Should People Vote?

[R.Mackey]

No. The first amendment does not say "you have the right to free speech and freedom of the press/assembly, provided you use them responsibly/do not abuse them." A definition such as this clearly leads to the loss of the right.

That definition exists, is clear, and does indeed infringe the right. See Shenck vs. United States for the most obvious example.

You have to include case law associated with the Amendments, since that's how they're actually used. I of course don't dispute that the actual text of the Amendments is brief, but they aren't the whole definition of the rights.

Taken in total, they do in fact levy responsibilities on us to use those rights responsibly.

I can full well buy a gun and keep it under my bed for the rest of my life. In doing so, I am not using my right/responsibility for any personal or public good - in fact, other than ownership, I'm not using the right at all.

I cannot, however, shoot my mailman for no good reason. There are limits to the scope of the second amendment, as there are any other right. In this, there is the distinction between what is proscribed behavior for my right and limits to what I cannot do with my right.

I consider these limits to be a subset of the responsibilities. But the right isn't just about what you do as an individual. It's about what The People do, as well.

The other part of responsibility, however, is cultural and not codified in law -- except when it's relied upon for legal opinion, which does frequently happen. I don't think the US Constitution is the only way to govern nor do I think it would necessarily work in a different culture. But for our culture, as designed, the Framers crafted a set of laws that worked with our cultural identity. That identity includes a particular sense of duty and responsibility.

The First Amendment, for example. Societies can exist without this right (looking at you, Comrade Putin). But ours could not. People have the responsibility to use this right to speak out against governmental excess, just as they have the right to vote.

Sure, lots of people don't, just like lots of people don't vote. The system is suboptimal. But it works. As long as those rights are there, the option to act stays available, people can fulfill their duty when it counts, we're in good shape. More people would speak up and more would vote, I think, if we were ever faced with a truly severe problem. Let's say we had an election to determine whether California was expelled from the Union. Think the turnout for that would be ~ 40%? Or much, much higher?

If it ever got to a point where nobody voted or spoke up, to the point that The People no longer exercises its right, we'd have a crisis, even a revolution on our hands... Our government as it is would no longer function properly. Luckily I don't see this happening, ever.

Our responsibilities are collective, or so the Framers intended. Interestingly, the rights they enumerated were also collective. We've gotten selfish about the rights but we haven't stepped up as individuals to accept the responsibilities. Typical human behavior.

I'm not criticizing you, I've been just as guilty. Pretty much everyone has.

The only requirement I can see for voting (other than being of the appropriate age) is citizenship. Participation/contribution is incumbent upon being a citizen in a given society. So if you want to tie some sort of civil/military service to voting, you should require those things for citizenship.

No argument here.

I'm personally suspicious of tests for citizenship, since it's too easy for this to be subverted. We had slavery here once. It could happen again, but it must not. And it can't so long as we exercise our rights and discharge our responsibility.

 

[Uncle Otto]

It seems to me, really, it comes down to an issue of whether you see voting as a right, or a responsibility. You clearly see it as a right, and as a right, therefore you should neither be forced to do it, nor prevented from doing it. I get that. Others see it more as a responsibility, in which case forcing people to vote does make sense.

Does that make sense?

Makes no sense to me at all. We aren't talking about military service, or jury duty, both of which produce direct or indirect benefits to the society as a whole. I can't understand the logic behind forcing people to drive to a polling place, and get in line to stuff a blank sheet of paper into a ballot box. What is the benefit in that other than pissing off a lot of people and wasting lots of paper and other resources?

When you stop to think about it, compulsory voting criminalizes thoughts. If I don't think anyone on the ballot is fit to vote for, why should I pay a fine for expressing that opinion by not voting at all? You are being penalized for not expressing a political opinion, whether it's considered a right or a responsibility or both doesn't matter. You have the right to express your religious beliefs. Should I be fined for not expressing mine? Or for simply not having any? Just because you have a certain right does not mean that you should be forced to excercise it.

