Right to vote freely in a democracy

Post Reply New Topic

TCO, we do keep track of voters in the system. Americans must register to vote, and changes in address etc. are kept track of. In Wyoming, at least, if you fail to vote some number of times, you are dropped from the rolls, so to speak, and must re-register when you choose to vote again.

I believe every American should vote. I think compulsory voting goes against our idea of freedom, however, if people did the right thing without being told, such a law wouldn't be necessary.

For example, we fight laws that prohibit burning the American flag, because of freedom of speech. But one would hope an American would refrain from doing so even without a law, because the flag is the very symbol of the freedom to burn it!

Really, Americans have incredibly good reasons when they do not vote though.

Reasons we do not vote

Substitute that last comment to mean 'reasons for apathy' because that's all it comes down to. Period.

Being dropped from the electoral roll only allows people to slip through the cracks, and being obligated to keep your registration up, as well as fronting up to vote isn't a loss of freedom, or an imposition. What about places like Zimbabwe or countries under dictatorships, where people CAN'T vote? We enjoy the freedom to choose who we want, even if we are compelled to choose; so why do you think you will be any different?
Obligations and responsibilities are parts of living in a 'free' society, don't impinge on day to day life as much as you think they do. Apathy and laziness do impinge more, because in the end it means even more of a problem when you have to re-register etc. How many people over there are too lazy to renew their drivers licences when they expire? Plenty, by the amount of people being pulled up. Well, if you need to do that to stay on the road, then what's wrong with taking a few minutes to keep up your registration with the electoral commission and voting when there is an election. Next election, think of those buggers who CAN'T vote, then don't complain when someone tells you to 'get off your asses and get out into the streets'. The only way to get the government you want is for the whole electorate to speak at the polls through their vote, and compulsory voting would ensure this.

My last comment with the link? It was a joke. It was from the onion. Ok, some Americans are apathetic about politics, I don't see that as a problem.

Slip through what cracks? It isn't a crack if that is how the system is designed to work. Actually, yes, anything that you become obligated to do without direct consent is a loss of freedom or imposition, any other definition of freedom would be meaningless. What about non-democratic nations? The non-voters enjoy an even greater freedom though, they have the freedom to choose who they want or not to do so. We will be different because our system is different and because we do not believe in forcing people to vote.

Some are, but unnecessary ones should be eliminated as they reduce the freedom of a society. I do not argue from the perspective of a person who hates voting though. Apathy and laziness do not really impinge more, it isn't that major of a problem to reregister and people reregistrating isn't going to be this crazy random issue anyway. Some people are too lazy to renew their driver's license, why does it really matter that one does register to vote though? I think that less people should be voting actually. Actually, I think the way for me to get the government I want is to only have informed people voting, this will reduce the populism and political manipulation, I really don't want the whole electorate to speak at the polls at all, as I argued before I think it would worsen the political system because the people who don't vote are less qualified to do so than those who do. Compulsory voting is therefore a bad idea. Seriously, let me ask you a question: why do you not tackle each of the premises in my framework or even create an effective counter-framework to deal with mine? Your arguments aren't very logical, you repeat the same ones a lot(from what I have seen here) and say things that are pointless, such as your strong emphasis on an obligation that you haven't proven and that I do not believe in. The fact of the matter is that almost everything you say is something that I have already countered a while back with my premises.

Well, if people are too bloody apathetic to get off their bums and vote when there is an election they only get the government they deserve. Too bad the rest of us are also stuck with a bad government though!

I think the US Constitution is way too big on individual FREEDOMS and doesn't have anywhere near enough to say about individual OBLIGATIONS such as voting!

I find the way that the 'question' and the answers are worded rather confusing. What does 'Yes' mean, that I'd agree some should not have a right to vote?

Compulsory voting == Bad idea. It doesn't serve democracy, if few people come to the ballot it means they don't agree with the available choices. By forcing them to vote you'd silently force them to agree to an option they don't really support, it could even legitimize one-option elections. Not voting may be the only way to say you want to see other options.

Are you always such a despotic prat?

What's wrong with allowing people to think for themselves instead of a nany dictator teling them what to do and think?

Voting isn't an obligation.. it's a priveledge... get over yourself.

Well, yes, they get what other people give them. The "rest of us" actually picked that government as their choice.

I don't think so at all. Especially given that you haven't proved that voting is an obligation. Also, because I didn't see these old comments because you edited the post after I responded I will go and look through them.

No, actually I do know some things about it. I am actually influenced by ideas of voter irrationality that PhD economist Bryan Caplan came up with, many of my ideas have some similarity as well, including the focus on promoting the voting of educated people.


People vote for totalitarian ideas in many instances, the fact of the matter is that both totalitarianism and democracy are such young concepts that it is difficult to describe their relationship, however, as we see with early Puritanical America, Nazi Germany, and as some would argue modern-day Venezuela, we do find that democracy does not mean liberty or progress, depending upon the ruling powers. The step closer to a fascist state is actually aggrandizing the power of government and stripping ACTUAL liberty. As I stated, government is not power over oneself but rather over ones fellows, I want to give everyone the former but would like to reduce the latter. The true enemy of fascism isn't democracy, it is liberality, and the latter was the founding premise of the system in America. The fascism in America now wasn't written into our constitution but a fear that our Founding Fathers fought against. You act as if democracy is a right, but where is your derivation of democracy as a right? My derivation for all rights is legal self-ownership, if one does not own oneself legally then one isn't free. Actually, my views are so far from Hitler's that the very comparison is ridiculous, I have very little in common in governmental views with that person, the reason you don't make the distinction is because you don't look at the subtle differences. I don't turn a deaf ear either, I learn from those whom I think have knowledge or ability to conjure it up through logic, you are not invoking any knowledge empirical or rationalist.

Tends to be in totalitarian societies.

That's what The_Chosen_One wants though.

(Damn the emoticons suck here)

I live in a democracy the same as you, you jumped up little goon. If anyone has proved themselves to be an absolute tool and ignoramous around here, it you. It doesn't matter what anyone seems to say on whatever subject; your so called superior thinking clouds your brain and makes it impossible for you to think objectively. OK, nuke the bejesus out of the other 95% of the world, or better still, colonize the moon. The vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you want. Then you'll get the utopia you want. Somewhere over the years there has developed a line of bombast and arrogance the length of the great wall of China and the width of the grand canyon in the USA, and it has made people like you ignarant to anything the rest of the world has to say. Thank Christ the other 95% of the planet don't share your insular thinking, jfrmeister, because then the planet would be just one keystroke from blowing itself out of the solar system. Now you have the hide and the gall to insult me publicly in a forum like this, well you have done so for the last time. The mods will be notified of anymore of your rantings, and they will take action.

Its a legal obligation in Australia, and the government actively punishes non compliance. Neither our Head of State (the Governor General representing the Queen) nor the position of Prime Minister are democratically elected by any electorate or even the parliament.

We can only choose to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwich - lol

I was thinking more of the
Soviet and baathist regimes,
where voting was also compulsory.

Hmm.

Aren't ALL elections between these two?

In your country... yes.

Here, we vote for the MPs who belong to each of the parties, and the parties themselves pick the leaders of the party. Thus, John Howard got to be leader of the coalition (Lib/Nats) and by the coalition getting the majority of the vote, he became Prime Minister. Same would happen if the ALP won. Then Rudd, being opposition leader would become PM. It's also the leader of either party in the lower house, or House of Representatives that gets elected to the top job. The Senate has never had a PM and just ratifies any legislation sent to it. The govern General is selected by the prime Minister and becomes the Queen's Representative.
The MPs we vote for have their own electorate, and the winning party ends up with the majority of those electorates. Preferences decide the winner of each 'seat' or electorate, and genrally it's out of the main parties, although the Greens, Independants and Democrats can win seats as well, though they can never form majority governments.
We've had this system since Federation in 1901 and it works.