Should voting be mandatory?

[PureX]

all of that is irrelevant.

forcing somebody by law to vote is ridiculous

Why? We are forced to do lots of things, by law. It's a natural consequence of living in society with others. We shouldn't have to have laws making people vote, just like we shouldn't have to have laws making people pay their taxes. but we do have to have such laws because people are what they are, and will often act contrary to their own best interests and the interests of everyone around them, until they're made to act otherwise.

Please explain to me why you think this particular law would be "ridiculous" in relation to all the other laws we have that force people to act in their own best interest and in the best interest of their own society.

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

No one is policing anyone's thoughts. That's not even possible.

Why are you really reacting so irrationally to this proposal?

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.

I think they should be made to vote, as well. After all, that's what they were elected and are being paid to do. They can abstain, but they should not be allowed to be absent without a proxy.

control
control
control

waaah!
waaah!
waaah!

taxes and breaking the law in relation to safety and criminality is different.

Why, because you say so?

 

[shagster01]

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.

This is wrong, and I've explained it before. Third party voters have MORE power than any other voters. If the election is won by a smaller margin than the people who vote third party, then we will sway it next time again. Here is how. . .

Say the (D) get s 48% of the vote and the (R) gets 46% of the vote. The Libertarian gets 4% of the vote and 2% go elsewhere.

In the above scenario the (D) will win the election by just 2% over the (R), while the (L) gets 4%. The republicans see this and realize that if they can attract more (L) voters, the election would have been theirs. This causes them to run a more libertarian platform to get my vote knowing that party liners like Republicanchick and aCW will vote for them no matter what anyway. Therefore I have more say in who the (R) person will be than a party liner like aCW does with his undying support of any person with an (R) behind his name.

Now, this doesn't mean that we will have a Libertarian president next time, but it does keep people like Ted Cruz from winning his bid because the (R)'s know they will lose with him as he is not going to get the 3rd party voters to switch to republican.

 

[PureX]

Well unfortunately the system we have doesn't really allow us to send such a message.

Of course it does. It's called free speech. But that takes actual effort. That would require us to actually DO something. We would have to get off our butts and go out in public and say what we want to say.

If the people who don't vote as an expression of protest would go to the polls and actually protest, I would respect their position. But sitting at home and doing nothing is just doing nothing. It's not a form of protest or of anything else. And pretending it's doing something is both foolish and dishonest.

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.

Yes, and we are the one's who are responsible for it, and for correcting it. But to do that, we will have to DO something. And doing nothing is not doing something.

 

[PureX]

This is wrong, and I've explained it before. Third party voters have MORE power than any other voters. If the election is won by a smaller margin than the people who vote third party, then we will sway it next time again. Here is how. . .

Say the (D) get s 48% of the vote and the (R) gets 46% of the vote. The Libertarian gets 4% of the vote and 2% go elsewhere.

In the above scenario the (D) will win the election by just 2% over the (R), while the (L) gets 4%. The republicans see this and realize that if they can attract more (L) voters, the election would have been theirs. This causes them to run a more libertarian platform to get my vote knowing that party liners like Republicanchick and aCW will vote for them no matter what anyway. Therefore I have more say in who the (R) person will be than a party liner like aCW does with his undying support of any person with an (R) behind his name.

Now, this doesn't mean that we will have a Libertarian president next time, but it does keep people like Ted Cruz from winning his bid because the (R)'s know they will lose with him as he is not going to get the 3rd party voters to switch to republican.

I agree.

1. Vote out all incumbent candidates, regardless of party affiliation, that have not actively fought for campaign finance reform, and for the elimination of the legalized bribery of the legislature.

2. If neither 2-party candidate is proposing to fight for campaign finance reform, and lobbying reforms, vote for a third party candidate regardless of his positions.

3. When no third party candidates are on the ballot, write in a candidate.

4. Keep in mind that physical protests and election messaging are allowed outside the polling places. And they will be seen by other voters.

The bottom line is that nothing can be fixed or changed until we get the influence of money out of our political system. And that means we must have campaign finance reforms, and we must stop the legalized bribery of the legislature, because we can't fix ANYTHING else until we do this.

 

[Granite]

Of course it does. It's called free speech. But that takes actual effort. That would require us to actually DO something. We would have to get off our butts and go out in public and say what we want to say.

But people do. When they explain they don't vote for any number of reasons there's always some wag ready with the whole "If you don't vote you can't complain" old chestnut, which, frankly, is as exasperating as it is unoriginal.

If the people who don't vote as an expression of protest would go to the polls and actually protest, I would respect their position.

It'd be interesting to have people outside the polls with signs that said "I Didn't Vote," I'll give you that. But I can see some pretty unfortunate side effects to this.

But sitting at home and doing nothing is just doing nothing. It's not a form of protest or of anything else.

Sure it is. No offense dude, but you're not the arbiter of someone's motivations or tactics.

And pretending it's doing something is both foolish and dishonest.

One could say participating in a two-party farce is exactly that: foolish and dishonest. At best.

Yes, and we are the one's who are responsible for it, and for correcting it. But to do that, we will have to DO something. And doing nothing is not doing something.

When given a rotten choice or no real choice at all I suppose holding a sign and picketing is better than simply abstaining. But it might depend on the person and circumstances too.

 

[PureX]

But people do. When they explain they don't vote for any number of reasons there's always some wag ready with the whole "If you don't vote you can't complain" old chestnut, which, frankly, is as exasperating as it is unoriginal.

Life is struggle. Freedom and justice and opportunity for all require constant support, and constant oversight. The fools and the criminals among us are always waiting their chance to deny us, or take these away from us.

Yes, it's tiring, and annoying, and frustrating. But the alternative is far worse, don't you think?

It'd be interesting to have people outside the polls with signs that said "I Didn't Vote," I'll give you that. But I can see some pretty unfortunate side effects to this.

Like what?

Sure it is. No offense dude, but you're not the arbiter of someone's motivations or tactics.

I'm not pretending to be. I'm just pointing out the total ineffectiveness of not voting as a form of protest.

One could say participating in a two-party farce is exactly that: foolish and dishonest. At best.

Yes, but there are other alternatives to just not voting.

When given a rotten choice or no real choice at all I suppose holding a sign and picketing is better than simply abstaining. But it might depend on the person and circumstances too.

Yes, we can only do what we're able. Lots of people will not be able to do much more than show up, and vote. But that's OK, because they can use their vote to make a statement of their dissatisfaction. And if enough of us start doing that, our dissatisfaction will be noted.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The bottom line is that nothing can be fixed or changed until we get the influence of money out of our political system. And that means we must have campaign finance reforms, and we must stop the legalized bribery of the legislature, because we can't fix ANYTHING else until we do this.

You won't get the money out through pulling vote levers. Women and blacks didn't become voters through voting.

So you can change the voting system while not voting.

 

[Granite]

Life is struggle. Freedom and justice and opportunity for all require constant oversight, and constant support. The fools and the criminals are always waiting their chance to take it away from us.

No argument there.

Like what?

An argument could be made that such individuals are trying to discourage people from voting. It wouldn't be a stretch to go from "I Didn't Vote" to "Don't Vote," even from well-intentioned protestors, but given our national history with voter intimidation, I'm not sure how well-received the message would be.

I'm not pretending to be. I'm just pointing out the total ineffectiveness of not voting as a form of protest.

That this is the best we can do thus far is sad commentary, but we'd probably say so for different reasons.

Yes, but there are other alternatives to just not voting.

So far I've seen "holding a sign." Well okay then.

Yes, we can only do what we're able. Lots of people will not be able to do much more than show up, and vote. But that's OK, because they can use their vote to make a statement of their dissatisfaction.

Only if there's a choice worth voting for. Otherwise...

 

[Tyrathca]

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.

In Australia we have a system for early voting stations and postal voting to get around that (when everyone has to vote you kind of have to make the system work for everyone )

 

[Nick M]

Women and blacks didn't become voters through voting.

Blacks came to voting through war, as a part of becoming human beings and not "3/5" of a human being for numbers. Liberty is never voted into existence.

The founding fathers voted it into existence and had to go to war to get it.

 

[elohiym]

What of it?

Iran-Contra? He voted for Reagan. See rocketman's claim that a voter is culpable for crimes of the person he votes into office. It's his claim, not mine.

 

[PureX]

You won't get the money out through pulling vote levers. Women and blacks didn't become voters through voting.

When the politicians realize that they can't keep power without doing what we demand of them, they will do what we demand of them.

So you can change the voting system while not voting.

Of course we can. By protesting, and rioting in the streets. We've been in this situation, before, and we succeeded in taking control of our government back. And we did it by unionizing, by protesting (which sometimes turned bloody), and by voting against the plutocrats and their lackeys. Unfortunately, that generation has all died off, and succeeding generations of Americans became completely oblivious of their struggle for equal justice and opportunity. And now we find ourselves right back under the strangle-hold of the oligarchs, again. And once again it will require a great struggle to gain back control of our own government.

And it's not going to happen by doing nothing.

 

[Granite]

I don't think anyone here's suggested that not voting is the be-all and end-all, PureX. I certainly don't think so. But I do think depending on the situation it's better than going along with a farce.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

When the politicians realize that they can't keep power without doing what we demand of them...

They count the vote, silly. You'll have to find another way. (hint there are other, more effective ways)

 

[rocketman]

If ...


You are in trouble.

See Iran-Contra Scandal.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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



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



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.



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.

It is quite obvious to me now that you just want to argue, you have justified your own inaction and apathy to yourself but, you are in great company the rest of the apathetic like you in this nation are right with you complaining with convoluted reasons about the state of their nation, whilst shirking their one voice that counts...their vote. I think we are done here... there is nothing left to discuss that I can see, and I am not up to a game of ping pong.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It is quite obvious to me now that you just want to argue

He who smelt it dealt it.

you have justified your own inaction and apathy to yourself but

:noway: Did you just say that to a combat-disabled veteran? For shame.

, you are in great company... whilst shirking their one voice that counts...their vote.

Haha, your measly apathetic vote doesn't count. You don't count the vote, or lobby afterwards, or do anything else that matters. 'Cause it's your one vote, your one say and you allow voter fraud while voting.

You have no right to complain when abortion was legalized, it didn't come down to a vote and all you acknowledge is your voting voice.

You don't get to take credit for lots of good things, either. You already said, you only have the one voice, the one vote.

I think we are done here... there is nothing left to discuss that I can see, and I am not up to a game of ping pong.

:carryon:

 

[kmoney]

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.

I agree. If the gov't wants more people to vote then give people the day off so it's easier to get there.

 

[patrick jane]

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.

absolutely, easy access with the whole day off. i don't think they want it easy for "everybody" unfortunately. but hey, Saturday Night's alright . . . better than election day ! ! ! - atrol:


View attachment 19481

 

[rocketman]

He who smelt it dealt it.

So quit dealing it...pee yew

:noway: Did you just say that to a combat-disabled veteran? For shame.

I did... apathy is apathy... and indifference is indifference how does service to ones country end? By deciding that you don't care any more? I am not the one that is proudly proclaiming my apathy...for shame indeed! The comment was not meant for offense it was an observation of the condition based upon what is being said. I never proclaimed your husband did not have the right to abstain from civic duties, he certainly does but, to say you have checked out on this nation because it just does not matter anyway is by definition apathy. I hail your husbands service to this nation, and thank him for it :saluteI said this earlier) but, I just cannot agree with his position...which is my right. We can agree to disagree at this point.

Haha, your measly apathetic vote doesn't count.

You obviously don't know the definition of apathetic, here let me help you out...

ap·a·thet·ic
ˌapəˈTHedik/
adjective
showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.

synonyms: uninterested, indifferent, unconcerned, unmoved, uninvolved, disinterested, unemotional, emotionless, dispassionate, lukewarm, unmotivated, halfhearted

I am as far from apathetic as you can get, I am quite concerned and certainly not indifferent to my country or the government which will never change outside of the people's vote & involvement. It is your government, yours & mine, we own it, or I guess since you take no part in it you don't own it...it owns you.

You don't count the vote, or lobby afterwards, or do anything else that matters. 'Cause it's your one vote, your one say and you allow voter fraud while voting.

These are just petty excuses for your indifference...

You have no right to complain when abortion was legalized, it didn't come down to a vote and all you acknowledge is your voting voice.

So your answer is to give up, do absolutely nothing, to allow evil to prevail without dissent from the citizenry at all? Sorry 1PM, I cannot just give up...not in my nature. Even if my vote is an exercise in futility which seems to be your assertion, I will stand for what is right & good till I take my last breath.

You don't get to take credit for lots of good things, either. You already said, you only have the one voice, the one vote.

And you are asserting that you should resign that as well...how sad

:carryon:

I will...

 

[drbrumley]

Frank Chodorov, Out of Step (1962):


Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one “good government” after another, and what have we got?