politics! Everyone should know who the people are that are managing our country and their taxes!

I like your idealism, but do you really think this is possible?

legologic

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes but forcing people to vote might just force them to become informed about politics! Everyone should know who the people are that are managing our country and their taxes!

It may seem silly but a persons right to political freedom affords them the right to not care about this. You may be passionate about politics but if they're passionate about celebrities dancing on ice in a jungle then that's their free choice.

In a free society you cannot force someone to engage in politics even if it would force them to learn about it. Also you said "might just force them", a rather accurate statement. This too is an uncertainty.

Would you also encourage punishment for those who did not vote? Perhaps a fine which takes away the money they earned and payed taxes on? Maybe prison time to take away their social freedom... why? Because you have denied them political freedom?

The premise of the op is fundamentally flawed in a free democratic society.

thebman

Morzadec wrote: »

I've said this before. A very basic test at the very least, like say a Junior Cert CSPE exam. Fail and you lose your vote.

Some people might see this as anti-democratic or even fascistic in some ways but I can only assume the reason we get poxy government after poxy government is that people are voting for certain parties based on family allegiances or some sort of other ridiculous reason.

If people knew what they were voting on maybe we'd see some improvements, and removing votes from those totally clueless would be a starting point at the very least.

I think a half decent system would be to ask people to vote for the policies they want implemented which the candidates can agree on before hand which ones will be on the ballot (they can argue it out between them).

Candidates select what their policies are on the issues then people select which they want on the ballot paper and everything gets counted and which ever candidate gets the most votes for each of the issues added up gets elected.

I think that the above is the only way you'd prevent people voting for the same person every time is to hide who they vote for and force them to vote on policies. If two politicians have the same policies on many issues such as lowering/raising taxes then they would get the same marks and it would cancel itself out so it would make it harder to buy the election by making false promises.

It would be a nightmare to implement though :P

keane2097

The idea of giving people a test to decide whether their vote should count is so exploitable it's laughable.

keane2097

legologic wrote: »

It may seem silly but a persons right to political freedom affords them the right to not care about this. You may be passionate about politics but if they're passionate about celebrities dancing on ice in a jungle then that's their free choice.

In a free society you cannot force someone to engage in politics even if it would force them to learn about it. Also you said "might just force them", a rather accurate statement. This too is an uncertainty.

Would you also encourage punishment for those who did not vote? Perhaps a fine which takes away the money they earned and payed taxes on? Maybe prison time to take away their social freedom... why? Because you have denied them political freedom?

The premise of the op is fundamentally flawed in a free democratic society.

This.

Great post.

TheInquisitor

The Recliner wrote: »

Being more informed could also make more people not want to vote, some of the people who vote do so based on who their parents voted for, that is uminformed to say the least

So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.

keane2097

TheInquisitor wrote: »

So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.

It's only a right to vote if people have a right not to vote.

TheInquisitor

legologic wrote: »

It may seem silly but a persons right to political freedom affords them the right to not care about this. You may be passionate about politics but if they're passionate about celebrities dancing on ice in a jungle then that's their free choice.

In a free society you cannot force someone to engage in politics even if it would force them to learn about it. Also you said "might just force them", a rather accurate statement. This too is an uncertainty.

Would you also encourage punishment for those who did not vote? Perhaps a fine which takes away the money they earned and payed taxes on? Maybe prison time to take away their social freedom... why? Because you have denied them political freedom?

The premise of the op is fundamentally flawed in a free democratic society.

Everything is an uncertainty in life , just because you don't know what will happen isn't a reason for not trying. It works in australia, why not here! And yes i think a E50 fine would be appropriate. No jail time(unless they don't pay the fine of course)

The thing is we're not living in a completely free society. If we were there would be no rules. If a few people go out and learn about the system of politics it would have been worth it.

TheInquisitor

keane2097 wrote: »

It's only a right to vote if people have a right not to vote.

I'm going to change that and say people have a right and a RESPONSIBILTY to vote!

Morzadec

thebman wrote: »

I think a half decent system would be to ask people to vote for the policies they want implemented which the candidates can agree on before hand which ones will be on the ballot (they can argue it out between them).

Candidates select what their policies are on the issues then people select which they want on the ballot paper and everything gets counted and which ever candidate gets the most votes for each of the issues added up gets elected.

I think that the above is the only way you'd prevent people voting for the same person every time is to hide who they vote for and force them to vote on policies. If two politicians have the same policies on many issues such as lowering/raising taxes then they would get the same marks and it would cancel itself out so it would make it harder to buy the election by making false promises.

It would be a nightmare to implement though :P

There's no way this could work because politics and policies are rarely black and white, and politicians will inevitably twist things.

Example: The Lisbon Treaty

No to Lisbon claim that voting no is pro-European, pro-Irish, pro-Democratic.
Yes to Lisbon claim exactly the same thing.

Also Ireland's political culture and political parties are nowhere near diverse enough to be differentiated purely on policies. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael often stand for pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to economic policies, so how are you going to separate them on the ballot?

Morzadec

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I'm going to change that and say people have a right and a RESPONSIBILTY to vote!

I get where you're coming from Inquisitor and I admire your idealism, but I honestly think there are some people who will never be interested or informed on politics, and for those people I would argue they have a responsibility to not vote, so that elections would be based purely on an individual's own informed opinion.

Returning to the issue of people voting as there parents did, my main problem is that their parents may be voting for what their own parents voted for and so on... And this all stems from a treaty that bears absolutely no relevance to today. We have seemingly no choice in this country with 2 parties who are essentially ideologically identical. If a reason for their sustained position as the dominant parties of Irish politics stems from voters 'supporting' political parties as they would support a football team, then I would have a huge problem with this, and I would rather these people either got informed and made a decision based on that, or if they wish to remain ignorant (which is their own choice) I would rather they did not vote at all

The Recliner

TheInquisitor wrote: »

So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.

No I am not saying their votes are less important I am saying that their votes are no more educated than people who chose not to vote, the assumption being made earlier that people who don't vote are not informed on the issues

People who exercising their right not to vote is just as valid as people spoiling votes

TheInquisitor wrote: »

If a few people go out and learn about the system of politics it would have been worth it.

Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote

thebman

Morzadec wrote: »

There's no way this could work because politics and policies are rarely black and white, and politicians will inevitably twist things.

Example: The Lisbon Treaty

No to Lisbon claim that voting no is pro-European, pro-Irish, pro-Democratic.
Yes to Lisbon claim exactly the same thing.

Also Ireland's political culture and political parties are nowhere near diverse enough to be differentiated purely on policies. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael often stand for pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to economic policies, so how are you going to separate them on the ballot?

I know but it would rock if it could work

I think the current system is the best we have except of course elections should be on weekends so people can't use work/college/other as an excuse.

I know some people work weekends too but it would suit most people more than the current arrangement I think.

legologic

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Everything is an uncertainty in life , just because you don't know what will happen isn't a reason for not trying. It works in australia, why not here! And yes i think a E50 fine would be appropriate. No jail time(unless they don't pay the fine of course)

Not when it comes to putting paprika on your eggs or buying a pet goldfish. It is when it comes to national governance. There's always a level of uncertainty sure yeah but complete uncertainty is a rediculous premise to "give something a go".

Universal Declaration of Human rights:
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

If it is my opinion that there is no candidate that is voteworthy and I wish to express this by not voting then forcing me to vote is a breach of article 19 surely.

TheInquisitor

legologic wrote: »

Not when it comes to putting paprika on your eggs or buying a pet goldfish. It is when it comes to national governance. There's always a level of uncertainty sure yeah but complete uncertainty is a rediculous premise to "give something a go".


