Compulsory voting is a good thing.

Too kind Moi. I must be very programmed because I'm not aware of the loss of freedoms.
If you are living in a society, shouldn't you reconcile yourself to following rules so that the greatest good for the greatest number is possible?

 

We have a paper system in Australia. You mark it with your preferences in order. You have to concentrate because your vote will be informal if you make a mistake.
There is generally a range of candidates so you can vote for single issue candidates if the major parties don't appeal to you.

 

Promoting Freedom and Liberties from undue gov't intrusions is the greatest good.

 

Why does the person forced to vote care? Start at the top as first preference, next on the list as second preference, etc. Or vote for the worst out of spite for being forced to vote. Or just drop a blank ballot in the box like the guy in the article.

I think this forced voting is just a feel good scam for the politicians.

 

Yes, there probably isn't a way that voter intentions can be discovered in this system. Exit polls are dubious, and why should you discuss your vote? It is secret after all. Perhaps it all balances out? Apathy at one end balanced by hyper enthusiasm at the other?
If there is a high proportion of informal votes (rude pictures, blank ballot papers) then the election will be declared null and void. There will then be another election. For example in Western Australia in 2013 there were ,from a single booth, 1813 lost ballot papers. (Couldn't be counted, therefore informal). The election was repeated.

 

You are bending my words. I believe in democracy because despite its flaws other forms of government have bigger problems. The problem with democracy is that most people aren't well informed and so it tends to turn into mob rule. If the uninformed abstained then it would be far less of a "mob" voting and that would be less of a problem.

What does this have to do with slavery? Slavery is illegal.

So what does this have to do with voting?

How does voting mean you aren't taking responsibility for your actions? I am really confused.

 

Ah, said differently, but the same. I have said on so many occasions that here in the United States we have but one political party. Now that political party has two wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. Both parties owe their hearts and souls to those moneyed elites, the corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyists, special interests etc. Neither party will ever bite the hand that feeds it. Is that the same thing as being bought?

2 billion for the presidency is cheap. Over 50 million dollars was spent on our Georgia Congressional District 6 special election. 50 million for a house of representative seat. It makes no sense.

 

Me being an Australia and have manned polling booths for the last 9 years, I can attest to this not working. All you get is people voting for the politician that gives you the most without any regard for the impact.

I would rather go to a voluntary voting system, this way those who are knowledgeable in the political process are the ones who decide. Its up to the political parties to encourage people to vote.

 

I would rather trust the Australian voters than just the members of the political parties who are well informed about the political process. (I may be wrong, but I think people who are well informed about the political process are more likely to be members of a political party) I think that if it were left up to those people, it would just be a churning of Lib and Lab. The minor parties wouldn't get a look in.

 

Think about what you are saying about the consequences of mandatory voting. Elections repeated due to mandatory voting. And why do you want to "balance out" people who really care about voting and people who hate being forced to vote?

 

Actually I am not bending your words. History as well as myself disagree with you. Mob rule is the inherent trait of democracy, always has been, always will be. Democracy is always the majority imposing their wills on the the minority. Democracy has always been a divisor with the haves and the have nots.

Actually there are no other forms of government, just stages of government that moves in a circular motion from one stage to another. Democracy is actually one of the latter stages leading to collectivism, chaos then oligarchy. Oligarchy always leads to revolt which leads to anarchy to a republic which denigrates to democracy. It has always been so throughout the millennia and will always be so throughout time. Voting really does not matter at all except as a gauge on when the next cycle is due.

Everything and slavery is not illegal. Involuntary servitude is illegal unless the government deems otherwise.

Again everything. Voting is but choosing an agent for the purpose to instill violence against any that does not bend to the rule of the majority.

Taking responsibility for one's actions means there need be no agent to force mob rule against anyone. It is a world where man stands and handles his own affairs and let's other do the same. It is a world without rulers, not rules where one feels no needs to force their moral convictions on another, live and let live. Voting is a world of violence that by it's very design uses coercion or caging to control those that have caused no harm.

