nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should Voting be mandatory?

Water John

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rjd2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forcing people to vote doesn't sound very democratic.

Tell me how

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

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

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

Tell me how wrote: »

This is a ludicrous suggestion.

Heavy weight problems need heavy weight solutions.

Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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