NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you say to a proposal banning compulsory voting laws. I say no one should ever be forced to vote that ruins the entire prospect of democracy and forces people to go out of their busy lives to go and vote. It violates alot of rights and you should never force people to vote because that is just as un democratic as no voting at all.

I say, "none of the UN's business."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Individual country's choice only, please.

I say, "none of the UN's business."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


I agree with the 'Don'.;)

What would you say to a proposal banning compulsory voting laws. I say no one should ever be forced to vote that ruins the entire prospect of democracy and forces people to go out of their busy lives to go and vote. It violates alot of rights and you should never force people to vote because that is just as un democratic as no voting at all.I doubt it will have enough support.

What might work better is a proposal protecting and promoting the electorates rights to anonimity, and that the government, or the public are unable to find out who voted for what.

What would you say to a proposal banning compulsory voting laws. I say no one should ever be forced to vote that ruins the entire prospect of democracy and forces people to go out of their busy lives to go and vote. It violates alot of rights and you should never force people to vote because that is just as un democratic as no voting at all.

I say that if you don't want to vote for a candidate, spoil your ballot.

OOC: So, Australia is undemocratic? I could go into a long post about the good points of compulsory voting, but I fear it may be ignored.

IC: Why need we pass laws regarding compulsory voting (or the lack of it) when the UN has yet to require that nations have voting of any kind?

IC: Why need we pass laws regarding compulsory voting (or the lack of it) when the UN has yet to require that nations have voting of any kind?

Quite. We in _Myopia_ don't give a damn how governments are selected, or even if they are selected at all, as long as they uphold the essential rights and freedoms deserved by all people. If that requires less democratic systems, that's perfectly acceptable to us. There's nothing special that makes democratic government more legitimate.

Well thank you all I did not mean to offend anyone here I simply wanted to see what you would say. Thank you all for your opinions and feedback thats exactly what I wanted the truth from what you all think.

Quite. We in _Myopia_ don't give a damn how governments are selected, or even if they are selected at all, as long as they uphold the essential rights and freedoms deserved by all people. If that requires less democratic systems, that's perfectly acceptable to us. There's nothing special that makes democratic government more legitimate.

[Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero wanted to answer to the esteemed Ambassador from _Myopia_. He called him with his new gps-biometric-cedit-card-mobile-phone, and as the Ambassador from _Myopia_ was away, leaves a message on his voicemail]:

http://test256.free.fr/Image1.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/Image2.jpg

Dear Ambassador,

For us, there are several special things that make democratic government more legitimate

First, we would like to emphasize that a democratic government, very often, divides political power into branches (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) and in time. It may happen in other sort of governments that the head of state gives up voluntarily his power, but this is pretty rare.

Many governments in history had as only counter-power, an established religion. We don’t favour this approach, as no religion may be adopted by all citizens, do you?
That say we would like to recognize that this characteristic of religions may have been useful before the invention of democracy, when studying the governments with pretty weak counter-powers, as the dramatic regimes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Second, LAE statistics department provided, earlier this week, to this assembly, some statistics about the probability of personal freedom levels of a nation, depending of this nation political freedom:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10773659&postcount=18

I would like also to quote 2 sentences I personally like: one from a constitution from a democratic nation:

“National sovereignty shall belong to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.
No section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.”

The other from a famous historic character:

“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”

Thank you for your time
Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero

First, we would like to emphasize that a democratic government, very often, divides political power into branches (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) and in time. It may happen in other sort of governments that the head of state gives up voluntarily his power, but this is pretty rare.
Gruenberg is democratic, and has no separation of powers. Fail.

Many governments in history had as only counter-power, an established religion. We don’t favour this approach, as no religion may be adopted by all citizens, do you?
That say we would like to recognize that this characteristic of religions may have been useful before the invention of democracy, when studying the governments with pretty weak counter-powers, as the dramatic regimes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
Gruenberg is a democracy with a state religion. Fail.

Second, LAE statistics department provided, earlier this week, to this assembly, some statistics about the probability of personal freedom levels of a nation, depending of this nation political freedom:
Which is misleading, because it refers to political freedom, which is not synonymous with democracy.

OOC: In NS, the game engine seems to associate various freedoms - expression, protest, press - as political. So one can have a politically free nation which is an absolute autocracy. Your stats are complete speculation.

OOC:
L&e: Please stop mixing IC and OOC. It is impossible to reply to that while you have the two confused. Yes, in the RW there have been problems with state religions. That does not mean that there are problems in NS. Okay?

Gruenberg is democratic, and has no separation of powers. Fail.

Thanks you for your comment, I should have said, "constitutional democracy"
But anyway if Gruenberg is a democracy, at least there are several powers, as it means that people is a counter-power itself and that people has the possibility to put an end peacefully to a government, by not re-electing it.

Gruenberg is a democracy with a state religion. Fail.

My point was about political power, if your state religion as some political powers, then Gruenberg is not so democratic, as I suppose your religious leader are not elected directly or indirectly by everyone.


Which is misleading, because it refers to political freedom, which is not synonymous with democracy.

OOC: In NS, the game engine seems to associate various freedoms - expression, protest, press - as political. So one can have a politically free nation which is an absolute autocracy. Your stats are complete speculation.

You have a point, I have to admit, but when you read the description of the UN Categories:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Category#UN_Category_Glossary
there is clearly an important relation, this is gameplay

OOC:
Yes, in the RW there have been problems with state religions. That does not mean that there are problems in NS. Okay?

My post was about legitimaty and separation of powers.
About legitimaty, I'm sorry but it seems to me, that neither a state religion/cult nor a state atheism cult, cann be legitimate as it irespectfull of other people having a/another/no religion, and that a government had to be neutral.

About sepration of powers, I've just said that in history, prior to democracy, state religion, as a counter-political power, could have had a usefull political foncton in the history of human society evolution, as it seems to me than regimes without counter-political power have been very damageable.

Much like forcing nations to be democratic, forcing nations into a particular style of democracy is not within the purview of the UN.
Yet another bad idea...

--Rooty

Dear Ambassador,

For us, there are several special things that make democratic government more legitimate

First, we would like to emphasize that a democratic government, very often, divides political power into branches (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) and in time. It may happen in other sort of governments that the head of state gives up voluntarily his power, but this is pretty rare.

Many governments in history had as only counter-power, an established religion. We don’t favour this approach, as no religion may be adopted by all citizens, do you?
That say we would like to recognize that this characteristic of religions may have been useful before the invention of democracy, when studying the governments with pretty weak counter-powers, as the dramatic regimes of Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Second, LAE statistics department provided, earlier this week, to this assembly, some statistics about the probability of personal freedom levels of a nation, depending of this nation political freedom:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10773659&postcount=18


OOC: I might have to start RPing _Myopia_ as undemocratic, just to make a point. However, at present, most of the population is enlightened and liberal enough that democracy does not result in them taking much freedom away from each other, as tends to happen in the real world.

IC: We recognise that in some places, there is indeed a statistical correlation between "democratic" government, and good practices such as respect for personal freedoms, separation of powers, and the absence of a state religion. However, these are no more than statistical correlations, and we submit that a significant cause of this is simply the fact that most people with liberty-respecting ideologies also support democracy.

We believe that there is nothing inherently more legitimate about a minority abridging individuals' rights than a majority, and we do not tend to make artificial distinctions between fundamental and less important freedoms - all freedoms are important, and it is not acceptable to allow anyone, electorate or dictator, to infringe on any of them. Just because more people agree with something, does not make it any more right.

If an electorate can be trusted to protect rights and freedoms, that's great. But many can't, and if an unelected government could do a better job of it, we would prefer that democracy be abandoned to protect freedom. We refuse to allow minorities (whether ideological, ethnic, or otherwise) to suffer just because the majority of people they happen to live with insist on infringing their rights.

Well said, _Myo_. In other words... better a Benevolent Dictatorship, Libertarian Police State or Iron Fist Socialists than Free Market Paradise, Conservative Democracy or Tyranny By Majority.

IC: We recognise that in some places, there is indeed a statistical correlation between "democratic" government, and good practices such as respect for personal freedoms, separation of powers, and the absence of a state religion.

Thank you

However, these are no more than statistical correlations, and we submit that a significant cause of this is simply the fact that most people with liberty-respecting ideologies also support democracy.

We fully agree with this sentence, as for us it seems that liberty-respecting ideologies and democracy are both, in the same time, the cause and the consequence of each other.


We believe that there is nothing inherently more legitimate about a minority abridging individuals' rights than a majority, and we do not tend to make artificial distinctions between fundamental and less important freedoms - all freedoms are important, and it is not acceptable to allow anyone, electorate or dictator, to infringe on any of them. Just because more people agree with something, does not make it any more right.

Sadly, of course there are many abuses in democracies, in particular about minorities, and I never said that democracy is perfect. But, I think it's important to ask ourselves the following question:
Have individual and minorities’ freedom been well protected in the history of humanity?
Which political systems in the world increased and emphasized individual and minorities’ freedom?
Which political systems in the world increased separation of powers into branches and periods of time?
Which political systems in the world increased information freedom, which can be considered as another political power and then increase also the separation of powers?
Which political systems in the world accepted unions, which can be considered as another political power and then increase also the separation of powers?
Which political systems in the world opened and let possible the debate about individual and minorities’ freedom, even if the case of those not being respected?

I'm not here to say that benevolent dictator is impossible, it had happen, but its occurrence and length in time are low.

If an electorate can be trusted to protect rights and freedoms, that's great. But many can't, and if an unelected government could do a better job of it, we would prefer that democracy be abandoned to protect freedom. We refuse to allow minorities (whether ideological, ethnic, or otherwise) to suffer just because the majority of people they happen to live with insist on infringing their rights.

The problem is: Who will decide which unelected government is able to do a better job?
1- A government from another nation
2- The success or not of a coup d’état
3- A head of state wanting his soon to succeed him
4- A head of state desiring to govern for 10 years more after, after already 20 years in power

Some countries feel that the vote isnt truley representitive unless the everyone votes and therefore force them to.

Parasinia thinks that's a load of bull since a choice to not vote is still a choice and therefore they practiced in the democratic system.

But we'd still oppose a measure

In other words... better a Benevolent Dictatorship, Libertarian Police State or Iron Fist Socialists than Free Market Paradise, Conservative Democracy or Tyranny By Majority.

Indeed.

for us it seems that liberty-respecting ideologies and democracy are both, in the same time, the cause and the consequence of each other.

Well, that clearly can't always be the case. My ideology is based solely on respect for human freedoms, and yet I don't believe that democracy is necessary. I support far more extensive freedoms and rights than most of the people I know who believe that democratic governance is inherently superior.

Sadly, of course there are many abuses in democracies, in particular about minorities, and I never said that democracy is perfect. But, I think it's important to ask ourselves the following question:
Have individual and minorities’ freedom been well protected in the history of humanity?
Which political systems in the world increased and emphasized individual and minorities’ freedom?
Which political systems in the world increased separation of powers into branches and periods of time?
Which political systems in the world increased information freedom, which can be considered as another political power and then increase also the separation of powers?
Which political systems in the world accepted unions, which can be considered as another political power and then increase also the separation of powers?
Which political systems in the world opened and let possible the debate about individual and minorities’ freedom, even if the case of those not being respected?

I'm not here to say that benevolent dictator is impossible, it had happen, but its occurrence and length in time are low.

You've completely missed my point. I'm not disputing that democracy tends to produce better governance. I'm saying that the value of democracy is only ever as a means to an end - that end being the securing the rights and freedoms of citizens. There is no value to democracy aside from that statistical tendency, and so, given that good, liberal governance by an autocrat is feasible, we shouldn't slavishly adhere to democracy. We should recognise that if undemocratic government can achieve those desirable aims better than a democracy, then that undemocratic government is preferable.

The problem is: Who will decide which unelected government is able to do a better job?
1- A government from another nation
2- The success or not of a coup d’état
3- A head of state wanting his soon to succeed him
4- A head of state desiring to govern for 10 years more after, after already 20 years in power

Why are any of these less valid, philosophically, than "the people's choice"? What matters is that the right decision is made, not who makes them.

OOC: This all springs from my RL beliefs, which can essentially be encapsulated as follows - if I or someone else who held my political beliefs overthrew democratic governance in a country (hopefully mine!) and installed a benevolent dictatorship that protected freedom better than our current "democratic" government does (not hard!), I would regard this as a very good thing, even if the majority of the population were strongly against the measures imposed.

Why are any of these less valid, philosophically, than "the people's choice"? What matters is that the right decision is made, not who makes them.


Well, that clearly can't always be the case. My ideology is based solely on respect for human freedoms, and yet I don't believe that democracy is necessary. I support far more extensive freedoms and rights than most of the people I know who believe that democratic governance is inherently superior.

