Should voting be mandatory?

[elohiym]

everyone of age should be forced to vote or go to prison ?

I don't believe so and wonder why you ask me. Rusha made a claim about "someone who cares so little or is too lazy to vote" that isn't a fact. It's an assumption that someone who doesn't vote is someone who "cares so little ... to vote." That is what I responded to.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Politics is changing in the UK. Once people either voted Labour or Conservative or a third party protest.

When the Tories were so awful in '97, the Tory voters would never vote Labour, so they just did not vote...Labour won by a landslide on a very small turn out. So to not vote is a valid expression of the electorate.

 

[elohiym]

If someone voted for Obama are they culpable for his acts?

Maybe not the first time given he was a virtual unknown 2 year senator but, the second time after people knew he was an oppressive ideologue empirical president? I would say yes, the people that voted for him do hold a measure of culpability in his lawlessness.

I don't see how him being virtually unknown reduces voter culpability, if they are culpable; but it's interesting that you do think voters hold a measure of culpability in his lawlessness.

Who have you voted into office? Name one or two.

Yes, you put your life on the line for this nation, it's people, and your brothers in arms, not for some snake oil salesman politician.

I viewed military service as my civic duty. What are the civic duties you believe all citizens should participate in so they may have a right to complain about corruption in their government?

Your service to the nation and your vote as a citizen of this nation are mutually exclusive, not related unless you were fighting for the right to have a vote so, your service is really not related to whether you have earned the right to complain about the leaders if you are not even in the tally when the votes for that person are counted.

We'll just have to disagree. Your argument isn't convincing on that point. The way I see it is that if I want one of the outcomes of a vote and don't vote, I only forfeit the opportunity I was given to cast a vote for the outcome and that's assuming my vote would have made a significant difference. When it comes to electing corporate lackeys, I'm not interested in the outcome of the vote, only holding them responsible for their actions after they are elected (one's civic duty).

But it's not choosing to "not vote against the corporate lackeys." If you've cast a vote in your lifetime, it's always been for a corporate lackey or resulted in the corporate lackey winning. Would you disagree?

Yes, I would disagree. Not all the people that aspire to lead this nation are, or have been, bought & sold though I would concede that it is sadly moving that direction.

Voting occasionally for one or two allegedly incorruptible men is not going to solve the problems in the U.S. Voting hasn't improved the system; it's getting worse.

Instead of voting for chocolate, vanilla or a woman, I affect change through other means.

Of course you do because you want to justify not being involved in the process whilst retaining the right to complain about it. I get it...

I don't think you get it. If I am affecting change through other means; I am involved in the process.

You bet, If I believe in a candidate I will campaign for them, donate if I feel led but, I can say it has been quite awhile since I have seen anyone that excites me beyond just a vote on election day, that includes local & state races as well.

Okay. Other people don't want to vote for the only available choices: chocolate, vanilla or a woman. They don't want to campaign for them, and they don't want fund them. What they do is write legislators, attend and speak at hearings, protest and, if necessary, engage in acts of civil disobedience. For example, someone voted in the legislator that was proposing mandatory vaccinations in Oregon, but the bill was killed through political action other than voting.

If you don't vote you are essentially saying I don't care, I'll take whatever the citizenry that does vote gives me...you are without voice, power, and your complaints afterwards are essentially without merit.

Not one claim in that sentence is true.

Women couldn't vote in the U.S. until 1920, right? :think:

 

[republicanchick]

According to the article only 37% of Americans voted in last year's mid-term. 144 million Americans skipped out.

Is this a road we want to travel?

that's probably the % of people who actually watch the news.

I don't want a bunch of know nothings to vote

that's how we got what we got in 8 and 12

don't need any more of that un-American, oppressive, no-longer-We-thePeople stuff but Me-the-Monarch stuff


no thanks


_

 

[Tyrathca]

that's probably the % of people who actually watch the news.

I don't want a bunch of know nothings to vote

So no more voting for you then?

 

[shagster01]

 

[Nick M]

How Obama got elected

 

[rocketman]

Pretty much says it all right there shaggy...

 

[rocketman]

I don't see how him being virtually unknown reduces voter culpability, if they are culpable; but it's interesting that you do think voters hold a measure of culpability in his lawlessness.

Who have you voted into office? Name one or two.

The last vote that counted for me in liberal CA was Reagan...twice.

I viewed military service as my civic duty. What are the civic duties you believe all citizens should participate in so they may have a right to complain about corruption in their government?

If corruption is the issue what are you doing to change it? Not voting won't get it done....my argument is not to say you do not have the right to abstain from voting, liberty says you do but, complaining about the system that you are too apathetic or lazy to take part in seems a bit of a oxymoron. Freedom of speech gives you the right to complain but, if you are not exercising that same right to invoke change than what is the point of complaining? you are not vested in stemming the tide of corruption with the one tool in your bag to begin with. Are you understanding my POV at all? I am just as frustrated as anyone with the corruption in our government but, not giving the one voice I do have makes complaining rather pointless.

We'll just have to disagree. Your argument isn't convincing on that point. The way I see it is that if I want one of the outcomes of a vote and don't vote, I only forfeit the opportunity I was given to cast a vote for the outcome and that's assuming my vote would have made a significant difference. When it comes to electing corporate lackeys, I'm not interested in the outcome of the vote, only holding them responsible for their actions after they are elected (one's civic duty).

If very man took your position of "lack of significance" than you are correct change will never come. It is only through people and the unity of conviction that things get changed or at least in the form of government we are blessed to live under. Change can happen but, it certainly won't if people just complain but do not voice it through their one vote.

Voting occasionally for one or two allegedly incorruptible men is not going to solve the problems in the U.S. Voting hasn't improved the system; it's getting worse.

Show me a human being which is not corrupt in one fashion or another...we are not voting on a messiah, we are voting to get the men/women we see best fit to lead our towns, cities, states, and nation.

I don't think you get it. If I am affecting change through other means; I am involved in the process.

What means are you invoking change of leadership except through your one vote?

Okay. Other people don't want to vote for the only available choices: chocolate, vanilla or a woman. They don't want to campaign for them, and they don't want fund them. What they do is write legislators, attend and speak at hearings, protest and, if necessary, engage in acts of civil disobedience. For example, someone voted in the legislator that was proposing mandatory vaccinations in Oregon, but the bill was killed through political action other than voting.

But, it was an elected official who's mind was changed, no? From the local to the national your vote does count if you take part in the system. Had the proper person been voted in maybe other political action/pressure would not have been needed.

Not one claim in that sentence is true.

Says you..

Women couldn't vote in the U.S. until 1920, right? :think:

And obviously women cared enough about not having their voice heard at the ballot box that it was changed. Don't you see the gift you have been given? to live in a free nation where you even have the right to vote? to have a say in who is representing you? It is a shame that people have fought and died for you to have that right, yet you think it a common thing, people in some countries don't even have a vote. Read the preamble to the Declaration Of Independence..."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" If you are not having your say at the ballot box of who will govern than you are just giving your consent to whoever gets elected by default so, why complain?

 

[journey]

Rocketman,

I agree completely - great post.

 

[patrick jane]

that's probably the % of people who actually watch the news.

I don't want a bunch of know nothings to vote

that's how we got what we got in 8 and 12

don't need any more of that un-American, oppressive, no-longer-We-thePeople stuff but Me-the-Monarch stuff


no thanks


_

it's true, i wish more folks would just watch the NEWS ! i can tell that you don't watch the news because you rarely mention it. where do you get your information about politics ? - atrol:

 

[elohiym]

The last vote that counted for me in liberal CA was Reagan...twice.

If ...

"...the people that voted for him do hold a measure of culpability in his lawlessness." -- rocketman

You are in trouble.

See Iran-Contra Scandal.

If corruption is the issue what are you doing to change it? Not voting won't get it done..

Are we voting about the corruption? No. Ergo, voting, especially in a rigged system, will not likely end corruption. However, you will be interested to know that there are other forms of civil engagement, political and non-political. What I'm doing specifically is irrelevant.

..my argument is not to say you do not have the right to abstain from voting, liberty says you do but, complaining about the system that you are too apathetic or lazy to take part in seems a bit of a oxymoron.

I wish for a moment you could understand that just because someone doesn't vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are apathetic or lazy, and that just because someone does vote it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not too apathetic or lazy to take part in more meaningful forms of civil engagement that requires more than just pushing a candidate and then pushing a button.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to complain but, if you are not exercising that same right to invoke change than what is the point of complaining? you are not vested in stemming the tide of corruption with the one tool in your bag to begin with. Are you understanding my POV at all? I am just as frustrated as anyone with the corruption in our government but, not giving the one voice I do have makes complaining rather pointless.

You want me to use a broken tool that only one of us seems to understand is broken. If you understood the tool was broken, you wouldn't ask me to use it, and you would not tell me I had no right to complain the tool is broken unless I used it.

