Mandatory voting

meat bomb

In Australian, voting is mandatory, and failure to vote is punishable
by a fine. Does anyone think this would work here? I'd be all for it,
, for one thing, it would go along way to a govt that was fully
representative of society at any given time.

hulioseducer

problem is half the country haven't a clue about politics god knows who would end up running the country

walrusgumble

hulioseducer wrote: »

problem is half the country haven't a clue about politics god knows who would end up running the country

yes, and the other half who have being voting in the past three elections were clever enough to pick the "right people" to lead our country:D

Could they (other half who haven't a clue) be as bad as the other half (who claim to know)?

I would like to see us get rid of party politics first (party politics as we know it, no harm for a union of like minded people every now and then)

You are right though, I would assume people to do bother to go out to vote at least are voting with intention of seeing a person get elected (whether that person is the right man of course) I would hate to see people take the pis( and vote for someone, even if they hate them, simply for the craic / to be a rebel.

Voting should never be prohibited, but neither should it be mandatory. People have a choice to vote or not. I get the impression (could be a case of no sh*t doc) that voting levels are low due to the lack of trust and isolation politicans have caused between them and the people)

How will manatory voting achieve Ireland getting the best Parliament, local council , government (yeah we don't directly vote), President?

Mediocrity

We've enough nanny state interference in our lives.

I might choose to read a novel naked on a beach in the rain on voting day.

Eutow

Instead of mandatory voting, have a 'none of the above' option on the ballot sheet. This could cause problems if the majority voted for this option because we would struggle to replace the rejected candidates with new ones.

meat bomb

We could extend the postal vote to everyone on an optional basis,
this would allow people to read novels naked on the beach or indeed anywhere
else . By obliging people to be active in our democracy, will they choose representatives more carefully? As for making protest votes, they still have to choose from the candidates that put themselves forward.

Overheal

meat bomb wrote: »

In Australian, voting is mandatory, and failure to vote is punishable
by a fine. Does anyone think this would work here? I'd be all for it,
, for one thing, it would go along way to a govt that was fully
representative of society at any given time.

Give a man two choices: He can be burned alive, or he can drown.

The man will Abstain.

Traumadoc

In our democracy its all about getting the vote out , FF are great for using ministerial cars to ferry people to the polling stations and generally getting their supporters to vote. ( sometimes twice!).

It suits them to have this system, making voting just a little inconvenient to a certain proportion of the population. While they are able to mobilise their supporters.

You will never have compulsory voting here, just like you will never have PR in the UK.

BTW Have you ever tried to get a postal vote - it is very difficult.

hallelujajordan

Nakatomi wrote: »

In our democracy its all about getting the vote out , FF are great for using ministerial cars to ferry people to the polling stations and generally getting their supporters to vote. ( sometimes twice!).

I presume you can back up your claims of FF electoral fraud with some clear supporting evidence ?

T runner

meat bomb wrote: »

In Australian, voting is mandatory, and failure to vote is punishable
by a fine. Does anyone think this would work here? I'd be all for it,
, for one thing, it would go along way to a govt that was fully
representative of society at any given time.

It should benefit people in poorer areas who generally done see the point in voting. In a country like Ireland with a big gap between very rich and very poor this could be positive thing.

Apparently you can write "skippy" on your ballot paper in Australia. The fine is paltry but mandatory voting nevertheless has huge support.

walrusgumble wrote: »

yes, and the other half who have being voting in the past three elections were clever enough to pick the "right people" to lead our country:D

I think the problem we have is more to do with the quality of candidates on the ballot paper. Maybe 100% voting might improve the list on the ballot paper?

T runner

T runner wrote: »

It should benefit people in poorer areas who generally done see the point in voting. In a country like Ireland with a big gap between very rich and very poor this could be positive thing.

Huge gap? What happened to all the people who are neither very rich nor very poor..? :rolleyes:

Apparently you can write "skippy" on your ballot paper in Australia. The fine is paltry but mandatory voting nevertheless has huge support.

I lived in Australia (Brisbane) at the time that Rudd was running for office. Plenty of people chose to pay the fine as a sign of opposition to the parties/people running.. The same thing would happen here. But hey, if punishing people for opposition to the system is the game, go right ahead. Personally, I'm against it.

I think the problem we have is more to do with the quality of candidates on the ballot paper. Maybe 100% voting might improve the list on the ballot paper?

Why? Having more voters is more likely to make the existing batch of clones more acceptable... since these guys can point to the increased numbers of voters as a sign of success and support.. party spin.

The problem with voting in this country is that people are weary. I know at age 32 I can't tell much difference between any of the parties/politicians that have gained office while I've been alive, apart from the physical and the accents. They've all screwed up to some degree (some more than others admittedly). So what's the point anymore with voting these guys/gals in?

And anyone new will canvas under some nifty idea, and then have to give up the majority of their ideals, in order to get support from the more "established" & "experienced" politicians.. In the end, becoming just like the others.

Its all very well and good to have high minded ideals about everyone having to vote.. but realism kicks in, and we have a general apathy against the system, and nobody remotely in power trying to change it. And its unlikely anyone's ideals will last long enough and gain enough support to get into power to change anything.. So sitting on a beach in the rain seems somewhat more productive for a day, than voting. (Although I did vote for an independent who got nowhere in the end)

Traumadoc

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I presume you can back up your claims of FF electoral fraud with some clear supporting evidence ?

I never said fraud.
I said voted twice.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25547398

hallelujajordan

Nakatomi wrote: »

I never said fraud.
I said voted twice.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25547398

Seriously . . you use an example that is almost 30 years old to support your belief that FF engage in a policy of voting twice (electoral fraud) in order to stay in government . . ???

Traumadoc

Where did I say it was policy?
Do you believe it is policy?

FF members have done far worse than voting twice in a general election. Some are tax dodgers and are corrupt. :eek:

Joey the lips

I always believed that voteing should be mandatory. However i also thought that a voting card should contain "none of the above" in the interest of democracy and social justice.

I believe that you should be fined if you dont vote

and i beleive that you should be stopped a weeks labour if you dont.

hallelujajordan

Nakatomi wrote: »

Where did I say it was policy?
Do you believe it is policy?

FF members have done far worse than voting twice in a general election. Some are tax dodgers and are corrupt. :eek:

Well, to be fair, your comment ...

Nakatomi wrote:

FF are great for using ministerial cars to ferry people to the polling stations and generally getting their supporters to vote. ( sometimes twice!).

It suits them to have this system, making voting just a little inconvenient to a certain proportion of the population. While they are able to mobilise their supporters.

. . certainly implies that sometimes voting twice is part of the FF system.

Anyway, back on topic. I quite like the idea of mandatory voting. I think everyone should take a level of responsibility for determining the governance of the country. . . Nothing irritates me more than listening to people who don't vote whinge about how "all politicians are useless" . .

hallelujajordan

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nothing irritates me more than listening to people who don't vote whinge about how "all politicians are useless" . .

TBH I've never understood this mentality. Anyone who has lived in this country for any decent period of time is entitled to complain about these politicians. They've had to live with the politicians mistakes. What irritates me are the people who think voting is some part of elite club where if you decide not to vote, then you should have no opinion.. I've voted every election with the exception of one of them (simply because I couldn't be bothered with the candidates at the time) and I still was capable of pointing to the politicians actions and logically showing how pathetic they were...

hallelujajordan

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH I've never understood this mentality. Anyone who has lived in this country for any decent period of time is entitled to complain about these politicians. They've had to live with the politicians mistakes. What irritates me are the people who think voting is some part of elite club where if you decide not to vote, then you should have no opinion.. I've voted every election with the exception of one of them (simply because I couldn't be bothered with the candidates at the time) and I still was capable of pointing to the politicians actions and logically showing how pathetic they were...

I get your point but isn't politics a process that begins and ends with the people. . . ?

Don't we all have a responsibility to play our part in selecting who should lead our country, rather than sitting on the sidelines complaining that others have selected the wrong people.

It's a bit like being asked what you want for dinner, indicating you have no preference and then going "I hate Spaghetti" when the other half serves it up . . . . OK, really bad analogy but you get my point . . if you are not willing to take part in the selection, you have less right to complain when you don't get what you want.

hallelujajordan

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I get your point but isn't politics a process that begins and ends with the people. . . ?

Begins and ends? When did politics start in Ireland? Has it really changed all that much in the last 60-70 years? Hell, even the last 20 years haven't changed much from what I can tell.

But I agree that the people are involved... but is it not also influenced by the people who choose not to vote (for whatever reason).. ?

I'm generally rather cynical about Irish politics... (kinda obvious I know). Simply put, I don't think Irish people have that much influence over the process. The infrastructure and culture of Irish politics is only really influenced by the people on the inside rather than the voters. A bit like the top management in Irish Banking.. But that's probably just me. I still vote, but I have no real confidence that any party will do any better than the others, and no individual politician has the influence to create change in the system without being sucked into the normal "tradition" of ignoring the voters and doing whatever they like.

