Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Should voting be obligatory?
Yes 22%  22%  [ 10 ]
No 67%  67%  [ 31 ]
Other answer 11%  11%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 46

crackedpleasures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,367
Location: currently Belgium, longing for the Middle East

18 Jul 2008, 8:57 pm

OK, my own views...

Coming from Belgium where voting is still obligatory (contrary to most other EU countries) I am proponent of abolishing the duty to vote. Because I see the harm it does. Populism is having a free way to success with this system. A lot of people in Belgium know nothing of politics and don't look further than the TV screen and biased media, some others are just ignorant or not interested in politics. Fair enough and nothing against those people, but to let them vote means you count in a lot of votes from people not knowing what exactly they voted for, which IMO is less representative than a situation where not everyone votes but where 100% of voters make a conscious vote.
Also, lot of people protest against the voting duty by voting far right, with the result that far right parties are doing very well in Belgium. Take away the duty to vote and those parties (relying on politically ignorant people and protest voters) would do a lot less good while other parties relying on voters really supporting an ideology would do a lot better.


in the margins, I am unsure of lowering voting minimum age to 16. I fear not enough youngsters are politically too aware, but on the other hand the vote of a 16 year old who really knows what he is voting for IMO is more valuable than the throw-away vote of a 35 year old who just felt forced to vote.

I am 100% pro voting rights for immigrants though, even when not having adopted citizenship yet. And not just immigrants from other EU countries, I think Arabs and Indians living in the EU should be voting too. They live here, the decisions by politicians affects their everyday life just as well, they pay taxes just like local citizens, ... so IMO these immigrants have the right to vote, the political situation of their adopted homeland affects them as well so they deserve to have their say.

I am not sure about letting nationals vote who live abroad. In a way what happens in their native country doesn't really affect them that directly. But as one who has left his native country, I am quite happy I can still vote in Belgian elections despite having lived abroad for 4 years now. I have not used the right yet because it is a hassle (registering with the embassy months in advance, filling in a voting form by post or at the embassy, ...) but I am happy to have the option should I want to use it next elections. I can only vote in national elections of course and not in regional elections but that makes perfect sense: I don't live in Belgium anymore so in what regional elections should I participate when I don't have a region in that country anymore?


_________________
Do what Thou wilt shal be the whole of the Law.
Love is the Law, Love under Will. And...
every man and every woman is a star
(excerpt from The Book of the Law - Aleister Crowley)

"Od lo avda tikvateinu" (excerpt from the Israeli hymn)


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Jul 2008, 10:13 pm

crackedpleasures wrote:
What are your opinions? Should voting be obligatory or should voting be a right rather than a duty?

Should never be obligatory.

Quote:
Also, in the margins of this question:
- should underaged people aged 16 and older have the right to vote, or should voting only be allowed once legal adulthood has been reached ?

You need to make an arbitrary cut-off point at some age, and 18 is as good a number as any.

Quote:
- should non-nationals residing in the country be allowed to vote? (here in the EU, European laws say non-nationals of other EU countries are entitled to vote in regional elections, but countries are free to also let non-EU nationals participate if they wish to do so)

If you mean naturalized citizens, then yes. If you are a citizen of a nation, paying taxes and in general contributing to society, then you should be permitted to vote. Naturalized citizens have just as much interest in election results as natural-born citizens, and have just as big a stake in the nation's well-being.

Quote:
- should nationals of a country residing abroad be entitled to vote or should they not be involved with elections of a country they are no longer residing in?

Depends on what is meant by "residing." A student studying overseas, or someone visiting other countries, living there only temporarily, etc, then sure because they're still citizens. But if you leave a country permanently, why should you still be allowed to participate in their political process?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Chaotica
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 714
Location: Hyperborea, buried under the ice and snow

19 Jul 2008, 5:48 am

I've noticed long ago that no matter for whom people vote, they always remain discontented and accuse the opposites of that :roll: It doesn't even matter who won!
I never vote!
1) It has no sense, the winner will win owing to his money and the bought voices;
2) It has no sense, because the Hidden Rulers choose the winner;
3) There's no political party which I trust.



crackedpleasures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,367
Location: currently Belgium, longing for the Middle East

19 Jul 2008, 1:17 pm

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
- should nationals of a country residing abroad be entitled to vote or should they not be involved with elections of a country they are no longer residing in?

Depends on what is meant by "residing." A student studying overseas, or someone visiting other countries, living there only temporarily, etc, then sure because they're still citizens. But if you leave a country permanently, why should you still be allowed to participate in their political process?


Most countries allow people holding citizenship to vote, even if they have lived abroad for 30 years and have intentions to ever return.