Of course, human rights are essential, I fully agree with you; and what matters is that the right decision is made, but "the right decision" is not something objective, and any 2 different persons will have 2 different opinions about what is the right decision. It’s why alongside human freedoms, it’s important than every citizen can take part in the political process to express his/her opinion about what "the right decision" is.
It’s why I personally consider the right of every citizen to express politically, his/her opinion about “the right decision”, as a freedom to be respected.

Further more I would like to add that environmental concern and sustainable economic growth also matters.



You've completely missed my point. I'm not disputing that democracy tends to produce better governance. I'm saying that the value of democracy is only ever as a means to an end - that end being the securing the rights and freedoms of citizens. There is no value to democracy aside from that statistical tendency, and so, given that good, liberal governance by an autocrat is feasible, we shouldn't slavishly adhere to democracy. We should recognise that if undemocratic government can achieve those desirable aims better than a democracy, then that undemocratic government is preferable.



Why are any of these less valid, philosophically, than "the people's choice"? What matters is that the right decision is made, not who makes them.

OOC: This all springs from my RL beliefs, which can essentially be encapsulated as follows - if I or someone else who held my political beliefs overthrew democratic governance in a country (hopefully mine!) and installed a benevolent dictatorship that protected freedom better than our current "democratic" government does (not hard!), I would regard this as a very good thing, even if the majority of the population were strongly against the measures imposed.

I’m pretty sure that I will be happy to live in a benevolent dictature ruled by the liberal and compassionate UN Ambassador of _Myopia_, and sorry if I missed your point, but nobody had ever explained me how a benevolent dictature happen, it seems random for me, as a Las Vegas or Macau casino, yes you can win sometimes in those place.

Human right is a growing progressive notion, hopefully human rights are wider today than 200 years ago, and I hope that they will be even wider next century.

Why are any of these less valid, philosophically, than "the people's choice"? What matters is that the right decision is made, not who makes them.
Because they put the stability of the system in the hands of one individual's commitment to a benevolent government, rather than in the hands of the entire people writ large. Further, because they do not allow for relatively easy removal of the leadership from its position of power in the event that the leadership makes unwise decisions.

Personally, I would rather live in a society in which good governments are occasionally voted out of office than in one in which bad governments can persist for decades. Individual benevolent dictators may exist; the Enlightened despots of the 18th century were good early examples of the type. Nonetheless, a benevolent ruler could easily be succeeded by a ruler who is not so benevolent (like Alexander II and his successor Alexander III).

I have inserted my proposal to The UN So all who do agree with me can vote on this issue.

IC: Why need we pass laws regarding compulsory voting (or the lack of it) when the UN has yet to require that nations have voting of any kind?
If we were to look at the passed resolutions and note the numbers voting for some of them we would see that if anything needs compulsory voting it's the UN itself.. As some current resolutions passed by a small total voting number.. yet the full UN now has to deal with what a minority got lucky and passed.

Thus how can any nation force voting on it citizens and expect it to be effective voting...? Give them a right to vote it they too dang lazy to do it then... let them live the the results...

You can give a man toilet paper but if all he does is want to read it then his butt will not get wipped...

If we were to look at the passed resolutions and note the numbers voting for some of them we would see that if anything needs compulsory voting it's the UN itself..

*Shudders*

Not unless we also have compulsory reading of the whole proposal (rather than just its title) and of the debate thread...

Of course, human rights are essential, I fully agree with you; and what matters is that the right decision is made, but "the right decision" is not something objective, and any 2 different persons will have 2 different opinions about what is the right decision. It’s why alongside human freedoms, it’s important than every citizen can take part in the political process to express his/her opinion about what "the right decision" is.
It’s why I personally consider the right of every citizen to express politically, his/her opinion about “the right decision”, as a freedom to be respected.

That's the thing - everyone has different views on what should happen, but I don't give a damn how much certain people might like to restrict freedom of speech, institute prejudice, or strip away the right to healthcare - they should never be allowed to do this to the rest of us.

OOC: I am aware of that this will to impose my views despite recognising their subjectivity appears odd. The way I see it is this - there is no way to prove any ethical view correct, and this includes the equally subjective view that "given we don't know of any objective ethics, you shouldn't impose your subjective views on others". Therefore, since there is absolutely no way to know whether my or any other ethics are objectively correct, I may as well do what satisfies me, and impose my liberal ethics on everyone. Of course, anyone can do the same with their own ethical code, but I'm convinced within my own head of my own ethics, so I'll fight them all the way ;) .

Further more I would like to add that environmental concern and sustainable economic growth also matters.

