Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It would be a good thing to fine registered voters who pass a literacy test, and then fail to vote.As an advocate for jury nullification, I look forward to the day somebody is cool enough to put me in a jury pool.
I wonder if the op, or anybody else can explain how liberties or freedom can be advanced with compulsory voting?
Liberties or freedoms are not the issue. The issue in the OP is finding out if forcing people to vote or pay a fine is a good thing or bad thing.
WTF is it snarled in now?As a member of a jury advocating among jurors for jury nullification would surely result in a mistrial and another untainted trial.As an advocate for jury nullification, I look forward to the day somebody is fool enough to put me in a jury pool.
I wonder if the op, or anybody else can explain how liberties or freedom can be advanced with compulsory voting?
Freedom and liberty is certainly not advanced with mandatory voting. The very term mandatory is coercive. No one can tell you who to vote for. Make voting mandatory and the entire election process would become snarled in gobbelty gook.
It is not Jim Crow if a computer picks 100(ten is not enough)questions on basic civic duties and responsibilities, regardless of race, creed, color, gender or sexual persuasion, from say 1,000 possible questions a citizen could study and prepare for.Sounds like Jim Crow politics. However, the discussion is on if it would be a good idea to force people to vote or pay some fine.I'd support a 10 random question test as part of each ballot to see if the participant knew ANYTHING about the election. If they didn't pass the test, their ballot wouldn't be counted.
That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.
No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.
Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.
liberals would have the government dictate what people are allowed to think and punish anyone who dares not the think as the goverment tells them. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it, their books were fiction, but their fiction is becoming fact.
Clearly you don't have the slightest inkling of an understanding of what Liberalism is.
As such, maybe you should be required to sit the vote out.
Make voting mandatory and what it is now will be mild.WTF is it snarled in now?As a member of a jury advocating among jurors for jury nullification would surely result in a mistrial and another untainted trial.As an advocate for jury nullification, I look forward to the day somebody is fool enough to put me in a jury pool.
I wonder if the op, or anybody else can explain how liberties or freedom can be advanced with compulsory voting?
Freedom and liberty is certainly not advanced with mandatory voting. The very term mandatory is coercive. No one can tell you who to vote for. Make voting mandatory and the entire election process would become snarled in gobbelty gook.
Worth while is a subjective term. Lets be realistic.They can make voting mandatory providing worth while candidates becomes mandatory.
What was not worthwhile about the last election? I thought all elections were equally important regardless of the people running. This isnt a sporting contest.Worth while is a subjective term. Lets be realistic.They can make voting mandatory providing worth while candidates becomes mandatory.
The last election offered a choice between Obama and Romney. Mandating participation in elections like that is like mandating someone play the bitch in either a bukkake or scat film.
They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
Dont know yet. We could model it on the countries that do require mandatory voting now like Australia.The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
what would be the penalty for not voting? for not registering?
I agree with voter id. That has nothing to do with this topic, stop trying to twist things.You must be against requiring ID to vote then?The idea has no merit. It is my right to vote or not to vote. The Gov't has no right to force you to vote, even though socialist libtards hate it.Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.
That is something you cannot legislate. Nor would it be wise to rely on someone who knows they must vote becoming informed. They will not take the process seriously. They will treat the process as an intrusion and a waste of their time. Not only will they not become informed they will extend the intrusion to all attempts to make them informed. That's when rejection becomes outright sabotage.The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
It has everything to do with it. You just said yourself its your right to vote. If you agree with that then there should be no laws requiring you to have an ID to exercise that right.I agree with voter id. That has nothing to do with this topic, stop trying to twist things.You must be against requiring ID to vote then?The idea has no merit. It is my right to vote or not to vote. The Gov't has no right to force you to vote, even though socialist libtards hate it.Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.
Dont know yet. We could model it on the countries that do require mandatory voting now like Australia.The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
what would be the penalty for not voting? for not registering?
It worked in Australia.That is something you cannot legislate. Nor would it be wise to rely on someone who knows they must vote becoming informed. They will not take the process seriously. They will treat the process as an intrusion and a waste of their time. Not only will they not become informed they will extend the intrusion to all attempts to make them informed. That's when rejection becomes outright sabotage.The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
liberals would have the government dictate what people are allowed to think and punish anyone who dares not the think as the goverment tells them. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it, their books were fiction, but their fiction is becoming fact.
Clearly you don't have the slightest inkling of an understanding of what Liberalism is.
As such, maybe you should be required to sit the vote out.
the actions of the last 6 years by a liberal president prove that what I said is 100% accurate.
Some type of penalty similar to the penalty for health insurance. You can exercise your right to vote for none of the above. I think however the process of doing even that will pull some people into the fold and make them curious as to what the issues are.Dont know yet. We could model it on the countries that do require mandatory voting now like Australia.The point is to get more people involved in being responsible and making intelligent decisions regarding voting.....not to dictate who they vote for.They might vote to avoid the pain. Then Mickey Mouse will get a significant number of votes. You can compel voting you just cannot compel the vote cast.So far the best post I've read against mandatory voting is the self correction model. People will begin participating in voting voluntarily if the pain of not voting becomes too much to bear.
what would be the penalty for not voting? for not registering?
how would it be enforced? What about the freedom to not cast a vote because you don't like either candidate? would everyone be required to vote on everything on the ballot or could you turn in a blank ballot?
this is really a ridiculous idea.
