Should voting in Ireland be compulsory?

StudentDad

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

And you seriously expect it to be a secret ballot??

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And you seriously expect it to be a secret ballot??

Of course. Whether or not you have voted, has nothing to do with how you voted.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Of course. Whether or not you have voted, has nothing to do with how you voted.

SD

To check any actions by a voter using thier personal information is an infringment of voter anonymity. If it were made legal, this would not change. Also, do you seriously expect the liks of Fianna Fail to not abuse this?

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

To check any actions by a voter using thier personal information is an infringment of voter anonymity. If it were made legal, this would not change. Also, do you seriously expect the liks of Fianna Fail to not abuse this?

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

SD

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

Forcing people to vote via financial penalties will not necessarily change anything worthwhile. Many will go into the polling station and simply vote for the 1st candidate on the ballot or close their eyes and pick one at random.
These type of scenarios do little good imo

StudentDad

Hidalgo wrote: »

Forcing people to vote via financial penalties will not necessarily change anything worthwhile. Many will go into the polling station and simply vote for the 1st candidate on the ballot or close their eyes and pick one at random.
These type of scenarios do little good imo

I disagree. To my mind it is preferable to having a situation where for important issues the level of apathy is such that it isn't a true vote.

People fought tooth and nail for the right to vote. Now that we have it, it's being relinquished tacitly by not voting.

SD

who_me

StudentDad wrote: »

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

SD

Except many people don't like control-freaks forcing decisions upon them.

Why do you have such a problem with people choosing not to vote? They're not affecting anyone by doing so, so where is the issue that demands fixing?

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

I disagree. To my mind it is preferable to having a situation where for important issues the level of apathy is such that it isn't a true vote.

People fought tooth and nail for the right to vote. Now that we have it, it's being relinquished tacitly by not voting.

SD

I fail to see what improvement we will see by forcing people to vote if it simply results in many citizens simply casting 'meh' type votes apart from the statistic of %

For me, your right not to vote is as important a personal freedom as your right to cast a vote. No citizen should be pressurized into voting for no other reason than getting 100% of the voting population to the polls.

mrkiscool2

AlanG wrote: »

I often heard this argument from our Student Union President (who was elected on a 15% turnout even though the electorate only had to cross a hall to cast their ballot).

There is nothing stopping more students from transferring their ballots from where their parents live to where they now reside most of the time. Should working people who go home to mammy every weekend keep their votes in their mammy’s constituency?

As for having enough time – the ballots tend to open at 7am and I have yet to see a college course starting that early.

Ok, I am going to address this point (as a few people have made it) before getting on topic. So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college? Are you actually having a laugh?

Anywho, apart from that no, voting should not be compulsory. As mentioned by previous people on here non-voting is a way of voicing ones opinion. It lowers the turn-out, thus showing that people are pissed off in the way politics and politicians are in this country. I predict we will see a low turn-out in the next general election due to people being pissed off at the three big parties.

StudentDad

Hidalgo wrote: »

I fail to see what improvement we will see by forcing people to vote if it simply results in many citizens simply casting 'meh' type votes apart from the statistic of %

For me, your right not to vote is as important a personal freedom as your right to cast a vote. No citizen should be pressurized into voting for no other reason than getting 100% of the voting population to the polls.

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

gizmo555

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ok, I am going to address this point (as a few people have made it) before getting on topic. So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college? Are you actually having a laugh?

Which is more important to you? Not missing your clubs and societies for one evening every four years or so, or exercising your right to vote?

The polling stations are open for 15 hours. It takes just a minute or two to vote. I expect college students to just go and do it, like the rest of us, instead of inventing ever more elaborate reasons why it's impossible for them to vote on a weekday.

oscarBravo

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college?

...or register for a postal vote.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or register for a postal vote.

Shush now! People don't bother to read past the first bullet point normally so they think only disabled people get them!

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

Forcing people to the polls with a big stick will not lead to a true majority, rather a forced one.
In an ideal world, people would go to the polling station because they have gone and informed themselves about each candidate/referendum etc

Red Pepper

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it shouldn't be compulsory, apathy is a good way of preventing those who care the least about politics from voting.