I'm not sure if I should look at this as something from George Orwell or Alice in Wonderland. I'm an American, so I obviously have a very different perspective on such an issue than someone in Australia might have.

Now don't get me wrong, I voted in the last elections here, although it was of course a complete waste of time in my Congressional district. I live in an area that is so lopsided Republican, that voting anything else is like taking a piss on the Great Chicago Fire. Seriously-----my state gov't is so overwhelmingly Republican that the few Democrats that are in office are nothing but ineffectual window dressing. They never get anything they want, and never get anything accomplished without the permission of the Republicans. It's pathetic. They are completely ignored by the majority. I have zero representation here. None.

So I completely understand why some people don't vote. They see no point in it given their circumstances. They will tell you that their votes don't count, and at least in the U.S. system----they may well be quite correct.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Makes no sense to me at all. We aren't talking about military service, or jury duty, both of which produce direct or indirect benefits to the society as a whole.

# Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management
# Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll

These aren't direct benefits?

Where I chafe, however, is at the notion that we should be made to participate.

You're not made to participate. You're made to get your name checked off the electoral roll.

 

[Uncle Otto]

These aren't direct benefits?



You're not made to participate. You're made to get your name checked off the electoral roll.

Has anyone ever demonstrated these "benefits" to have actually happened as a result of forced voting? The politicians will have no better idea of what the actual political landscape is by staring at blank ballots than they did before they were cast. Exactly how, with a crystal ball? And it in no way forces the gov't to consider the total electorate because they still have no clue just what that consists of by reading election results of questionable legitimacy because they were forced votes. Also, politicians generally are definitely NOT going to look after the best interests of people who they know didn't vote for them, whether the vote was voluntary or coerced. Reality just doesn't work that way.

And yes you are indeed being forced to participate. This is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. How can being forced to go to a voting place and cast a ballot be in any way considered as non-participation? Such a notion would require completely redefining the word "participation". That's like saying you didn't participate at a play or a movie even though you were forced to buy a ticket, attend and watch.

 

[DC]

How about a small tax cut for voters?
just to make it a bit more attractive as it is already anyway.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Has anyone ever demonstrated these "benefits" to have actually happened as a result of forced voting?

They are both rather self-evident. Sure, a party won't always want to appeal to everyone for everything, but compulsory voting certainly encourages more inclusive policy-making. It's simple mathematics.

The politicians will have no better idea of what the actual political landscape is by staring at blank ballots than they did before they were cast.

The point is that they must consider all the voters, rather than just subsets of society who might come out to vote more often or have the most money contributed to the political system/party.

Exactly how, with a crystal ball?

The same way public figures gauge public opinion/perception about anything else they might deal with. Again, imperfect but hardly impossible.

And it in no way forces the gov't to consider the total electorate because they still have no clue just what that consists of

Well, I certainly don't mean "forced", I think it encourages. You don't need to read the electorate's mind, you just have to know that they will be there to judge you. Sure, you might read the electorate wrong and get turfed out. Unlucky.

by reading election results of questionable legitimacy because they were forced votes.

Election results would only be "questionable" in societies with an underdeveloped sense of civic responsibility. If you want to say that's what would happen in the US, then I might not argue. As nobody is actually forced to vote, there is no reason to doubt election results. If people truly don't wish to participate, they may vote informally. I have done so on 2 occasions in the last 3 elections. Australia's most recent Federal elections saw large increases in informal voting in some states (~10%), representing the public's general lukewarm outlook, but that's still ~90% that felt it worthwhile to complete a ballot properly.

I happen to think the apparent ~5% swing it gives to parties closer to the centre is a great benefit to Aust politics.

Also, politicians generally are definitely NOT going to look after the best interests of people who they know didn't vote for them, whether the vote was voluntary or coerced. Reality just doesn't work that way.

No, but they can be sure that such people will vote against them, which is just as good.

And yes you are indeed being forced to participate. This is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. How can being forced to go to a voting place and cast a ballot be in any way considered as non-participation? Such a notion would require completely redefining the word "participation".

An informal vote is not participation. I am not under any more 'force' re voting than I am if I want to park in a disabled car spot. I pay a fine. That isn't force.

In any case, even if I agreed that it is forced participation, then it is merely the same level of forced participation that exists alongside jury duty, paying taxes, paying super annuation, filling out census forms etc.

That's like saying you didn't participate at a play or a movie even though you were forced to buy a ticket, attend and watch.

You almost had me agreeing 'til you used this truly terrible analogy. It's actually like saying I didn't participate in the movie because whilst I lined up and bought a ticket, I threw it away and I didn't go into the cinema or watch the film.

 

[Uncle Otto]

Sorry but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see it as forced participation and no mistake. Again my perspective is obviously a lot different that it is for an Aussie on this matter. I certainly don't think such a practice would ever fly where I live.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Two, definitely. Democracy was created, in the first place, to ensure that government worked for the good of the society, and not for the benefit of individuals. Those who aren't willing to contribute to the collective improvement of society through community work shouldn't get any say in what direction society should go.

Some may be willing, but be unable. What would you do with someone who was completely paralysed?

 

[followmycaravan]

I believe in the voting process. What is completely unacceptable is the obligatory vote that happens in countries such as Brazil, Australia and Singapore

 

[IchabodPlain]

You're not made to participate. You're made to get your name checked off the electoral roll.

Why?

What is the purpose of having your name checked of an electoral roll? To make voter turnout look better? If someone doesn't want to vote, or hasn't taken an interest in voting or the issues involved, why force them to go to the polls anyway?

It seems that all those who want to vote at any given time, usually do. Why skew results in favor of people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered? Aren't those people the exact same who know little to nothing about the issues/candidates?

 

[IchabodPlain]

That definition exists, is clear, and does indeed infringe the right. See Shenck vs. United States for the most obvious example.

You have to include case law associated with the Amendments, since that's how they're actually used. I of course don't dispute that the actual text of the Amendments is brief, but they aren't the whole definition of the rights.

Taken in total, they do in fact levy responsibilities on us to use those rights responsibly.



I consider these limits to be a subset of the responsibilities. But the right isn't just about what you do as an individual. It's about what The People do, as well.

The other part of responsibility, however, is cultural and not codified in law -- except when it's relied upon for legal opinion, which does frequently happen. I don't think the US Constitution is the only way to govern nor do I think it would necessarily work in a different culture. But for our culture, as designed, the Framers crafted a set of laws that worked with our cultural identity. That identity includes a particular sense of duty and responsibility.

The First Amendment, for example. Societies can exist without this right (looking at you, Comrade Putin). But ours could not. People have the responsibility to use this right to speak out against governmental excess, just as they have the right to vote.

Sure, lots of people don't, just like lots of people don't vote. The system is suboptimal. But it works. As long as those rights are there, the option to act stays available, people can fulfill their duty when it counts, we're in good shape. More people would speak up and more would vote, I think, if we were ever faced with a truly severe problem. Let's say we had an election to determine whether California was expelled from the Union. Think the turnout for that would be ~ 40%? Or much, much higher?

If it ever got to a point where nobody voted or spoke up, to the point that The People no longer exercises its right, we'd have a crisis, even a revolution on our hands... Our government as it is would no longer function properly. Luckily I don't see this happening, ever.

Our responsibilities are collective, or so the Framers intended. Interestingly, the rights they enumerated were also collective. We've gotten selfish about the rights but we haven't stepped up as individuals to accept the responsibilities. Typical human behavior.

I'm not criticizing you, I've been just as guilty. Pretty much everyone has.

From my view, the Bill of Rights lays down explicit freedoms. Those freedoms are then limited in various ways by the courts, usually because they in some way infringe on another right. Shenk vs. US seems to fit this view. Then there are also informal responsibilities that are not enshrined into law which, as a culture, we accept - but these are not formal limits (i.e. law).

The main difference, as I see it, is that rights do not have a proscribed behavior for the use of those rights. Rather, limitations to the scope of those rights (where the right ends) is left to the judiciary. Also, those informal responsibilities can become formal limitations - as in the case of Shenk vs. US. For another example, having a gun for the explicit purpose of hunting is not unconstitutional, though the second amendment makes no such reference to hunting.

No argument here.

I'm personally suspicious of tests for citizenship, since it's too easy for this to be subverted. We had slavery here once. It could happen again, but it must not. And it can't so long as we exercise our rights and discharge our responsibility.

I would be against it as well, but if we put our disagreement of rights and responsibilities aside, we are left with 3 main criteria for voting:

Appropriate age
Citizenship
Contribution/responsibility/participation

I think the last bit is covered inherently in being a citizen of a given society and therefore redundant. If you are a citizen you will be responsible for contributing/participating*, whether by work, school, paying taxes, etc..


Being of the appropriate age seems fair because you must live within the system for a given period of time and have the mental faculties to understand the choices presented.

Which leaves citizenship - I think this is also where other countries (and Heinlein) insert their requirement for military/civil service. Not for voting per se, but for citizenship in general - a right of which is voting.

*ETA:You can even define participation to include receiving unemployment, driving on roads, parents action on their child's behalf, etc...

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Why?

Because once people are actually at the polling booth, most take it for the serious civic duty that it is. And it gives people the opportunity to conscientiously object.

If someone doesn't want to vote, or hasn't taken an interest in voting or the issues involved, why force them to go to the polls anyway?

This has already been explained.

It seems that all those who want to vote at any given time, usually do. Why skew results in favor of people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered?

Because I don’t want my vote rendered meaningless by lazy or apathetic people. I don’t want my political system skewed by voluntary voting. I don’t want politicians wasting their time on “vote drives” rather than policy discussion and debate. Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years (or twice if we’re counting states) isn’t the end of the world. At least not for me.

Aren't those people the exact same who know little to nothing about the issues/candidates?

If someone truly doesn’t care or feels they are not well informed enough they can vote informally.

 

[Dinwar]

Because once people are actually at the polling booth, most take it for the serious civic duty that it is.

It's too late at that point. It's like studying the minute before a test--you should have done your homework WELL before you came to this point, and trying to make sense of it now simply cannot work.

I'm not saying that such people are stupid, but they ARE ignorant of the issues.

This has already been explained.

Not really. It's been explained that they can cast a vote that is not valid and it still counts. However, that is no different from not casting a vote, except that it wastes time and resources while increasing the potential for voting blindly.

Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years (or twice if we’re counting states) isn’t the end of the world. At least not for me.

And this is EXACTLY my problem with compulsory voting: it's viewed as "Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years..." In reality, for something as complex as politics in an industrialized country (agrarian politics is a bit simpler, but still complex), this isn't enough time to formulate an informed opinion on one issue, let alone a whole ballot. If I only had 15-30 minutes per issue, per year I would abstain from voting as an acknowledgement that I take my civic duty seriously, at least seriously enough to understand what I did and did not have an informed opinion on.

 

[Zep]

It seems to me that we need to make the distinction between "casting a ballot" and "voting".

What if there was an option at each ballot which was effectively "Don't care"? For example, the candidates were listed like this:

[1] STALIN, Joe
[2] CHURCHILL, Winnie
[3] ROOSEVELT, Eleanor
[4] Write in: ____________________
[5] NO SELECTION

As I see it, the "right to vote" is actually a "right to cast a ballot", and I view that as a duty that I am obliged to perform from time to time. That means taking the time to turn up at a polling place and voting. However that does not mean I have to make a valid vote. I just need to cast a ballot (in Australia, it's still a paper ballot system).

If there was a "Don't care" option, if I want to make a considered decision to not select any of the candidates for my own reasons, I can legitimately do so. Even if voting was compulsory, my civic duty is done: I've cast a valid ballot. And my voting opinion is registered: I decided none of the candidates were worthy.

Idea?

 

[Zep]

It's too late at that point. It's like studying the minute before a test--you should have done your homework WELL before you came to this point, and trying to make sense of it now simply cannot work.

I'm not saying that such people are stupid, but they ARE ignorant of the issues.

Not really. It's been explained that they can cast a vote that is not valid and it still counts. However, that is no different from not casting a vote, except that it wastes time and resources while increasing the potential for voting blindly.

And this is EXACTLY my problem with compulsory voting: it's viewed as "Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years..." In reality, for something as complex as politics in an industrialized country (agrarian politics is a bit simpler, but still complex), this isn't enough time to formulate an informed opinion on one issue, let alone a whole ballot. If I only had 15-30 minutes per issue, per year I would abstain from voting as an acknowledgement that I take my civic duty seriously, at least seriously enough to understand what I did and did not have an informed opinion on.

Except that with compulsory voting, the candidates concentrate their public "message" and thus debate solely on the issues, because they do not need to push voting attendance at all.

Reality is that even with compulsory voting (and I'm using Australia as an example), many voters will still habitually vote by party or political alliegance, by family alliegance, or simply "donkey" (numbered down the paper). Those that don't do this, the thoughtful voters, are the "swingers" who actually make the decisive votes.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

It's too late at that point. It's like studying the minute before a test--you should have done your homework WELL before you came to this point, and trying to make sense of it now simply cannot work.

Um, what? You seem fixated on this for no sensible reason. Who says people haven’t done any homework before this point? People know they are expected to vote therefore few are still wondering about “the issues” in the polling line. Compulsory voting helps engender feelings of civic responsibility.

I'm not saying that such people are stupid, but they ARE ignorant of the issues.

This goes for people who vote in a voluntary system. So what?

Not really. It's been explained that they can cast a vote that is not valid and it still counts. However, that is no different from not casting a vote, except that it wastes time and resources while increasing the potential for voting blindly.

Last time I checked we weren’t about to run out of pencils or pieces of paper. I find the criticism that it wastes resources to be rather silly, and thoroughly unimportant.

And this is EXACTLY my problem with compulsory voting: it's viewed as "Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years..." In reality, for something as complex as politics in an industrialized country (agrarian politics is a bit simpler, but still complex), this isn't enough time to formulate an informed opinion on one issue, let alone a whole ballot. If I only had 15-30 minutes per issue, per year I would abstain from voting as an acknowledgement that I take my civic duty seriously, at least seriously enough to understand what I did and did not have an informed opinion on.

Again, I find your mischaracterisation of my words extremely silly. 15-30 minutes is the time it takes to vote. The electorate have 3 years to make up their mind before they’re required to spend 15-30 minutes of their time actually voting (and most of that time is standing in line). Nobody I know of spends that 30 minutes suddenly researching the issues. Everyone knows what’s important to them going in.

 

[Fiona]

Why should I be forced to vote at times when I do not believe I am being offered a meaningful alternative? I see absolutely no reason why I should be made to behave as if there were real differences when the parties on my ballot have decided that they all agree on the issues which matter to me and agree in ways I find repugnant. I am not apathetic: I am disgusted

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Why should I be forced to vote at times when I do not believe I am being offered a meaningful alternative? I see absolutely no reason why I should be made to behave as if there were real differences when the parties on my ballot have decided that they all agree on the issues which matter to me and agree in ways I find repugnant. I am not apathetic: I am disgusted

So vote informally/don’t enrol/pay a fine/pretend you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.

 

[Fiona]

So vote informally/don’t enrol/pay a fine/pretend you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.

Why should I ?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Why should I ?

Why shouldn’t you?