Compulsory voting

ilovesleep

What are peoples opinions on compulsory voting? Are you in favour of it?

I think compulsory voting would be very good for ireland because any future government will represent the majority of the land and not just one or two special interest groups, for example FF and their relationship with developers, and OAPs.

Also any future referendum will represent the majority of the land.

Edit: mod, move this over to politics. Wrote it in the wrong section. thanks

PeterIanStaker

It'd certainly encourage apathetic people to take more interest/ownership in their country. People should automatically go on the register once they turn 18 and/or become an Irish citizen.

Also, I'd welcome Irish people living abroad being allowed to vote before I'd go for an idea like this. Of course FF don't want that, because they're the reason those people left in the first place.

ilovesleep

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'd certainly encourage apathetic people to take more interest/ownership in their country. People should automatically go on the register once they turn 18 and/or become an Irish citizen.

Also, I'd welcome Irish people living abroad being allowed to vote before I'd go for an idea like this. Of course FF don't want that, because they're the reason those people left in the first place.

This will be a job - compulsory voting and voting from abroad - for the new incoming government and its badly needed IMO

mikemac

It's up to people to organize themselves and not have the Government force you to do it

If you don't wish to vote then that you are making a choice and the rest of the voters will decide for you.

There are no shortage of groups who encourage people to get organized. Unions do it, there is a special interest group for most areas, every college in Ireland has ogra groups for all parties, not just the one in Post 1 and 2.
There are multiple cumanns in every county and there will be in Independent candidates in every constituency

If after all that you don't wish to vote then that should be respected.
But if you don't vote then don't complain about the result

Chucky the tree

No one should be forced to vote for a candidate they don't want too.

Eliot Rosewater

I think compulsory voting is a generally bad idea. The people who don't vote at the moment aren't interested in politics, and they're not informed. Compulsory voting entails forcing these uninformed people to make important choices. I don't see the merit in that.

RetroBate

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'd certainly encourage apathetic people to take more interest/ownership in their country. People should automatically go on the register once they turn 18 and/or become an Irish citizen.

Also, I'd welcome Irish people living abroad being allowed to vote before I'd go for an idea like this. Of course FF don't want that, because they're the reason those people left in the first place.

Australia introduced compulsory voting I think back in the 50's but from my recollection that was part of the prevalent fear of communist manipulation of elections and trade unions at that time.

No I wouldn't be in favour of compulsory voting. Apart from it being almost impossible to enforce it would degrade the quality of the vote.
People would just spoil their vote or pick a candidate at random.

Similarly, I'm not in favour of Irish citizens living longterm abroad having a vote. Where would you stop? You'd have some guy living the Bronx for the last fifty years voting for candidates and on issues without anything more than an emotional and academic interest.

I would be in favour of some sort of postal vote for Irish people temporarily abroad on holiday, seeking work, or on work assignments.

tommyhaas

I reckon that anyone who's not bothered voting dosent deserve a say in how the country is run. This is why Id be against compulsory voting. History has shown , and the current FF supports continue to show that a relatively large percentage of the country are either extremely ill informed or dillusional. Forcing people to vote, who wouldnt normally (such people who to my mind are either very lazy or extremely stupid) would only serve to increase the stupidity of the electorate

jank

Yea, this would be a good idea. Casting a vote is probably the only civic thing that the vast majority of people perform.
If they don't like the candidate then you are free to spoil your vote

FFS like, we vote once every 2-3 years. It takes 10 minutes.

namelessguy

Isn't voting a choice on who should be in power? Shouldn't people have the choice not to choose?

Free will and all.

HavingCrack

Compulsory voting is by its very nature undemocratic so eh no.

jank

Undemocratic, free will. Eh, no it isnt :rolleyes:

HavingCrack

jank wrote: »

Undemocratic, free will. Eh, no it isnt :rolleyes:

It is being told you have to vote even if you don't want to :rolleyes:

c-note

i know some people feel that everyone should vote on principle.

i agree,

but i also consider casting no vote as voting.

strange as it may sound, if you have no preference for any candidate then casting a vote will skew the result.
by casting no vote you are voting for the concensus of the remainder who do have a preference.

i have voted "against" candidates, by randomly filling in preference places ahead of the undesired candidate. but i'm somewhat uneasy about this as the order is random (certainly beyond 2nd preference)

I would like to see a ballot paper wherby you reverse vote.
starting with the person who you'd least like.
if you wanted, you could fill in all the preferences, up to the peron who you'd least-least like.
Thus the undesired candidates would be eliminated, leaving only the lesser undesirables.
The eventual winner could claim to be the elected representitive, but only by virtue of the fact that he is the least undesired.
Thats the way it would work if i had a country.

johnmcdnl

c-note wrote: »

i know some people feel that everyone should vote on principle.

i agree,

but i also consider casting no vote as voting.

strange as it may sound, if you have no preference for any candidate then casting a vote will skew the result.
by casting no vote you are voting for the concensus of the remainder who do have a preference.

i have voted "against" candidates, by randomly filling in preference places ahead of the undesired candidate. but i'm somewhat uneasy about this as the order is random (certainly beyond 2nd preference)

I would like to see a ballot paper wherby you reverse vote.
starting with the person who you'd least like.
if you wanted, you could fill in all the preferences, up to the peron who you'd least-least like.
Thus the undesired candidates would be eliminated, leaving only the lesser undesirables.
The eventual winner could claim to be the elected representitive, but only by virtue of the fact that he is the least undesired.
Thats the way it would work if i had a country.

great idea - how is it any different than going from 1-10 than from 10-1 without making it unnecessarily complicated

jank

HavingCrack wrote: »

It is being told you have to vote even if you don't want to :rolleyes:

Is paying taxes undemocratic? I think you need to look up the word "democratic".

ismiseuisce

I'm not sure that compulsory voting would work out. I'd say some people might feel spiteful about being forced to vote and just go in and spoil their vote on purpose or just tick any random box, without a second thought as to who they are voting for, so they can leave the polling station as quickly as possible.

However I do think all citizens should receive compulsory unbiased political education covering topics like the political structure of Irish government, the differences between the political parties in Ireland, a run down on ideologies, and maybe get all students to take a political polarization test.

Maybe this might stop a lot of the inherited politics, focus on who fixed the local road rather than who might run the country well, and the general apathy that can often be present in Irish political opinion.

Back in my day, when I took CSPE, the only political education I got was to look at photos of MEPs and write their name under them. I wish I was taught something more useful than that.

nesf

Honestly, we've more than enough poorly informed voters without forcing people to vote.

What's key is minimising barriers to voting for people when it comes to getting more people voting.

seanybiker

Personally I think compulsory voting is a bad idea. I also think that people who emigrate should not be allowed vote.
Not trolling or anything that's just my opinion and I know it might not be a popular one but hey, its only an opinion.

nesf

seanybiker wrote: »

Personally I think compulsory voting is a bad idea. I also think that people who emigrate should not be allowed vote.
Not trolling or anything that's just my opinion and I know it might not be a popular one but hey, its only an opinion.

The question of emigrants voting is a tricky one. They have a lesser stake in the country than someone who is working in it since they are not directly affected by changes in legislation, tax rates, welfare etc. I'd lean towards only allowing those who'll be directly affected by a change in Government policy to vote in General Elections.

jank

nesf wrote: »

The question of emigrants voting is a tricky one. They have a lesser stake in the country than someone who is working in it since they are not directly affected by changes in legislation, tax rates, welfare etc. I'd lean towards only allowing those who'll be directly affected by a change in Government policy to vote in General Elections.

Emigrant voting should be a non-issue. Ireland is the only EU country NOT to have it. The ECHR has come out and stated that Greece must implement it. Are we (Ireland) yet again the last to change to the norm?

It is interesting though, Ireland it seems is a VERY conservative country when it comes to change. We are just after having an economic catastrophe that is going to take years to come out of and very little talk about changing the system. Interesting....

Where is the talk of reform and all that..? Compulsory voting, emigrant voting are just details in the grander scheme of things but it seems those two minor suggested things seem unpopular. The system is completely broken but we seem to get lost on the small details. We are a great nation for saying NO. A type of NIMBY.

"A closed system will always fail"

nesf

jank wrote: »

Emigrant voting should be a non-issue. Ireland is the only EU country NOT to have it. The ECHR has come out and stated that Greece must implement it. Are we (Ireland) yet again the last to change to the norm?

It is interesting though, Ireland it seems is a VERY conservative country when it comes to change. We are just after having an economic catastrophe that is going to take years to come out of and very little talk about changing the system. Interesting....

Where is the talk of reform and all that..? Compulsory voting, emigrant voting are just details in the grander scheme of things but it seems those two minor suggested things seem unpopular. The system is completely broken but we seem to get lost on the small details. We are a great nation for saying NO. A type of NIMBY.

"A closed system will always fail"

Eh, and how praytell does emigrant voting prevent or reduce the chance of asset bubbles forming? I'll accept emigrant voting if you give me a good reason to support it but change for the sake of change is as bad as no change at all.

jank

nesf wrote: »

Eh, and how praytell does emigrant voting prevent or reduce the chance of asset bubbles forming? I'll accept emigrant voting if you give me a good reason to support it but change for the sake of change is as bad as no change at all.

What kind of question is that? I didnt mention anything about house prices.

A good reason to support it? How about tapping into one of Irelands key strategic advantages. Or how about simply democracy?

nesf

jank wrote: »

What kind of question is that? I didnt mention anything about house prices.

Eh, I misinterpreted your post.

jank wrote: »

A good reason to support it? How about tapping into one of Irelands key strategic advantages. Or how about simply democracy?

How is it a key strategic advantage to give emigrants votes? (genuinely confused by this one)

The democracy aspect is what puts me leaning against it actually. The key to a democracy is that those who will be effected by the long term decisions of a Government should be the ones who choose the Government. The stakeholders in the decisions of the Government make the calls. What turns me against emigrant voting is that they aren't stakeholders in the running of the country to the same extent that resident Irish citizens are. They won't be adversely affected or beneficially affected by voting in a party with a particular view on say Corporation tax.

JustinDee

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think compulsory voting is a generally bad idea. The people who don't vote at the moment aren't interested in politics, and they're not informed

Yet they'll sit at a computer and moan about the government that in their apathetic state, they deserve.

Compulsory voting works in Australia.

enda1

JustinDee wrote: »

Yet they'll sit at a computer and moan about the government that in their apathetic state, they deserve.

Compulsory voting works in Australia.

How so?

It surely doesn't work in Belgium anyway. From being here its clear the apathy everyone feels towards politics and politicians in general.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No one should be forced to vote for a candidate they don't want too.

Not an issue because you still have the option to spoil your vote. If that was somehow taken away I'd be dead set against it and maybe even run as an abstentionist candidate.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think compulsory voting is a generally bad idea. The people who don't vote at the moment aren't interested in politics, and they're not informed. Compulsory voting entails forcing these uninformed people to make important choices. I don't see the merit in that.

The same could be said for most people who do vote. I think the benefit is it would get people who can't be arsed(but may actually be informed) to vote.

RetroBate

I know an Anarchist who doesn't vote in elections on principal though he does vote in referenda.

He says voting for politicians only encourages them.

As time goes by I'm coming more to agree he has a point.

Many people have principaled objections to parliamentary democracy and regard it as a sham and they're not necessarily fascists.

If you read James Joyces biography you will realise he was an 'armchair anarchist'.

JustinDee

enda1 wrote: »

How so?

People turn up and vote at state and national elections. Thats how. They've had a say in who governs the state or country.

In Ireland, people who can't be arsed to vote get the government they deserve and when moaning about the government are just empty hypocritical vessels.

enda1

JustinDee wrote: »

People turn up and vote at state and national elections. Thats how. They've had a say in who governs the state or country.

In Ireland, people who can't be arsed to vote get the government they deserve and when moaning about the government are just empty hypocritical vessels.

That doesn't mean it works though.
If they're forced to vote, and they vote, its not really a good measure of the law's success.

The intent behind the law would have to be judged against the outcome of the law change.

So I don't see how Australia has proven the success of this piece of anti-democratic, reactionary, ill-thought-out legislature.

pawrick

I'd be in favour of compulsory attendence at voting stations.

- When there I can't see why a person can not tick a box on the form to say they do not want to vote on the issue. Most people I know who don't vote don't do it because they are not aware of the issues, they just don't make the time in their day to actully vote.
I am still registered in my home area which I should not be and I will travel home to vote and come back to Dublin the next day to work as i always do.

Voting for ex pats - i don't agree with this, how do we determine which ones have a say? All Irish passport holders living abraod can't possibly be allowed to vote!? Many have only been here on holidays and have no idea of what it is like to live here or about the politicains apart from voting for a United Ireland etc. If people who have emmigrated have done so recently then they are still in touch with the situation in the country and would know what it is like to live here, they should have a say but not everyone.

Bottle_of_Smoke

pawrick wrote: »

Voting for ex pats - i don't agree with this, how do we determine which ones have a say? All Irish passport holders living abraod can't possibly be allowed to vote!? Many have only been here on holidays and have no idea of what it is like to live here or about the politicains apart from voting for a United Ireland etc. If people who have emmigrated have done so recently then they are still in touch with the situation in the country and would know what it is like to live here, they should have a say but not everyone.

I'd argue that if you have a passport as well as residency for 2 years you should be allowed to vote. Also think anyone from the north with a passport should be allowed to vote on presidency elections and referendums

Oasis_Dublin

Voting should be 100% compulsory. That is not to say, of course, that a voter could not draw his manhood on the ballot card if he did not wish to vote for any of the available candidates. I'm tired of talking to opinionated populists who never actually bother their ars* voting.

JustinDee

enda1 wrote: »

That doesn't mean it works though.
If they're forced to vote, and they vote, its not really a good measure of the law's success.
The intent behind the law would have to be judged against the outcome of the law change.
So I don't see how Australia has proven the success of this piece of anti-democratic, reactionary, ill-thought-out legislature.

It works because change in government at whatever level is democratically enabled. If someone doesn't feel they can contribute at the booth they will spoil a vote. If they do, they'll nominate a candidate.

Maybe they should just sit on their keysters at home and whinge about the state and national government? That doesn't really work very well here does it? The amount of cant-be-arsed electoral members if it actually pulled its collective thumb would actually make a difference in the balance of candidature.
There is a greater percentage of people voting for rubbish in TV 'talent' shows than in making a stake in what is done in the running of this country.
Typical.

enda1

JustinDee wrote: »

It works because change in government at whatever level is democratically enabled. If someone doesn't feel they can contribute at the booth they will spoil a vote. If they do, they'll nominate a candidate.

Maybe they should just sit on their keysters at home and whinge about the state and national government? That doesn't really work very well here does it? The amount of cant-be-arsed electoral members if it actually pulled its collective thumb would actually make a difference in the balance of candidature.
There is a greater percentage of people voting for rubbish in TV 'talent' shows than in making a stake in what is done in the running of this country.
Typical.

Again, you are not showing how it works.
Many people have explained that it is not a democratic decision if it is one made at the threat of fine/imprisonment. Also, the system we have is democratic whether or not there is a large turnout.

Those can't be arsed voters are the ones you want voting to bring about a different government than the ones who could be arsed to inform themselves? Do you really think that makes logical sense?

Low turnouts at polls are an important indicator to the Oireachtas in how they are communicating with and engaging the electorate. Uninformed votes are extremely dangerous too in a system like the Aussies or Belgians have. There is a serious risk of the Dustin the Turkey candidate getting voted in because he is the only one recognised/is the fun choice for the people who don't want to be there or want to rebel against the real politicians who forced them into the situation.

Manach

I'd be against compulsory voting, as there is no option for none of the above on the ballot box.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Manach wrote: »

I'd be against compulsory voting, as there is no option for none of the above on the ballot box.

You can add it in.

JustinDee

enda1 wrote: »

Again, you are not showing how it works.
Many people have explained that it is not a democratic decision if it is one made at the threat of fine/imprisonment. Also, the system we have is democratic whether or not there is a large turnout.

Those can't be arsed voters are the ones you want voting to bring about a different government than the ones who could be arsed to inform themselves? Do you really think that makes logical sense?

Low turnouts at polls are an important indicator to the Oireachtas in how they are communicating with and engaging the electorate. Uninformed votes are extremely dangerous too in a system like the Aussies or Belgians have. There is a serious risk of the Dustin the Turkey candidate getting voted in because he is the only one recognised/is the fun choice for the people who don't want to be there or want to rebel against the real politicians who forced them into the situation.

Fine. Leave it as it is. Sitting on hands according to you is worthwhile as only people who know what they're doing are those who actually vote. The rest just can't be trusted and should just leaving voting the goose in to those who can be.

If you don't bother voting, don't go whingeing the sook.
You forfeit your right to by opting out of the electoral system altogether and have therefore done bugger all to effect any influence over who enters govt.

sarumite

HavingCrack wrote: »

Compulsory voting is by its very nature undemocratic so eh no.

If the majority of people are in favour of compulsory voting then it would be democratic, if not then it would be undemocratic. As it stands, the idea itself is neither.

enda1

JustinDee wrote: »

Fine. Leave it as it is. Sitting on hands according to you is worthwhile as only people who know what they're doing are those who actually vote. The rest just can't be trusted and should just leaving voting the goose in to those who can be.

If you don't bother voting, don't go whingeing the sook.
You forfeit your right to by opting out of the electoral system altogether and have therefore done bugger all to effect any influence over who enters govt.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Funny that such a champion of "democracy" feels the need to do such a thing

You still have a right to whinge even if you don't vote. Luckily in this country we live in we still have freedom of expression. The same argument could be said that you forfeit the right to whinge if you don't stand for election too by the way.

In fact the whinger is probably a more powerful force than the silent voter in a democracy such as ours.

zig

id be happy with it so long as there is a 'none of the above' box, I dont think theres a problem forcing young people to get out and vote tbh. they'll eventually appreciate the importance of it. That said I dont think there should be any issues with exemptions, i.e. not in the county for work reasons or whatever.

sarumite

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'd certainly encourage apathetic people to take more interest/ownership in their country. People should automatically go on the register once they turn 18 and/or become an Irish citizen.

In principle it may work, in practice I don't see it working. I don't imagine apathetic people making the effort to inform the government everytime they move house if they can't even be bothered to vote.

Also, I'd welcome Irish people living abroad being allowed to vote before I'd go for an idea like this. Of course FF don't want that, because they're the reason those people left in the first place.

I am against this idea. As someone who has lived away from home, I was fine with not having a vote in a GE since I didn't have to live with the decision made by the elected government. Why should I be entitled to vote for a government who's policys will not have any impact on my life?

JustinDee

enda1 wrote: »

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Funny that such a champion of "democracy" feels the need to do such a thing

Its how it reads.

enda1 wrote: »

You still have a right to whinge even if you don't vote. Luckily in this country we live in we still have freedom of expression. The same argument could be said that you forfeit the right to whinge if you don't stand for election too by the way

No it couldn't. Nothing of a kind.

enda1 wrote: »

In fact the whinger is probably a more powerful force than the silent voter in a democracy such as ours.

Yep, all powerful.
Whats a "silent voter"?

enda1

JustinDee wrote: »

Its how it reads.

Huh?

JustinDee wrote: »

No it couldn't. Nothing of a kind.

Ok then. Well I think is could.

JustinDee wrote: »

Yep, all powerful.
Whats a "silent voter"?

By silent voter I mean a person who votes but doesn't try influence others.
If the whinger changes just two peoples' opinions, then even if they don't vote, they are more powerful than the silent voter.

JustinDee

enda1 wrote: »

If the whinger changes just two peoples' opinions, then even if they don't vote, they are more powerful than the silent voter.

On the other hand, they would tend to be told, "vote or else shut up if you're going to do nothing about it".

Coconut Joe

I'd love to see a system were there is some sort of check on the voters competence, something along the lines a list of candidates and summary of policies on the ballot, you have to vote on both and if you contradict yourself the vote is spoiled. Back in the real world, I have no idea how you could do this in practice, my point being forcing more ignorant and apathetic voters into the booth is going completely the wrong direction imo. Do agree with the poster who suggested better civics education, people need to realise a well functioning representative democracy depends on an engaged and informed electorate, waking up every couple of years to cast a vote doesn't cut it.

Oasis_Dublin

It would be difficult to tell the masses that their votes are to be spoiled because they do not know enough about their candidates.

Coconut Joe

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It would be difficult to tell the masses that their votes are to be spoiled because they do not know enough about their candidates.

Don't get me wrong, not for a second suggesting this would be the way to go, completely unworkable, just emphasizing how opposed I'd be to the op's suggestion.

c-note

johnmcdnl wrote: »

great idea - how is it any different than going from 1-10 than from 10-1 without making it unnecessarily complicated

Well lets say I was running for election, and you definatly didnt want me getting elected.
under the current system, you'd be best advised to fill in all your preferecnces, and omit me.
Chances are your preferences beyond 2nd, would be quite random.

under a reversed system, you'd just fill me in at #1, i.e. vote for my elimination.
if you had a strong preference for someone TO be elected, you'd put them at the bottom of the list, listing all candidates you'd rather elimate ahead of you desired candidate

of course you may need to randomly fill in candidates in order to get to your desired candidate, in that sense its equivilent to the current system,
the differece with the reversed system is that you can vote against a candidate without having to vote for another. whereas currently you have to vote for a candidate in order to vote against another
i suppose it would be a bit like the weakest link!

Son Of A Vidic

As much as I would like everyone to vote, it is their own right to do so. What will forcing people to vote achieve? As the old saying goes..."You can lead a horse to the well, but you can't make it drink." I could see such a policy leading to a huge rise in the numbers of spoiled votes.

Oasis_Dublin

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

As much as I would like everyone to vote, it is their own right to do so. What will forcing people to vote achieve? As the old saying goes..."You can lead a horse to the well, but you can't make it drink." I could see such a policy leading to a huge rise in the numbers of spoiled votes.

You can lead the horse to water and then allow him to do what he wants with it... even if that means urinating in it. Whatever he does when he gets there, he should still definitely be led to the water.