Agreed. I vote regularly but if it was made compulsory, I would stop immediately.

fianna saor

nesf wrote: »

Basic isn't good enough though. They need to be engaged with the political process to some extent to stay informed. They need the experience of years of doing this not to fall for the spiel of one party which is flat out unrealistic but very appealing.

A lot of people just are not interested in politics except when it directly affects them. That is fair enough, I can understand that. These people are not in a good position to judge what direction the country should take overall though.


All that said, it is not like political parties try and sell a comprehensive platform anyway as much as bundles of policies designed to appeal to specific groups of voters. Compulsory voting would make this even worse I think because the parties will be trying to sell to even less interested people.

i fairness i would say theres a lot of people who do vote that are described in your post

Cookie_Monster

StudentDad wrote: »

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

so tell me, when you have 6 utterly useless candidates who offer nothing who should you vote for. Does a spoiled vote count in your scenario or am I forced to vote for a least one of them just for the sake of it or do I have to rank all 6 due to our ridiculous system?

StudentDad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so tell me, when you have 6 utterly useless candidates who offer nothing who should you vote for. Does a spoiled vote count in your scenario or am I forced to vote for a least one of them just for the sake of it or do I have to rank all 6 due to our ridiculous system?

You're missing the point. Whether or not you should vote for a variety of useless candidates is a product of the political system, not whether or not you should pick one.

If there is just one decent candidate from another party and he/she gets elected over the other 'usual suspects' there is change.

You don't have to put a preference on that ballot beyond the one you want elected.

As it stands we have general elections where somewhere between 30 - 50 percent of the registered electors vote. The main parties count on this because they know full well that as long as their 'core' supporters vote they'll get who they want elected.

If these same parties are in the position where the remaining 50 percent of the electorate who don't usually vote actually cast their ballot the outcome isn't so certain.

As it stands there are whole sections of the country where people don't bother voting, as long as politicians know those areas don't vote, they don't have to worry about those areas.

By opting out, by saying nah - I can't be arsed - you are handing power back to a small group of people who will take that power and further exclude you from the decision making process.

At least if everyone votes politicians have to work that bit harder for that power.

As regards spoiling your vote - at least you are there - you are considering the options.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

Problem is, that's the case anyway.

It's not so much voter apathy, I think it's voter ignorance. I may know a lot about the candidates and their policies and decide none of them is worthy of my vote and abstain. I may not trust them to follow through on their pledges and decide to abstain. That's not apathy - not after doing the research.

However, people who just go along out of habit or duty and vote for someone they don't know or whom they usually vote for - that's the problem.

Out in Rosocmmon, a chap called Ming Flanagan came along. A left-wing libeal promoting the legalisation of cannabis. And what hapepned? People came out and voted for him!

StudentDad wrote: »

You're missing the point. Whether or not you should vote for a variety of useless candidates is a product of the political system, not whether or not you should pick one.

I see your point, but see the Ming point above. But the leading parties don't really feel comfortable with new blood or change, so discourage it.

If there is just one decent candidate from another party and he/she gets elected over the other 'usual suspects' there is change.

Not always. Funding and publicity is an issue. As is name. Put forward an idiot with the name "Haughy" or "Cowen" or "Healy-Rae" and they'll be elected, I guarantee you.

By opting out, by saying nah - I can't be arsed - you are handing power back to a small group of people who will take that power and further exclude you from the decision making process.

So it's the fault of the people who did vote for them and not those who didn't?

Opting out is NOT the same as "saying nah". I've conversed with pioliticians on the doorstep and told them exactly how I feel. And not voted for them. Sometimes I voted for an Indepedent. Sometimes not at all. Guess what the differenc was?

At least if everyone votes politicians have to work that bit harder for that power.

No it doesn't. Politicians exist to maintain the status quo, not to change.

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Problem is, that's the case anyway.

It's not so much voter apathy, I think it's voter ignorance. I may know a lot about the candidates and their policies and decide none of them is worthy of my vote and abstain. I may not trust them to follow through on their pledges and decide to abstain. That's not apathy - not after doing the research.

However, people who just go along out of habit or duty and vote for someone they don't know or whom they usually vote for - that's the problem.

Out in Rosocmmon, a chap called Ming Flanagan came along. A left-wing libeal promoting the legalisation of cannabis. And what hapepned? People came out and voted for him!



I see your point, but see the Ming point above. But the leading parties don't really feel comfortable with new blood or change, so discourage it.



Not always. Funding and publicity is an issue. As is name. Put forward an idiot with the name "Haughy" or "Cowen" or "Healy-Rae" and they'll be elected, I guarantee you.



So it's the fault of the people who did vote for them and not those who didn't?

Opting out is NOT the same as "saying nah". I've conversed with pioliticians on the doorstep and told them exactly how I feel. And not voted for them. Sometimes I voted for an Indepedent. Sometimes not at all. Guess what the differenc was?



No it doesn't. Politicians exist to maintain the status quo, not to change.

What you are saying applies now - because nobody votes. So long as political parties have a guaranteed go to pool of votes nothing will change. If everyone 'has' to vote, it throws out the usual certainties. So called 'tight' constituences that rely on a pool of 'reliable' voters suddenly are not so tight.

Of course the parties - the usual suspects - don't want change. They rely on that apathy - it allows them to do what ever the hell they like. If they suddenly have to worry about the vote of the auld fella living on the arse end of the dingle peninsula for his vote - it changes things.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

What you are saying applies now - because nobody votes. So long as political parties have a guaranteed go to pool of votes nothing will change. If everyone 'has' to vote, it throws out the usual certainties. So called 'tight' constituences that rely on a pool of 'reliable' voters suddenly are not so tight.

Of course the parties - the usual suspects - don't want change. They rely on that apathy - it allows them to do what ever the hell they like. If they suddenly have to worry about the vote of the auld fella living on the arse end of the dingle peninsula for his vote - it changes things.

SD

What evidence do you have that, if turnout was say 30% higher, the outcome would be different? How do we know that the abstainers would not vote in the same proportions as the voters?

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What evidence do you have that, if turnout was say 30% higher, the outcome would be different? How do we know that the abstainers would not vote in the same proportions as the voters?

Evidence? This to my mind is one of those situations where the only way to find out is to actually implement it.

Not only that, it gives the political system the authority to say they have a 'true' mandate, whatever the hell that is.

One thing is certain, it has to be better than the current system where party worthies vote for their candidates and run the country for their benefit and the rest of the populace gets dragged along for the ride regardless.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Evidence? This to my mind is one of those situations where the only way to find out is to actually implement it.

Not only that, it gives the political system the authority to say they have a 'true' mandate, whatever the hell that is.

One thing is certain, it has to be better than the current system where party worthies vote for their candidates and run the country for their benefit and the rest of the populace gets dragged along for the ride regardless.

SD

I agree with your last line, but there are better ideas when it comes to elections:

1 - Limit election funding and exposure to an even level for each candidate.
2 - Any politician convicted of fraud, corruption or any finiance-relate crime be banned from ever running in any election or bye-election.
3 - Ministers are only allowed to canvas in their own constituencies.

Now ask yourself, why are none of these ever discussed at Dail level?

The election process needs to be cleaned up so that all candidates get an even chance of getting their message across. THAT is of much more importance than simply saying "vote, or else..."

Socrates once said that nothing worthwhile is ever achieved under duress. He was right. Turnout numbers need to be brought up be a fair reflection of choices and not by threats or financial penalties. And the way to do this is the measures I mentioend above.

In short? if the government wanted turnout numbers and voter awareness, they'd have brought in measures to brign this about. They didn't. Why not?

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I agree with your last line, but there are better ideas when it comes to elections:

1 - Limit election funding and exposure to an even level for each candidate.
2 - Any politician convicted of fraud, corruption or any finiance-relate crime be banned from ever running in any election or bye-election.
3 - Ministers are only allowed to canvas in their own constituencies.

Now ask yourself, why are none of these ever discussed at Dail level?

The election process needs to be cleaned up so that all candidates get an even chance of getting their message across. THAT is of much more importance than simply saying "vote, or else..."

Socrates once said that nothing worthwhile is ever achieved under duress. He was right. Turnout numbers need to be brought up be a fair reflection of choices and not by threats or financial penalties. And the way to do this is the measures I mentioend above.

In short? if the government wanted turnout numbers and voter awareness, they'd have brought in measures to brign this about. They didn't. Why not?

