Compulsory Voting in the U.S.?

[Jerkmany]

I know that voting is compulsory in Australia, and obviously they have a majority voter turnout. With the U.S. turnout consistently hovering at around 50% of eligible voters, would a compulsory system be beneficial?

[Farnhamia]

I know that voting is compulsory in Australia, and obviously they have a majority voter turnout. With the U.S. turnout consistently hovering at around 50% of eligible voters, would a compulsory system be beneficial?

The only time turnout dipped below 50% since 1932 was in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn ... _elections). It doesn't hover around 50%, it's consistently above that number. And no.

You might want to explain a little more why you think it would be beneficial.

[Lucifer Sam]

Compulsory voting would cause apathy. That alone is reason enough not to do it.

[Wolfenia]

I know that voting is compulsory in Australia

Nothing stops someone from putting in a single for for “other”, which never includs a party that wins a seat. In thr US, this will likley be replaced with write ins for “Tony Danza” or Mr. “Politicans are Illuminati muslum transexual midgets.”

[Jerkmany]

I know that voting is compulsory in Australia, and obviously they have a majority voter turnout. With the U.S. turnout consistently hovering at around 50% of eligible voters, would a compulsory system be beneficial?

The only time turnout dipped below 50% since 1932 was in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn ... _elections). It doesn't hover around 50%, it's consistently above that number. And no.

You might want to explain a little more why you think it would be beneficial.

I did actually look at the stats. I guess I should have clarified. It hasn't passed 60% since the 70's. My main argument for this system would be the fact that a lot of voters don't vote for various reasons, mainly, the thought that their vote is irrelevant. I do believe that a large portion of the current voting population is uninformed, and I do believe that compulsory voting would both bring out hidden opinions and force people to show interest in elections.

[Norstal]

The only time turnout dipped below 50% since 1932 was in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn ... _elections). It doesn't hover around 50%, it's consistently above that number. And no.

You might want to explain a little more why you think it would be beneficial.

I did actually look at the stats. I guess I should have clarified. It hasn't passed 60% since the 70's. My main argument for this system would be the fact that a lot of voters don't vote for various reasons, mainly, the thought that their vote is irrelevant. I do believe that a large portion of the current voting population is uninformed, and I do believe that compulsory voting would both bring out hidden opinions and force people to show interest in elections.

I don't see how forcing them to vote makes them stop being uninformed. The reason why most people don't vote is because they don't have time for it. Not because they're apathetic about it. Making them vote doesn't give them more time to do research. That's just absurd.

[Greater-London]

Like everywhere else in the world - no compulsory voting. If you can't be bothered to take half an hour or so out your day to vote then to be honest i'm not especially interested in your opinion.

Think there all the same? they aren't
Think your vote doesn't count? It does
Can't be bothered/uninterested? then that's fine but don't complain

[Norstal]

Like everywhere else in the world - no compulsory voting. If you can't be bothered to take half an hour or so out your day to vote then to be honest i'm not especially interested in your opinion.

You work 9-5. Your commute is 1 hour long. The poll station closes at 6. What do?

That's the reality for most people. It's no wonder not a lot of people vote.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Seems like a silly idea. Compulsory voting in general is a silly ideal, since forcing people to exercise their democratic rights infringes on the rights of those who are disinterested in politics, or those who simply don't want to vote.

[Torisakia]

No. Forcing people to get involved with such things will only make things worse.

[Farnhamia]

Like everywhere else in the world - no compulsory voting. If you can't be bothered to take half an hour or so out your day to vote then to be honest i'm not especially interested in your opinion.

You work 9-5. Your commute is 1 hour long. The poll station closes at 6. What do?

That's the reality for most people. It's no wonder not a lot of people vote.

Most states in the US open the polls a couple of hours before 9:00 and don't close them until a couple of hours after 6:00. People don't vote because they don't care, mostly. I would definitely be in favor of moving Election Day from Tuesdays (Tuesdays? Really?) to the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. Think of the fun news commentators would have being able to talk for two whole days straight!

[Greater-London]

You work 9-5. Your commute is 1 hour long. The poll station closes at 6. What do?

That's the reality for most people. It's no wonder not a lot of people vote.

Vote by post or proxy. You can always have the polling stations open longer, in the UK I think its 8 - 10 which even if you work a long shift is doable.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

There are few instances really where compulsory activities are a good thing, and voting isn't one of them.

Low voter turnouts are often a metric of underlying lack of confidence in the available options and/or a broken election system and/or a feeling that voting wouldn't change anything, which is a good thing to have since it brings these issues to light, and in any case is in itself a good enough advantage over any "benefits" compulsory voting may bring.

[Jerkmany]

I don't see how forcing them to vote makes them stop being uninformed. The reason why most people don't vote is because they don't have time for it. Not because they're apathetic about it. Making them vote doesn't give them more time to do research. That's just absurd.

I think that if everyone was required to vote, people would at least find out basic information about the people running so they dont go in blind

[Farnhamia]

I don't see how forcing them to vote makes them stop being uninformed. The reason why most people don't vote is because they don't have time for it. Not because they're apathetic about it. Making them vote doesn't give them more time to do research. That's just absurd.

I think that if everyone was required to vote, people would at least find out basic information about the people running so they dont go in blind

I don't know if that's true. As someone said above, you'd end up with throw-away ballots from people who were annoyed at being forced to vote. Instead of making it compulsory, offer an incentive: show proof you voted on your taxes and get $100 off your tax bill! A select few citizens get their entire tax obligation cancelled and refunded!

[Torisakia]

I don't see how forcing them to vote makes them stop being uninformed. The reason why most people don't vote is because they don't have time for it. Not because they're apathetic about it. Making them vote doesn't give them more time to do research. That's just absurd.

I think that if everyone was required to vote, people would at least find out basic information about the people running so they dont go in blind

That would at least halt some people from voting for someone because of race, sex, etc. Back in 2012, I knew some people who voted for Obama "beacuse he's black".

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think that if everyone was required to vote, people would at least find out basic information about the people running so they dont go in blind

That would at least halt some people from voting for someone because of race, sex, etc. Back in 2012, I knew some people who voted for Obama "beacuse he's black".

No, it really wouldn't.

People would still vote in the laziest way possible, and even more likely would vote pure party ticket in greater numbers.

[Greater-London]

That would at least halt some people from voting for someone because of race, sex, etc. Back in 2012, I knew some people who voted for Obama "beacuse he's black".

Wouldn't that would make voting along sex,race, ETC more likely?

Surely someone who knows nothing about politics, with no interest in politics will likely vote along those sort of lines than make a thought out choice.

[New Werpland]

I think that voting should be compulsory for smart people.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think that voting should be compulsory for smart people.

Define smart.

[Farnhamia]

I think that voting should be compulsory for smart people.

Define smart.

Well, him, I'm sure, for one. Then me. Maybe you.

[New Werpland]

I think that voting should be compulsory for smart people.

Define smart.

leftist

[The Emerald Dawn]

Define smart.

Well, him, I'm sure, for one. Then me. Maybe you.

If I'm on that list, we're fooked.

Define smart.

leftist

And there goes the bigotry.

[Greater-London]

leftist

In case your not a troll. REALLY silly argument. Clever people can be found all over the old political/economic spectrum. Clever isn't simply people who agree with you.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I think that voting should be compulsory for smart people.

What about smart casual?