If it is my opinion that there is no candidate that is voteworthy and I wish to express this by not voting then focing me to vote is a breach of article 19.

Where is the complete uncertainty? I'm hardly that fool hardy as to think everything should be given a go, but i think this is a good idea, an idea that has worked for other countries.

Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.

TheInquisitor

The Recliner wrote: »

No I am not saying their votes are less important I am saying that their votes are no more educated than people who chose not to vote, the assumption being made earlier that people who don't vote are not informed on the issues

People who exercising their right not to vote is just as valid as people spoiling votes

At least the people voting are being more pro active. I'd have more respect for them than people that don't bother

The Recliner wrote: »

Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote

How have you found this out?

thebman

The Recliner wrote: »

Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote

Kind of disagree with that. It depends on how you educate them.

If you can show people how their vote might help them in the future when trying to push their agenda to politicians, they would be more willing to engage in the process I would imagine.

I think people in their early 20's will not have an interest in voting as if you have no responsibilities or few, you'll be less likely to care about politics.

The Recliner

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.

Spoiling your vote is wasting it also, I don't see a difference between not voting and spoiling a vote

TheInquisitor wrote: »

At least the people voting are being more pro active. I'd have more respect for them than people that don't bother

The right not to vote is just as worthy as the right to vote, I don't see how you can respect one more than another

Maybe you can think that of people who couldn't be bothered to vote but I see a difference for people who have looked at the people involved and decided not to vote because all the candidates are non entities

How have you found this out?

I studied Politics, the general consensus among my classmates was that our vote would make feck all difference

The Recliner

thebman wrote: »

Kind of disagree with that. It depends on how you educate them.

If you can show people how their vote might help them in the future when trying to push their agenda to politicians, they would be more willing to engage in the process I would imagine.

I think people in their early 20's will not have an interest in voting as if you have no responsibilities or few, you'll be less likely to care about politics.

Maybe I worded it badly, educating people about how the political system works and how you can get your representatives to work for you might help people to vote

I was referring to educating people in political theory and the differences between each ideology, personally I feel this makes people more inclined not to vote

legologic

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Where is the complete uncertainty? I'm hardly that fool hardy as to think everything should be given a go, but i think this is a good idea, an idea that has worked for other countries.

There can be no certainty that because this worked for another country on the opposite side of the planet that it will work for us. Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is. I like marmalade and cheese.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.

I am completely failing to see your argument here. You would have more respect for someone who was forced (by threat of fine or imprisonment) to go somewhere they didn't want to go and do something they didnt want to do, than someone who does exactly what they want to do. Unless I break (or in some cases threaten to break) the laws of this land no government body will ever take any of my political or social freedoms nor should they be entitled to.

TheInquisitor

The Recliner wrote: »

I studied Politics, the general consensus among my classmates was that our vote would make feck all difference

Sure why does anyone vote so if your going to have that attitude to voting? Every vote counts.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/one-man-one-vote/396352/

TheInquisitor

legologic wrote: »

There can be no certainty that because this worked for another country on the opposite side of the planet that it will work for us. Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is. I like marmalade and cheese.



I am completely failing to see your argument here. You would have more respect for someone who was forced (by threat of fine or imprisonment) to go somewhere they didn't want to go and do something they didnt want to do, than someone who does exactly what they want to do. Unless I break (or in some cases threaten to break) the laws of this land no government body will ever take any of my political or social freedoms nor should they be entitled to.

No what i said was i have more respect for someone that gets off their arse walks up to the polling station votes for someone or spoils their vote than i do for someone that doesn't even bother.

The Recliner

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Sure why does anyone vote so if your going to have that attitude to voting? Every vote counts.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/one-man-one-vote/396352/

People vote because they think their vote makes a difference

You said educating people would encourage them to vote, I was pointing out that educating people in political theory and ideology could actually do the opposite

Of course the number of votes decide an election but it still doesn't change the fact that in our system the parties are all pretty much the same