NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: In order to further democracy in the world we propose enacting compulsory voting. All citizens with the right to vote would be obliged to vote or otherwise pay a fine. This will guarantee political stability.

The trouble is, not all nations in the UN are democratic. It seems silly to force those in democracies to vote, whilst those in more sensible political systems are prohibited from doing so.

Agreed... And even those that are democratic may not have compulsory voting anyway.

Yes, even if it wasn't a contradiction we would have difficulty implementing it.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Plus the fact that there is already an Issue going around about that.

Plus the fact that there is already an Issue going around about that.
Oh, I had ni idea about that. Perhaps change it to enact such law in democratic nations?

From what I can gather from your proposal, that would contradict laws that I already have in place that do not require compulsory voting. For a true democracy (of which I do not participate), only those who have the initiative should take part in government as well as earning the right to shape the way their government works. Those who aren't interested should deal with it and live with the consequences

We really need to focus our attention on matters of international import, rather than the inner workings of individual nations. Moreover, we must stop trying to force certain cultural beliefs of some nations on all nations. Not all member nations are democracies, and they work just fine. (OOC: And I hope the Eternal Kawaii will chime in on this one.) Let them contninue to do so without this sort of unnecessary and presumptuous interference.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

No way, my friend. The right NOT to vote is also a political freedom.

Description: In order to further democracy in the world we propose enacting compulsory voting. All citizens with the right to vote would be obliged to vote or otherwise pay a fine. This will guarantee political stability.

It is richely ironic that the honourable delegate from the nation of Polish Liberals chooses to further democracy by proposing a measure that is so inherently anti-democratic and anti-civil liberties in its intent and phrasing.

Making voting compulsory is to violate the very ideal of a democratic state, that the citizens should be governed through consent, not coercion. By forcing people to vote or by sanctioning them if they do not, you are depriving them of their democratic right to disassociate themselves from government as well as associate themselves with it. Democracy is about the choice of the people and if the citizen or individual has no choice, then there should exist no measure to force him to betray his conscience by doing so.

Equally, what of individuals who for ideological or religious reasons are prohibited from voting? Is one to force them to betray their personal and spiritual beliefs?

Finally, as has been stated, this statement is so broad it constitutes in effect and ideology ban, which is illegal under the laws of this esteemed body.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

You cannot be free until you have the right not only to vote, but to choose to not exercise that right. To not vote is, in itself, making a statement - whether it be "you have not made it worth my time to vote for any of you" to "none of you are deserving of my vote".

You cannot be free until you have the right not only to vote, but to choose to not exercise that right. To not vote is, in itself, making a statement - whether it be "you have not made it worth my time to vote for any of you" to "none of you are deserving of my vote".
but then again, the flip-side to this is that you can't really bitch about who gets in then.

OOC: here in AU, voting is compulsary, we have a preferential system, and more than 2 parties to vote for. i serioulsy doubt you would come across a ballot ticket at an AU ellection, where there is just Labor and Liberal/National. and usually, if you dont like those 2, you mark them the lowest. to me, if you cant be bothered voting, because you dont like the candidates, that isnt making a statement, that is showing apathy.

but then again, the flip-side to this is that you can't really bitch about who gets in then.

OOC: here in AU, voting is compulsary, we have a preferential system, and more than 2 parties to vote for. i serioulsy doubt you would come across a ballot ticket at an AU ellection, where there is just Labor and Liberal/National. and usually, if you dont like those 2, you mark them the lowest. to me, if you cant be bothered voting, because you dont like the candidates, that isnt making a statement, that is showing apathy.

I think that's BS. I think you have total right to bitch about who got in regardless of whether you voted or not - so long as your reason wasn't purely out of laziness. If your reason is "they are all crap", then absolutely you have the right to bitch. If no candidate in your area would've represented your personal views, then I think you have the full right to bitch that the person doesn't represent you.

In the last election, I had 5 candidates to choose from - absolutely none of them I agreed with nor could support. I ended up choosing a guy I knew would lose but I thought deserved to get a vote so he'd get his refund (if you get X number of votes, you get your deposit back).

i will assume that you are from the states, because i can really recognise the difference between our electoral systems. i just feel that if there is no candidate that you like, either run, or encourage someone with similar views to run. i understand that it is a bit harder over there to do this than here, but it is better than not voting at all. either that, or do like you did, and vote for the least likely. not only are you helping them get their refund, but that is one more vote for them, and the big two will say 'hang on, these guys are starting to get more votes, maybe we are doing something wrong.'

i will assume that you are from the states, because i can really recognise the difference between our electoral systems. i just feel that if there is no candidate that you like, either run, or encourage someone with similar views to run. i understand that it is a bit harder over there to do this than here, but it is better than not voting at all. either that, or do like you did, and vote for the least likely. not only are you helping them get their refund, but that is one more vote for them, and the big two will say 'hang on, these guys are starting to get more votes, maybe we are doing something wrong.'

