Compulsory voting

[mdwh]

No.

I'm saying that there should be a 'none of the above option' and that i'm unsure of the issue of complusory voting. If you read the whole thread and looked at the poll results you would know that.

Okay - in which case, the issue of whether there's a party one agrees with, or the idea of standing yourself, is irrelevant.

But the question then becomes, where is the value in forcing such people who don't want to vote to march down to the voting booth?

 

[BasketCase]

There is none.

If there's a "none of the above" option, grabbing a person who genuinely doesn't care and shoving him into a voting booth will cause him to tell the election officials what they should already have figured out: that he genuinely doesn't care.

If there's no "none of the above" option, then by forcing a person to choose a candidate, the election officials are forcing the unwilling voter to lie.

Either way, compulsory voting has no value at all. Refusing to vote IS a form of voting. And it saves paper.

 

[Solver]

I can only agree with everyone who's against compulsory voting. I see two main problems:

1. A waste of time and effort on many people. So many will go and return "none" or invalid ballots. So, what's the point in forcing them to do that?
2. A result much less representative of what the people vote. You force people to vote, and you're guaranteed that a good portion of those who would've abstained will vote for someone semi-randomly. Because they like the number the party's listed under, because they think a candidate's name is cool, because he looks good, etc. You already get some of these voters, but with compulsory voting, there will be many more such voters.

So as a result, compulsory voting would seriously undermine democracy.

Compulsory voting would also probably be hard to introduce in most countries. For example, my country's constitution explicitly mentions a "right to vote", which, not being an "obligation to vote" means you can abstain. And changing the constitution is quite hard. Then again, the UK, who proposes this time, has no (codified) constitution.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Okay - in which case, the issue of whether there's a party one agrees with, or the idea of standing yourself, is irrelevant.

But the question then becomes, where is the value in forcing such people who don't want to vote to march down to the voting booth?

Well, at leats in the UK, voter turnout is very low, and I want it to increaee and for more people to learn about politics and cast a vote. i am wondering perhaps if making voting compulsory would eman poeple paid a bit more intrest because they knew that they 'had to' cast a vote, however i don't really like the thought of punishing someone for not voting. A bit of a no win sitution!

 

[Solver]

The fault in that logic is that making people vote won't make them learn about politics. Some will; many won't, and will cast random votes. Also, interestingly, some of the people who don't vote actually do know about the political events, they just choose not to vote because they don't have a candidate they like, because they're satisfied with the current situation, or other reasons.

 

[warpus]

The fault in that logic is that making people vote won't make them learn about politics. Some will; many won't, and will cast random votes. Also, interestingly, some of the people who don't vote actually do know about the political events, they just choose not to vote because they don't have a candidate they like, because they're satisfied with the current situation, or other reasons.

This is the reason why I don't think compulsory voting would work - unless only people who pass a political/iq test are allowed to vote.

And even if you pass the test and have to vote - you'd have to be given the option "I don't want to vote for any of these jackasses".

It would send a strong message to the various political parties if 30% of people voted "I don't like any of the parties/candidates".

 

[mdwh]

Well, at leats in the UK, voter turnout is very low, and I want it to increaee and for more people to learn about politics and cast a vote. i am wondering perhaps if making voting compulsory would eman poeple paid a bit more intrest because they knew that they 'had to' cast a vote,

See my above questions - why is low voter turnout bad, and how will compulsory voting solve those bad things?

Fixing the symptom doesn't fix the problems, it just hides them. Just because "making someone learn about politics" may "make them more likely to vote" doesn't imply that "making them vote" will "make them learn about politics".

People who don't care about politics will either vote for "None" (no difference), or vote for any party without much consideration (very bad - especially as I suspect that the two major parties will benefit, as people tend not to want to "waste" a vote).

however i don't really like the thought of punishing someone for not voting. A bit of a no win sitution!

Me neither.

 

[Samson]

People who don't care about politics will either vote for "None" (no difference), or vote for any party without much consideration (very bad - especially as I suspect that the two major parties will benefit, as people tend not to want to "waste" a vote).

I just want to point out that voting "None" is not the same as not voting. Sure, you MAY not vote because you activly dislike all the candidates, but TPTB will just say you are appathetic or happy with the status quo. Voting none shows that you do not like any of the candidates.

I regularly spoil my paper, I think this is much the same as voting none. Spoilt ballots are counted and reported.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The party forcing me to vote would definately not recieve mine.

 

[ComradeDavo]

See my above questions - why is low voter turnout bad, and how will compulsory voting solve those bad things?

Low turnout is bad because POLITICS IS EVERYTHING. It is how you get to work, how much you get paid, how much your food costs...everything.

The thought behind comulsory voting is that because people will have to vote they will learn more about the parties/issues.

I wonder if it would be good to make it compulsory for all school children to attend politics classes intill age of 16.