Philosophically, I would regard these in terms of rights and freedoms of human beings - for instance, if greenhouse gas emissions are not restricted and global warming results, the freedoms of future generations to do as they please with they lives are massively curtailed (or completely destroyed by death); and if you're starving to death trapped in abject poverty, this could hardly be described as freedom.

@The Beltway - I don't dispute that democratic goverments more usually provide good governance, I'm just arguing in defence of those few dictatorships that can provide good governance. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

hey, democracy is just wrong, compulsory is even worse.

Philosophically, I would regard these in terms of rights and freedoms of human beings - for instance, if greenhouse gas emissions are not restricted and global warming results, the freedoms of future generations to do as they please with they lives are massively curtailed (or completely destroyed by death); and if you're starving to death trapped in abject poverty, this could hardly be described as freedom.


I fully agree with you here.

That's the thing - everyone has different views on what should happen, but I don't give a damn how much certain people might like to restrict freedom of speech, institute prejudice, or strip away the right to healthcare - they should never be allowed to do this to the rest of us.

OOC: I am aware of that this will to impose my views despite recognising their subjectivity appears odd. The way I see it is this - there is no way to prove any ethical view correct, and this includes the equally subjective view that "given we don't know of any objective ethics, you shouldn't impose your subjective views on others". Therefore, since there is absolutely no way to know whether my or any other ethics are objectively correct, I may as well do what satisfies me, and impose my liberal ethics on everyone. Of course, anyone can do the same with their own ethical code, but I'm convinced within my own head of my own ethics, so I'll fight them all the way ;) .

I tend also many times to be convinced within my own head of my own ethics; but as it had happen that my own ethics had proven wrong sometimes. It's why I'm suspicious about anyone ethics, my own included;)

In the US 47% of people vote, with 25% of the population going out to vote for you, you have won. The same goes for Britain. A truly interesting situation. Some of the rising stars in the world use compulsory voting Sweden, Singapore, Australia. Watch as responsible citizenship eclipses declining power. Be careful. Athens the historical birthplace of Western style democracy used forced voting.

Athens also used Direct Democracy, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Athens also elected its Generals (not always good in times of war*), and chose representatives by luck.

*Though there were exceptions. Pericles and Thermistocles were quite good, but each general only controlled the army/navy for one month at a time.

If we were to look at the passed resolutions and note the numbers voting for some of them we would see that if anything needs compulsory voting it's the UN itself.. As some current resolutions passed by a small total voting number.. yet the full UN now has to deal with what a minority got lucky and passed.

Thus how can any nation force voting on it citizens and expect it to be effective voting...? Give them a right to vote it they too dang lazy to do it then... let them live the the results...

You can give a man toilet paper but if all he does is want to read it then his butt will not get wipped...
Ecopoeia frequently abstains from voting. This isn't because we're apathetic, it's because there's no 'Abstain' button.

*Shudders*

Not unless we also have compulsory reading of the whole proposal (rather than just its title) and of the debate thread...


Amen!!!

Athens also used Direct Democracy, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

It's closer than you think. There is already an issue on the system that gives the people the right to decide which government sectors thir tax monies should be distributed to. That's a pretty strong example of a direct democracy where all of the citizens in effect vote on laws (in this case the government's budget).

It's closer than you think. There is already an issue on the system that gives the people the right to decide which government sectors thir tax monies should be distributed to. That's a pretty strong example of a direct democracy where all of the citizens in effect vote on laws (in this case the government's budget).
Ecopoeia is a direct democracy of sorts.

OOC: in RL... I'd like to see it, but I don't think the politicians of most governments (nor the countless individuals, lobbyists and business with vested interests in the governments) will let it happen. Quelle surprise.

I tend also many times to be convinced within my own head of my own ethics; but as it had happen that my own ethics had proven wrong sometimes. It's why I'm suspicious about anyone ethics, my own included;)

This is an interesting thing to say. How can ethics be proven wrong? I can see that you might be persuaded to believe in a different ethical principle, but how can you actually prove/disprove an ethical statement?

This is an interesting thing to say. How can ethics be proven wrong? I can see that you might be persuaded to believe in a different ethical principle, but how can you actually prove/disprove an ethical statement?

Well as they say, "it depends on the definition." The primary definition of ethic is "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation." Proving or disproving a discipline is not as easy as you might think. The secondary definition is "a theory or system of moral values." Clearly it's easy to prove or disprove a theory.