Personally I think it is a good thing. Take it from me who's been living abroad for several years now but with no intention to repatriate: the interest in your native country remains, even if only because people will always associate you with it despite having left the country behind and closed the chapter. You still don't want to be associated with for example a fascist government even if you don't live anymore in the territory it is governing?


_________________
Do what Thou wilt shal be the whole of the Law.
Love is the Law, Love under Will. And...
every man and every woman is a star
(excerpt from The Book of the Law - Aleister Crowley)

"Od lo avda tikvateinu" (excerpt from the Israeli hymn)


Sora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,906
Location: Europe

19 Jul 2008, 2:00 pm

I'm against voting being obligatory. It would mean I had to vote. Vote whom? They're all morons, the ones that fight their way up for important election here. Either they all say the same or they all head for the same goal, which is to make the lives of the poor more miserable by making the middle class with the money a little happy.

And making themselves richer each year. I can't believe they can just say 'oh, let's double our income since we're politicians' and nobody out there truly minds it.


_________________
Autism + ADHD
______
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett


MrMark
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2006
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,918
Location: Tallahassee, FL

19 Jul 2008, 2:20 pm

"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates"
- Jim Hightower


_________________
"The cordial quality of pear or plum
Rises as gladly in the single tree
As in the whole orchards resonant with bees."
- Emerson


Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

19 Jul 2008, 2:38 pm

Orwell wrote:
Speckles wrote:
It's when people start complaining about how horrible and corrupt things are, and then don't bother to vote. If things are really so bad, then why aren't you doing anything about it?

If you accept the premise that the system is corrupt (and the system obviously includes voting) then, FROM THOSE PREMISES, the futility of voting follows. A convincing argument from the opposing viewpoint would be an attempt to refute those premises, rather than the repetition of tired aphorisms that "if you don't vote, you can't complain."


I do not accept the premise that the system is corrupt to the point that voting does not have a political effect. I personally have no idea of what basis you would accept this belief; any real look at the history of the United States would show that the views of voters has a large effect on how the country is run. And Obama is a great example of how it still has an effect now. He's become the most successful campaign fund raiser in history, not through a few large donations but by a huge number of small ones. To get an idea of how it works and the scale relative to other campaigns check out these two articles:

The Amazing Money Making Machine
Obama's Small Donors vs. Congress' Big Money

And even if I were to accept it, since the ballot counting process is relatively transparent in the US your vote would still retain its symbolic value; the media attention on Zimbabwe is an example of this. Essentially, it's not that you need to vote to be able to complain, but that I personally will not value your complaints as much if you do not vote, or make some other tangible commitment toward them. I suspect that I am not the only one who holds this view.

You have expressed confusion before as to why your views have so little traction with other people. Have you ever considered that your own apathy may be part of the reason?

Quote:
Quote:
It's like the truism, better to light one small candle then curse the darkness. If a person sits around complaining about how horrible it is sitting in a dark room, when I know that they have a match, then I'm just not going to take their complaints as seriously.

What if they don't have a match? That is the viewpoint of those who say it is pointless to vote- they claim they have no effective means of driving change. It is not possible to refute those views by saying "why aren't you doing anything, why don't you light your match?" If someone has no match, this advice is useless.

I'm more playing devil's advocate than anything else right now, so please don't flame me so much over this. I just want people to look a little bit closer at the statements they are making and check to see where their logic breaks down. Heck, I've even told you a better way to refute the views I've been somewhat defending.


Hmm, your answer makes me feel annoyed here - I felt I was being fairly clear. In order to try to put it into context, I'm going to repeat the full paragraph here.

Speckles' Full Paragraph wrote:
It's like the truism, better to light one small candle then curse the darkness. If a person sits around complaining about how horrible it is sitting in a dark room, when I know that they have a match, then I'm just not going to take their complaints as seriously. If, after lighting their match it goes out so they are still sitting in darkness, then I will have more sympathy for their complaints. I suppose that it's not so much that voting is necessary to be able to complain; I simply won't value the views of such a person as I would if they had voted. It's my opinion, and you can choose to listen to it or not as you please.


It is my understanding that the existence of the match, or the ability to vote, is taken as a given in this thread. It is fair to assume, given that the discussion is about whether voting should be a right or a duty, that only people who can vote are being talked about. I'm quite tempted to put something snarky here, but I'll refrain. Anyways, the analogy of the match sputtering out after you try to light it is the equivalent to a vote being pointless. And in my opinion, at least in the states, this is flat out wrong and easily disproved by looking at history.

