Should a Democratic State Force/Facilitate/Promote individual votes?

[August1991]

In Australia, the State imposes fines on citizens who don't vote.

In the US, the State leaves it to citizens to register.

In Canada, the State maintains a permanent voter list of citizens but imposes no sanction for non-voting.

-----

IMHO, in a democratic State, many clearly defined individuals meet criteria and have the right to vote - but they should not have the obligation. Moreover, it is the individual who should exercise this right.

I don't think the State should promote voting. I think the State should verify that voters meet the voting criteria - with this verification subject to review.

=====

I have no problem with restricting voting criteria to people who are citizens and have residency. Indeed, to vote, a person must be able to show citizenship/residency to an independent State bureaucrat - subject to appeal.

IMHO, if you can't show that you're a citizen, and you can't show where you live, then in a democracy, you shouldn't vote.

I'm more lenient to permanent voter lists.

I oppose fines for non-voting.

Edited April 13, 2014 by August1991

[jbg]

I think voting should be encouraged, but monitored for coercion or fraud.

[Michael Hardner]

The part of the voting system that isn't being discussed is 'underneath the hood'. The engine of democracy is debate, discussion, research...

How can individuals be expected to do that when government is so huge and complex, and there are few objective sources of information. Moreover, for a government that is so huge and pervasive, "NEWS" is not enough. One would need operations summaries, and that is just beyond the ability of most people to analyze, even if it were available.

This is why people call for cutting government, it is literally out of control by definition.

[Guest]

By not voting, a citizen is expressing indifference to the outcome of an election. As valid a position to take as any partisan one.

[WWWTT]

By not voting, a citizen is expressing indifference to the outcome of an election. As valid a position to take as any partisan one.

I agree with this comment.

I would add that our system is neither a true democracy!

We only have the right to vote for someone, who in turn then votes on and has the ability to forward motions budgets amendments etc. etc.

Including federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, I would estimate the odds of anyone actually ever having the opportunity to forward a bill budget etc. or voting on one is around 1 in 50 000!

I wouldn't doubt that you have a better chance of voting/ forwarding legislation in any stereo typical dictatorship country!

WWWTT

[Remiel]

In an electoral democracy it is complete unacceptable for the state to not, at the very least, promote the conscious and intentional decision to vote or not vote. The state that does not attempt to engage its citizens is the state sliding towards expunging their means of input altogether.

[Mighty AC]

IMHO, in a democratic State, many clearly defined individuals meet criteria and have the right to vote - but they should not have the obligation. Moreover, it is the individual who should exercise this right.

I oppose fines for non-voting.

I agree. Why should an individual be forced to care about public affairs?

I don't think the State should promote voting. I think the State should verify that voters meet the voting criteria - with this verification subject to review.

I understand that an engaged public is really not in the best interest of those in power, but do you believe the state should not support it.

[Michael Hardner]

In an electoral democracy it is complete unacceptable for the state to not, at the very least, promote the conscious and intentional decision to vote or not vote.

?

What isn't covered here ? Forgetting about the election I suppose.

The state that does not attempt to engage its citizens is the state sliding towards expunging their means of input altogether.

Engaging the citizens is easy. To do so meaningfully is difficult.

[eyeball]

?

What isn't covered here ? Forgetting about the election I suppose.

Engaging the citizens is easy. To do so meaningfully is difficult.

Meaningfully inquiring into why so many people are choosing to disengage in the first place might help.

[Michael Hardner]

Meaningfully inquiring into why so many people are choosing to disengage in the first place might help.

I would suspect that the answers largely fall into two camps:

1) I didn't feel like it

2) The choices offered don't match my political viewpoint/my vote has no effect/I am frustrated by gridlock

These are two very different issues. The response to the first one is, I think, to chalk the result up to the success of a country that lets people pursue their interests. The response to the second one is more difficult. I think the second option is the one that requires more engagement, and digital online engagement may be the answer to that. But not online voting.

If we adopt online voting, without addressing the second response, then we're moving more towards a bread and circuses society where disengaged lazy individuals continually push a button to get their entitlements.

[eyeball]

I think your first answer; I didn't feel like it because...is merely a preamble to several reasons.

If we adopt online voting, without addressing the second response, then we're moving more towards a bread and circuses society where disengaged lazy individuals continually push a button to get their entitlements.

To be perfectly honest I think writing off disengagement as laziness is even lazier. We've long since already moved towards the society you describe except the individuals you're talking about receive their entitlements via their lobbyists.

[Michael Hardner]

To be perfectly honest I think writing off disengagement as laziness is even lazier. We've long since already moved towards the society you describe except the individuals you're talking about receive their entitlements via their lobbyists.

I explicitly did NOT do that. I characterized two different responses above.

[eyeball]

You've characterized disengagement as laziness before but if I now stand corrected then great. It's good to know.

[Michael Hardner]

You've characterized disengagement as laziness before but if I now stand corrected then great. It's good to know.

