Should voting be mandatory?

[Tyrathca]

That's nice.

You're still a pansy for thinking democracy is the way to go.

I'm curious Stripe, what do you think is the best system? Are you a pansy too, do you have a better idea or do you have no idea and just like throwing stones?



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Do you have a better idea?

A lottery — with the more time between each one the better — would provide better leaders than democracy.

 

[Stripe]

What do you think is the best system?

That would take some fleshing out. It's not something you could put a label on and expect people to understand.

There are some characteristics of a democracy that are obviously flawed:
First, term limits. How is a man supposed to learn how to be a good president when he has only eight years to serve? By the time he gets to eight years, he's probably just getting into gear, then he has to leave.
Second, elections drain resources like nothing else. What is the point of a guy having to convince people to like him? He's the leader, for crying out loud. If people can't deal with leadership, why should they need to be cajoled into voting the right way again? We spend millions of dollars and months of effort on campaign trails, which just trains politicians to improve their ability to lie.

Should I go on, or did you just want me to throw rocks?

 

[ok doser]

And Hitler salutes you.

Is this seriously your idea of how a sensible debate should go?

consider the following from the bananahead to town:

... I don't think you're really listening to me. That's not said with animosity, either. Resignation, maybe. It seems to me like you're looking past what I'm saying because you're already busy formulating your next gotcha or punch line.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's nice.

You're still a pansy for thinking democracy is the way to go.

It isn't, but the declaration and framing isn't particularly surprising. It puts the "ignorant" concern you had in context though. Apparently that's how you reduce concepts.

Et tu quoque?

The only logical answer to insult is insult. You didn't present anything else to comment on.

It wasn't a debate; it was my opinion.

To which I objected. An objection you then responded to, and so on. There's a word for that...

Also, make up your mind. First you ask if this is my idea of a sensible debate and when I note the problem of that criticism in your advance you declare it something else.

Pick an idea.

You disagree with it and thought the fallacy of poisoning the well would be a convincing way to change minds.

Supra and below.

If you disagree with me, give a sensible reason. "Hitler would like you" is just plain stupid.

You didn't make a sensible comment or a reasoned claim with any parts. And I didn't say "Hitler would like you" I said he'd agree with you, among others. I thought the company cautionary. Given there was no meat on the bone you tossed into public discourse, there wasn't much more to do.

 

[Stripe]

Given there was no meat on the bone you tossed into public discourse, there wasn't much more to do.

So you thought you'd bring Hitler into it?

There are plenty of things you could have said that would have been sensible. This wasn't one of them.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you thought you'd bring Hitler into it?

I brought a context into it. You've fixated on Hitler. He was one of several used to a point I noted prior.

There are plenty of things you could have said that would have been sensible.This wasn't one of them.

Said the fellow whose idea of sensible is, "Democracy is for pansies." lain:

O-o-kay.

 

[Stripe]

I brought a context into it. You've fixated on Hitler. He was one of several used to a point I noted prior.Said the fellow whose idea of sensible is, "Democracy is for pansies." lain:O-o-kay.

So you've got two fallacies.

Perhaps you should have just left my comment alone. :up:

 

[Crucible]

Mandatory voting seems a bit ominous, primarily because of the exploitation factor- forcing people to get involved in politics in a country where government is checked by it's people?
Yeah right

America is not intended to have a large and in charge government, and this completely sabotages the notion.

 

[Tyrathca]

Mandatory voting seems a bit ominous, primarily because of the exploitation factor- forcing people to get involved in politics in a country where government is checked by it's people? .

I'm not sure I follow. The only thing mandatory voting enforces is people showing up to polling stations, how does the government exploit that?

America is not intended to have a large and in charge government, and this completely sabotages the notion.

Only if voters vote for a large and in charge government...

Requiring people to spend less than an hour showing up and getting your name ticked off every few years as part of civic participation is hardly onerous. Certainly less onerous than taxes and jury duty.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

I'm not sure I follow. The only thing mandatory voting enforces is people showing up to polling stations, how does the government exploit that?
Only if voters vote for a large and in charge government...

Requiring people to spend less than an hour showing up and getting your name ticked off every few years as part of civic participation is hardly onerous. Certainly less onerous than taxes and jury duty.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

:doh:

It guarantees the continuation of a system which can otherwise be challenged by protesting.

 

[Crucible]

And also, voting being a 'civic duty' is just a made up, 'good ol boy' notion put by absolutely nobody who idealized or founded this country.

 

[Town Heretic]

And also, voting being a 'civic duty' is just a made up, 'good ol boy' notion put by absolutely nobody who idealized or founded this country.

The notion of civic duty is typically mandated, like signing up for the draft. Civic responsibility is more in line with voting and the idea of civic responsibility is an ancient one. The Romans respected it, as did the Greeks.

