Should Voting be mandatory?

4068ac1elhodqr

grahambo wrote: »

Heavy weight problems need heavy weight solutions.

And may I ask your views on the heavy weight topic over-population?

Euphanasia*? (Y/N will suffice for this heavyweight option) *you don't have the option not to choose outside of a boolean answer in this case, a selection must be made from the two {Y/N} options offered.

It simply boils down to the election candidates to ask, listen and make offerings to satisfy the electorate. Essentally it's a communication process. Can the 2-way communication process be improved? Certainly.

However many politicans prefer to sit on a fence, avoid questions or blame someone else. Often questions aren't answered, or even addressed. Then there are issues of mistrust and falsehoods.

Thus the freedom to choose 'none of the above' can be a viable option under certain circumstances. Removing that option is:

adjective: authoritarian
1. favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

Beta Ray Bill

Leroy42 wrote: »

People died to give you the ability to vote. Millions around the world are denied any ability to vote, and all we are asked is to spend a bit of time learning about the candidates and going down to the local polling office. It isn't that much of an effort.

Most people don't do this and still vote.

I've a spreadsheet about all the candidates in the Dail that I'm keeping for the next general election, all the stupid crap they've said and done and what political dynasty they belong to and what they did before they were politicians.

Most people vote based on Party or parish pump.
"My father voted for his father, so my son will vote for his son.... HE BUILT THE ROAD!!!!!"

Gimme a break...

Accumulator wrote: »

And may I ask your views on the heavy weight topic over-population?

You may.
Perhaps incentives for people to have only 2 kids.
Reduce population slowly and in a sustainable way. Would only work if all the EU was on board and we restricted our EU borders somewhat.

Accumulator wrote: »

However many politicians prefer to sit on a fence, avoid questions or blame someone else. Often questions aren't answered, or even addressed. Then there are issues of mistrust and falsehoods.

This is a lot of Irish Politicians, Or they respond with a Story

Itssoeasy

No shouldn’t be mandatory but if you don’t vote for a reasonable reason you abdicate your right to bitch and moan about how bad things are and how bad a certain cllr, TD or MEP is doing.

Sleeper12

I think everyone should vote. It's not that long ago that we didn't have a vote. On the other hand forcing someone to vote won't work imo. I have a feeling we'd have 10s of thousands spoiling their vote. It's rumoured that Dustin the turkey already gets a lot of votes in Dublin

PhilOssophy

I'd have no problem.

There need's to be a clear distinction between the hashtaggers and those who actually want to participate in our democracy. If you are non-resident here, you should have to strike yourself off the voting register. None of this selective voting nonsense.

For those of us living here, you should be able to register for a postal vote and do it at a Garda station for example in advance of polling.

BrokenArrows

Leroy42 wrote: »

Should be easier?

Walk into the local station, give polling card, mark your preference and put in a box.

Most people are very busy these days with long commutes, kids to take care of, other **** to do.

Taking time in the morning or evening is not a luxury everyone has and in a lot of cases is in the decision between voting and not voting.

For me its a drive to the local school where there is no parking. So park illegally or park far away and walk. Then go to the place. Queue up, vote, leave, walk back to the car and back home again. Takes at least an hour out of my day. Ill still do it.

The technology these days means this shouldnt be necessary. And if they want more people to vote the only way is to get technical and have mobile/pc voting.

oLoonatic

Forcing people to vote, No.

Everyone required to be on the register like in the UK. Yes!

Donald Trump

grahambo wrote: »

No
Don't have the money to run an election campaign.
I'm not a member of any political party.
I live in Dublin Bay North, there are a large number of high profile candidates in this area.
A TD salary also wouldn't be enough for me in the event I was elected in that, in 5 years I'd have lost so much experience in my Job now, I'd find it difficult to get a job.
I wouldn't hire an IT Professional who hasn't worked in IT for 5 years!



I probably would yes, as I would feel it would be my duty to.



I think Politicians are more interested in being in power than actually serving the area the represent.
I get that one is a consequence of the other, but inevitably they all fall prey to the party whip.
Independents can't make enough of an impact.

A large number of them are from Dynasty's, Teaching backgrounds, Property backgrounds, Pharmaceutical and Legal Backgrounds (Or Farmers), there's a couple finance people in there too.
They're not great.
I'm kind of, of the the opinion that those who seek power should never get it.
Kind of the way Boards.ie MOD selection is

While they are interesting, I find your views a little inconsistent. You wouldn't run for office because of the salary in case you did not get re-elected. There is no reason why, if you could get elected one time, that you could not get re-elected and make a career out of it. You'd pay a 50 Euro fine rather than perform your civic duty to vote, yet if you were randomly selected, with effectively almost zero chance of being randomly selected again in 5 years, you'd drop your career and go into politics out of a sense of duty.

You must know that there might be people out that you would consider competent and deserving of your vote, but there is little point in them running because people won't bother their arses to get out to use their vote. Which gives more power to the parties and their political machines. So in effect, the problem is just as much with those who refuse to use their vote. And perhaps more so.


You recognize that it is difficult to have independents achieve anything without the structure of a party and a whip. yet you advocate dumping (say 150) randomers in together and expect them to cooperate or at least nor function any worse than what we currently have. Even when we can see the current shambles across the water of what happens when there are so many opinions and no coherency.


You dismiss people who aspire to get into politics, regardless of their reasons, and imply that randomly selected people would do a better job. I don't know man. I mean people who become solicitors often get into it because it gives them prestige and wealth rather than for the good of helping their fellow man, but I know that if I needed legal help, I'd rather have a qualified solicitor helping me than a randomer off the street. And if the solicitor is no good, I'll use a different one the next time until I find a decent one.

robman60

Really hate the Australian system. When I lived there, a friend of mine was saying he has no idea and just picks Labor but that he does not want to vote, does not inform myself, but just does it to avoid liability. I think that is a terrible thing and does not help democracy at all.

I live in the UK right now and a friend here had to go to the Embassy in London to vote. Not sure if he just really wanted to vote, or he could have been fined if he didn't, but if its the latter that's excessive.

Definitely think it is perfectly valid to abstain if you either have no feelings either way, or you have just not clued in enough to be in a position to cast it.

Contrary to the way its perceived, Australia is quite authoritarian in some unusual ways. Most notable law I remember was around biker gangs. Some states had laws where three bikers could not meet together if (one or all, can't remember) had a criminal record. They organised a protest in Brisbane and their families had to attend because if a group went themselves it would have been a criminal offence! Goodbye presumption of innocence.

Donald Trump

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Forcing people to vote doesn't sound very democratic.

Without getting into the the use of the word "forcing", I am intrigued as to why you think having mandatory vote is not democratic? What is your understanding of the word "democratic"?



Not allowing people to vote is undemocratic. Allowing people to vote is democratic. Having mandatory voting does not remove their vote - it is in fact the opposite. So I fail to see how it is not democratic.



Forcing them to give their vote to a particular person or decision would be undemocratic. nobody is talking about that though.

trellheim

To all those who say they dont have the time... its like Jury Duty you turn up its not optional you can argue with the beak when you get into court.

If you dont like the candidates draw a line through and write "none of the above" again hardly rocket science

PokeHerKing

trellheim wrote:

BS it is. i can think of no finer form of democracy than being it the law to choose. We do it for jury service. You must serve. ( this of course is all off topic )

Load of ideological nonsense. The only thing that matters is the option/choice to vote.

Point me to a democracy with mandatory voting that has eradicated the societal/economical issues that plague every democracy the world over?

I'll put the kettle on while I wait.

Donald Trump

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Load of ideological nonsense. The only thing that matters is the option/choice to vote.

Point me to a democracy with mandatory voting that has eradicated the societal/economical issues that plague every democracy the world over?

I'll put the kettle on while I wait.

Sure lets do away with democracy and go for dictatorship.



Show me any democracy that has eradicated the societal/economical issues that plague every dictatorship the world over?


That's the logic isn't it? It's a bit silly that because it isn't 100% perfect, that that might be considered a reason to have a worse system!

PokeHerKing

Donald Trump wrote:

That's the logic isn't it? It's a bit silly that because it isn't 100% perfect, that that might be considered a reason to have a worse system!

Im quite the fan of democracy. How about you re-read my post and then comment as you've clearly misread it.

It's important to point out, that although boards users are generally somewhat clued into politics, there are many people who simply don't care and have no interest.

I know loads of people who couldn't name a local councillor for love nor money. Only for they see the posters around the place they wouldn't even know if there was an election on.

A friend of mine is voting for a Cllr locally because 'she looks like she has big tits'. He's 24 and his parents make him vote, despite him having no interest whatsoever (lives at home, so no choice but to go voting). I'm fairly confident the parents are only bullying him into it because they think he'll echo their views, whereas he couldn't care less.


You'd get a load of that kind of nonsense if you forced full populations to vote. If people don't care, then let them sit it out. What harm.

Donald Trump

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im quite the fan of democracy. How about you re-read my post and then comment as you've clearly misread it.

Apologies if I misread it. I had thought you were against the idea of mandatory voting and were using the argument that as no countries with mandatory voting had eliminated all societal ills, that it was not a better system than non-mandatory voting.

PokeHerKing

Donald Trump wrote:

Apologies if I misread it. I had thought you were against the idea of mandatory voting and were using the argument that as no countries with mandatory voting had eliminated all societal ills, that it was not a better system than non-mandatory voting.

That is what I'm saying. There's zero benefit to it. It's just ideological nonsense from people who think they know what's best for everyone.

The fact you were talking about dictatorships I assumed you had misread it. In fact you were just talking nonsense.

oscarBravo

Mandatory voting is a perfect example of the adage that for every complex problem there's an answer that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

The perceived problem is low voter turnout. Forcing people to vote addresses the symptom, not the causes.

If voters are too disengaged from the political process to care about who wins an election, putting a metaphorical gun to their head won't suddenly make them care. It's a recipe for an increased percentage of spoiled votes, or - worse - donkey voting.

If people are unable to make it to the polling station for whatever reason, then a necessary requirement for compulsory voting is a mechanism for absentee voting. This introduces an entirely new set of problems of its own, notwithstanding the fact that people who don't understand the challenges keep insisting that electronic voting is an easy problem to solve. (Hint: it's almost impossible to implement a secure, anonymous electronic voting system.)

Compulsory voting is a solution in search of a problem.

Dr. Bre

Is it not your freedom to choose or not to vote ?

Tell me how

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Is it not your freedom to choose or not to vote ?

It is, but the argument is that many are not choosing to vote for any other reason than they couldn't be bothered to vote.

Maybe a system that everyone had to vote (or explain why they couldn't) and a mandatory option on the ballot paper that you were deliberately abstaining from selecting an option would allow people to choose to abstain while still showing they were willing to make the effort to get to the polling station. This might allow those abjectly disgusted with the choices to feel they had communicated their disgust in the way they currently claim to do by not voting.

sdanseo

Abstaining for a defined reason is different to apathy or being lazy.

There should be an official abstention on the ballot paper. Failing that those feeling disillusioned and not wishing to pick any of a field of candidates who they have decided are all so bad none of them deserves to be elected should spoil their vote. Doing this would record said disillusionment, which in turn might be a fairly consequential statistic for the politicians.

Just not turning up is lazy and an intolerable insult to those who won the right to democracy.

Of course, people will be sick, on holiday, or have a pressing need to be elsewhere - and that's fine. But simply not bothering isn't.

Water John

Because everyone would be going to vote, I would expect a much higher level of discourse among the population.

gormdubhgorm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not being mandatory gives people the excuse to opt out. I am guessing that this option would be more likely to be used by marginalized voters resulting in their further disengagement further from the democratic process (sans a populist drumming them up for their vote), leading inevitably to others making their choice for them.

Just caught the news there, a polling station in Tallaght was at 11% turnout.
I think I can safely assume that this the same type of constituent who would say the 'government do nutthin' in anyway' or 'politicians are all de sayam' :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

sdanseo wrote: »

Abstaining for a defined reason is different to apathy or being lazy.

There should be an official abstention on the ballot paper.

That is a very good idea, why has that never been tried?
Instead of being lumped in with spoiled votes, which are made up actual unintentional errors.

Seamai

20 years ago I would have been in favour of mandatory voting, not now. Would it encourage that 30 to 35% who never vote to become more engaged? I don't think so. If people were obliged to vote that 30% might be responsible for some very bad decisions being made.

trellheim

trellheim wrote: »

BS it is. i can think of no finer form of democracy than being it the law to choose. We do it for jury service. You must serve. ( this of course is all off topic )

As an interesting coincidence, those chosen for jury service are picked from the electoral register, so unless the law in this area is changed, not being on the register means you don't get picked.

Inquitus

IMO, voting should be mandatory, but the fine should be trivial like a parking fine €25-€50 or something in that range, just a nudge to make people consider that voting is at the core of democracy. Voting should also be made as easy as possible while not compromising on the security of the process.

Donald Trump

PokeHerKing wrote: »

That is what I'm saying. There's zero benefit to it. It's just ideological nonsense from people who think they know what's best for everyone.

The fact you were talking about dictatorships I assumed you had misread it. In fact you were just talking nonsense.

Yeah, your argument is a logical fallacy and is itself the main nonsense.


Be against the idea of mandatory voting all you like but if your reasoning against it is that countries that have it are not 100% perfect then that is kind of silly.



I was just using the same "reasoning" as you used in order to "justify" why democracy should not be preferred over dictatorship. You posit that mandatory voting does not solve 100% of societal ills, ergo non-mandatory voting is preferable. I used the same logic to say that as democracy does not solve 100% of societal ills then dictatorship is preferable.


A form of Socratic irony if you will

Donald Trump

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Just caught the news there, a polling station in Tallaght was at 11% turnout.
I think I can safely assume that this the same type of constituent who would say the 'government do nutthin' in anyway' or 'politicians are all de sayam' :rolleyes:

And you don't think that there is a cyclical effect?


Put yourself in the position of a politician who will go up for re-election next year. Your constituents in leafy Rathfarnham would like a playground for their kids. There is also a need for a playground for a poorer area of Tallaght in your constituency.

You can put your effort into getting the Rathfarnham people an extra playground and guarantee yourself a few votes, or you can put your effort into getting the more needed one in Tallaght, but the people there probably won't bother their arses to turn up on polling day.

And granted, you can get into philosophical arguments on what is morally right, but lets be practical here. If people won't use their vote then they can't really be complaining. If you had mandatory voting, you can be sure that the FF and FG people would be forced out of necessity to start competing with the likes of SF or PBP for those areas.

Brian201888

I don't know why you would want people who don't care enough to vote deciding how the country is run, it sounds like a recipe for helping the rise of populism