Nope, Canada.

And it won't be every election that I'll be looking at the list of candidates and say "this guy looks like a decent fellow even though I disagree with him". In such cases, I would rather spoil my ballot. In fact, we're currently looking at another election - and I can honestly say I'd rather see the 4 main parties get blown up than have any of them govern. Once again, I'm looking at the candidates in my riding instead of the parties, but I don't know yet if I want to give any of them the time of day. At the rate it's going, I might just spoil my ballot - and guess what, it's my right to, and it's my right to complain regardless of who wins because they are ALL useless.

Nope, Canada.

And it won't be every election that I'll be looking at the list of candidates and say "this guy looks like a decent fellow even though I disagree with him". In such cases, I would rather spoil my ballot. In fact, we're currently looking at another election - and I can honestly say I'd rather see the 4 main parties get blown up than have any of them govern. Once again, I'm looking at the candidates in my riding instead of the parties, but I don't know yet if I want to give any of them the time of day. At the rate it's going, I might just spoil my ballot - and guess what, it's my right to, and it's my right to complain regardless of who wins because they are ALL useless.

ahh, so you would have a similar system to us... do you guys have first-past-the-post like briton, or preferential like here?

first past the post

I was just talking with my gf - apparently the US has a "write in vote" box - so if you don't feel any of the candidates represent your beliefs, then you can pick someone arbitrarily that you feel does. In such a situation, maybe you could argue such a thing as not voting means you don't have the right to complain. However, here, we have a limited number of choices, and if we don't like them, it's tough love for us.

first past the post

I was just talking with my gf - apparently the US has a "write in vote" box - so if you don't feel any of the candidates represent your beliefs, then you can pick someone arbitrarily that you feel does. In such a situation, maybe you could argue such a thing as not voting means you don't have the right to complain. However, here, we have a limited number of choices, and if we don't like them, it's tough love for us.
we have preferential here, so if you cant be bothered, it is simply 1 through to X in order they are listed, although some people have been noted to put an extra box and put say Mickey Mouse. those votes arent actually counted though

OK, my two cents. In my opinion, whatever the system,
- Abstention is lazy,
- Null voting is childish,
- Blank voting is a legitimate expression of opinion.
Having said that, I am against political systems that forbid or penalise any of these, as it defeats the purpose of democracy.

Description: In order to further democracy in the world we propose enacting compulsory voting. All citizens with the right to vote would be obliged to vote or otherwise pay a fine. This will guarantee political stability.

Ambassador & PM Rhodri Mawr of the nation of NH&E (http://http://www.nationstates.net/new_heavens_and_earth) appeals to the assembled diplomats.

Esteemed participants, We of the aspiring nation of New Heavens & Earth are thinking about instituting a rule completely opposite of the one proposed here. In that people contribute differently and more weighted to society, it is only fitting that their vote reflect that. Some may fear this approach as they think it harkens back to when in some now progressive nations, only landowners & specific ethnic, or gender groups were allowed to vote. NH&E respectively submits that the idea of 1 person 1 vote goes too far in the other direction, making a mockery of contribution. Why is it that a farmer who may contribute to society by feeding millions has only the same weight of voting power as does say a person receiving social welfare?

NH&E has not worked out the details yet, but we are moving toward a weighted voting structure.

Lastly, as for compulsion, as with most things done by compulsion, it makes what was once a joy, into a burden to be resented. We have no intent or desire to force our civilization to vote.

Thank you for listening to the humble nation of NH&E, we seek to become more active in world affairs as time goes on.

In order to force compulsory voting, you'll first need all your citizens to vote about the issue, which they'll probably not like. Also, you'll be forcing voluntary voting countries to force compulsory voting, and what about the dictatorships like moi? I listen to the people and give them what is best. This is a seriously hypocritical issue.

whilst we have compulsory voting here in TLA, we are against this on the principle that whilst it may serve us well, it may not serve other nations well. also, given, as said, theocracies and dictatorships, and others that do not require elections, or limited to a certain group (cardinals in theocracies), this isnt needed anyway.

i will assume that you are from the states, because i can really recognise the difference between our electoral systems. i just feel that if there is no candidate that you like, either run, or encourage someone with similar views to run. i understand that it is a bit harder over there to do this than here, but it is better than not voting at all. either that, or do like you did, and vote for the least likely. not only are you helping them get their refund, but that is one more vote for them, and the big two will say 'hang on, these guys are starting to get more votes, maybe we are doing something wrong.'

OOC: I'm going to reach voting age (18) within less than half a year. As it stands, I have not seen one UK party to whose platform I don't have major objections. There is nobody whose politics don't include something I could not bring myself to support. I won't even be allowed to stand for election for a further 3 years, and given the odds of my getting anywhere as an independent with my views, it would be futile to drop everything else in my life and waste time and money campaigning for votes I will never win.

The simple truth is that, with a vaguely radical small minority viewpoint, you are powerless in an election. And even a vote for a major party is pointless - one vote will never make a difference.

I really don't see anything in this which recommends democracy as a good system to use. The only argument in favour is that, in RL societies, dictators which do better at protecting rights and freedoms than the people are few and far between. But that's no reason to assume that dictators in NS can't be more benevolent than their citizens, so _Myopia_ is not going to support anything enforcing democracy, or a particular type of democracy, on UN members.

What matters is the actions a government takes, not whether/how the people have selected it.

OOC: it think it is the party system that stuffed everything up. to me, an elected official is there to represent the people of the electrate that they were voted in, not tow the party line. i actually like it when i hear of party memebers 'crossing the floor' because it says to me they are representing the intrests of his people first.

apparently the US has a "write in vote" box - so if you don't feel any of the candidates represent your beliefs, then you can pick someone arbitrarily that you feel does.Yes, but...

Write ins have some strange rules attached to them. Generally, they only count for "real" canidates that lost the primary. I don't remember all the rules, but the long and short of it is that if, somehow, I managed to get more write in votes than anyone else for, say, Governer, I still wouldn't win as I don't qualify to be a write in. Consequentially, most write in votes (not even counting the morons who vote for Mickey Mouse or some such nonsense) don't actually count, and truly are wasted votes.

- - - - -

For the comments about non-democracies being in the UN, that doesn't actually present a problem for this Proposal. With the Voting Resolution (I forget the name, it's an earlier one), every nation must have some voting, even if it's for local councils that have no authority. Thus, every UN nation at least a little bit of voting going on, and thus those elections could be made compulsory.

The question thus becomes one of category. I'm torn between Furtherment of Democracy, Political Stability, and Moral Decency (oddly enough). Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Ambassador & PM Rhodri Mawr of the nation of NH&E (http://http://www.nationstates.net/new_heavens_and_earth) appeals to the assembled diplomats.

Esteemed participants, We of the aspiring nation of New Heavens & Earth are thinking about instituting a rule completely opposite of the one proposed here. In that people contribute differently and more weighted to society, it is only fitting that their vote reflect that. Some may fear this approach as they think it harkens back to when in some now progressive nations, only landowners & specific ethnic, or gender groups were allowed to vote. NH&E respectively submits that the idea of 1 person 1 vote goes too far in the other direction, making a mockery of contribution. Why is it that a farmer who may contribute to society by feeding millions has only the same weight of voting power as does say a person receiving social welfare?

NH&E has not worked out the details yet, but we are moving toward a weighted voting structure.


OOC: I'm currently drafting an issue to submit that would include this as an option.

And of course this proposal would [still] let dictatorships run elections in which the government's own candidates were the only ones allowed to stand, and then claim that they'd received 100% support from the electorate, anyway...

And of course this proposal would [still] let dictatorships run elections in which the government's own candidates were the only ones allowed to stand, and then claim that they'd received 100% support from the electorate, anyway...

Thus placing an unnecessary burden (elections cost money, y'know) on those countries that don't need elections.

Quite apart from the numerous flaws already detailed by other contributors to the debate, this proposal has been drafted under the erroneous assumption that voting is in itself the most important facet of the democratic process. Labelling individuals who choose not to exercise their voting rights as 'apathetic' is inappropriate without further examination of their involvement in the democratic system.

For example, an individual may contribute her time and energy to national and local projects that are inherently political - such as campaigning for prison reform or maintaining local health facilities - yet elect not to vote. Does this mean that she is apathetic? Apolitical? No - she chooses to participate in a different aspect of the political system.

Perhaps the trend of falling voter participation in established democracies is due not to complacency but to the populace realising that there are more positive contributions that can be made to society than simply marking a cross in a box once every few years.

In conclusion, Ecopoeia vehemently opposes this proposal and encourages delegates to consider more fully the nature of democracy and participation.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

This is not a good proposal for a number of reasons.

1) This is not really an interational issue, this is a national one that does not need to be uniform across nations. Nor is it per se a human rights issue.

2) It is covered in the current issues that nations face, so you would be removing one issue to all the members of the UN. If we were drowning in a plethora of issues that might not be a problem but currently that does not appear to be the case.

3) The idea, in and of itself, is not sound. You don't want people voting, you want people who want to vote; to actually think about the issues and to think for themselves. Forcing them to vote doesn't so that. It does the opposite, it makes it an automatic action that has to be done, and done quickly.

4) Looking internationally there are a number of conditions that the law doesn't address. There are places where physical oppression is given to those who vote, and who place their lives in danger by voting. There are a number of election systems, from the election of individual people to the election of whole parties.

Instead of forcing people to vote, a more reasonable solution would be to find ways to encourage people to vote. Unfortunately given the current nature of the UN I can't think of any off hand. (That is not to say I can't think of any, I just can't think of any that would not violate a fundamental rule of NSUN resolution regulations.)

OOC: I'm currently drafting an issue to submit that would include this as an option.

Do you seriously want to consider weighted voting? I will also oppose anything in that direction. Voting systems are more of an incentive to rule fairly than an informed decision. They ensure that any polititian has the whole electorate as the main pressure group.

Do you seriously want to consider weighted voting? I will also oppose anything in that direction. Voting systems are more of an incentive to rule fairly than an informed decision. They ensure that any polititian has the whole electorate as the main pressure group.

OOC: That I think that it could make an interesting issue for NS doesn't necessarily mean that I personally [in RL] approve of the concept...

Wouldn't forcing those who didn't vote to vote increase opposition to your party, and increse happiness with parties proposing to repeal compulsory voting?

Wouldn't forcing those who didn't vote to vote increase opposition to your party, and increse happiness with parties proposing to repeal compulsory voting?

This just boggles the mind...

I'm just trying to explain it like your legislation banning legislation being banned by itself.

Yes, but...

Write ins have some strange rules attached to them. Generally, they only count for "real" canidates that lost the primary. I don't remember all the rules, but the long and short of it is that if, somehow, I managed to get more write in votes than anyone else for, say, Governer, I still wouldn't win as I don't qualify to be a write in. Consequentially, most write in votes (not even counting the morons who vote for Mickey Mouse or some such nonsense) don't actually count, and truly are wasted votes.Huh, I didn't know that.

For the comments about non-democracies being in the UN, that doesn't actually present a problem for this Proposal. With the Voting Resolution (I forget the name, it's an earlier one), every nation must have some voting, even if it's for local councils that have no authority. Thus, every UN nation at least a little bit of voting going on, and thus those elections could be made compulsory.The resolution you're thinking of would be "Citizen Rule Required."

I'm just trying to explain it like your legislation banning legislation being banned by itself.Please don't bring that up again, my brain still hurts from the last time you said that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Please don't bring that up again, my brain still hurts from the last time you said that.


But it did provide us with a good reason to drink (as if we need one).

Cluchy, I can understand the rest, but unwanted pregnancy?

Cluchy, I can understand the rest, but unwanted pregnancy?

I have very fertile loins. :p

If you need any help understanding legislation banning legislation would be banned by itself so you would need tontorduce legislation to ban the banning of legislation, which would be banned by the previous legislation about legislation, so to ban legislation banning legislation banning legislation banning legislation you need to introduce legislation to retract the legislation which couldn't be retracted because it is banned by legislation banning itself. Whereas you banned the legislation originally banning legislation you would need to throw in a override or something but because legislation bans it from being introduced the override is illegal legislation, so you wouldn't want legislation banning legislation as it would cause problems for future legislation which m,ay want to be introduced to ban banning of legislation but can't because despite any overrides it would itself be banned for banning the banning of legislation. then I would help you Flibbleites.

DRINKS ARE ON ME

Yeesh. Make mine a treble.

Okay, thats a treble for Ecopoeia, Triple whisky on the rocks with vodka and gin for me (I'm gonna get bladdered) anyone else want to order now?

Let's close the bar and get back on topic, folks.

Okay, but i'm paying for the rest of the night. As you've probably heard me eplain tirelessly before, unless your country is a totalitarian state, then compulsory voting is a big no-no.