As to the United States, you're wrong. It's built right into the fabric of our Constitution. "We, the people" perform the business of government. The sense of both formal and informal obligation accomplished any number of worthwhile achievements, from volunteer fire departments to participation in the election of public officials and continues to this day, albeit in a diminished and more frequently selfish form.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A lottery — with the more time between each one the better — would provide better leaders than democracy.

Not if someone the likes of you had a chance of being in 'charge'. There's a reason why democracy exists...

 

[Crucible]

The notion of civic duty is typically mandated, like signing up for the draft. Civic responsibility is more in line with voting and the idea of civic responsibility is an ancient one. The Romans respected it, as did the Greeks.

As to the United States, you're wrong. It's built right into the fabric of our Constitution. "We, the people" perform the business of government. The sense of both formal and informal obligation accomplished any number of worthwhile achievements, from volunteer fire departments to participation in the election of public officials and continues to this day, albeit in a diminished and more frequently selfish form.

'We the People..' go on and finish the rest.
Has nothing to do with voting, especially for people who like to put scissors to it.

Nobody in the beginning of America figured it to be a responsibility at all for common people to vote. Do you know why?
Because such offices were supposed to be for things that largely weren't concerning to the livelihood of citizens.

Now, society is so reliant on government that the Constitution is 2nd rate- this country has straight up turned it into poetry, where if you don't like something you can simply 'reinterpret' an amendment.
Much like you all have your Bibles

A lottery — with the more time between each one the better — would provide better leaders than democracy.

The Founders knew that well, and didn't get trapped in that ideology. America is a very different kind of state than merely a 'democracy'.
Or should I say 'was' lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

'We the People..' go on and finish the rest.

I wasn't avoiding it, but the point is made right at the start. We do these things. The government is ours. Likewise the responsibility for it.

Has nothing to do with voting, especially for people who like to put scissors to it.

It absolutely does. We can't do anything unless we participate. We, the people. The problem was that our founders were essentially and profoundly bigoted men, more often than not. They routinely compromised and failed their ideas (see: Jefferson).

Nobody in the beginning of America figured it to be a responsibility at all for common people to vote.

Supra. It took a long time to live up to that founding credo, to recognize that people other than that founding elite were as entitled to inalienable rights as guys in wigs. lain:

Do you know why?

Sure. I gave you a bit of it.

Because such offices were supposed to be for things that largely weren't concerning to the livelihood of citizens.

No, that's not it.

Now, society is so reliant on government that the Constitution is 2nd rate-

Also not it.

this country has straight up turned it into poetry, where if you don't like something you can simply 'reinterpret' an amendment.

Supra.

Much like you all have your Bibles

That was bizarre, without foundation and off-topic, so you're back on message. :thumb:

 

[Tyrathca]

:doh:

It guarantees the continuation of a system which can otherwise be challenged by protesting.

I still don't follow your reasoning. No part of mandatory voting prevents protest. People can choose not to vote at all after attending the polling station or write some message on their vote card rather than a vote. All mandatory voting requires is that you show up and get your name ticked off, nothing else can be mandated without confidentiality of votes being breached.

That or not vote for a major party but that's a whole other can of worms with the US voting system biasing against 3rd parties. A fundamental flaw in the USA's attempt at democracy in my opinion. Or there are still regular protests too.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

Let's just ignore the fact that all countries where voting is mandatory ultimately became extremely liberal.

You see, when you get a bunch of ill informed, self involved people into a voting booth, you intrude on voting having any real value. The people who actually take their time to perform the privilege of voting make a more reasoned choice.

In other words, 'democracy' has it's own potential tyranny- by the majority. The democrats know full and well that they can turn the tables by getting every moron into a booth

 

[Stripe]

The Founders knew that well, and didn't get trapped in that ideology. America is a very different kind of state than merely a 'democracy'.

I've heard this argument before and could not see how it was justified. Surely your founders were working to avoid a monarchy, not a democracy.

Can you explain how the US is not a democracy?

Or should I say 'was' lain:

:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Let's just ignore the fact that all countries where voting is mandatory ultimately became extremely liberal.

Countries with thriving democracies tend to produce better educated citizenry. The better educated tend to be more liberal.

You see, when you get a bunch of ill informed, self involved people into a voting booth, you intrude on voting having any real value. The people who actually take their time to perform the privilege of voting make a more reasoned choice.

I see a lot of that on both sides of the aisle, which is why I'm in favor of making anyone who votes pass the same test an immigrant has to pass to become a citizen.

In other words, 'democracy' has it's own potential tyranny- by the majority.

It's one reason we temper it with a Republic.

The democrats know full and well that they can turn the tables by getting every moron into a booth

So does Rush Limbaugh. And so on. lain: