Should voting be encouraged?

Is the purpose of electing officials by vote to ensure that the people of the country are all represented? Or is it enough that they can be represented if they make the effort?

In some countries they fine people for not showing up to the polls, good idea or no? Should criminals be allowed to vote to ensure they are represented? What of the various and sometimes half-baked plans for limiting the number of eligible voters by adding requirements based on education, or on a community service requirement, or a "not on welfare" requirement?

Does the idea of getting "better" voters (even through a simple thing like not fining the apathetic people for not showing up) have any merit?

The apathetic are stupid not to exercise their opinion. I don't want stupid people voting. Therefore, I don't think we should cater towards getting apathetic people to vote.

"Should voting be encouraged?"

Yes, you are rrsponsible for the country you live in.

"Should voting be encouraged by legal compulsion?"

No, if that is necessary they you already have an irresponsible electorate.

Voting should be encouraged. However, mandatory participation smacks of repression of freedom of choice, government intrusion/interference. Those who wish to be "left alone" and don't want to participate in the political process shouldn't be punished for it.

Voting per se should not be encouraged, but a greater awareness of the matters that affect our country should be. This would then encourage more activism of the people, one method is to vote in elections.

There are already enough under-informed people voting (I'm probably amongst them). Increasing their number might be a step towards democracy, but not a better government.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't want stupid people voting.

---

+1

Mandatory here...its not really that hard to do. Depending how far away from a voting place you are, theres one 1 minute walk from my house, so...

I just see the presence of a democratic system as a safeguard against tyranny. Generally, I don't need to vote. But if a threat does arise, say, the BNP, then people could mobilise and make sure they don't get in. Simply the threat of having this mass mobilisation of voters is enough to prevent the fringe elements from getting into power, without having to actually exercise the right to vote.

In other words, if I feel the need to vote, the option is there, and knowing that alone should be enough to keep the politicians in line.

Very few things I'd actually bother and vote for but if they tried to make voting mandatory I'd vote against that.

I don't care to have the government or others encourage people to vote. If they don't feel strongly about political issues to vote on their own, they shouldn't be encouraged to vote.

Instead, people should be encouraged to get informed about politics, though doing that in a non-partisan way might be difficult. If becoming informed leads them to vote, so much the better.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Instead, people should be encouraged to get informed about politics, though doing that in a non-partisan way might be difficult. If becoming informed leads them to vote, so much the better.

---

This is probably the best way to go about it. :yes:

I agree with CR as well. I think you could encourage people to get informed about politics by making the connection between politics and their life clearer. Many young people don't see how government impacts their lives out of naivety or ignorance perhaps but they don't. I tell my friends if you don't know what your voting about, don't vote. Also, if they have any questions about an issue they sometimes ask me to give a summary of the issue and I honestly try to give a balanced overview of each sides arguments and give examples of how each side will impact them if that side were to prevail.

I get angry when I miss a primary. I don't believe I have ever missed a general. It is inconceivable to me that an adult would NOT want to become informed and exercise the franchise.

However, a majority prefer not to do so. Encouraging them to do so and to do so in an informed fashion is a worthy goal, albeit not all that attainable. Forcing all to vote -- even the unrepentently ignorant -- does no service to any of us.

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

---

When our electorate lets themselves become equally ignorant of BOTH politics and Angelina Jolie's breeding habits, THEN I will admit that they truly lack the time and energy to become informed about the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

When our electorate lets themselves become equally ignorant of BOTH politics and Angelina Jolie's breeding habits, THEN I will admit that they truly lack the time and energy to become informed about the former.

---

Entertainment is easier to comprehend then politics. It easier to comprehend and get angry over X actor being a douche and cheating on his wife then it is to understand what it will mean when the 2014 provisions of the health care reform bill kick in.

Again, it's a problem of too much work, too little energy. You spend what little time/energy you have for maximum benefit, so if you want to be angry about something you pick something petty and easy to grasp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Adults work too much to have the energy and time to care about politics. Why do you think that we have created an extreme trend toward shorter and shorter sound bites?

---

Aren't unemployed people the least likely to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Aren't unemployed people the least likely to vote?

---

Well, when day to day survival becomes a terrifying factor in your life, yes you begin to forget about voting and politics completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Well, when day to day survival becomes a terrifying factor in your life, yes you begin to forget about voting and politics completely.

---

I doubt most unemployed people fear for their day to day survival, they just aren't interested in politics. Benefits are pretty comfortable here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I doubt most unemployed people fear for their day to day survival, they just aren't interested in politics. Benefits are pretty comfortable here.

---

Yeah you are right. Poor don't have it bad, they are just lazy when it comes to politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Yeah you are right. Poor don't have it bad, they are just lazy when it comes to politics.

---

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

---

I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

95% of australians vote. Its 20 minutes max 2 times every 3 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

---

Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

---

We don't have a Gah! option. Which I definitely would have used in 2008. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

---

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

---

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

---

Well, I have never visited Britain, so I can't comment on that specific group.

People vote if there is a key issue and a difference between the parties.
If any party was stupid enough to have in their manifesto explicit cuts to key benefits the recipients would vote for those who will keep them.

Everyone does it. The unions back their strokes, the very rich and big business theirs (or more often both).

Before the election the senior GPs were clearly unhappy about the 50% tax bracket. I wasn't as my salary is nowhere near the levels required to be affected.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

---

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

---

:sweatdrop:

What's a big bet? I can't see what you're saying here. You have like a dangling conclusion or something.

With everyone voting, you are making a bet that the 51% got it right. With not everyone voting you are making a bet that 51% of those who cared enough to go and vote got it right.

The president has the right to the powers listed in the constitution because he was elected by the fair process outlined in our laws. Having a majority of votes from all eligible voters is not necessary. Why would it be? I don't understand. We have mechanisms in our system of government that go both ways--to keep the people as a check upon the government, and to keep the government separate from the popular vote of the people.