Change can happen but, it certainly won't if people just complain but do not voice it through their one vote.

When do you expect your vote will end abortion, and do you think I have a right to complain about abortion if I don't vote? I don't believe voting will have any effect on abortion.

Show me a human being which is not corrupt in one fashion or another...we are not voting on a messiah, we are voting to get the men/women we see best fit to lead our towns, cities, states, and nation.

Rather, generally, you are voting in a member of an oligarchy who will use his position for self-enrichment and for the benefit of his or her associates.

What means are you invoking change of leadership except through your one vote?

Do you think going back and forth between two parties is a change in leadership? I don't. So why on earth would I want to engage in a charade as if I do?

But, it was an elected official who's mind was changed, no?

Yes. It matters not who voted for her; she was stopped by activism.

Women couldn't vote in the U.S. until 1920, right?

And obviously women cared enough about not having their voice heard at the ballot box that it was changed.

Are you missing the point that prior to 1920 they changed the political system without voting?

Don't you see the gift you have been given? to live in a free nation where you even have the right to vote? to have a say in who is representing you? It is a shame that people have fought and died for you to have that right, yet you think it a common thing, people in some countries don't even have a vote.

First, I am a disabled combat veteran, so it is a shame you would use my fallen brothers to disparage me. Second, millions of people in this country don't have the right to vote. For example, citizens in U.S. territories do not have representation in Congress and do not have electoral votes for President.

Read the preamble to the Declaration Of Independence..."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I've read the entire document. Have you read Romans 13:1-7?

What you have today is government controlled by an oligarchy, deriving unjust powers by manipulating and exploiting the citizens. Whether you vote donkey or elephant, you're getting a pig.

 

[Nick M]

See Iran-Contra Scandal.

What of it?

 

[Granite]

Can't say I'm crazy with the idea. Many people have quite legitimate reasons for staying home on election day--not everyone who skips the process is simply lazy or uninformed.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Can't say I'm crazy with the idea. Many people have quite legitimate reasons for staying home on election day--not everyone who skips the process is simply lazy or uninformed.

I agree. Although I think making Election Day a national holiday, or scheduling it for the weekend would be a pretty good alternative. Then people who would prefer not to vote would still have time to go down and hold up "None of the Above" signs and such.

 

[Granite]

I agree. Although I think making Election Day a national holiday, or scheduling it for the weekend would be a pretty good alternative. Then people who would prefer not to vote would still have time to go down and hold up "None of the Above" signs and such.

Right. (Seriously: Tuesday?) Refusing to vote's about the only form of "no confidence" we have in this country. I have mixed feelings every election.

 

[chrysostom]

Can't say I'm crazy with the idea. Many people have quite legitimate reasons for staying home on election day--not everyone who skips the process is simply lazy or uninformed.

they just don't care

I agree. Although I think making Election Day a national holiday, or scheduling it for the weekend would be a pretty good alternative.

voting by mail is the answer

and only for those who care

 

[PureX]

Right. (Seriously: Tuesday?) Refusing to vote's about the only form of "no confidence" we have in this country. I have mixed feelings every election.

The problem with not voting as a "vote of no confidence" is that it's indistinguishable from an "I'm just too lazy and self-centered to care" non-vote. It's like trying to send a message by saying nothing at all.

No content is simply no content. It's not, "negative content".

 

[Word based mystic]

The problem with not voting as a "vote of no confidence" is that it's indistinguishable from an "I'm just too lazy and self-centered to care" non-vote. It's like trying to send a message by saying nothing at all.

No content is simply no content. It's not, "negative content".

all of that is irrelevant.

forcing somebody by law to vote is ridiculous

how many other things will the thought police try and control.

whether they are lazy or uninformed or object conscientiously because of the platforms in both parties are objectionable.

all have rights to give them the opportunity to vote or not to.
even in congress there are those who abstain and it is a tallied option.

control
control
control

(even having the desire to force others to do what they don't want to do is disturbing.)
taxes and breaking the law in relation to safety and criminality is different.

 

[Granite]

The problem with not voting as a "vote of no confidence" is that it's indistinguishable from an "I'm just too lazy and self-centered to care" non-vote. It's like trying to send a message by saying nothing at all.

No content is simply no content. It's not, "negative content".

Well unfortunately the system we have doesn't really allow us to send such a message. Unless you want to go through the trouble of handwriting "no confidence" on a ballot...assuming you live in a state (like mine) that even gives you that option. Really the entire show's hamstrung by our two-party system.