Should voting be compulsory?

This seems like a good idea to me, at least I can't see any reasons why it would hurt. Other countries do it with no problem.

Please give a reason for your answer

 

this question has a little value.

the answer is no,
if you ask people to do something they do not care, the quality is very low.

 

I would not make voting compulsory, but I would provide an incentive for participating in the democratic process - say, a modest tax credit. I would couple that with accommodating folks with early, weekend, and on-line voting and eliminating barriers that have been erected to frustrate some folks, and I'd include "second choice" and "none of the above" options on all ballots.

As it stands, low-information, ideological zealots are far more apt to vote, especially in primaries, than are average Americans.

 

Of course not. And 99% of those who do vote should have their right to vote rescinded. For example, straight party voters should never be allowed inside a voting booth.

 

Sounds like a better idea to me to charge people $10 to vote. That way, they have skin in the game.

 

Not mandatory voting, but mandatory registration. Make sure everyone is registered to vote in case they want to vote in an election.

 

We average about 60% turnout for presidential elections. The other 40% just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*), and if they don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*), they're doing us a favor by not voting.

Also, compulsory voting would instantly be struck down by federal courts and would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

A part of freedom is the freedom not to care. I find it unfortunate when people do not do their civic duty but obligating them would be wrong. I do think that elections day (at least for president) should be a national holiday so that most can vote.

 

Compulsory voting just ensures that more people who are clueless will vote. I would prefer that voting is only encouraged among people who actually research candidates.

An uninformed vote is worse than not voting at all.

 

That would just mean more votes for Deez Nuts.

 

No, true freedom means the ability to also NOT participate if you choose so.

Things I would do is make the deadline for registration a month before the actual vote and required photo IDs so I don't have to wait in line for some (*)(*)(*)(*)**** to pull out his stupid electric bill to prove where he lives. I am sick of waiting for losers who don't have their (*)(*)(*)(*) together. Its almost as annoying as those (*)(*)(*)(*)***** who wait till after the last grocery time is scanned and then take out their check and start filling it out. (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU! The single greatest invention of all time in the modern age has to be the self checkout scanner.

 

Americans cherish their freedom to vote, or not vote. We don't want the government telling us what to do.

And do we really want to parade "know nothing's" through the polls? People who can't name the current president need to be kept from voting for the next president.

 

Mostly I think no because enforcement would be problematic.

If it did happen there should be a way to vote none of the above, I guess a register of people dissatisfied (or uninterested) with the whole process might be valuable.

 

No. Given that people have a property right in their bodies, it would be a violation of property rights.

 

Heavens no.We have way too many ill informed voters as it is. I would favor a test over letting anyone vote. The most important thing in a democracy is a well informed electorate. Something we are sadly lacking.

 

Yeh, right. "I am a Republican and believe everything the Koch Bros tell me" being the main and only question to be affirmed. I am always amazed at how little use all the conservatives with their purported love of Democracy have for anything that would actually promote it. Talk about elitists.

 

Im not a republican and I don't believe half of what anybody tells me. I support the republic however and despise pure democracy just like the founders.

 

Voting should remain a privilege.

 

I want people who are informed for vote, not any idiot on the street who could not have even a rudimentary discussion of any of the issues, who stands for what position, and why. Getting a huge turnout of people who don't know anything is not good for democracy. I certainly don't support some old school, only men who own land can vote, or something. But at the other end of the spectrum, having some idiot who is voting because he saw an ad with a nice slogan doesn't get a good leader either.

 

No, I'd probably do away with democratic processes and establish some kind of constitutional technocracy. If we have to keep it, then I'd say we need to eliminate the two-party system and find a way to get better candidates.

Actually it's sort of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM

 

Selective service is compulsory. We have the finest military in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Well those ill informed voters got us Obama, and are just about to give us Killary.
So I think its high time that everyone got more educated and get out and vote.

 

No, voting should not be compulsory. People have the right to participate or not. The 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes or fees to vote. Women, minorities and the disabled had to fight for the right, I don't understand why they choose not to.

 

Possibly, but if the smart people voted then the "progressives" would not win. And "progressives" already pay people to vote.

 

It should be voluntary. If someone is too lazy to register and vote, then they have disqualified themselves from voting.

 

No, it's not at least not right now. Selective Service registration is compulsory.

Given that Hilary is really no different from the Republican half of the One Party, why should anyone care? Well, I suppose there's Trump and his particular brand of fascism to be considered. He's an outlier, but no more palatable except to the Boobus who really really want a circus.