Debate Thread: Round Two: Mandatory Voting

[vendor]

How else can we get the true opinion of the US other than mandatory voting? So many people gripe and whine about who is in office, no matter who it is. The sheer number of these know-betters could sway any election.
Opinion polls are based on random calling, and creative statistics. Opinion polls don't cut it. Something like the US presidential election of 2000 'race for Florida' would be less likely to happen.

[Jebus]

Anyone who wants to vote will vote. Forcing people who have no opinion on the matter and who don't really care will only skew the results further.

[eriador]

Forcing people to vote will only give an advantage to the candidate with the most money / who lies the most, because they have an edge on publicity. Like Jebus said, forcing people to vote will only skew the results.

[anonshadow]

How can we get the true opinion of the United States from uninformed voters who go to the polls and pull the lever for their party without doing any research?

Maybe we should make people pass a test about the candidates before voting, too, so we ensure that only informed people vote.

/sarcasm

Mandatory voting isn't the way to combat voter apathy--it's just a way to pretend it doesn't exist. The way to combat voter apathy is to make people want to vote.

At the end of the day, the vote is a right that everyone has, and it's a way to make a difference. If people choose not to take advantage of that right, that is their choice. We can't force people to be responsible.

I think it's also idiotic to make people who are abstaining from the vote because they hate all the candidates choose one to vote for.

[mr_thebrain]

i have to agree with jeebsy on that one.

my future wife doesn't vote in her country. fine... that's canada. unfortunately she plans on retaining that mentality after she moves here. it bugs the crap out of me. It is going to be hard enough to convince her to become a full fledged citizen (she's stubborn and doesn't want to hear about the benefits)

anyway, it'll be harder still to convince her to vote. she's annoyingly one of those people that like to bitch about who's in office and what they do. but won't vote to prevent the person from being re-elected. she has a screwed up way of looking at things though and i can only hope she'll see reason someday.

she, like so many others, is the type of person who feels two ways: there is no definate good choice (which is true enough but not a reason to avoid voting) and that her one vote will do no good. (which is a very frustrating point of view)

i blame her family. they are a f****** up bunch of jackasses.

[mr_thebrain]

Mandatory voting isn't the way to combat voter apathy--it's just a way to pretend it doesn't exist. The way to combat voter apathy is to make people want to vote.

here's a good idea: giant poster with a picture of bush (one with one of his dumb expressions would be best) with the text "prevent this sort of thing from happening ever again! register to vote today!

[Jebus]

You've got Michael Moore's support.

[suminonA]

Maybe we should make people pass a test about the candidates before voting, too, so we ensure that only informed people vote.

/sarcasm

Now that is something that I'd really like to see happening! No sarcasm. If the votes of the undecided skew the results, they do so randomly.
The votes of the uninformed skew the results in a much worse manner. And that’s because they vote expecting something that is not even promised in the first place.

Not that believing the promises would help. Seeing behind the "nice story" that the candidates sell, there's the true result and the benefit of any poll.

A.

[Jayelle]

By instituting manditory voting, you are changing the very freedom that America was founded on.

In a free country, there must be freedom to choose NOT to vote.

[eriador]

suminon, that's what I was getting at. You need people to be well informed, and in our media-centric world, the vote would be easily skewed by people spending money on advertising.

I also like Jayelle's point. Mandatory voting takes away freedom more than anything.ß

[Dr. Mobius]

There are people who would never allow a test to be required to vote.

Here, they're trying to pass a law that would require you to have a state-issued photo ID to vote, as a means to curb voter fraud. However there's people against it. Evidently, $5 is too expensive for the handfull of people who don't already have a driver's license or the non-driver ID card.

[suminonA]

I know that "the test" would bring practical/financial problems along. But if we make an effort, I think it should be towards information/education, every time we have a chance to do it.

A.

[Epi]

By instituting manditory voting, you are changing the very freedom that America was founded on.

In a free country, there must be freedom to choose NOT to vote.

[eriador]

The fact is that the purpose of public education was originally (and ostesibly, still is) to educate people to make them good voters. I wonder what the hell happened in the 150+ years since the beginning of a national public education system. It's not encouraging that things have gone downhill so quickly.

[Jebus]

I assumed that the mandatory voting held the possibility to spoil your vote aswell.

[neo-dragon]

What the hell is the point of mandatory voting? Having people vote for the sake of voting doesn't help ensure that the will of the people comes to pass. Choosing not to vote is a better expression of one's will than voting for a candidate because you had to vote for someone.

[eriador]

ditto

[Jebus]

What the hell is the point of mandatory voting? Having people vote for the sake of voting doesn't help ensure that the will of the people comes to pass. Choosing not to vote is a better expression of one's will than voting for a candidate because you had to vote for someone.

Well, I think the argument in favour of it is that it helps transform a society into a more politically conscious one with time.

[eriador]

Yes, but the problem is that taking away freedom to make the society more conscious is a bad idea. Perhaps it would work, but if it doesn't, people have lost freedom, and as several people have said, people have been elected for BAD reasons. It jus seems like a recipe for disaster.

[zeroguy]

Nobody has really defined "mandatory" in this sense. That is, what would the penalty for not voting be? I believe Australia has some kind of system set up where you have to pay a fine if you do not vote. Even as someone who abstains from voting practically every chance I get, I wouldn't really mind all that much if it were just a fine.

[Mahatma]

Maybe we should make people pass a test about the candidates before voting, too, so we ensure that only informed people vote.

/sarcasm

Now that is something that I'd really like to see happening! No sarcasm. If the votes of the undecided skew the results, they do so randomly.
The votes of the uninformed skew the results in a much worse manner. And that’s because they vote expecting something that is not even promised in the first place.

Not that believing the promises would help. Seeing behind the "nice story" that the candidates sell, there's the true result and the benefit of any poll.

A.

While I see the merits of this choice, it is decidedly not a good idea. Too many people who either can't read, can't read/speak English well, are bad test-takers, etc., will be excluded. It essentially violates the same principle of freedom that forcing people to vote would: all mentally competent (e.g. no dementia or retardation), unjailed American adults have the right to vote. They can choose to, or they can choose not to, as long as they're citizens. Otherwise you create a privileged ruling class or the beginnings of a totalitarian system. It's not perfect, but it's about as good a balance as you can get.

[Young Val]

...what would these "tests" be on? candidate's age? party? scandalous past? who administers this test? how is it graded?

resticting the right to vote based on whether or not the voter in question passes a test?

this idea is ridiculous.

[anonshadow]

The fact is that the purpose of public education was originally (and ostesibly, still is) to educate people to make them good voters. I wonder what the hell happened in the 150+ years since the beginning of a national public education system. It's not encouraging that things have gone downhill so quickly.

Oh, please. Things have not gone "downhill." They're not in a good place right now, but I hate it when people misrepresent this sort of thing. 150 years ago, a huge percentage of our children did not go to school because they could not speak English, and were poor. 100 years ago, many were working in factories. 50 years ago, they were being taught to *hide under their desks* in case of a nuclear attack. Teachers were still fired because they tried to teach practical sex ed. Et cetera.

So, while I am *not* defending our current system, it's like it's spiraled downhill.

[eriador]

Yes, but 150 years ago, people who had been educated in the public education system were well informed citizens, capable of voting well. Now, I'm not so sure about that.

That's what I was referring to by "going downhill."

[peterlocke123]

...what would these "tests" be on? candidate's age? party? scandalous past? who administers this test? how is it graded?

resticting the right to vote based on whether or not the voter in question passes a test?

this idea is ridiculous.

Exactly, it sounds WAY too like the history of China to me...and I'd rather not have that...

[Young Val]

Yes, but 150 years ago, people who had been educated in the public education system were well informed citizens, capable of voting well. Now, I'm not so sure about that.

....what?

[eriador]

Today, I don't think that the public education system is necessarily preparing people well for being citizens. 150 years ago it did.

[Young Val]

150 years ago it did.

if this is your view and you're stickin' by it, you're gonna have to back it up.

[eriador]

I don't know how to back it up. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception. If you have evidence to the contrary I'll back down, but I'm sticking with it for now.

[mr_thebrain]

way to stand firm... maybe.

[neo-dragon]

I thought that education 150 years ago was all about how to run the family farm... But what I know about history can barely fill a post-it note.

[eriador]

Nope, the american public education system was meant to educate people to be good citizens.

(thank you AP US History; taking it right now )

[Young Val]

I don't know how to back it up. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception. If you have evidence to the contrary I'll back down, but I'm sticking with it for now.

i don't really care over-much at this point, but as it isn't my position, it's not my responsibility to prove or disprove it. it's all well and good to voice your opinions, and you should. i'm all about that.

but if you're going to make such an inflamatory remark in a "formal" (i use that term loosely here) debate, and state it so factually, you ought to back it up.

[eriador]

Everything I say is said from my point of view, and unless I explicitly say it is fact, it should be interpreted as such, because I am often wrong. However, I will edit to point out that that is my view of American public education.

---Edit---
Actually, I don't need to edit any of them. In every case i said "I think" or "in my view." Not a single one was stated as fact.

What I did state as fact was that the education system was started to make citizens good voters, which I heard my US History teacher say yesterday in class, and is a widely accepted fact.

[Young Val]

Everything I say is said from my point of view, and unless I explicitly say it is fact, it should be interpreted as such, because I am often wrong. However, I will edit to point out that that is my view of American public education.

---Edit---
Actually, I don't need to edit any of them. In every case i said "I think" or "in my view." Not a single one was stated as fact.

What I did state as fact was that the education system was started to make citizens good voters, which I heard my US History teacher say yesterday in class, and is a widely accepted fact.

no; i understand that it's your view. i'm sorry if the word "factually" was misused in my case. replace with "authoratively" and perhaps that's much closer to the meaning i intended.

but that's not the point. whether it is fact or opinion, you ought to back it up. it's such a bold statement, providing no sources or context for it whatsoever is ...

well.


i suppose this isn't actually a formal debate. so i suppose you can voice your opinions with or without supporting evidence if you like.



(damnit, why can't i just keep my mouth shut?)

Yes, but 150 years ago, people who had been educated in the public education system were well informed citizens, capable of voting well. Now, I'm not so sure about that.

the first sentence there is presented as fact. i'm not saying it is fact or that you mean to claim it's fact. but you state it rather "factually" (now to be changed to "authoratively" so as not to be nitpicky...which i have already been).



i should just stay out of these threads.