 

[Azash]

Although compulsroy voting could lead to a better representation of the people's will, it would clash with the very ideals of democracy.

Voted undecided, though I'm closer to "no".

 

[EdwardTking]

Low turnout is bad because POLITICS IS EVERYTHING. It is how you get to work, how much you get paid, how much your food costs...everything.

The thought behind comulsory voting is that because people will have to vote they will learn more about the parties/issues.

ComradeDavo in my opinion the problem is not ignorance.

People are usually happy to vote for an honest sensible person that they trust will have the best interests of their area at heart and will represent them. But only to often they do NOT get that choice and so do not vote.

There are two underlying problems: both parties and businesses have become too organised. Organised party politics has captured local representative democracy. Most party structures only let stooges (typically honest, likeable and well intentioned but manipulable and not too smart) stand as their candidates. The parties will promise whatever is popular but try to deliver whatever the very well organised and efficient business lobbys them to do and the stooges will be persuaded to ignore the views and interests of their constituency and vote for the party line or be ruthlessly cold shouldered.

The best method of increasing voter turn out would be to

(i) abolish political parties such that represenatives would have to stand and campaign and be judged on their own merits

(ii) increase the amount (in UK) they can each independently spend on advocating their case (in the UK the parties who borrow shamelessly to spend on themselves have colluded to maintain a now (due to inflation) derisory limit on candidates' election campain expenses;

(iii) banning all undeclared contributions and limiting business contributions.

I wonder if it would be good to make it compulsory for all school children to attend politics classes intill age of 16.

With a national curriculum; this would likely amount to indoctrination.

 

[mdwh]

I just want to point out that voting "None" is not the same as not voting.

I agree with what you say - but that's the difference between "not voting" and "choosing to vote for no one".

I don't see a difference between "someone who doesn't vote and doesn't", and "someone who doesn't vote but is forced to, so votes for None".

Worse, we would no longer be able to tell the difference between the apathetic/happy people, and those who actively object to any of the choices.

 

[mdwh]

Low turnout is bad because POLITICS IS EVERYTHING. It is how you get to work, how much you get paid, how much your food costs...everything.

I don't see how you mean - you mean it's bad that people don't care which party controls all of this? Maybe - but surely they have that choice not to care. Alternatively, they may care, but either be happy with any choice, or unhappy with all choices.

The thought behind comulsory voting is that because people will have to vote they will learn more about the parties/issues.

Given that many people now vote without learning about the parties/issues (beyond what they hear or read in the news), I don't see that those who are completely apathetic are suddenly going to spring into being enthusiastic followers of politics. If they resent giving up time to vote, they're not suddenly going to spring to then spend even more time learning about it all.

There are better ways to make people interested, that don't involve criminalising innocent people. For example, make people feel their vote is worth something, by getting rid of the useless "first past the post" single vote system. Also, perhaps we can fine Governments who don't keep their manifesto promises. And how about making voting (in the House of Commons) compulsory for MPs for a start?

I wonder if it would be good to make it compulsory for all school children to attend politics classes intill age of 16.

I agree - even if not until 16, some would be a start. At my school in the UK, we had none; it wasn't even an option, until A Level.

 

[Brian_B]

The number of uninformed people that vote in most democratic elections is already alarmingly high. We really don't need to exponentially increase it. Didn't read the entire thread so apologies if this joke has already been made:

Would there be a vote to determine if people should be forced to vote? And if so... would they be forced?

 

[rilnator]

I live in a country that has 'compulsory' voting. But if you never register to vote, you seem to be left alone and miss the fines that registered people cop after missing an election.

I have no problems with those who choose not to vote but in my opinion these said people have no right to complain about taxes, foriegn policy or any of the other decisions the government makes on our behalf. By not voting its like saying: 'I don't care'.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

OK theoretical question.

Say a voter agrees completely with the manifesto of Labour and disagrees with those of the other major parties. Say the same voter is vehemently anti-war, should they vote for Labour or withhold their vote completely?

The point being, apathy is not the only reason for low turnout.

 

[bhsup]

Vote for someone you do agree with. Just write in their name. Or, if it's important enough to you, run yourself. But at least participate.

 

[IglooDame]

OK theoretical question.

Say a voter agrees completely with the manifesto of Labour and disagrees with those of the other major parties. Say the same voter is vehemently anti-war, should they vote for Labour or withhold their vote completely?

The point being, apathy is not the only reason for low turnout.

Of course it isn't the only reason, but it is far and away the most common reason, and frankly if I learn that someone hasn't voted I'm going to make the assumption that it was because of apathy unless/until I learn otherwise.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

frankly if I learn that someone hasn't voted I'm going to make the assumption that it was because of apathy unless/until I learn otherwise.

I know you do, I adressed that point a page or so back but you didn't reply. Out of apathy I guess