NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think democracy should be for everyone or no one at all, and that optional voting just creates apathy, cynicism and indifference to public affairs, something which shouldn't be allowed if a society wishes to maintain a strong civic and public spirit.

Optional.

Compulsory, but with an "Abstain" option.

If people are too lazy to get off their asses and vote without being ordered to do so, I doubt they would spend much effort in making an educated choice.

If people are too lazy to get off their asses and vote without being ordered to do so, I doubt they would spend much effort in making an educated choice.

I don't plan too :)

Optional. It's true that you have voting apathy with optional voting, but compulsory voting just makes it worse and adds in the tendency of people to look upon voting as a bother, a horrible chore that needs to be taken care of rather than the privilege it is.

As a result you'd have even worse voting records from compulsory. If you want to eliminate voter apathy, you've got to do something different.

As a result you'd have even worse voting records from compulsory. If you want to eliminate voter apathy, you've got to do something different.

Actually keeping promises would make me care. How about they try that?

Actually keeping promises would make me care. How about they try that?

That'd be nice, but you should care nonetheless. At the very least you should focus to keep the sort of party you don't want in office OUT OF office, even if the other choices aren't too palatable either. I, for example, intend to vote anti-Republican in the entirety in 2008.

Actually I think a bit fat government fine is the only kind of incentive I can think of to cure political apathy. Also voter turnout if always better in compulsory voting nations.

If people are too lazy to get off their asses and vote without being ordered to do so, I doubt they would spend much effort in making an educated choice.

Indeed. At least voter apathy keeps some idiots out of the voting process.

Optional voting creates an underclass of non-voters, who because of lack of time because of work to devote to politics, become apathetic and indifference, and so cynical to politics that they give up on it. This in turn gives rise to an intellectual elite of politically active voters who, because of economic class, have the time and energy to devote to learning about the differences between the parties and candidates, and keep updated on the issues etc. This unequal distribution of wealth becomes therefore an unequal distribution of political power by extension, and ensures oligarchic control of the state. Liberal capitalist democracy is dictatorship in the disguise of democracy.

The best way to combat this is of course compulsory voting, but also development of a grassroots participatory democracy to get people involved in policy drafting, debate and discussion and local community issues. This would be supplemented by a regime of public compensations to those who participate in politics, so they are compensated for their opportunity cost. This would ensure that people can get involved in politics and the biggest block to participation, time and money, is erased. Television would be held in public trust and run by elected people to be unbiased purely public and free information outlets, private channels would have to be paid for.

That's what I think should be done anyways.

Compulsory with the option to vote blank.

Optional voting creates an underclass of non-voters, who because of lack of time because of work to devote to politics, become apathetic and indifference, and so cynical to politics that they give up on it. This in turn gives rise to an intellectual elite of politically active voters who, because of economic class, have the time and energy to devote to learning about the differences between the parties and candidates, and keep updated on the issues etc. This unequal distribution of wealth becomes therefore an unequal distribution of political power by extension, and ensures oligarchic control of the state. Liberal capitalist democracy is dictatorship in the disguise of democracy.
Compulsory voting won't give people more free time. If anything, it will give them less.

The best way to combat this is of course compulsory voting, but also development of a grassroots participatory democracy to get people involved in policy drafting, debate and discussion and local community issues. This would be supplemented by a regime of public compensations to those who participate in politics, so they are compensated for their opportunity cost. This would ensure that people can get involved in politics and the biggest block to participation, time and money, is erased. Television would be held in public trust and run by elected people to be unbiased purely public and free information outlets, private channels would have to be paid for.

That's what I think should be done anyways.
So people are paid for taking an interest in politics? That just won't work, where will the money come from? Presumably, taxes. But if people aren't working because they get their living from this politics fund, then they aren't paying income tax. So there'll be less taxes.

Compulsory voting won't give people more free time. If anything, it will give them less.


So people are paid for taking an interest in politics? That just won't work, where will the money come from? Presumably, taxes. But if people aren't working because they get their living from this politics fund, then they aren't paying income tax. So there'll be less taxes.

You seem to laboring under the perception that politics is not an economically productive enterprise, I would disagree, having the community participate in policies on a local level, such as coordination of putting businesses in place etc would be quite beneficial, and could bridge the gap between the people and usually inept local councils. Only when we as a people recognize that democracy and public life is a worthy and good thing, and not just a nice luxury on the side, can we truly take democracy seriously and not just treat it like a superficial fast.

You also seem to be laboring under the perception that if politics was paid for then everyone would want to do it, this ignores that even with such access politics isn't for everyone, some people just don't like it. The people I would say need targeting are those who would like to participate more in politics yet can't because of time and money issues. Also participation in politics as I proposed and the system of public compensation would be based upon outcomes (economic,social in the community) and time served employment, it could be full time or as a part time/casual job on top of another. What I suggest is a radical decentralization and the political 'public sector' to be a new group of community servants, whatever field.

Compulsory with the option to vote blank.

You can do that anyway, I am not sure about other countries but in Australia you have to go to the polling station and get your name signed off, but then you can just invalidate your card.

Widespread public participation in elections is a necessary compnent of democracy. However, compulsory voting is excessive in eliminating voter apathy, as it not only forces the people who don't care, it also forces the people who are genuinely disillusioned at all the existing political parties to make a vote rather than express their dissatisfaction by not voting.

You can do that anyway, I am not sure about other countries but in Australia you have to go to the polling station and get your name signed off, but then you can just invalidate your card.

Not every country has that though. Certainly not where I live, where voting isn't compulsory anyway.

Compulsory. You can always invalidly fill in your ballot paper so that it doesn't count if you so desire. Vote 1 in every box, that will stuff it up no probs.

Personally I think democracy should be for everyone or no one at all, and that optional voting just creates apathy, cynicism and indifference to public affairs, something which shouldn't be allowed if a society wishes to maintain a strong civic and public spirit.
Err, it's not optional voting that creates those problems, it's the cynical politics of those in power, and the apathy why that causes.

Voters only turn out if they really care. Most of the time, in western nations, they don't, because it makes no odds who they vote for most of the time, mainstream politics having become almost entirely homogenised since the end of the Cold War and all...

Personally I think democracy should be for everyone or no one at all, and that optional voting just creates apathy, cynicism and indifference to public affairs, something which shouldn't be allowed if a society wishes to maintain a strong civic and public spirit.You know, my German Grandpa grew up in a state with compulsory voting, and it created way more apathy, cynicism, and indifference than having the option not to vote. That and the result was predetermined anyway.

But compulsory voting will lead to throwaway votes for loveable cats (yes, cats not CATS.)

What's the point of voting, cumpolsory or not, when the entire election is decided by about 20 seats and the remaining 630 are completely safe for their incumbent MP?

Voting should be cumpulsary. That is, casting the ballot should be a requirement of maintaining one's citizenship.

What, if anything, you mark on that ballot, however, is nobody's business but yours.

As others have noted, it works nicely in other places. It would work in the US as well.

The only way I can see the "can't get to the polls during the 12 or so hours they are open" issue is to make the polling open for 24 hours (GMT) so that all polls open and close at the same time. No more calling elections before they even get opened in the western states.

It would be better, of course, if more people participated without being mandated to do so, but human nature being what it is, we seem to prefer complaining about the choices made than to make them.

Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide. You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think.

Compulsory voting ensures the continuation of the status quo and all but eliminates the possibility of real change.

80% of the population are sheep. They will always vote the same way, regardless of the performance or non-performance of the party they vote for, because, simply, they don't care.

The remaining 20% are composed of people who do care. Some will be fanatics for one party or another, others will be swing voters or issue based voters. Regardless of whether you have compulsory or optional voting, they will make the choice of who wins - but in the compulsory system, they have only the choice that the 80% sheep allow them. In Australia, that's either the Liberal/National Coalition or the Labor Party. The only reason any other party ever even gets mentioned is because Australia uses proportional representation for the Senate - otherwise, they would never get enough votes in one area to take a seat.

