Compulsory voting: yes or no?

[The Liberated Territories]

I find it fascinating how many threads on this forum basically go like this:

OP: "Should people be required to..."
Swarm of responses: "No no no NO NO NOOOO!!! Fascist! Dictatorship! Slavery! NEVERRR!!!!"

Only until it comes to economics. Then banning lightbulbs and shit becomes okay.

[Atlanticatia]

No. If someone doesn't want to vote, they should have the option not to.

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

[Constantinopolis]

I've said it before in an edit, but let me say it again in a new post:

Irrational voting has no impact on the result, because it benefits all sides equally.

You have no reason to worry about stupid voting decisions unless they are likely to skew the result towards one specific side. If the number of stupid throw-away votes that each side gets is roughly the same, those votes had no impact and they are of no concern.

[The Serbian Empire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... 13#Results

Where are the insane and irrational political parties that were elected in Australia as a result of compulsory voting?

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

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

[Herrebrugh]

So long as voting blanco would be an option, sure.

[Atlanticatia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... 13#Results

Where are the insane and irrational political parties that were elected in Australia as a result of compulsory voting?

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

True. But we got George Bush without compulsory voting.
And he lied his way into Parliament, so I don't know if it really counts.

[The Liberated Territories]

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

True. But we got George Bush without compulsory voting.
And he lied his way into Parliament, so I don't know if it really counts.

All of them lie their way into power. Some just do it more than others.

[Scomagia]

No. If someone doesn't want to vote, they should have the option not to.

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

There are people who do not vote specifically because they believe the process is broken; me, for instance. Choosing "none of the above" is voting, it's just voting for no one.

[Atlanticatia]

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

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.

[Herrebrugh]

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

There are people who do not vote specifically because they believe the process is broken; me, for instance. Choosing "none of the above" is voting, it's just voting for no one.

I'm sure you can't be arrested for tearing up the ballot and putting that in. Even with compulsory voting.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... 13#Results

Where are the insane and irrational political parties that were elected in Australia as a result of compulsory voting?

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

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 Scientific States]

No. If someone doesn't want to vote, they should have the option not to.

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

If we force people to vote, we'll have all the apathetic people who know nothing about the canidates voting.

[MERIZoC]

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

There are people who do not vote specifically because they believe the process is broken; me, for instance. Choosing "none of the above" is voting, it's just voting for no one.

Well that's just silly. It all amounts to the same.

[Salandriagado]

Forcing uninformed voters who had no intention to vote isn't going to be good as they will just vote in the most irrational ways just to avoid the fine.

Statistically speaking, if they vote at random, then they won't have any impact on the result at all (if you get a large group of people to vote at random, then their votes will be distributed equally between the various options, so they won't make a difference for the result).

So no, you don't have anything to worry about from "irrational voting".

Except that people who are low-information voters tended to favor who was alphabetically first in the order which depending on the ballot may be a political party or worse yet, a candidate like George W. Bush. They aren't voting for who is giving them the most benefits as much as just who is on the top of the page.

In that case they will statistically vote for a Democrat 50% of the time and for a Republican the other 50% of the time. Thus, no impact.

Irrational voting has no impact on the result, because it benefits all sides equally.

Except that they don't vote randomly. They troll-vote for joke parties, or they vote for the first one alphabetically.

[The Scientific States]

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

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 Australian Liberal Party is a centre right, Conservative party. Abott, on the other hand, is probably one of the most right wing people in his party.

[Atlanticatia]

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

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

Australian Liberals are the conservative party. It's named that because of economic liberalism/classic liberalism i.e. deregulation and laissez faire, etc.

[Constantinopolis]

There are people who do not vote specifically because they believe the process is broken; me, for instance. Choosing "none of the above" is voting, it's just voting for no one.

I'm sure you can't be arrested for tearing up the ballot and putting that in. Even with compulsory voting.

In fact, you could write "fuck you all" on the ballot and put that in if you wanted to. No one can look at your ballot until they actually start the counting.

[Scomagia]

There are people who do not vote specifically because they believe the process is broken; me, for instance. Choosing "none of the above" is voting, it's just voting for no one.

Well that's just silly. It all amounts to the same.

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

[The Scientific States]

Abott won the election, so you sort of answered your own question.

True. But we got George Bush without compulsory voting.
And he lied his way into Parliament, so I don't know if it really counts.

Meh, Gore won the popular vote, but that's for another thread.

[MERIZoC]

I agree, but isn't checking "None of the above" equal to not voting? If someone really has no interest in voting, they could do that.

I just think that people should make a true decision not to vote.

If we force people to vote, we'll have all the apathetic people who know nothing about the canidates voting.

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

[New Acardia]

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

This

[Atlanticatia]

True. But we got George Bush without compulsory voting.
And he lied his way into Parliament, so I don't know if it really counts.

Meh, Gore won the popular vote, but that's for another thread.

Can we please abolish the Electoral College?

[The Scientific States]

If we force people to vote, we'll have all the apathetic people who know nothing about the canidates voting.

….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...

[The Scientific States]

Meh, Gore won the popular vote, but that's for another thread.

Can we please abolish the Electoral College?

So much yes.

[Herrebrugh]

Well that's just silly. It all amounts to the same.

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.