Don't we all have a responsibility to play our part in selecting who should lead our country, rather than sitting on the sidelines complaining that others have selected the wrong people.

Ahh, but what about the people who have voted for many years and then stopped? I'd agree with you about the people who have never bothered to vote ever... they have never tried to understand the system. But the people who have stopped voting due to disillusionment/apathy with the past have just as much right to complain as anyone.

It's a bit like being asked what you want for dinner, indicating you have no preference and then going "I hate Spaghetti" when the other half serves it up . . . . OK, really bad analogy but you get my point . . if you are not willing to take part in the selection, you have less right to complain when you don't get what you want.

I get your point... But you've gone from no right to complain to less right to complain... Non voters do indeed have perhaps less right but they still have the right..

By your reasoning, the people who do vote but voted for the party/politicians that did get into power, have less right than the people who didn't vote for them. After all, they are responsible for putting them into office.. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your stance completely...

hallelujajordan

Deleted User wrote: »

By your reasoning, the people who do vote but voted for the party/politicians that did get into power, have less right than the people who didn't vote for them. After all, they are responsible for putting them into office.. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your stance completely...

TBH, I don't feel that strongly about the issue . . I don't think I said that serial non-voters have no right to complain but I certainly believe that those who couldn't be bothered engaging in the process have less right to complain when they don't like the outcome ..

And yeah, if you vote for Party X on the basis of a manifesto that says they are going to implement XYZ policies and then they get elected and implement those policies you have less right to complain if the policies turn out to be the wrong ones.

bijapos

T runner wrote: »

Apparently you can write "skippy" on your ballot paper in Australia. The fine is paltry .

Anyone care to tell me how they know who exactly put "Skippy" on the ballot sheet in the first place? Are all ballot sheets numbered against the number on your voting card or what?

jasonwaters

meat bomb wrote: »

In Australian, voting is mandatory, and failure to vote is punishable
by a fine. Does anyone think this would work here? I'd be all for it,
, for one thing, it would go along way to a govt that was fully
representative of society at any given time.

Yes, as long as there is also a requirement to get a 'voting license' to prove a basic understanding of our electoral system

simonj

I would not agree with a voting licence, democracy - to paraphrase - is a rotten system, but we have not found a better one yet.
The way it works best is to encourage participation and inclusion

Everyone looks at introducing mandatory voting with fines etc. for those who dont vote - the stick option.

We have the Lottery, which contributes to charities etc.

Why not take some money from that and invest it in a project for participation.

If a voter turns up, and is checked on the list then they stand to win a small sum like 50 or 100 Euro in a lottery for those who participated.

Those who dont have a suitable candidate can spoil their vote, or include the none of the above option.

It also, by removing a fine, does not penalise those who choose not to participate

Its just a suggestion, but at least its a new way of looking at things

I myself believe that a lot of people do not participate because they are dissillusioned with the choice, or lack of. The FF/FG two cheeks of the one arse and gombeen politics are issues - thats why I would like to see at least a partial list system, to give people a chance to have someone who appeals to them elected at a national level - but that is a separate debate



amhrannua.com

Liam Byrne

hulioseducer wrote: »

problem is half the country haven't a clue about politics god knows who would end up running the country

As reflected with a scary parallel in the Dail : FF + Greens = 83, out of 166.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Don't we all have a responsibility to play our part in selecting who should lead our country, rather than sitting on the sidelines complaining that others have selected the wrong people.

You're bang-on with that last part!

Unfortunately, the available options are decided WITHOUT public input.

So if parties don't put forward competent, ethical, decent, forward-looking candidates, I think everyone should be entitled to complain/object.

Unfortunately, the only way to object at the moment is to not vote.

A "none of the above are worthy" would be a great option on a ballot paper, and I think nearly everyone would come out to vote then.

Shea O'Meara

hulioseducer wrote: »

problem is half the country haven't a clue about politics god knows who would end up running the country

Yeah, we could end up with some shower of scam merchants who don't give a crap about the average man/woman on the street, who are prepared to do anything to make a buck even at the expense of the state finances....oh wait...

kowloon

I'll vote when I see someone worth voting for, until then I have no preference. I shouldn't have to try and judge who would be the least damaging. A slap in the face or a kick in the nuts doesn't constitute a fair choice as far as I'm concerned.

Tommy Bateman

meat bomb wrote: »

In Australian, voting is mandatory, and failure to vote is punishable
by a fine. Does anyone think this would work here? I'd be all for it,
, for one thing, it would go along way to a govt that was fully
representative of society at any given time.

Its a good idea that, sure all the more votes for FF.

TheWestsAwake

If Fianna Fail win the next election, I will blame George Lee. Lee & his Montrose Male Menopause has done more than any other to disillusion me towards politics. If FF get into power at the next election I will not vote again and join the ranks of the non-voters.

danman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Unfortunately, the available options are decided WITHOUT public input.

So if parties don't put forward competent, ethical, decent, forward-looking candidates, I think everyone should be entitled to complain/object.

so join a party and attend the Cumman meetings.
You'll get a vote on who sits on elections.

If your not happy with the candidate, raise an objection.

PanchoVilla

I was gonna start a new thread about mandatory voting but decided to use the search function instead.

Apathy and a lack of civic responsibility has crippled Ireland's democracy. Many people quickly forget the thousands who died to bring independence to this country and I feel it's disrespectful to withdraw from the democratic process. Mandatory voting will get people in the habit of thinking about who's running the country and encourage them to participate in our democracy.

I can see a system where every person with a PRSI number will be required to either vote for a candidate or vote "no confidence" in any of the available candidates. If there is a majority vote of "no confidence" then new candidates must be brought forward and another ballot taken. Candidates from the previous ballot would not be allowed to stand for the second one. A fine of 200 euros or thereabouts would be issued to people who decide not to participate.

I think this could start at general elections only at first then move down to local level when people get used to having a say in the workings of their political system.

Mod request: Could a mod maybe add a poll to see what people think? Just a simple "Mandatory voting" "Yes-No" would suffice.

Edit: And yes, this poll will be mandatory!

heyjude

PanchoVilla wrote: »

A fine of 200 euros or thereabouts would be issued to people who decide not to participate.

If you accept this idea, then presumably you are also accepting the likelihood that some will opt, not to pay the fine and face a prison sentence instead. So are you prepared to jail people who refuse to vote, given that at present we have shown an unwillingness to jail corrupt politicians, politicians that haven't paid their taxes(or who have claimed expenses to which they weren't entitled), bankers that have destroyed the economy and others such as drunk drivers, all of whom, it could be argued, would be more deserving of a prison sentence than a non-voter(especially if the fine for not voting, applied to all elections/votes from town council elections to referenda).

PanchoVilla

heyjude wrote: »

If you accept this idea, then presumably you are also accepting the likelihood that some will opt, not to pay the fine and face a prison sentence instead. So are you prepared to jail people who refuse to vote, given that at present we have shown an unwillingness to jail corrupt politicians, politicians that haven't paid their taxes(or who have claimed expenses to which they weren't entitled), bankers that have destroyed the economy and others such as drunk drivers, all of whom, it could be argued, would be more deserving of a prison sentence than a non-voter(especially if the fine for not voting, applied to all elections/votes from town council elections to referenda).

I would never jail a person for not paying a 200 euro fine, I find the practice completely ludicrous and counterproductive. If they refuse to pay, the fine would be taken out of their wages like PAYE. I'd even give them the option of 10 euros a week for 20 weeks or 20 euros a week for 10 weeks. I've always believed that prison sentences should only be issued for serious crimes.

Honestly, I can't imagine someone opting for a 200 euro fine instead of taking an opportunity to be involved in the democratic process. The "no confidence" vote ensures that people can't use the excuse of "well, there's nobody worth voting for so why bother".

Capt'n Midnight

Defo need a "None of the above" option,

it would not affect the result , votes would be still transferred, but politicians could see if they were vote for or if they were just the least worst alternative

maybe to avoid confusion we could put an option for an inanimate carbon rod

people could protest against the government without throwing the baby out with the bathwater as could happen at referendums

it would also remove politicians going on about a mandate when in reality people hated the alternatives even more

dan_d

I think it should be mandatory.

It's all very well to say people will just vote for whoever - but it could have the opposite effect. It might actually force people who never took an interest before to start looking at their politicians, questioning their motives and demanding more from them. It might have the effect of "well I have to vote someone in, and if I vote then I can't complain, so I better be happy with the choice I make, so I'll do some research on it".

It's the easiest thing in the world to opt out because you think they're all rubbish - hell, I think they're all rubbish but I have the right to vote and I fully intend to, if for no other reason than to have some little effect on the future of the country. But I'm going to make very sure my choice is a good one.

A "none of the above" option would also be good.

senordingdong

Eutow wrote: »

Instead of mandatory voting, have a 'none of the above' option on the ballot sheet. This could cause problems if the majority voted for this option because we would struggle to replace the rejected candidates with new ones.

I think the two together would be the best result.

