SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that when asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said Obama "It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly.
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."
At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans -- more than the population of Russia -- skipped out.
Critics of mandatory voting have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @12:50PM
If someone doesn't want to vote, then they should have the freedom to not do so. But that's just coming from someone who would prefer to live in a free country, which unfortunately does not exist.
It would be better if you had to pass a basic knowledge test on major current events before you were allowed to vote, but I can't see that idea gaining any traction...
Because, as we've seen, it would only be used to oppress people. And what you consider to be "basic knowledge" would eventually be changed to better oppress poor people, who also tend to be uneducated. Nice job harming the poor even more.
I also think that it's more important to have good critical thinking skills than to mindlessly memorize "basic knowledge." What could you possibly test them on? Randomly historical events? Knowledge of the candidate(s) in question? None of this would ensure they're making a 'good' decision, and as soon as you get into that territory, you're already trying to remove your opponents' voting rights. We should not remove people's fundamental right to vote based on subjective feelings of what qualifies as "basic knowledge."
(Score: 5, Informative) by RobotMonster on Sunday March 22 2015, @01:46PM
If someone doesn't want to vote, then they should have the freedom to not do so.
In Australia, you indeed have the freedom not to vote. You *do* need to get yourself marked-off on the electoral role, otherwise you will be fined, but nobody is forcing you to actually influence the election result.
But that's just coming from someone who would prefer to live in a free country, which unfortunately does not exist.
Giving an equal vote to *all* candidates is hardly a good recipe for moving towards a free country... Sit around a whinge about the state of the nation, and then don't vote (or run yourself). Good plan.
I also think that it's more important to have good critical thinking skills than to mindlessly memorize "basic knowledge." What could you possibly test them on? Randomly historical events? Knowledge of the candidate(s) in question?
I agree; critical thinking is an essential skill. As I initially said, I doubted any attempt to ensure the voters actually know what they are voting about would get anywhere.
It has given me a thought though: Instead of the ballot paper listing the candidates you wanted to vote for, it listed policies instead. The winning candidate would be then determined by which policies each candidate was for or against. This would have the advantage that the electorate would then have a clear-cut contract with the elected person: No, we didn't vote for You. We voted for X. You said you were going to do X, we voted for X, and now you are compelled to do X or we will call a fresh election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @01:54PM
In Australia, you indeed have the freedom not to vote. You *do* need to get yourself marked-off on the electoral role
Nice try, but you can see their intentions. You get fined if you don't bother with any of it.
Giving an equal vote to *all* candidates is hardly a good recipe for moving towards a free country...
The idea of infringing upon people's freedoms to give people freedom is contradictory. You cannot sway me by trying to convince me that practical benefits won't work. My stance is a principled one.
Good plan.
I don't think it's a good plan, but I support other people's freedom to do that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @02:15PM
> The idea of infringing upon people's freedoms to give people freedom is contradictory. My stance is a principled one
Its not principled, its pedantry. Freedom is not a concept fully defined by a single sentence.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:09PM
You're an idiot. If you make voting mandatory, you are infringing upon people's freedom not to vote. I don't care what other freedoms you claim to be protecting; if we infringe upon other liberties in order to do that, it is meaningless. What you are saying is no different from the scumbags who say we should violate people's freedom in the name of safety.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:46PM
> You're an idiot.
When everybody else are idiots and morons, its time to start wondering if maybe the problem lies elsewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @02:05AM
Bandwagon fallacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @05:09AM
I've lost track... which AC are you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:20PM
When logical fallacies like this get modded up, you know something is wrong.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RobotMonster on Sunday March 22 2015, @02:33PM
You get fined if you don't bother with any of it.
Nice try, but you won't get fined if you never even bothered to get on the electoral roll in the first place.
My stance is a principled one.
What principle would that be?
Do you have the freedom to lie in the middle of a busy road?
Do you have the freedom to drive over somebody exercising their freedom to lie in the middle of a busy road?
Do you have the freedom to expect that people won't be lying in the road?
Your freedoms should end where they infringe on mine.
Not bothering to vote against a wanna-be-dictator? That's infringing on my freedoms right there.
This freedom thing is a bit more complicated than you seem to think!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:13PM
Nice try, but you won't get fined if you never even bothered to get on the electoral roll in the first place.
So mandatory voting doesn't exist, then? One needn't do anything at all?
What principle would that be?
All of your examples are absurd and completely offtopic.
Your freedoms should end where they infringe on mine.
You do not have a freedom to take away other people's freedom not to vote, or at least, you shouldn't.