I'm saying that there are 2 likely causes - one of which we should ignore, the other of which we need to address with a new initiative around engagement.

[eyeball]

Well, at least we're in agreement on the need for change in any case.

I think our engagement initiative should start with a serious inquiry into the disengagement that's developed and it's main question should read as follows ; I don't vote because: a) the choices offered don't match my political viewpoint b ) my vote has no effect. c). I am frustrated by gridlock. d) it leaves me feeling complicit and irresponsible. e) I'm lazy....f). etc etc.

Edited April 14, 2014 by eyeball

[The_Squid]

The state should compel people to vote and fine them if they don't. The example being Australia.

Edited April 14, 2014 by The_Squid

[eyeball]

Australia apparently has issues with registration that are getting worse.

"High voter turnout is a myth when you consider that 10% of Australians are not even registered. When that myth is debunked, I think you'll see a dramatic shift in public perception of compulsory voting," he said.

That number only reflects registered voters who turned out, and although required by law, in recent years voter registration has seen a slight decline, especially among younger Australians.

Story

How de we guard against governments that deliberately omit enumerating certain voters they may deem as being inimical to their chances of winning?

Edited April 14, 2014 by eyeball

[Remiel]

?

What isn't covered here ? Forgetting about the election I suppose.

An electoral democracy cannot say abide a situation and remain healthy where substantial numbers of people decide not to vote for superficial reasons like laziness or forgetfulness. Everyone who does not vote should have some kind of normative premise backing up their decision. If that makes it any clearer...

[cybercoma]

Well, at least we're in agreement on the need for change in any case.

I think our engagement initiative should start with a serious inquiry into the disengagement that's developed and it's main question should read as follows ; I don't vote because: a) the choices offered don't match my political viewpoint b ) my vote has no effect. c). I am frustrated by gridlock. d) it leaves me feeling complicit and irresponsible. e) I'm lazy....f). etc etc.

This is already studied.

This is quite old (11 years now), but it's publicly accessible: http://data.library.utoronto.ca/datapub/codebooks/utm/can_nonvote_03/TurnoutDecline.pdf

As an aside, the Fair Elections Act would restrict Elections Canada's ability to do this kind of research.

Edited April 15, 2014 by cybercoma

[August1991]

In an electoral democracy it is complete unacceptable for the state to not, at the very least, promote the conscious and intentional decision to vote or not vote. The state that does not attempt to engage its citizens is the state sliding towards expunging their means of input altogether.

Remiel, you are describing a religious State - a State that proselytizes and inducts its citizens.

[August1991]

I understand that an engaged public is really not in the best interest of those in power, but do you believe the state should not support it.

I'm a conservative so I prefer incremental change to progressive fads, and I prefer elections to revolution.

"Those in power"? In a democracy, an engaged public can overthrow a despotic "those in power" peacefully. IMHO, that is the very definition of democracy.

Edited April 18, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

An electoral democracy cannot say abide a situation and remain healthy where substantial numbers of people decide not to vote for superficial reasons like laziness or forgetfulness. Everyone who does not vote should have some kind of normative premise backing up their decision. If that makes it any clearer...

I disagree. In Canadian cities today, voter turnout is around 20% - yet we agree that they are democratic elections, if only more people voted.

IMHO, the voter turnout percentage is not the question.

=====

Progressives want more people to vote; they want more people involved. Leftists want more "fairness", and they want more government bureaucrats to enforce this fairness.

I too want a "fair" society but I think a "civilised" society is a better adjective to describe the desire of leftists - as opposed to the desire of progressives.

Edited April 18, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

The part of the voting system that isn't being discussed is 'underneath the hood'. The engine of democracy is debate, discussion, research...

In the Soviet Union, debate, discussion, research were endless. But this was largely in two echo chambers. One chamber was official, and another was unofficial. IOW, "Debate, discussion, research" are not engines of democracy.

I have a simple definition of democracy (or a civilized State): there is a peaceful way to throw the buggers out. IMHO, "democracy" is when State power changes hands peacefully between opponents without death or revolution.

When John Adams resigned, he set the standard.

Edited April 18, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

In the Soviet Union, debate, discussion, research were endless.

No they were not. By debate, I mean true debate. Debate and discussion are the engines of democracy, which is why the press, opposition parties and so on are seeded as part of the whole thing.

I have a simple definition of democracy (or a civilized State): there is a peaceful way to throw the buggers out. IMHO, "democracy" is when State power changes hands peacefully between opponents without death or revolution.

That sounds more like a bloodless coup.

[Remiel]

I disagree. In Canadian cities today, voter turnout is around 20% - yet we agree that they are democratic elections, if only more people voted.

IMHO, the voter turnout percentage is not the question.

What in God's name are these numbers for? If voter turnout in cities was only 20% then how the Hell could you manage an overall turnout of 60% when cities are something like 80% of the population? Does the 20% of the country that lives in rural areas account for 44% of the total population that voter? No, obviously they do not.