In the end, I suppose that I don't really care if you vote or not. I'm from another country, and so am not going to be hugely affected by your voting habits. And I do believe it should be a choice whether to vote or not. But, insisting that the system is some how broken and should be totally revamped, and then saying that you don't care enough about it to spend an afternoon to vote to change it, or a least vote in protest of it, makes it hard for me to take your views seriously.


_________________
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Jul 2008, 6:15 pm

Speckles wrote:
Orwell wrote:
If you accept the premise that the system is corrupt (and the system obviously includes voting) then, FROM THOSE PREMISES, the futility of voting follows. A convincing argument from the opposing viewpoint would be an attempt to refute those premises, rather than the repetition of tired aphorisms that "if you don't vote, you can't complain."


I do not accept the premise that the system is corrupt to the point that voting does not have a political effect. I personally have no idea of what basis you would accept this belief; any real look at the history of the United States would show that the views of voters has a large effect on how the country is run. And Obama is a great example of how it still has an effect now. He's become the most successful campaign fund raiser in history, not through a few large donations but by a huge number of small ones. To get an idea of how it works and the scale relative to other campaigns check out these two articles:

The Amazing Money Making Machine
Obama's Small Donors vs. Congress' Big Money

OK, now you're on more of the right track in your argument.

Quote:
You have expressed confusion before as to why your views have so little traction with other people. Have you ever considered that your own apathy may be part of the reason?

I am not confused as to why my views have so little traction. My views are fringe and very few people are interested in them. And I'm not apathetic, I just choose my battles.

Quote:
It is my understanding that the existence of the match, or the ability to vote, is taken as a given in this thread. It is fair to assume, given that the discussion is about whether voting should be a right or a duty, that only people who can vote are being talked about. I'm quite tempted to put something snarky here, but I'll refrain. Anyways, the analogy of the match sputtering out after you try to light it is the equivalent to a vote being pointless. And in my opinion, at least in the states, this is flat out wrong and easily disproved by looking at history.

You take the match as a given, but those you are criticizing do not. That's what you were onto earlier in your post. And (we've already had this debate) voting by itself is very ineffectual. When combined with more direct activism, it can make a difference. But the people who "keep their politics to themselves" but feel it is their "duty" to vote are wasting their time.

Quote:
In the end, I suppose that I don't really care if you vote or not. I'm from another country, and so am not going to be hugely affected by your voting habits. And I do believe it should be a choice whether to vote or not. But, insisting that the system is some how broken and should be totally revamped, and then saying that you don't care enough about it to spend an afternoon to vote to change it, or a least vote in protest of it, makes it hard for me to take your views seriously.

The "system" (whatever that is) works tolerably well for most people, so whatever I might ever do to "rock the boat," I certainly would not want to capsize it. I don't know how much it needs to be "totally revamped." And there are other views that could be brought in here about why some people wouldn't vote. Again, your rebuttal here, while fairly sound, is based at least in part on assumptions that you haven't made explicit and that are not universally shared. Your claims definitely are defensible here, but you are overlooking the opposing side's assumptions to some degree, which is very easy to do but also counter-productive.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 Jul 2008, 2:05 am

Why can't we have a leader who actually fights for the position and charges into battle on a white horse? I would definitely support that guy.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Balefire
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 45
Location: Your computer screen, trying not to crash.

20 Jul 2008, 3:59 pm

^Because it involves risking their careers, which no politicians ever consider.


_________________
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 Jul 2008, 4:24 pm

Balefire wrote:
^Because it involves risking their careers, which no politicians ever consider.

Well, no, because it provides little gain for them. The "riding warrior fan" demographic is pretty small. Frankly, they are willing as hell to risk their careers for money or sex.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

25 Jul 2008, 1:15 am

Orwell wrote:
Speckles wrote:

OK, now you're on more of the right track in your argument.


I glad you agree here. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies in general, his campaign and fund raising strategies are cool. A lot of his popularity isn't his own personal charisma, it's the political and technological machine supporting him. In a way, it's a victory of the nerds :P

Quote:
Quote:
You have expressed confusion before as to why your views have so little traction with other people. Have you ever considered that your own apathy may be part of the reason?

I am not confused as to why my views have so little traction. My views are fringe and very few people are interested in them. And I'm not apathetic, I just choose my battles.


Argh, I'm about to describe a confusing thought, and I'm not sure if I'm being clear. Please excuse me if I don't completely make sense.

First, there are many people who complain about how things are, advance fringe views that they haven't fully thought out, but who are not serious enough to actually do anything to really advance their views. Thus, it is not worth my time to seriously consider every person's views, as some are simply not worth my time or energy. To figure out which ideas to spend my mental resources on, I somewhat unconsciously apply some selection criteria. I'm sure you do the same.

