The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I don't agree with everything in the article below regarding electoral reform, however, I do agree with the part that I quoted.... voting should be mandatory. It may solve enough problems with our FPTP electoral system that the system may not need to change. Or maybe I'm just saying this becasue I think mandatory voting would ensure far more "progressive" people would be forced to go to the polls and a party like the CPC wouldn't have much of a chance. Although the example of Australia and their madatory voting doesn't tend to bare that out. They still elect "right wing" parties to be government. http://www.westerngazette.ca/2015/10/leave-electoral-reform-voters/ So, what can be done in the meantime to make our democracy better? That answer is mandatory voting. Make election day a holiday, institute a fine if eligible voters dont vote and give every possible opportunity for people to engage in the rare opportunity to directly engage with the democratic process. Running a first past the post election with mandatory voting might be all we need to fix our system. And Even if it isnt, it will give us valuable data and insight into the Canadian voter without favouring any one party over another. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Really? It's not bad enough that we're stuck with a voting system that wastes my vote, you want some voting Nazi to make me cast a ballot anyway? That's got to be the dumbest idea of the century. Edited October 16, 2015 by Charles Anthony deleted quotation of re-copied Opening Post Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) K, RF, what if it's PR mandatory voting? Edited October 16, 2015 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 K, RF, what is it's PR mandatory voting? I'm not sure what you mean by PR in this case - proportional representation? People seem to think that the big problem is not enough people vote but that's not it. The big problem is not enough people get involved and informed. What's the point of getting more apathetic, uninterested people to cast ballots? What is that going to fix? Representative democracy demands democratic representation - and we don't have it. I don't get why the MSM is dead set against PR but they seem to be. The helped kill it in BC. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 Really? It's not bad enough that we're stuck with a voting system that wastes my vote, you want some voting Nazi to make me cast a ballot anyway? That's got to be the dumbest idea of the century. I disagree that your vote is wasted... No Nazis would be involved (Godwin's Law sure got invoked quickly in this thread)... just a $500 "no-voting-tax" that gets added to your income taxes... australia has a 90%+ voting rate. Quote
August1991 Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I don't agree with everything in the article below regarding electoral reform, however, I do agree with the part that I quoted.... voting should be mandatory. We don't need higher voter participation, we need more informed voters. Trust me Squid, higher voter participation rates do not make for democracy; IMV, the measure of a civilized society is tax compliance. When people pay their taxes, they "vote" in a way that is far more significant than voter participation rates. ===== To summarize my view, the world doesn't lack for children. It lacks educated people. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I disagree that your vote is wasted... No Nazis would be involved (Godwin's Law sure got invoked quickly in this thread)... just a $500 "no-voting-tax" that gets added to your income taxes... australia has a 90%+ voting rate. That's awesome. Do these extra people actually know who they're voting for or are they just there because they have to be? It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to use the force of the law to implement some kind of quick fix with zero thought as to whether their quick fix actually does any good whatsoever. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 We don't need higher voter participation, we need more informed voters. Trust me Squid, higher voter participation rates do not make for democracy; IMV, the measure of a civilized society is tax compliance. When people pay their taxes, they "vote" in a way that is far more significant than voter participation rates. ===== To summarize my view, the world doesn't lack for children. It lacks educated people. So kind of the opposite of Squid's premise- instead of requiring people to vote, people would have to qualify. That's a good theory but it's rather elitist if tax-based. I'd be more inclined to agree if we made the qualification based on political knowledge. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Michael Hardner Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I'm glad to see that a few here reject Squid's 'voting should be mandatory' premise, as do I. And we're getting people from different perspectives rejecting it too. Reefer and August have highlighted my central concern: the lower participation rate is likely not the root cause - voter engagement and education is. In that respect, I always find it odd that we take lower participation rate as a sign of failure, when it could mean the opposite. What I mean is: most people aren't naturally interested in politics, but are interested in their families, careers, and things generally branded as the 'pursuit of happiness'. If the political system is working, then - to my mind - these people don't HAVE to think about politics so much. They can leave those topics to the people who are interested. Let's not think that we (as in we political types, busybodies and MLW posters) should mandate our obsessions onto the rest of society. Democracy was designed for a subset of the politically interested (then known as "the" public) and I think it can still work that way. And in case anybody thinks this is an elitist viewpoint, please note that anybody is free to be interested in politics - those who are in that group undergo self-selection. I am hopeful, and more and more convinced, that as the internet continues to mature we will see "publics" emerge for different areas of political interest and that is a good thing. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
poochy Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I htink everyone should be compelled to vote, and it's probably bad for democracy if we don't, but it's probably worse if we're forced to. Quote
Topaz Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 One of the journalist said that there is one country that fines voters $20, if they don't, sorry can't remember the country but what if one didn't vote then that non-voter couldn't gain from any financial gain from the government elected OR in other words, u don't vote u can't have! Quote
Smeelious Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Forcing the vote in FPTP would only make the pitfalls of FPTP worse. Although, it might wake a few more people up to said pitfalls, thus encouraging electoral reform. Quote
dialamah Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 We don't need higher voter participation, we need more informed voters. Trust me Squid, higher voter participation rates do not make for democracy; IMV, the measure of a civilized society is tax compliance. When people pay their taxes, they "vote" in a way that is far more significant than voter participation Since most taxes are taken at source, tax compliance is essentially ensured, imo. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 One of the journalist said that there is one country that fines voters $20, if they don't, sorry can't remember the country but what if one didn't vote then that non-voter couldn't gain from any financial gain from the government elected OR in other words, u don't vote u can't have! I believe he's talking about Australia, though I thought the fine was a bit higher. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Mandatory voting is the worst idea of all-times, I'm completely against it. Many voters who choose to vote are terribly uninformed anyways. Think of the impact on our democracy if we force the 50% that don't vote to cast ballots, most of these 50% who don't read the news or follow politics whatsoever and will be casting completely ignorant votes, where the totality of their political knowledge they will base their votes on will come from dirty & deceptive partisan ads, the occasional sound bite, and whatever heresay their friends and family brainwash them with. Imagine the increase in the BS, the stupid policies, and the ridiculous lying ads that would come from parties who would be pandering to this wholly ignorant 50% of voters. Imagine how much more crap our government could get away with when 50% (or more) of the voting population does not give a crap. I also don't think it's in the name of democracy to use the threat of force from government men with guns and clubs to get people to vote. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Big Guy Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I too am against mandatory voting. If only 50% of the potential voters do vote then my vote doubles in importance. I can accpet that responsibility. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Moonlight Graham Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I too am against mandatory voting. If only 50% of the potential voters do vote then my vote doubles in importance. I can accpet that responsibility. Haha exactly, another wonderful reason. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No to mandatory voting. If someone isn't gonna bother to vote, then they clearly have no interest in and no knowledge of the political situation. If they are forced to vote, their vote will be an uninformed one. What we need is more people to WANT to vote, not people to be forced to vote. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No to mandatory voting. If someone isn't gonna bother to vote, then they clearly have no interest in and no knowledge of the political situation. If they are forced to vote, their vote will be an uninformed one. What we need is more people to WANT to vote, not people to be forced to vote. My sentiment exactly. I have deep ethical and philosophical problems with someone being forced into a voting booth. I fail to see how just mindlessly bumping up the number of eligible voters who do vote is a fix for democracy. Quote
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 I think mandatory voting would make people become more engaged. If these people that don't vote know they have to, many of them will pay more attention. There is your precious voter engagement! Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I think mandatory voting would make people become more engaged. If these people that don't vote know they have to, many of them will pay more attention. There is your precious voter engagement! Voter turnout is an indicator of engagement in democracy - as long as it's voluntary. Making voting mandatory and then trumpeting your voter turnout is exactly like cooking the books and bragging how well your company is doing. I know it's a bit harder to change the system to actually engage people but it's worth doing. Mandatory voting is a bad idea. And mandatory voting layered on top of a broken voting system is adding insult to injury. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) No to mandatory voting. If someone isn't gonna bother to vote, then they clearly have no interest in and no knowledge of the political situation. If they are forced to vote, their vote will be an uninformed one. What we need is more people to WANT to vote, not people to be forced to vote. I dont buy the "informed" vs "uniformed" vote. Even the politically interested voters are "informed" by soundbytes and campaign ads, and most of them just show up and vote party. In fact... ideologs and party enthusiasts like the people found here are probably the lowest value voters of all. Buying into a party produced set of fake facts and half-truths does not make you informed. Not one person on this site has read all the party platforms. Not one person has ever read a single piece of legislation in its entirety. Ideological spoon-feeding is not being "informed". In any case if they ARE going to make voting mandatory they should move our electoral system out of the stoneage, and get rid of the lineups, voting booths, etc. People should just be able to log onto the elections candidate, enter an auth. code that the government snail mailed them ahead of time, and vote with a mouseclick or two. Edited October 16, 2015 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) People seem to think that the big problem is not enough people vote but that's not it. The big problem is not enough people get involved and informed. What's the point of getting more apathetic, uninterested people to cast ballots? What is that going to fix? The first time I've ever completely agreed with anything ReeferMadness has said. How is forcing people to vote who don't follow politics and don't know anything about what's going on going to produce better politicians? Edited October 16, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Trust me Squid, higher voter participation rates do not make for democracy; IMV, the measure of a civilized society is tax compliance. When people pay their taxes, they "vote" in a way that is far more significant than voter participation rates. Well, given that 30% of voters don't pay income tax, and that many of the rest pay almost nothing, maybe we should look into how to address this. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I think mandatory voting would make people become more engaged. You can't MAKE people become more engaged. The people I know who aren't politically engaged will either just shrug off the fine, or, if they vote, will find a way to give the law the middle finger by voting for a Communist or a Rhino or some other joke candidate. Some others will simply vote for whatever they sort of, kind of have the impression of, is nice from the occasional hearing of bits and pieces of radio news, or the guy with the right sounding name. Edited October 16, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.