I would rather the 20% who care were not paralyzed by the weight of the 80% who are, in fact, apathetic idiots.

In addition, voting is a right. If you have the right to do something, it obviously follows that you also have the right to refuse to do so.

Just because you are force to vote doesn't mean you would care. Compulsory vote simply makes people who doesn't care go to the poll and check in or pick someone randomly. It certainly would not lead people to actually care about politics. Then again I live in the US so it's really just democrat or republican going back and forth every 4 to 8 years or so. This ongoing fluctuation have been around almost as early as the beginning of the country. People have gotten to the point where all they do is not vote, but counter vote. It's no surprise why some people just don't care.

Optional. Forcing someone to do something isn't very free and democratic.

Personally I think democracy should be for everyone or no one at all, and that optional voting just creates apathy, cynicism and indifference to public affairs, something which shouldn't be allowed if a society wishes to maintain a strong civic and public spirit.
Optional voting CREATES those things? What is your basis for this?

If someone isn't going to vote without being forced to, I don't want that kind of person to poison the ballot. Why the hell would you want those people to be part of the decision of who runs the government when even they don't want to? I think that whatever reasons certain people have for not wanting to vote are good reasons to not trust them to vote.

You could have a optional voting system with conditions that allow for higher voter turn out. This could be achieved with making the election day one where no one works and all business, except those which are vital are expected to close. Then the people in the vital sectors would get voting stations in their work place.

Once voting hours are over all restaurant and bars could open for the rest of the day.

It would be for one day. Before the actual election day, advance polling booths could be opened for those who would otherwise find the election day to be inconvenient for them if they were to be out of their riding.

While no one would be forced to vote, there would be no need not to because the day would be freed up.

Those unable to get to polling stations would be provided with ways of submitting their ballot.

And those who don't wish to vote, get the day off.

If this happened on a weekday, school would still operate, with teachers able to use the polling stations located in the school during their breaks.

Voting should be cumpulsary. That is, casting the ballot should be a requirement of maintaining one's citizenship.

What, if anything, you mark on that ballot, however, is nobody's business but yours.What if you're not a citizen but a resident? Can they kick you out of where you live if you fail to go to a local election? Or is this only valid for national elections?

As others have noted, it works nicely in other places. It would work in the US as well.Where? I've seen one example of Australia. I know that it's compulsory in Greece as well, with the option to vote blank, but no Greeks I know say that it works as intended, if it works at all.

The only way I can see the "can't get to the polls during the 12 or so hours they are open" issue is to make the polling open for 24 hours (GMT) so that all polls open and close at the same time. No more calling elections before they even get opened in the western states.

It would be better, of course, if more people participated without being mandated to do so, but human nature being what it is, we seem to prefer complaining about the choices made than to make them.You're going to need an additional government apparatus to keep track of all of this, particularly to deal with all the exemptions due to illness and whatnot or overseas citizens who's votes get lost.

Also voter turnout if always better in compulsory voting nations.

No Really......

The reason it is so high of a turn out is because the people are forced to vote

Where? I've seen one example of Australia. I know that it's compulsory in Greece as well, with the option to vote blank, but no Greeks I know say that it works as intended, if it works at all.


I know someone that has grandparents, aunts, and uncles over in Greece. He told me that over there it is a huge headache to even go and vote because you are required to.

His uncles and aunts just vote for any random person and then leave because the whole system doesn't work. Polling stations are overcrowed, the machines break often, and the line to vote goes on for about 5 hours if your lucky. Worse, since no one really cares for who gets into office, just about any person can get in if they want to, they just put there name on there and they have a good chance of winning.

No wonder no one can get anything done over there......:rolleyes:

No Really......

The reason it is so high of a turn out is because the people are forced to vote

No duh, the very definition of a state is a coercive public apparatus. Not passing a opinion either way, just saying it.

People should not be forced to vote for candidates that they despise. I mean what would the penalty for not voting be anyway?

There hasn't been a candidate in my lifetime that has represented a realist philosophy. I refuse to vote, but if I did, it would be for myself and no one else.