NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you get a downgrade on Political Freedoms if you have compulsory voting? All it means is that people who want the government to mind its own business are represented in legislature.

Australia has compulsory voting, and they do not lock up people for speaking against government policies; which Canada, which does not have compulsory voting, has been known to do-- I've met people it happened to, different times and places.

Because compulsory voting removes people's political freedom to not vote?

What the mod said.

Actually, I think that the mod is incorrect. The original poster makes a good point about the representation of the disenfranchised, while the right not to vote is generally manifest in political alienation and none-representation. Being legally bound to do something seems to me more likely to infringe on civil than political rights, where as the right not to be political seems more, well, apolitical.


Of course, Beth Gellert has no interest in the issue of such primitive representation in false democracy, so I don't really care where this debate goes :)

Political rights covers all rights related to politics; such as voting. If you cannot vote, or must vote, you have less freedom than a nation where it's an option.

Australia has compulsory voting, and they do not lock up people for speaking against government policies

No, but they do get fined if they do not vote.

Australia has compulsory voting, and they do not lock up people for speaking against government policies; which Canada, which does not have compulsory voting, has been known to do-- I've met people it happened to, different times and places.

I'm Canadian and I've NEVER heard of anything like that.

I'm Canadian and I've NEVER heard of anything like that.
Lucky you.

Lucky you.

Give me an example and I may believe you.

In my country when you register your national ID number you must select your political affiliation. You are either liberal, conservative, authoritarian, libertarian, or somewhere in between. Once you have selected your affiliation, all elections in which your citizenship applies automatically tallies you in to the vote based on what parties are participating in the election. Voting day is not the day you go out to vote, it is simply the deadline for changing your affiliation. You are free to change your affiliation as many times as you wish - with a small processing fee, but you are frozen in place on election day. The day before election day is the big last day to change your mind. In this way I consider it to be a compulsory system, you must choose your affiliation. Is that still a limitation to somebodies rights?

Yes, I would say that's a limitation to your rights, as this automatically counts your vote, without the chance NOT to vote. Also, it eliminates split-ticket voting (voting for candidates of more than one party). Definitely a political rights infringement.

So the main things I'm missing is the ability to vote on personality rather then affiliation, and the ability to abstain altogether.

If i included the ability to select no affiliation then that would be what most citizens would select by default. And I would end up with droves of people electing out of the system. Thats what I'm trying to prevent. At any one time I would like my government to know exactly what the political climate is and be able to act accordingly. Perhaps to help provide these people with their freedoms, this government would provide a neutral selection, and the neutrals would be required to vote traditionally on the election day.

To help reduce the number of political neutrals, the government will create a one year political school in which each faction pays to spend time teaching students about its core values.

But in the name of political freedom that still leaves a huge gaping hole for people to just stop participating. Is there a point at which individual political freedoms are not as important as the political health of the whole country?

The freedom to vote also implies there is a freedom not to vote.

You are asuming that democracy automatically results in freedom when in fact, it doesn't.

I think politics has been controlled by "parties" for far too long. People can't be by partisan anymore due to the fact that they won’t get as much funding from the so called "parties". I think parties are stupid and we should start voting on if we like someone’s views or not, not what party they are in. It just makes more sense to let political minds speak their mind instead of saying they agree with EVERYTHING a party says unless they actually do.

Edit: Sorry I got a little off topic there