That's infringing on my freedoms right there.
Nope. The dictator would be infringing upon your freedoms, not people who vote/don't vote in a way that you like. You seem to be the wannabe dictator here, pal.
This freedom thing is a bit more complicated than you seem to think!
It's really not, but I expected a response like yours; you're completely transparent. Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end, which we've seen with the war on 'terror'. You're in such good company.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday March 22 2015, @11:07PM
Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end,
Oh please; while this is often true, it is not *always* true.
Should you have the freedom to carry an M60 at all times, and be free to gun down whoever you like?
No?
I shouldn't be free to murder you in your home? That's fascist man. You're infringing on my liberties! Help, Help! I'm being oppressed!
I gave you a chance to explain your "principle", but the best you could do was complain I was being off-topic. Foolishly I was hoping for an interesting discourse...
What your "principle" appears to be, is anarchy. (I should be able to do, or not do, anything I want, rest of the world be damned).
This was supposed to be a discussion about democracy, not anarchy. You can't be completely free in a democracy to do anything you damn well please.
There are laws and such, that (oh no) reduce your freedom, for the overall benefit of society. This is part of the democratic system. One of the main roles of the elected is to work on improving that body of law (in principle, anyway).
Ensuring that the citizens take part in the democratic process is (supposed to be) for the overall benefit of society.
Go live in your anarchist utopia with the rest of your anonymous troll friends and see how free you are three weeks later when some other anarchists with bigger guns move in...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @02:00AM
Should you have the freedom to carry an M60 at all times, and be free to gun down whoever you like?
Jesus, you're ridiculously stupid. Your notion of freedom is so broken that talking to you is a waste of time, because whenever I mentioned the word "freedom", you seem to assume I think it's a natural right to murder people.
Fuck off if you're going to be this dishonest.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RobotMonster on Monday March 23 2015, @09:19AM
You're the anarchist who keeps insisting "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end", without caveat,
*Finally* you've admitted that you don't think that directly harming others should be included in your freedom.
But you know, keep arguing your "principled stance" without actually explaining your principles...
Your notion of freedom is so broken that talking to you is a waste of time
I was trying to find out what your notion of freedom was, as you kept declaring that you can't "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties". This is a blanket statement that is clearly not correct (and not one you agree with, if you're going to outlaw 'directly' harming others, whatever that might mean.). You're spouting catchphrases that don't actually reflect what you're thinking.
Jesus, you're ridiculously stupid.
You're the fucking moron here, dumb-ass. Talking to you is like talking to an eleven year old.
You mentioned earlier in the thread that you valued critical thinking. You might want to invest in learning how to do it. And actually communicating your point, instead of calling everybody stupid, that would be a small improvement.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @01:45PM
You're the anarchist who keeps insisting "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end", without caveat,
Not an anarchist. Straw man.
You mentioned earlier in the thread that you valued critical thinking. You might want to invest in learning how to do it.
I say it is you who needs to learn how to think critically; your straw men and random assumptions are seemingly endless. Furthermore, you resort to pointless pedantry. Because of that, I have no real desire to waste my time explaining my exact positions (which would likely be intentionally misinterpreted anyway), and you've already revealed yourself as an authoritarian anyway.
Here's how a conversation with someone who supports the NSA's mass surveillance sometimes turns out:
Me: We should value freedom over safety.
Them: Aha! You didn't specify *exactly* what freedom means! That must mean you support the freedom to murder! Checkmate, anarchist!
You're resembling them right now. I could pick at many statements you've made in the exact same way, since language isn't always exact or literal.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @02:03AM
I gave you a chance to explain your "principle"
Freedom does not include the ability to directly harm others without consequence.
Go live in your anarchist utopia
Not forcing people to vote != anarchy. I am actually a liberal, so nice try there.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Monday March 23 2015, @09:11AM
Freedom does not include the ability to directly harm others without consequence.
It does for some people. But, finally, you've said something instead of throwing around insults and one-eyed nonsense. Hoorah!
So, do you have the freedom to not pay your taxes?
Doesn't directly harm anyone.
(Score: 1, Troll) by tathra on Sunday March 22 2015, @03:35PM
how absurd. we've taken away your freedom to freely murder people with no consequences in order to give the people you would have murdered the freedom to live. taking away freedom to give freedom, no contradictions there at all, its just a matter of whose freedoms and the freedoms to do what. if restricting certain freedoms increases the amount of freedom available to more people then its a net gain, an overall increase in "freedom".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:20PM
how absurd. we've taken away your freedom to freely murder people with no consequences in order to give the people you would have murdered the freedom to live. taking away freedom to give freedom, no contradictions there at all, its just a matter of whose freedoms and the freedoms to do what.
You're a complete moron. I do not believe such a freedom would ever be legitimate to begin with, so you seemingly misinterpreting my position to score 'points.' So calling that a freedom when speaking to me is mistaken to begin with. Freedom isn't, to me, the same as the ability to do something.
Murder directly harms someone. You cannot make the same claim of someone who doesn't vote, unless you have a very illogical definition of "harm." And it is contradictory because if your goal is to maximize freedom, you have already failed, as there are certainly alternatives to forcing people to vote.
if restricting certain freedoms increases the amount of freedom available to more people then its a net gain, an overall increase in "freedom".
I speak of *real* freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, privacy, etc. And no, you cannot infringe upon such fundamental liberties in the name of more freedom. You might spew forth more straw men that has nothing to do with my actual position, but that will not help you.
You seem to be in the same crowd as those who say we need to surrender our liberties for security from the terrorist bogeyman, and even your example is extremely similar. In order to truly maximize freedom, we need to take measures that don't infringe upon our fundamental liberties to begin with, like, say, education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @05:40PM
"Giving an equal vote to *all* candidates is hardly a good recipe for moving towards a free country."
Granting your imprimatur to the corrupt religion of 'democracy' certainly is no better.
If voting could change the system it would be illegal. Think about it.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday March 23 2015, @01:16PM
If we must have voting rather than representative democracy run like jury service, I like the opportunity to vote directly on issues rather individuals who might have a passing resemblance to my position while electioneering. However, I am concerned that the economics of party politics will allow one party to obtain the most populist position. This would lead to a one-party state and no obligation for anyone to fulfil an electoral mandate.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Monday March 23 2015, @01:56PM
I like the idea of a random-lottery jury-service type thing. Elections based on issues, with randomly selected people who must adhere to the per-issue election results. It seems like it could do a lot to rid us of the "career politician" problem, but I do worry that it would end up being little more than a figure-head type arrangement with the real power (and corruption) being wielded entirely by the civil servants. (Having said that, it'd likely still be an improvement over the current models).
I don't think capitalism and (true) democracy are really that compatible.
I'm reminded of an idea I had once to solve the problem of election results not being truly representative. Regardless of whether you use first-pass-the-post or preferential systems, the counted results can vary quite a bit from overall voter intentions. (I would put a reference here but I'm too lazy). My thought was to make it random -- all votes are put into a hat (figuratively), and only one ballot is drawn from it. The content of that ballot would be the election result. If you run the system for an infinite amount of time, overall voter intentions would be accurately tracked. Every vote counts! Your vote could be the winning ticket.
A one-party state would be a travesty. A two party system is bad enough! In the same way that I think that there needs to be an upper ceiling on how large multinational corporations should be able to grow (see the TV series Continuum where the multinationals of the future stepped in and took over when the governments of the world ran out of money), perhaps there should be a limit to how many people could be in a party? If we're voting for 'people' instead of 'issues', I'd much rather each elected representative got to act on their own conscience, instead of having to blindly follow the party line (i.e. no parties, only issues).
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday March 23 2015, @04:47PM
I would almost prefer that a 3rd chamber be added to the legislative branch. This 3rd chamber is chosen at random yearly from the population, have it be like 0.001% of the population chosen at random from the voting population similar to jury duty. These people remain at home and every 2 weeks they are sent a ballot to vote yes or no on all legislation passed by both the house and senate that they have to have postmarked within 2 weeks. I'd even offer compensation to these people of $1000-$2000 a year since it will take away from their free time. For a bill to go on to the president 50%+1 of this new chamber would need to vote in the affirmative.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday March 23 2015, @05:44PM
they're not. when a system exists that allows money to be centralized, it becomes possible to use those insanely large sums of money to buy anything, even regulatory agencies and lawmakers. the solution is to not let money be concentrated into the hands of a few individuals in the first place. pretty much all wealth is only gained due to luck, either by being born into money or by getting extremely lucky by having the right idea at the right time (which still requires having enough initial capital to be able profit off the idea), but hopefully 'forceful wealth redistribution' (taking money by force and redistributing it) isn't required, hopefully actual socialism, where the people who work for a company are all co-owners (cooperatives i think they're called?), could distribute capital more fairly in a reasonable amount of time and keep it from concentrating in insane amounts into individuals' hands. the only problem is getting enough cooperatives started for the idea to take off and replace our current exploitation-driven market.