Now, one of my criteria is how much tangible investment a person has put toward advancing their view. An idea that a person has invested 20 years of their life into is more likely to be interesting and logically possible then the idle complaints of a disaffected teenager. I'm not saying that this is always going to be the case, but probability-wise the former is probably the better investment.

Now, voting is a fairly cheap way to advance one's views. It's true that it may not have a large effect on an individual level, but it also has a low cost - a single afternoon every few years. In my eyes the effect a single vote has is enough to justify the cost of making it. As such, I am more likely to dismiss the views of a person who doesn't vote, since they appear to be dismissing their views themselves through their inaction. This is reinforced by the fact that I know others also share this viewpoint, and so also have a greater probability of devaluing the non-voter's words. The influence gained with this group also must be factored into the benefits of voting, which makes the choice not to pay the cost even more questionable.

In other words, when you say that you are not going to vote because it's pointless, I am more inclined to dismiss your views by calling you apathetic. If all I know about you is whether you voted or not, this is an rational choice of action. It possible other factors may cause me to reconsider, but not voting will likely remain a black mark against you. I do not view this as being shallow or mean, but being economical.

Of course, I don't really do this consciously. Until I sat down and really thought about it, all I really had was a intuitive distaste; I suspect that's as far as most people go. So while they may call voting a duty, perhaps they are merely informing you that they view the act of voting as an important symbolic gesture; it's used as a test of sincerity if you will.

Quote:
Quote:
It is my understanding that the existence of the match, or the ability to vote, is taken as a given in this thread. It is fair to assume, given that the discussion is about whether voting should be a right or a duty, that only people who can vote are being talked about. I'm quite tempted to put something snarky here, but I'll refrain. Anyways, the analogy of the match sputtering out after you try to light it is the equivalent to a vote being pointless. And in my opinion, at least in the states, this is flat out wrong and easily disproved by looking at history.

You take the match as a given, but those you are criticizing do not. That's what you were onto earlier in your post. And (we've already had this debate) voting by itself is very ineffectual. When combined with more direct activism, it can make a difference. But the people who "keep their politics to themselves" but feel it is their "duty" to vote are wasting their time.


Okay, I'm going to preface this by saying my match analogy not all that important, and we should probably drop it. Moving on to me being annoyed, I will spell out my thinking. The match is equivalent to the ability to vote; whether the match is not enough to properly light the room, or is defective so it won't even catch fire is the poetic equivalent to voting being useless.

Addressing your other comments here, of course combining voting with direct activism is going to result in greater influence; working at anything for several years is usually going to produce a greater result then only spending an evening on it. But I strongly disagree with your next statement, that only voting is a waste of time. It will not have a great effect; after all, it is only one voice out of between 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 (link). But IMO, as I have stated before, this is enough to justify the individual cost. You also have to factor in the satisfaction a person who feels a duty to vote will get by voting. If it makes them feel good, then it isn't really a waste of time for them.


_________________
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2008, 6:20 am

silentbob15 wrote:
I have found people who complain the most about politics and how its all a corrupt process never bother to vote.


This is so true. If you don't vote, do you even the right to loudly complain about the political situation? I say no. Being part of the democratic process gives you a measure of ownership.



MrMark
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2006
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,918
Location: Tallahassee, FL

25 Jul 2008, 7:06 am

Someone told me that if they didn't vote they felt they had no right to complain. I said that voting doesn't give you the right to complain, that no one has the "right" to complain, but you can complain if you want to, I don't mind.


_________________
"The cordial quality of pear or plum
Rises as gladly in the single tree
As in the whole orchards resonant with bees."
- Emerson


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2008, 7:27 am

MrMark wrote:
Someone told me that if they didn't vote they felt they had no right to complain. I said that voting doesn't give you the right to complain, that no one has the "right" to complain, but you can complain if you want to, I don't mind.


Who is asking your permission to complain? Complaining is free speech, is it not?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

25 Jul 2008, 10:49 am

@Speckles: All right, well, you're free to disregard anyone's views as you please. We all do so from time to time. I wasn't putting forward the case of voting being pointless in this thread, just trying to show that such a view is at least internally consistent and the only way to refute it is to go after the assumptions it makes, which you addressed by referencing the Obama campaign. Anyways, I did vote in the primaries, and will probably vote in the general election if I can find a candidate that I feel I can support. But I understand that most people do not share my views and would be happier to maintain the status quo, so any activism I would participate in would be geared to somewhat more moderate ends- striving for a balanced budget rather than gutting the federal government, advocating Friedman's NIT idea rather than attempting to dismantle the IRS, etc.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH