Right to vote freely in a democracy

Post Reply New Topic

You'd think so, but Bush still got in.... Funny thing, that.

I voted for Bush and would again if it were possible. I would have rather of voted for a Constitution party candidate, but I thought Bush had a higher probability of winning. I'm still going to do some research, but I think Ron Paul is next.

false

Why make it a responsibility? Not everyone will decide not to vote anyway though and given the number of strongly political people in existence I find it ridiculous to even make the claim that we would have no voters, let's just even look at this honestly, large groups of people find politics interesting enough to spend much of their time debating it, why would they completely abstain from voting, especially as the value of their vote went up? Why should we make people contribute to the process? It is only desirable to have people contribute who actually have something worth contributing, which they in all probability will not. There is no proof that Nixon would have been removed though, given that he had a landslide victory in the 2nd election it does not seem likely that he would necessarily be untoppled, this entire line of argumentation is pretty vacuous as it merely appeals to change that neither of us know and claims that it will be an improvement even though I have already made a solid argument that people who are less likely to vote on their own will be more prone to bad choices, which means that for any possible good change there will likely be more bad changes. I stated my premises very clearly and the fact that they would lead to a view against yours is very apparent, if my premises are right then your view is wrong.

Depends on who is voted in, not solely on your opinion.

Ron Paul is not likely to win, he is popular amongst the libertarian crowd but most people will think he is nuts, especially given his views on the Gold Standard, which is usually a hard sell due to the deflationary effects. Now, if you believe in the Austrian business cycle or even their economic theories then Ron Paul is your man. Giuliani or Thompson are more likely to win the nomination than Paul though. Paul only has good results on internet polls, not on most other polls where the existence and republicanness of people can be verified.

Constitution party hasn't named a candidate yet, so I'm waiting for them.

Ah, but with compulsory voting and responsibility, there is also the fact that if you don't turn up at the poll and get your name ticked off, you get fined, because it is a criminal offence not to. So that forces people not to be apathetic and to actually have a say by getting off their collective duffs and fronting up to vote. Ignorance is no excuse, and it is no reason to deny someone the 'right' of voicing their opinion, even if it is only ticking a box on a piece of paper? I mean, really, how f*cking hard is it to cast a vote? How much of an imposition is it? Are people really that naive and dumb to think that by NOT voting they are actually helping get what they want? That's even more screwed up than thinking that owning weapons is going to stop you from being killed.... but that is being covered in another thread so we won't touch that one here. If you want to have the 'right' (which is only a privilege anyway) to complain about the government, then exercising that vote is the only answer. By not voting, that means that you cannot complain because you stayed silent. All this 'silent majority' stuff is BS anyway, because if they did what they were supposed to, then results would be different and POSSIBLY better.
Only someone who comes from a background where voting is compulsory can possibly understand.

One shouldn't spend their vote freely.

At least get a beer out of it.

No, it really doesn't force people to not be apathetic, it forces them to vote. The 2 acts are intrinsically different as one can simply vote randomly and still avoid the fine. Ignorance is a perfect reason to deny someone the power to decide the fates of millions of other people, nobody is denying a right to voice an opinion, however, there is no right to enforce an opinion upon others. Frankly though, between Australia and the US, the difference in people who discuss politics frequently is only a 1% difference, apparently the compulsory voting is not an incredibly effective tool for inspiration. Discuss politics frequently Heck, we actually have more people that claim to be somewhat interested in politics than Australia Somewhat interested in politics

Not voting is actually something that can get them what they want, not voting is an expression of a very simple idea, that voting is more costly than not voting and such an idea is completely legitimate, especially for those who do not have the mind or concern for politics. The_Chosen_One, your last argument "Only someone who comes from a background where voting is compulsory can possibly understand." is a completely idiotic and baseless argument, a deaf cry of the intellectually backwards. If you cannot create the logical construction or find the empirical data that would make your claim correct then I would have to simply label you as a dogmatic fool as either one of those should exist for a matter that relates so heavily to the real and potentially falsifiable. I already constructed a very good argument as for why my ideas are correct, you have not debunked my arguments at all or countered them, but merely gone on with drivel like one "chosen" by the faith. Technically though, the 'right' (what you construct it as hardly matters) of free speech is not something that can be abridged over matters of voting behavior nor is it something that should if only for the fear of encroachment of the 'right' of free speech.

Pray tell, how is a $100-odd fine less costly than a walk down to the local school or church to cast your vote? No logic there, because it costs nothing to vote (unless you have to travel, and postal votes only cost as much as a 55cent stamp). It's possible the main reason why there is so much apathy toward voting in America is that a lot of people are just ostensibly lazy and can't be bothered to get up and walk to the nearest booth for fear that they might be 'recognised' for voting for the wrong person. If that's the case, then that's even more stupid. Our system works, although we do have a lot of parties to choose from, and the preferential system leaves a bit to be desired, but it's the best we've come across. What would you prefer, only middle to upper class people casting their vote while leaving out the millions on welfare/social security, the poor, prisoners etc? Here, everyone has a say, yes, even prisoners; because once you are on the roll it is your OBLIGATION and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure a vote has been cast. If you feel like putting in a blank form, fine. It just counts as a wasted informal vote and you may as well have stayed home and copped the fine. But it seems that America doesn't like the word 'obligation' because it means that it's something they have to actually do. They would prefer a free ride with all the so-called 'freedoms' and 'rights' that come with it. Unfortunately, the easy way is the lazy way, and is always ends up being harder in the end.

I am not assuming a $100 fine when I speak of the freely chosen ability not to vote. I speak only of a system where people are not forced to vote. It absolutely costs to vote, it costs time, effort, and if one wants to do it well even more time and effort, not to mention whatever fuel costs to get to the voting booth(most things in America are not in walking distance... unless one really loves to walk). Nobody knows who each individual person votes for, social persecution thus wouldn't prevent this matter. Our system works as well.

Yes, I would likely prefer only the middle class and upper class voting on some level, but I would not prefer a property/wealth based system, what I am concerned about is the education of the voting populace, wealthier people do happen to be more educated, and educated people will likely pick better leaders. If a poor man is smart and educated then let him go to vote as well, but really, I tend think that good policies will tend to benefit all people, which means that I don't see a large reason for worry that voting has the distribution that it does, the fact of the matter is that I also worry that less educated people will seek more short-sighted policies seeking their own interest without understanding. I am not really afraid of a welfare program of some form, I am afraid of all forms of badly implemented ideas.

No, America doesn't actually view this as an obligation, we don't mind the word at all, we just don't assign the same obligations that you do. It is like me telling you of your obligation to pray to Allah 5 times a day, you may believe in obligation but that does not mean that praying to Allah is one of them. You have not proved that America has actually failed or will majorly fail, which means that there is no reason for me to act like it has or will.

That would have to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard against compulsory voting yet. So you think that getting off your bum to go and do what some refer as your democratic right to be such a huge impost that you would rather sit around and watch while a small minority elect the bozo that you probably wouldn't have voted for if you'd bothered to get up and vote in the first place, then complain why your candidate lost.... As I said, pretty lame. As I also said, education in the system and what policies each party has means Jack s**t when it comes down to voting. It's the fact that you are obligated to do so that is the main thing. You Americans would have to be the most lazy, apathetic, arrogant bunch on the face of the planet. You get all these privileges that you claim as rights and take them for granted, then when someone tells you to actually do something with those rights, you whinge and moan that 'it's too damn hard', or you say 'don't tell me what to do'. You say you are worried about less educated people voting a certain way etc etc... What makes you think the every educated person really gives a toss about foreign or fiscal policy, or whether you are winning the war or not? Having an educational elitist voting system might work for the middle class proletariat, but when you have more poor than either who have just as much 'right' to say what they think, then I can't for the life of me see why they should be left out of the equation. Sure, corruption still might be evident even if everyone voted, but that is not the fault of the electorate; the blame lies fairly and squarely with the politicians themselves. if you really want action, write your local MP or Senator, or introduce a Private Members Bill to get something done about the corruption. But don't blame the huddled masses because of the sins of the government. Hell, there are even some paranoid Americans who talk about revolution, but I bet they wouldn't bother to vote either. Would you deny them a voice as well? If yes, then wind back the clock and strap on the Swastika, because that's where you are headed.

I don't think that, I would be more likely to vote, however, I do not assume that everyone has the same value set that I do.

If I do not believe that a person is obligated to vote. I also believe that education and knowledge of policy is pretty damned important because the idea is to select good leaders who choose good policy. The reason for bad policy is because political leaders think they can get away with it. Look, you can moralize about Americans all you want, you are still as dumb as a jackass no matter what you say. Our "rights" are still bound to us very strongly at the core of our law, and frankly, the ENTIRE idea of freedom is that we don't have to do what you say, the complaint is that voting "isn't necessarily worth the time", and the defense "do not tell us what to do" is simply at the core of freedom to choose and value based upon one's nature.

Caring is not the big matter, the big matter is knowing who has non-sucky ideas. I don't care how much passion a person has if they don't know implementation. Voting isn't a right, it isn't the same as speech, voting is incredible power, and it is power that should be used to create good policies. We already have enough bad policies and bad rhetoric that I frankly do not want the non-educated making things muddier. Actually, I do not argue based upon corruption, I argue based upon the idea of people being elected for bad policy. If people are responsible for the choice of politician and most political action is meant to appease the people, then in order to target the actions of politicians one would be wise to deal with the people. Voting is power, not voice, I have asserted the distinction many times, frankly, if these people choose not to vote then I am not denying them anything, they are doing it to themselves. Go back to the swastika?? Yes, oh how could I have been so wrong.... Yeah, there is actually very little in common between my political ideals and those of fascism, in fact they are almost opposite, part of the reason I would limit the power of the masses is actually because I believe that they will pick fascism out of uneducated reasons and I am strongly opposed to that, I can tolerate educated fascists as rare as they are. To me voting != liberty, to me liberty = liberty.

For such a so-called educated person you seem to know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

BTW, I think the whole second half of your third last post is drivel anyway, because you could not come up with one good reason why our system wouldn't work there. Do you have an electoral roll over there? If not, why not? The electoral roll is what we use to keep track of voters who are in the system, and if you move house you must update the roll. Now, if you decided at the last election not to cast a vote, it just proves my point; and your argument about 'only the educated should make the decision' would be blown out of the water. I'd much rather have the system we have than a system where any donkey can get up because the apathetic majority were so lazy they couldn't have cared less, and didn't bother to vote. Oh, and all this first amendment s**t about free speech doesn't cover everything. There is a saying, 'make your vote count' and by not voting may as well make you an un-person as George Orwell would say. I guess the main problem besides the laziness, apathy and arrogance is that Americans think they are right about everything. Well, tell that to the disenfranchised who could have stopped Dubya from winning in 2000. Oh, forgot, you've made them all un-persons, so they don't count.

Oh, and with the fascist thing - it's not people who elect fascist governments, it's the corrupt governments themselves that grab power by overthrowing the democratically elected governments that people elect that causes fascist dictatorships. Stripping people of the 'right' to make a decision on who they want running the country is one step closer to a fascist state. Having the freedom to elect the government of your choice is about as democratic as you can get. You would set America back to the early 20the century. What next, after disenfrancising the poor etc? go after the women because they should be kept in the kitchen? Same with the elderly, who have virtually given their lives to your country so that they can have a say? You may as well call in the KKK or the Nazis and have done with everyone then, because your views are so close to Hitlers' that you may as well have been quoting from Mein Kampf. It really is a pity that you Americans seem to turn a deaf ear to what anyone else has to say, because the way you carry on anyone would think you were the only ones on the planet.

Last edited by The_Chosen_One on 14 Sep 2007, 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not analyzing your system and critiquing it, I don't feel like jumping into the world of Aussie politics given that I think it would take more exposure then I care to have in order to fully comprehend everything about the system, frankly, I don't have a problem with our system, it has bugs but everything has bugs, I just think that one of the major problems with our system is that the people can be fooled by bad policy. Frankly, I already made my argument against your point of idiots not voting upon the utilitarian grounds of the necessity of good policy. Free speech covers all that is necessary to call free speech. Actually, I don't believe that a person's personhood is made by voting, such an idea sounds inherently ridiculous. The only problem I see with America is the arrogance, and frankly "think that they are right about everything" is covered by arrogance. I don't see Americans as lazy, heck, we spend more hours at the office than most other peoples, I don't see apathy as a problem either as being plugged into the political system is not that important for personhood. The entire line of argument that X could be stopped ignores most of my premises and forgets the problem that I speak of. Yes, particular events could have been different, however, the overall change in the political system can still end up being negative.