Compulsory voting: yes or no?

[Vasatra]

OOC: compulsory voting much less non-democratic than compulsory military service or even compulsory jury service, but it still requires some level of coercion, if only a token fine. In some places, especially in the US, the local governments are placing barriers against voting, and I can see these same localities (Pennsylvania, Florida, etc) punishing people turned away for inadequate ID for not voting. The way to increase voter turnout is, imho, simple: move election day to Sunday and require employers to make accommodations to permit people to vote.

[Constantinopolis]

How the shit does he identify as, and lead the Australian liberal party?
I honestly thought he led whatever the Australian conservative party was.

The word "liberal" in most of the world refers to a political position that in the US would be called moderate libertarian.

In other words, liberal = pro-market, pro-business.

[MERIZoC]

….and? As someone already said, if some people vote randomly, it doesn't do anything to the results.

We'd get leaders the informed populace didn't want...

No we wouldn't. Say we have 3 candidates. 10 million voters are just completely ignorant and vote at random. When that happens, the votes will be evenly distributed amongst the three candidates, therefore not affecting the election.

[Herrebrugh]

OOC: compulsory voting much less non-democratic than compulsory military service or even compulsory jury service, but it still requires some level of coercion, if only a token fine. In some places, especially in the US, the local governments are placing barriers against voting, and I can see these same localities (Pennsylvania, Florida, etc) punishing people turned away for inadequate ID for not voting. The way to increase voter turnout is, imho, simple: move election day to Sunday and require employers to make accommodations to permit people to vote.

General is an out of character forum. You don't have to put "OOC:" before your post.

[The Serbian Empire]

And guess what his last name is... the first in alphabetical order.

In Australia, the Prime Minister is indirectly elected. People don't check "Tony Abbott" on a box. So people would vote for the Liberal Party/their constituency's candidate.

That is true. However, it might explain how far-right parties like Australia First can get 4% of a vote in an area with far fewer people willing to admit far-right views.

[New Acardia]

Makes as much sense as the death penal for attempted suicide.

Delete

[The Scientific States]

We'd get leaders the informed populace didn't want...

No we wouldn't. Say we have 3 candidates. 10 million voters are just completely ignorant and vote at random. When that happens, the votes will be evenly distributed amongst the three candidates, therefore not affecting the election.

No. The uninformed voters would probably pick whoever made the best statements, or whoever had the coolest name.

[Tevona]

I suppose your position on this depends whether you see elections as the time when society comes together to decide policy for the next few years, or whether they are simply a peaceful way for those who are interested to collectively decide who will rule over them. If the latter, you'll see no need for compulsory voting. If, like me, you support the first viewpoint then compulsory voting is just one of a number of proposals; you already touch on proportional representation, but what about major reforms of party/campaign finance, a degree of direct democracy, unicameralism, formal representation of worker's unions in government (together with mass unionisation drives, and - since you're American - abolition of the electoral college and direct popular election of the President or (even better!) abolition of the presidency itself and adoption of a parliamentary republic. All would serve to broaden participation and give power to the people.

[Risottia]

In the USA, voter turnout is about 50-60% for federal elections.

In my opinion, we need compulsory voting in all federal congressional and presidential elections to fix our broken political system. ...

Good idea ONLY if you couple it with a "none of the above" option, with a rule that if a plurality votes for "none of the above", you must hold a new round of elections with entirely different candidates.

Anyway, the US needs other kinds of electoral reforms with greater urgence than compulsory voting. Like electing the President via direct popular vote (just like in France), or getting the House of Representatives elected with the proportional system on a nationwide constituency.

[The Serbian Empire]

How the shit does he identify as, and lead the Australian liberal party?
I honestly thought he led whatever the Australian conservative party was.

The word "liberal" in most of the world refers to a political position that in the US would be called moderate libertarian.

In other words, liberal = pro-market, pro-business.

Yes, exactly and a stance I'd support.

[The Liberated Territories]

How the shit does he identify as, and lead the Australian liberal party?
I honestly thought he led whatever the Australian conservative party was.

The word "liberal" in most of the world refers to a political position that in the US would be called moderate libertarian.

In other words, liberal = pro-market, pro-business.

Not pro-business.

Pro-business would mean protectionism, corporate welfare, and tariffs, which are conservative markers. Not classical liberal.

[MERIZoC]

No we wouldn't. Say we have 3 candidates. 10 million voters are just completely ignorant and vote at random. When that happens, the votes will be evenly distributed amongst the three candidates, therefore not affecting the election.

No. The uninformed voters would probably pick whoever made the best statements, or whoever had the coolest name.

If they're uninformed, how do they know who made the best statements? And for coolest name, that's subjective, so it too would be random.

[Scomagia]

It's a matter of principle. If I vote for no one I am still recognizing the current voting system's legitimacy.

So tear up the ballot or write an elaborate explanation of why you choose not to vote on it.

I suppose either of those would be acceptable. I just refuse to vote while fellow citizens are being denied the same right.

[Risottia]

OOC: compulsory voting much less non-democratic than compulsory military service

...considering how the military draft isn't non-democratic, that's not saying a lot.

[The Scientific States]

No. The uninformed voters would probably pick whoever made the best statements, or whoever had the coolest name.

If they're uninformed, how do they know who made the best statements? And for coolest name, that's subjective, so it too would be random.

Most "uninformed" voters know a few things about the candidates. When I say uniformed, I don't mean people who know absolutely nothing.

[Carbon based lifeforms]

I think you should start by getting rid of first-past-the-post. That should give a new impulse to US politics: small parties would become viable, the two big ones would have to work a lot harder for their votes, etc. All in all, it would get people a lot more engaged in politics.

I suspect you may find that compulsory voting is not necessary if the voting system makes people feel that their vote is relevant.

[Atlanticatia]

In Australia, the fee for non-voting is $20. 96% of the electorate votes.

Non-voting wouldn't be criminalized. It's a civic duty. If you don't fulfill your civic duty of either voting for someone or saying you don't agree with anyone and would like to vote for none of the above, then you pay $20.

Here's an excerpt from the Australian Electoral Commission:

Arguments used in favour of compulsory voting
Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform e.g. taxation, compulsory education, jury duty
Teaches the benefits of political participation
Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate"
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
The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.
Arguments used against compulsory voting:
It is undemocratic to force people to vote – an infringement of liberty
The ill informed and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls
It may increase the number of "donkey votes"
It may increase the number of informal votes
It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates – political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates
Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

Arguments used against compulsory voting:
It is undemocratic to force people to vote – an infringement of liberty
The ill informed and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls
It may increase the number of "donkey votes"
It may increase the number of informal votes
It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates – political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates
Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

I'd even support a fine as small as $5-$10. It's just that, imo, compulsory voting would mean people would have to make an informed decision to be apathetic, rather than just not caring, and only those who are targeted as special interests vote.

[Cheye]

Don't know if this has already been said but surely in the US compulsory voting wouldn't really change much, the two party system and the Electoral College in Presidential's would sort of out-weigh any uplift in turnout, although I suppose at more local levels it could have an impact.

However over here in the UK, where we're seeing lots of different parties starting to do well, many of them as a result of lower turnout percentages, I'd generally be open to the introduction of compulsory voting; but it would have to be accompanied by more political education, the people I know over here who don't vote mostly either don't know enough or aren't open-minded enough to do so. So it could help but as with many things I think education is the main answer.

[Spoder]

What a stupid question.

Of course not.

[Herrebrugh]

What a stupid question.

Of course not.

Not many arguments...

[MERIZoC]

If they're uninformed, how do they know who made the best statements? And for coolest name, that's subjective, so it too would be random.

Most "uninformed" voters know a few things about the candidates. When I say uniformed, I don't mean people who know absolutely nothing.

If they know something about the candidate, then they probably know the candidate's positions. And they probably agree or disagree with them.

[The Scientific States]

Most "uninformed" voters know a few things about the candidates. When I say uniformed, I don't mean people who know absolutely nothing.

If they know something about the candidate, then they probably know the candidate's positions. And they probably agree or disagree with them.

Well, then what's the point of them voting? In your mind, it wouldn't make a difference, so why make it compulsory to vote? If one wants to participate in the election of our leaders, great. If they don't, we shouldn't stop that.

[Dejanic]

The word "liberal" in most of the world refers to a political position that in the US would be called moderate libertarian.

In other words, liberal = pro-market, pro-business.

Not pro-business.

Pro-business would mean protectionism, corporate welfare, and tariffs, which are conservative markers. Not classical liberal.

Ya this is true, Conservatives are pro-business, Libertarians/Classical Liberals are pro-market. Big difference right there (though a lot of ultra Conservatives have started calling themselves Libertarian recently, to seem more "hip").

The one thing I'll respect the Libertarians for, no corporate bailout shit.

[Constantinopolis]

The word "liberal" in most of the world refers to a political position that in the US would be called moderate libertarian.

In other words, liberal = pro-market, pro-business.

Not pro-business.

Pro-business would mean protectionism, corporate welfare, and tariffs, which are conservative markers. Not classical liberal.

Eh, the political position called "liberalism" in most of the world tends to mingle those two. They're not trying to be ideologically pure. That's why I said they'd be called moderate libertarians in the US. As in, on the libertarian side of the mainstream, but still well within the mainstream.

[MERIZoC]

If they know something about the candidate, then they probably know the candidate's positions. And they probably agree or disagree with them.

Well, then what's the point of them voting? In your mind, it wouldn't make a difference, so why make it compulsory to vote? If one wants to participate in the election of our leaders, great. If they don't, we shouldn't stop that.

You make it compulsory to vote so that those who do care, but sometimes can't be bothered to vote will. You make it compulsory so that everyone's voice is heard.