A well even Socrates, sitting there looking at his cup of hemlock, still accepted the will of the State.

Yes there needs to be root and branch reform of the system itself. As it stands though pretty much the only tool your average voter in this country has to change things is the vote. If it isn't exercised, nothing will change.

Local govt. is a joke and even parliament is joke. We have too many TD's, toothless local govt and all are unaccountable.

When our govt. is elected from a fraction of a fraction of the overall voting population, it can hardly be called representative democracy.

Yes the system need changing, but unless the electorate actually votes, the clique that runs this little country will have nothing to worry about.

It's depressing to think that some of the major social and legislative changes that have been put through by govt. have been because of EC directives or regulations. Not because 'we' wanted to.

SD

nesf

fianna saor wrote: »

i fairness i would say theres a lot of people who do vote that are described in your post

Yes, and we can clearly see the damage this causes and do we want to increase that?

VinLieger

No it shouldnt be compulsory but if you dont vote you should have to wear a dunce hat or something equally humiliating until you stop being a lazy ignorant cvnt and vote

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

A well even Socrates, sitting there looking at his cup of hemlock, still accepted the will of the State.

Yes there needs to be root and branch reform of the system itself. As it stands though pretty much the only tool your average voter in this country has to change things is the vote. If it isn't exercised, nothing will change.

Local govt. is a joke and even parliament is joke. We have too many TD's, toothless local govt and all are unaccountable.

When our govt. is elected from a fraction of a fraction of the overall voting population, it can hardly be called representative democracy.

Yes the system need changing, but unless the electorate actually votes, the clique that runs this little country will have nothing to worry about.

It's depressing to think that some of the major social and legislative changes that have been put through by govt. have been because of EC directives or regulations. Not because 'we' wanted to.

SD

Ah, but Scorates still had the choice to accept. he could have declined, he could have fled.

The electroate DID vote, if i recall. FG said they were going to scrap or seriously reduce the seanad, the voters agreed, and it didn't happen (open to correction on this, as I wan;t in the country during the last election).

I know such a thing is near impossible to provide, but I would want a much firmer convincing argument that the idea of compulsory voting would actually lead to a fairer reflection of the populace's views before agreeing with it.

And if you can financially penalise a voter for abusing his civic "duty" why should an electe TD get off scott free for abusing his?

Cookie_Monster

StudentDad wrote: »

You're missing the point.

SD

No, I wasn't. I was trying to clarify that if we are forced to vote how far it should it go.

Should you have to just turn up and scribble on it if you want, or have to vote in a valid manner for a candidate or if you have to vote the full list...

As regards spoiling your vote - at least you are there - you are considering the options.

And you clarified

PRAF

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

Should voting in Ireland be compulsory?

Ok so there are obvious reasons against such a proposal mainly that such a law would affect the freedom of an individual but could voting be considered as much of a civic duty as jury duty is?

Around the world 24 countries at present have a form of compulsory voting including:

Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Republic of Congo
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Greece
Honduras
Lebanon
Libya
Luxembourg
Nauru
Mexico
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Singapore
Switzerland
Thailand
Uruguay

And previously the US state of Georgia, Austria, Chile, Netherlands, Spain and Venezuela have also had a form of compulsory voting.

With 100% of the electorate casting their vote on voting day it would mean politicians would really have to work a lot harder to get elected and perhaps if elected would hold themselves accountable to ALL of society and not just a proportion.

There would also be a spoil your ballet option or a so called 'none of the above' option if the voters in a constituency did not agree with any of the candidates and if this option received the most votes then there would have to be a re-vote in that area. This would allow for someone else to run or the previous candidates working harder to prove that they are what the constituency needs. This along with a system of recall would ensure that politicians are representative and accountable to the people that elect them and not just the party whip.

What do we all think? I am sure many of you will disagree and so as always debate and opinion is welcomed!

Thanks!

No, I disagree with compulsary voting. All other options should be exhausted before you resort to forcing people to vote. People need to be energised and educated into voting. In addition, the actual process of voting should be made easier so that people working in one constituency but living in another could vote in either location (whichever is easiest for them). Employers should also incentivise voting by giving people time off to do it (e.g. an extended lunch hour).

If people can vote for the Voice of Ireland, surely then they can also vote for who they want to control the country for the next 5 years.