NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN should help fight for complusory voting. There is no reason that a citizen of a country should not vote if allowed to. Of course, many countries don't allow voting (and are probably destined to soon enough). This should be a rule for all UN Members. First, I think we should vote on it. This is just a suggestion...

Absolutely! No matter how uninformed or disinterested a nation's leader might be, they should be FORCED to select one of several unpalatable answers. It's especially important if the issue is divisive and would alienate half of their populations. That'll show those stinkin' dissidents!

While we're at it, let's make it a requirement that everyone be HAPPY! Happiness is great, so it should be a requirement. Ooooh, politeness! We can require politeness too! And let's ban sarcasm. That stuff's just plain evil.

I disagree, if people don't care enough to vote, they probably don't care enough to know anything about politics. I don't want a bunch of people that know nothing about politics being forced to vote.

* The Rep of Komokom fends Fris off with a chair and a whip, lion tamer style ...

;)

But really, there is a ntional issue for deciding on complusory voting, demonstrating the merit in that this is something up for the government of a nation to decide upon ...

Even if it weren't already a national issue, I would question the merit of forcing a disinterested public to make a decision of such importance. People don't vote because they don't care. If they don't care but are forced to vote, they're going to vote for the wrong reasons. That, in short, is bad.

Absolutely! No matter how uninformed or disinterested a nation's leader might be, they should be FORCED to select one of several unpalatable answers. It's especially important if the issue is divisive and would alienate half of their populations. That'll show those stinkin' dissidents!

While we're at it, let's make it a requirement that everyone be HAPPY! Happiness is great, so it should be a requirement. Ooooh, politeness! We can require politeness too! And let's ban sarcasm. That stuff's just plain evil.

Thus, this post has been declared evil.

The UN should help fight for complusory voting. There is no reason that a citizen of a country should not vote if allowed to. Of course, many countries don't allow voting (and are probably destined to soon enough). This should be a rule for all UN Members. First, I think we should vote on it. This is just a suggestion...

So, do you RL vote?

Would you vote if I put a gun to your head?

Would the gun influence who you voted for?

Enough said?

Here's your sign.

The UN should help fight for complusory voting.

I'm against that. If a person does not want to vote then they shouldn't have to.

There is no reason that a citizen of a country should not vote if allowed to.

1 reason I can think of from personal RL experience - disenchantment of the whole process. Not enough variety. I live in a democracy, I'm allowed to - I just don't want to.

Of course, many countries don't allow voting (and are probably destined to soon enough).

The resolution "Citizen Rule Required" does allow citizens to have a say in the running of their country and some control over how it happens. That to me implies elections, amongst other things (although the resolution is vague).

This should be a rule for all UN Members. First, I think we should vote on it. This is just a suggestion...

So, Submit a proposal....it does not look like it is illegal to me so it'll probably be allowed to pass....it won't get enough endorsements, will sink into the pile of forgotten trashy proposals, and the UN can focus on something else.

The UN should help fight for complusory voting. There is no reason that a citizen of a country should not vote if allowed to. Of course, many countries don't allow voting (and are probably destined to soon enough). This should be a rule for all UN Members. First, I think we should vote on it. This is just a suggestion...

Better yet:
If you can vote for either of two candidates for a certain public office, NOT voting should be counted as "non of the above"
If over 50% of the people is not voting, there is no interest in someone fullfilling the role or no faith in either candidate to do a good job there, making the office obsolete. Bet ya that would send home some politicians.

Even if it weren't already a national issue,
Not only that, it is the first issue, and the only one that every nation must face.

While I am for compulsory voting, I believe that this is something for national governments to decide, not international governments.

Voting is compulsory? Its true nationalists and extremists may get into power by a low turnout, but this is a violation of people's freedoms. If they don't care about the government, why should they vote? The less political-aware are baffled by the many choices and might just vote for extremists.

The Holy Republic of Seriphyn will not endorse this proposal

Holy Republic of Seriphyn (Delegate of the British Isles)
Ambassador to the UN

i disagree but i do see why you want it to be a law, i disagree simply for the reason that if they don't want to vote then leave them to it they get enough votes anyway and it's thier loss because if someone comes into power they don't like they will be like oh crap i should have voted

Good point

Every person is free to exercise their right not to vote - whatever the outcome of that decision, good or bad - they have their free will to choose to vote or not.

Denying that basic, fundamental, right to a human is appalling.

Forcing someone to vote is just as bad as telling them they can't because it's a totalitarian regime where voting is outlawed.

Cead mille failte, y'all....

A thought or two arose from conversation with a friend in Argentina, where voting is compulsory:

First, the gun-to-head example is unnecessarily extreme. Consequences for not voting would more likely be realistically minor, such as ineligibility for certain social services or a modest fine. (I suggested suspension of one's right to bitch and moan about the government, which was good for a laugh at least.)

Second, the Argentines have a widely accepted custom of the voto bronca - the outrage vote, essentially a vote for none of the above. Kind of like casting a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. Alas, it has no legal effect, but the rhetorical effect when campaigning against an incumbent who won 56% of the counted vote but 30-odd percent of the total vote is pretty cutting. Personally, I like the idea of a None Of The Above vote that has some teeth, frex, if NOTA wins, have a special second election in which no candidate from the first is allowed to run. But hey, I'm evil. :cool:

Third, as Sophista pointed out. National issue. :headbang:

Oh, and fourth, Jovian's Third Rule of Democracy. There may not be anyone worth voting for, but there's always someone worth voting against.

Have a nice day.

...but I'd vote for Mickey Mouse... *shifty eyes*

On a more serious note, I didn't know there actually was a country where voting was compulsory. Learn something new everyday.

Although I think compulsory voting would be stupid. As the issue itself says, "you can't force people to be free". One of the fundamental freedoms is the freedom of choice, and if you choose to be lazy, you have a right to choose it.

I'm big on the concept of rights coming with responsibilities, though. And making voting at least nominally compulsory, even if the consequences are so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent, is a way of making people consciously aware of the responsibility of citizenship. Get the idea into people's heads that they have to do something, and the chance of their listening to information that makes sense of the task ought to improve, no?

Interesting discussion, if academic for this forum's purposes.

The right to vote on ones leadership has been fought with the blood and sweat of men with ideals for many years. It is a right which is well deserved by everyone in a democracy, even those who do not choose to use it. To REQUIRE some to utilize this right is to take away the very freedom that a democracy employs. People should have the freedom to choose whether they vote or not.

I am reminded of the mock elections of Saddam Hussein's regime. 100% of people voted, and 100% of people voted for him.

People who CHOOSE to vote of their own volition are informed people who desire to exert their own control over what happens in their world. I would be concerned that any who were FORCED to vote would be easily swayed to one side or the other, not giving a TRUE demonstration of what the public opinion on any issue is. Like being a candidate, and rounding up all the homeless to feed them and them taking them down to the polling place to "vote their conscience". All the while making sure they know your name.

Interesting. So what obligation, what responsibility, comes with the right?

(Incidentally, I find it intriguing that you argue so powerfully for the sanctity of the right of franchise that so many have fought and died for - persuasively, I might add - but decline to condemn people who treat it with such disdain.)

I understand that, legally, voting is viewed as a right inasmuch as the major conflict in society has been against those elements that would prevent other elements from voting. But conceptually, voting is an essential component of a participatory democracy (or republic). One may go so far as to say, correctly, that it is an obligation, a requisite of participation - and that the choice not to vote is a choice to opt out of the participatory democracy.

Maybe it's worth considering to have consequences for that opting out, however slight or symbolic they may be.

As to the rounding-up-the-homeless example, I believe that is already possible today - except of course that in most places if you don't have a fixed address, you can't prove residency and thus can't vote in any given district. (That's a tough one, isn't it? It's a Catch-22, disenfranchising the homeless.) But even if there is a legal provision for a person of no fixed address to have the franchise, what you're describing is covered under existing law as bribery and election fraud.

The UN should help fight for complusory voting. There is no reason that a citizen of a country should not vote if allowed to. Of course, many countries don't allow voting (and are probably destined to soon enough). This should be a rule for all UN Members. First, I think we should vote on it. This is just a suggestion...

I appreciate the suggestion, but my nation disagrees.

There are plenty of people that choose not to vote because they don't feel they are educated in the issues enough. This is most important when voting on national propositions (at least for governments that have these).

Just as my government is opposed to nations voting on UN resolutions based on complete ignorance (case in point: all the people that claim that our UN styled resolutions are "hard" to read and not "real"), citizens should be allowed to choose when they don't want to vote.

That said, my government feels that nations should actually encourage citizens to vote in national elections and to also pay attention to UN resolutions, but friendly encouragement versus a forced action are two completely different things.

I personly think that only people who pay taxes should be able to vote. I mean do I want good leaders or do I want the person who was voted into office by people who sit on their but all day and want free hand outs. If people want to vote I say get a job. Really how hard is it to say would you like fries with that.

I personly think that only people who pay taxes should be able to vote. I mean do I want good leaders or do I want the person who was voted into office by people who sit on their but all day and want free hand outs. If people want to vote I say get a job. Really how hard is it to say would you like fries with that.

What about people who are retired?
Or people whom are disabled?

I am so sorry for not being spacific in my statment earlier I failed to put that part in. I think those in retirment and the disabled should be aloud to vote as long as the are mentaly sane.

"VOTE OR DIE!"

One less man, one less vote?

Totalitarianism should not be part of the UN. Sorry, gonna vote this idea into the dust bin where it belongs.

*puts in more staples*

I am so sorry for not being spacific in my statment earlier I failed to put that part in. I think those in retirment and the disabled should be aloud to vote as long as the are mentaly sane.

And people living below the poverty line, what about them? I suppose the jobless masses could pay their way by volunteer/community service...?

Interesting discussion. Getting nowhere as a UN issue, which is perfectly fine with me, but interesting nevertheless.

May I just point out to the honourable representatives, that although some people simply cannot be bothered to vote, or do not believe they know enough to vote, some citizens of Mattikistan have been known to refrain from voting in protest, if they do not feel any candidates are good enough. We view this as a valid and necessary method of protest -- indeed, it is constitutionally mandated to allow people to choose.

some citizens of Mattikistan have been known to refrain from voting in protest, if they do not feel any candidates are good enough. We view this as a valid and necessary method of protest -- indeed, it is constitutionally mandated to allow people to choose.
The honorable delegate's point is a valid one. In the Jovianic Republic we address this concern by mandating that "None Of The Above" appear as a choice on every ballot. ;)

I agree partly with Javianica people below the poverty line shoulde get their fair say but only if they pay taxes. You think if their in poverty how do they pay taxes well I say that 1 hour of community service should be worth a certian amount of money so to speak. For instance if someone worked community hours as sort of a job they would intern recive a little amount of cash and community hours would be put on their record. So to vote you have to have an estimate of 5 hours a month or pay taxes. Communtiy hours do not count for those who are serving them as punishment for breaking the law.