 

So very, very true my man, so very true. Bought and paid for. The only thing they need from the people is their vote so they may live in a lap of privilege and luxury.

I am aware of your Georgia debacle and the others like it. Now what I find amusing is Trump, no white knight in my book, but has done more to upset both sides and awaken the people than any before him. However I do find it sad that he was elected as he may be able to extend this whole debacle whereas Hitlerly would have definitely collapsed it.

 

An election is held again if the proportion of informal votes is a particular percentage(can't remember how many). I suppose this could be interpreted as a re election because the result isn't acceptable to one or another of the candidate, but this is contained in the electoral act and is a recognised way of dealing with the informal vote if it is big enough.
I suppose I meant that political apathy would have a similar impact on the majority vote as politically passionate voters would, but I haven't thought a long way about this and am not well informed about standard deviation.

 

But why do you even want the apathetic to dilute the passionate voter? Let the apathetic stay home.

 

To be honest, I never liked Trump. But so far he hasn't done anything to get me upset or to earn a pat on the back from me. But give him time, he may actually accomplish one or the other or both. I am sick and tired of his twitter tirades, his name calling, his very unpresidential style. His uncouthness if that's a word along with being very obnoxious. But policy wise, no major complaints, as of yet.

 

Should we trust the passionate voters?
Should the apathetic be disenfranchised?

 

The apathetic are not disenfranchised, they choose not to participate.

Think of this situation. In the last election in the USA, the Democrat Party through back room trickery made sure Bernie Sanders could not win the Democrat primary. As a result, some people were furious and refused to participate in the general election because participation gives the election legitimacy. I know some conservatives who refuse to vote for the same reason - they believe the parties are corrupt and participation gives the election legitimacy.

For those people, not voting at all is voicing their opinion. They are passionate, they care, they write letters and go to town halls, and they register their discontent by not voting. Forcing them to vote is a violation of their rights.

 

I would not charge a fine, I would offer a tax credit for those that vote

 

Preselection of candidates is a tricky problem. Poor Bernie lost his chance to the candidate with more money and more clout in the Party. Could he have stood his ground and refused to concede his place?
No argument from me about perception of corruption and legitimising the process by participating. how will these aggrieved voters get things changed? Will their non participation be noticed as voting is voluntary in the US?
What would happen in the US if only six thousand people voted? Unlikely but would the lucky recipient of those votes be the winner or would the Electoral College choose someone ? Does the electoral college have a part to play when the elections don't run as expected?

 

They would vote if they believed something was at stake.

 

Yeah and in your nation you can't even own a copy of grand theft auto. May as well be Russia over there though at lest they can buy a darn video game.

Jaywalking is a local crime, littering is as well and hate speech isn't a thing because we actually have the right to say what we want unless it actually threatens someone such as saying your going to kill them or to falsely yell fire in a public space.

There isn't a law saying you can't drop the F bomb at a cop but they will likely want to screw with you if you disrespect them like that.

Voting is a right and just like any other right you have the right to not use it if that is your wish. In a free modern nation stuff like this shouldn't even happen, but whack jobs screw everything up. The only thing Australia is doing right is health care but that isn't saying much when really it's the US that is really messed up when it comes to healthcare and even some hole in the ground has a more sane system than we do when it comes to healthcare.

I do think Australia's beaches are nice, but I would only like to visit not live there as I like having basic freedom such as buying what ever kind of video game I want or if I want to say something "hateful" that the government won't come to take me to jail for it.

 

What would you want to say that you could be jailed for?

 

Guess speaking against Islam would be labeled as "hate speach" and so jail time would be what I would get in a nation with hate speech laws.

 

Sorry, I'm leading you off topic. It's a bad habit of mine.

 

I thought that more Americans would have voted in the last election because of that.