Should Voting be mandatory?

Water John · 24-05-2019 2:15pm #1

Not to derail but are the Australians right, vote or be fined. Funny nearly a quarter answered a survey on The Journal this morning saying they won't vote today. But they had time and were so inclined, to do an online poll.

Rjd2 · 24-05-2019 2:21pm

Water John wrote: »

Not to derail but are the Australians right, vote or be fined. Funny nearly a quarter answered a survey on The Journal this morning saying they won't vote today. But they had time and were so inclined, to do an online poll.

Nope. Its an incredibly authoritarian move that from Australia. If people don't want to vote no matter the reason, then leave them alone.

PokeHerKing · 24-05-2019 2:59pm

listermint wrote:

You compared making sure citizens actually bother their arse to vote in a vote of their choice of candidates to authoritarianism.

Punishing people for not voting is hardly democracy at its finest either.

listermint · 24-05-2019 3:00pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Punishing people for not voting is hardly democracy at its finest either.

Do I have to give the definition of democracy.

Or are we all going to go around destroying the literal meaning of words Today.

PokeHerKing · 24-05-2019 3:08pm

listermint wrote:

Or are we all going to go around destroying the literal meaning of words Today.

Its authoritarian to tell people they do not have the right to not vote.

Democracy works without it.

listermint · 24-05-2019 3:09pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Its authoritarian to tell people they do not have the right to not vote.

Democracy works without it.

It's really not.

We make people partake in citizenship in various many other ways. Yet this is where you draw a line.... Voting
.. really .... Lol

4068ac1elhodqr · 24-05-2019 3:09pm

listermint wrote: »

Ah come on it was gas.
You compared making sure citizens actually bother their arse to vote in a vote of *their choice of candidates* to authoritarianism.

What if they don't like any of the choices on offer.
You would 'force' them to choose from the menu anyway?

Of course in the future, with the rise of e-voting machines, a spoiled vote won't even an option, get taken to the e-booth, and be instructed to press the button, press a button, press it now!.

"You will vote, and you will like it".

trellheim · 24-05-2019 3:17pm

Its authoritarian to tell people they do not have the right to not vote.

Democracy works without it.

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 )

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 3:18pm

Sarah Full Muck wrote: »

What if they don't like any of the choices on offer.
You would 'force' them to choose from the menu anyway?

Of course in the future, with the rise of e-voting machines, a spoiled vote won't even an option, get taken to the e-booth, and be instructed to press the button, press a button, press it now!.

"You will vote, and you will like it".

That's just an excuse for lazyness in fairness. Anyone can only vote for the candidates in front of them. If you don't particularly like any of them, vote for the one you dislike the least. It's hardly rocket science.

If you genuinely have no order of preference (impossible as it may be) then assign your vote randomly or else just spoil it.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 3:21pm

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 )

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.

4068ac1elhodqr · 24-05-2019 3:28pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you don't particularly like any of them, vote for the one you dislike the least. It's hardly rocket science.

That's were some obese people go wrong when offered dessert, they just can't say no, cheesecake it is.

If you think any e-voting machine will have a 'spoil' button, you're either misguided or over faithfull in industrial design factors.

PokeHerKing · 24-05-2019 3:33pm

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.

Forcing people to vote does nothing. Solves nothing. Adds nothing.

ancapailldorcha · 24-05-2019 3:39pm

Mod: I think that this topic deserves its own thread.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 3:40pm

Jaylee Easy Foreigner wrote: »

That's were some obese people go wrong when offered dessert, they just can't say no, cheesecake it is.

If you think any e-voting machine will have a 'spoil' button, you're either misguided or over faithfull in industrial design factors.

Logic isn't your strong point I take it?

If you want to use a dessert analogy it would be that you have to choose a desert from a fixed set of choices and you have to eat it. If you're worried about being fat, then choose between the cheesecake and the selection of fruits as you see fit. Or allow someone else to make the choice of cheesecake for you and then moan about being a fatso. Either way, the only definite guarantee is that you'll be eating a dessert whether you want to choose it or not.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 3:43pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Forcing people to vote does nothing. Solves nothing. Adds nothing.

Don't be silly.

At the worst it would give someone a legitimate basis for moaning.

Someone not voting and then moaning about politicians who do get elected is a fair indicator of their intelligence.

Water John · 24-05-2019 3:45pm

Analogies have limited uses and this is not one of them. No problem as someone above says, spoil your vote.
I presume, in a while we all will be voting on out phones anyway. As I say might help the quarter this morning who voted on The Journal survey but won't go to the polling station.
DT, not so much a comment on their intelligence but their commitment.

Never meant to start a thread, but thanks Mod.

Tell me how · 24-05-2019 3:47pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Forcing people to vote does nothing. Solves nothing. Adds nothing.

I largely agree with this sentiment, I think.

But, parts of me wonders if more people should be urged to get involved. The argument being that if they were going to be voting, they would put more consideration in to the topic and the options.

As long as people have the option to spoil their vote, I would be interested in hearing more about the consideration of mandatory voting (or maybe must vote in 50% of opportunities in say 5 years to retain your right to vote.

Tell me how · 24-05-2019 3:49pm

Water John wrote: »

Analogies have limited uses and this is not one of them. No problem as someone above says, spoil your vote.
I presume, in a while we all will be voting on out phones anyway. As I say might help the quarter this morning who voted on The Journal survey but won't go to the polling station.
DT, not so much a comment on their intelligence but their commitment.

Never meant to start a thread, but thanks Mod.

I'd be surprised if any of us were doing this in our lifetime.

Too much dark arts already at play in current systems and this would be a massive attraction to nefarious forces to target.

Imagine not being able to vote because your phone is a Huawei for example.

Beta Ray Bill · 24-05-2019 3:55pm

If the Fine was €50, I'd pay the fine rather than vote.

Problem isn't so much the system rather the candidates.
They're appalling!

Elections would be better done like Jury Duty.
A bunch of Candidates are picked from a pool/constituency at random, the candidates fill out the "About me" section and then the Electorate decide on those candidates and form a Government.

Plumbthedepths · 24-05-2019 3:56pm

Forcing people to vote doesn't sound very democratic.

Tell me how · 24-05-2019 3:57pm

grahambo wrote: »

If the Fine was €50, I'd pay the fine rather than vote.

Problem isn't so much the system rather the candidates.
They're appalling!

Elections would be better done like Jury Duty.
A bunch of Candidates are picked from a pool/constituency at random, the candidates fill out the "About me" section and then the Electorate decide on those candidates and form a Government.

This is a ludicrous suggestion.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 3:57pm

How about this.

Have a new list of people to draw on for jury duty. You can either get onto the list by volunteering to be on it or you are automatically placed on the list if you did not use your vote in the most recent election. For as long as that list stays at say 20% of the electorate, use it for 100% of jury duty so that those that fulfill that civic duty by voting are excused from another civic duty until the next election.

I don't agree with removing peoples right to vote in subsequent elections. Either a cash fine or something like I suggest above

Tell me how · 24-05-2019 4:01pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

How about this.

Have a new list of people to draw on for jury duty. You can either get onto the list by volunteering to be on it or you are automatically placed on the list if you did not use your vote in the most recent election. For as long as that list stays at say 20% of the electorate, use it for 100% of jury duty so that those that fulfil their civic duty by voting are excused from another civic duty until the next election.

I don't agree with removing peoples right to vote in subsequent elections. Either a cash fine or something like I suggest above

No. The idea of a jury being populated by people who had no interest or inclination to vote does not seem to me a way to have a justice system in which a core component are considerate towards the best interests of society.

Beta Ray Bill · 24-05-2019 4:01pm

Tell me how wrote: »

This is a ludicrous suggestion.

Heavy weight problems need heavy weight solutions.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 4:02pm

grahambo wrote: »

If the Fine was €50, I'd pay the fine rather than vote.

Problem isn't so much the system rather the candidates.
They're appalling!

Elections would be better done like Jury Duty.
A bunch of Candidates are picked from a pool/constituency at random, the candidates fill out the "About me" section and then the Electorate decide on those candidates and form a Government.

Would you run for election yourself? If not why not?

And if you won't run now, why do you think you would run if you were randomly selected by your process.

If you don't like how politicians serve you now, imagine how it will pan out when you are being served by people who have no interest in politics or serving their communities, nor have any chance or worries about re-election.

Leroy42 · 24-05-2019 4:04pm

grahambo wrote: »

If the Fine was €50, I'd pay the fine rather than vote.

Problem isn't so much the system rather the candidates.
They're appalling!

Elections would be better done like Jury Duty.
A bunch of Candidates are picked from a pool/constituency at random, the candidates fill out the "About me" section and then the Electorate decide on those candidates and form a Government.

Great, then the state earns back some of the money that was wasted on setting out the facilities that would be required. As it is you are already paying for it through your taxes but simply handing the ability of others to make their voice heard.

Imagine if all those that had not voted previously went to trouble of actually indicating that none of the candidates were acceptable? Instead of being able to simply dismiss you as lazy or uninterested, the political class would take notice.

It is a lot easier to get you to change your vote from None to Mr(S) A then it is to get you off your arse to vote at all.

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.

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 4:04pm

Tell me how wrote: »

No. The idea of a jury being populated by people who had no interest or inclination to vote does not seem to me a way to have a justice system in which a core component are considerate towards the best interests of society.

Well those people are currently in jury pools now anyway. They are as likely to get selected as any other person.

From what I gather, people for jury duty are taken from electoral register so if you are never going to vote, they can take themselves off that and officially have no say in running the country. But I'd tie it into entitlement or access to some other service. By that I'd mean that in order to avail of something, you'd need to be on the electoral register.

BrokenArrows · 24-05-2019 4:09pm

It should be mandatory, but it should also be easier.

There is no reason that we cant have a secure voting system. If everyone in the countries money is safe behind a simple username and password with online banking them surely they can make a voting system.

And in the case where some security breach is found then they just reset the election and tell everyone to vote again.

It just be as easy as installing an app, signing in and voting.

GarIT · 24-05-2019 4:12pm

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It should be mandatory, but it should also be easier.

There is no reason that we cant have a secure voting system. If everyone in the countries money is safe behind a simple username and password with online banking them surely they can make a voting system.

And in the case where some security breach is found then they just reset the election and tell everyone to vote again.

It just be as easy as installing an app, signing in and voting.

That can't work without giving up anonymity and risking people buying or selling votes.

I think it would be a crazy idea to force people who have no interest in voting to just pick whatever face they like the best. Voting should be left to people who want to vote.

Leroy42 · 24-05-2019 4:15pm

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It should be mandatory, but it should also be easier.

There is no reason that we cant have a secure voting system. If everyone in the countries money is safe behind a simple username and password with online banking them surely they can make a voting system.

And in the case where some security breach is found then they just reset the election and tell everyone to vote again.

It just be as easy as installing an app, signing in and voting.

Should be easier?

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

Beta Ray Bill · 24-05-2019 4:15pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would you run for election yourself? If not why not?

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!

Donald Trump wrote: »

And if you won't run now, why do you think you would run if you were randomly selected by your process.

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

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you don't like how politicians serve you now, imagine how it will pan out when you are being served by people who have no interest in politics or serving their communities, nor have any chance or worries about re-election.

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

4068ac1elhodqr · 24-05-2019 4:18pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:21pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:21pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:24pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:25pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:34pm

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 · 24-05-2019 4:40pm

Forcing people to vote, No.

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

Donald Trump · 24-05-2019 4:59pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:02pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:16pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:21pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:24pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:29pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:39pm

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.

24-05-2019 5:46pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:48pm

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 · 24-05-2019 5:51pm

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 · 24-05-2019 6:46pm

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 · 24-05-2019 6:48pm

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

Tell me how · 24-05-2019 6:52pm

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.

Should Voting be mandatory?

Comments