Nijmegen

People can spoil their ballots. Heck, people who travel to vote in non-mandatory votes do so anyway in small numbers, writing "Dustin" down on Presidential ballots and so forth.

Mandatory voting would never be brought in however, as political parties draw their support as much from who does not vote as who votes for them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

When was it brought in in Australia? Did voting patterns change?

I would support it so long as you had the option to spoil your vote.

I reckon most people once at the station would actually cast a vote.

If it was brought in with no option to spoil your vote(like done electronically, choose one or be fined) I actually think I'd run as an abstentionist candidate.

the groutch

there's alot of people out there who moan about the current goverment, but won't go out and against them because apparently "they're all the same", if these sort of people had gotten out and voted against FF in '07, things would have been alot different than this.

Most of them just need a bit of kick up the rear to get them out to vote, and a week's dole taken off them (sorry for the stereotyping but alot of these are long-term unemployed) might just be what is needed to get them out voting, even if some of them will still just spoil the ballot paper.

WeeBushy

How about a "Re-Open Nomination" option? It something student unions have in their elections (I can't believe I'm suggesting an idea used by student unions).

However, it is better than spoiling your vote, because if you think there is no one suitable that has been put forward, and enough people agree with you, better/different candidates can be put forward.

Lab_Mouse

Joey the lips wrote: »

and i beleive that you should be stopped a weeks labour if you dont.

ehOnly people on the labour dont vote?Stop talking through your hole.I've never voted and only recently got to use my stamps for the first time in my life.And I still wont vote.Whether or not it is ever made mandatory

senordingdong

An option to spoil your vote would be of no use.
These things have to be made crystal clear.

So instead of opting to 'spoil' your vote, there should be an option for 'none of the above', or 'none of these parties represent me'.

Atleast then we can see where everybody stands.

Nijmegen

We could also allow write-in's like in certain US states.

Joey the lips

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

ehOnly people on the labour dont vote?Stop talking through your hole.I've never voted and only recently got to use my stamps for the first time in my life.And I still wont vote.Whether or not it is ever made mandatory

You are truly a rude and no doubt an iggnorent person. The logic being if you refuse to take part in the running of society why should society care about looking after you.

And to be honest...As you dont vote you may as well be talking out your hole because no one will listen to you

Just in case you wondered. This country has the ability to actually tell if you voted. They cannot tell who you voted for but they can tell if you voted.

If i were a public official and you asked me to do something...knowing you dont vote i would ignore you...

Lab_Mouse

Joey the lips wrote: »

You are truly a rude and no doubt an iggnorent person.

Yeah your one to talk.

I pay my tax's so therefore I expect whatever I'm entitled to from paying those tax's.Nothing to do with whether I vote or not.Governments change,the civil service doesnt.

If i were a public official .......

You'd be a prime example of why I dont vote for anyone.

and posting crap like this:

and i beleive that you should be stopped a weeks labour if you dont

It wouldnt be just my vote you'd lose

ValJester

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Yeah your one to talk.

I pay my tax's so therefore I expect whatever I'm entitled to from paying those tax's.Nothing to do with whether I vote or not.Governments change,the civil service doesnt.

So basically the government should take your opinion, which you have never once voiced even as part of a collective, into consideration when drafting policies?

PeterIanStaker

Pay the fine - whoever is in power will take it (and more) off you anyway.

Joey the lips

ValJester wrote: »

So basically the government should take your opinion, which you have never once voiced even as part of a collective, into consideration when drafting policies?

You cannot reason rational logic to an irrational illogical thinker....

Just because he pays his taxes....

I reckon thats what Ray Burke said....

Lab_Mouse

ValJester wrote: »

So basically the government should take your opinion, which you have never once voiced even as part of a collective, into consideration when drafting policies?

When did I say they should take my opinion into consideration especially when I havent voiced it(unless they take my non-vote as my opinion)

Lab_Mouse

Joey the lips wrote: »

You cannot reason rational logic to an irrational illogical thinker....

Just because he pays his taxes....

I reckon thats what Ray Burke said....

Not only do I pay my taxes I also excercise my right to vote......or not.Whats irrational or illogical about that.

As for the Ray Burke slur(:D) I never voted for him or his party.Did you?

Eliot Rosewater

Joey the lips wrote: »

If i were a public official and you asked me to do something...knowing you dont vote i would ignore you...

Let us hope, then, that you never become a public official.

People have as much a right to not vote as to vote. Forcing those who would otherwise not vote will result in a surge of politically ignorant people going to the polls. Unless this is the desired effect, I cannot see merit in the idea.

The "they're not involved in society" reason is clearly false. They do pay tax, you know.