Compulsory Voting

[JBond]

The better option would be to have most Americans not vote. Clueless fucking irrational children.

You got your wish, didn't you, the clueless irrational children stayed home this election and the rational people loaded up with clues went to the polls.

How I wish that were true, but Americans don't vote for who should be in office, they vote for who runs, the first mistake. Believing they can actually do something is the second mistake.

Well, Governor Palin should be in the White House but she's never run. That's who you meant, right? What are we supposed to do with a comment like yours? How do we get people who should be in office into office if they don't run?

Easy, rational people appoint them. Letting the pitchforks vote is idiotic, they have fields to plow.

Tard alert.

 

[otto105]

No thanks. Who other than Democrats wants to welcome legions of ignorant, uniformed voters to the polls? I certainly don't want to be obligated to their ignorant desires or choices. Why should the vote of a maroon cancel out my informed vote?

See 2016, it's already happened to you.

 

[Freewill]

In the sense that they owned slaves, what's not to understand?

What's not to understand is how that makes someone, "liberal". How does it?

Well liberals want to always take credit for whatever it is they think is good. So their story line is that those slave owning men were liberals. OK, then, we now know that Southern democrats and liberals owned slaves. I disagree that the founders were liberal but, that is what the liberals want to claim so they must take the good with the bad.

That's a pretty sad dodge. Just admit it...owning slaves doesn't make one, "liberal".

I didn't say it did, I said that if the founders were liberals, as claimed, then the liberals owned slaves. I think the logic is solid. Not all liberals owned slaves but obviously if the founders were liberals then liberals owned slaves. Now, the obvious question is, do liberals, or did liberals, own slaves?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the sense that they owned slaves, what's not to understand?

What's not to understand is how that makes someone, "liberal". How does it?

Well liberals want to always take credit for whatever it is they think is good. So their story line is that those slave owning men were liberals. OK, then, we now know that Southern democrats and liberals owned slaves. I disagree that the founders were liberal but, that is what the liberals want to claim so they must take the good with the bad.

That's a pretty sad dodge. Just admit it...owning slaves doesn't make one, "liberal".

I didn't say it did, I said that if the founders were liberals, as claimed, then the liberals owned slaves. I think the logic is solid. Not all liberals owned slaves but obviously if the founders were liberals then liberals owned slaves. Now, the obvious question is, do liberals, or did liberals, own slaves?

So, you say they are not liberals merely by virtue of owning slaves. Gotcha.

Did liberals own slaves? Of course, both liberals and conservatives lived under the same social norms throughout history, so it's not hard to find a relative "liberal" , for instance, committing genocide for Jesus at some point in history. History doesn't work like your brain. Progressive changes happen by degrees over time

 

[deltex1]

Mandatory voting?

Mandatory working?
Mandatory weight/ health control?
Mandatory education?
Mandatory budget/savings plan?
Mandatory respect to your fellow human?

 

[my2¢]

I favor mandatory voting as long as everybody was required to vote for my choice, otherwise screw it.

 

[bripat9643]

.
In this years mid-term election, a pathetic 36.6 percent voted.
In Australia about 92% of eligible voters voted in their last election.
Do you think it's time to start talking about compulsory voting?

The Economist explains
Where is it compulsory to vote?
Sep 19th 2013

<snip>

...in some countries skipping the polling booth can land you in trouble. In Australia non-voters can expect a letter from the electoral commission demanding an explanation for their absenteeism. If they don’t have a good excuse they are fined A$20 ($19). If they fail to pay they can end up in court, where the fine is upped to A$170, plus court fees. Refuse to cough up and they face jail. A survey by Britain’s electoral commission in 2006 categorised three other countries as having “very strict” compulsory-voting regimes. In Brazil and Peru, non-voters are banned from carrying out various administrative transactions (Brazilians cannot apply for passports or sit professional exams, in theory at least), as well as facing small fines. In Singapore, non-voters have their names removed from the electoral roll—which many of them are presumably not too worried by. A host of other countries have varyingly strict rules on voting, along with some curious get-outs. Illiterate people are excused in Brazil and Ecuador; soldiers are excluded in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Lebanon. The elderly are off the hook in several countries. And in Bolivia, where voting is notionally compulsory, married people are enfranchised from the age of 18, whereas singletons must wait until they are 21.

Proponents of mandatory voting argue that democracy is too important to be optional. Others say that compulsory self-determination is something of a contradiction in terms.

<snip>
.

Absolutely not. The fewer dumbasses that vote, the better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mandatory voting?

Mandatory working?
Mandatory weight/ health control?
Mandatory education?
Mandatory budget/savings plan?
Mandatory respect to your fellow human?

It's the Liberal way......

 

[JoeMoma]

Voting is a choice. Also, staying home and not voting is kind of a vote against all the candidates running.

 

[deltex1]

Voting is a choice. Also, staying home and not voting is kind of a vote against all the candidates running.

Mostly it's because of laziness, ignorance or disinterest.

 

[FA_Q2]

Voting is a choice. Also, staying home and not voting is kind of a vote against all the candidates running.

Mostly it's because of laziness, ignorance or disinterest.

It also sends a clear message to the candidates that whatever they are doing is fine - you are not going to show up to vote against them.

The candidates only need to garner a majority of the votes that actually are cast - the number of people that do not show up at all are immaterial and make it even easier for a candidate to win.