ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 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. That's a fantastic idea - let's take steps immediately to ensure that more poor people make enough money so that they will pay taxes. First time I've ever agreed with something Argus has said. 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
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 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. The idea you can be 'informed' through party ads and the occasional soundbyte is ludicrous. Most of the people here at least follow politics enough, even if they are ideologues, to have a clearer idea of where the parties stand and what they've been up to. 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
ReeferMadness Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I'd spoil my ballot before I voted for a party that supported mandatory voting. 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
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 That's a fantastic idea - let's take steps immediately to ensure that more poor people make enough money so that they will pay taxes. Just so you don't take it from me. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Just so you don't take it from me. I think Reefer clearly pointed out he seldom does. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 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. In the years that I could vote in Canada, I read all the (major) party platforms. Many of the posters here have said they've voted for varying parties over the years. I certainly have, myself. Regardless of the people on this forum, the people that aren't bothering to vote under a system where it is not mandatory are not going to be adding any value to the democratic process if they are forced to vote. That said, I absolutely agree with you about online voting. That would probably increase turnouts significantly without making anything mandatory. Quote
ToadBrother 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! It would make them go to the polls. I can't imagine someone disengaged from politics would suddenly to become educated. Quote
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I think Reefer clearly pointed out he seldom does. I suspect the largest part of the 'progressives' on this site fall into the "Oh great, it's tax time! I get my fat refund" part of the population. 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
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The idea you can be 'informed' through party ads and the occasional soundbyte is ludicrous. Most of the people here at least follow politics enough, even if they are ideologues, to have a clearer idea of where the parties stand and what they've been up to. No theyre opinion on those things is based on ideology and partisanship. All of us "informed voters" cannot even agree on a single factual assertion. Half the folks here loudly proclaim the country just flat out wont survive a victory by any party other than theirs. Its just ideological breast-feeding. I would value the vote of someone that knows absolutely nothing, but is forced to read a condensed version of each platform prior to voting, over the votes of party hacks and ideologs. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Its just ideological breast-feeding. I would value the vote of someone that knows absolutely nothing, but is forced to read a condensed version of each platform prior to voting, over the votes of party hacks and ideologs. That might work if party platforms meant anything. All parties have a long history of almost completely ignoring their platforms once elected. Not to mention "forcing" someone to read something sounds like a remarkably futile endeavor. Edited October 16, 2015 by Bonam Quote
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 It would make them go to the polls. I can't imagine someone disengaged from politics would suddenly to become educated. Sure it would.... not all of them, but I bet it would engage at least some of them. A national holiday where we ALL join hands and go to the polling station would be amazing! Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Sure it would.... not all of them, but I bet it would engage at least some of them. A national holiday where we ALL join hands and go to the polling station would be amazing! People keep asserting this, with little evidence to back it up. But that doesn't even get to the chief of my objections, in that I don't think it is right that the State force people to vote. What if someone has a religious objection to voting, or even appearing at the polling station? What if someone legitimately despises all the candidates? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I suspect the largest part of the 'progressives' on this site fall into the "Oh great, it's tax time! I get my fat refund" part of the population. I guess we all have our suspicions don't we. I especially like that Oversees Employment Tax Credit thingy. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 In the years that I could vote in Canada, I read all the (major) party platforms. Many of the posters here have said they've voted for varying parties over the years. I certainly have, myself. Regardless of the people on this forum, the people that aren't bothering to vote under a system where it is not mandatory are not going to be adding any value to the democratic process if they are forced to vote. That said, I absolutely agree with you about online voting. That would probably increase turnouts significantly without making anything mandatory. I never said high value voters dont exist and maybe you ARE one. There are clearly people out there that really to study for elections like they would a final exam and put a lot of work into wading through all the party propoganda and do their best to factcheck things before they believe them. That number is very small though and in GENERAL I doubt youre going to find many of them on political forums blurting out ideological talking points at each other. Regardless of the people on this forum, the people that aren't bothering to vote under a system where it is not mandatory are not going to be adding any value to the democratic process if they are forced to vote. High voter turn-out adds value even if the voters dont know anything about the issues, because participation implies consent of the governmerned. The purpose of democracy has never been about getting informed choices from voters. Its about creating political stability by making people feel like they are self governed. Thats why we dont do direct democracy. So yes... high voter turn-out has value in and of itself. If people lose interest in large number it can eventually spell trouble. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 So yes... high voter turn-out has value in and of itself. If people lose interest in large number it can eventually spell trouble. If a large percentage of those voters are completely disengaged and simply marking an X without even the level of thought that a hardened unwavering partisan puts into a vote, then how does that increase the legitimacy of an election? To my mind, it actually undermines it. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 That might work if party platforms meant anything. All parties have a long history of almost completely ignoring their platforms once elected. Not to mention "forcing" someone to read something sounds like a remarkably futile endeavor. I dont think it would really matter anyways. Even if people voted using an electoral implementation of "blinded-folded pin the tail on the donkey" it would make literally no practical difference to how we are actually governed. Even if they just picked a name from a hat blindfolded life would go on... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 High voter turn-out adds value even if the voters dont know anything about the issues, because participation implies consent of the governmerned. The purpose of democracy has never been about getting informed choices from voters. Its about creating political stability by making people feel like they are self governed. Thats why we dont do direct democracy. So yes... high voter turn-out has value in and of itself. . No, high voter turn out has no value in and of itself. I was born in the USSR. Do you know what the voter turnout was there? 100%. Every time. Nor does forcing your electorate to vote imply that the governing party has the consent of the governed, it only implies that the people that were forced (by definition, against their will) to vote, voted for the party that ended up in power. If people lose interest in large number it can eventually spell trouble. No, if people lose interest in large numbers it means they are fine with the status quo and don't really care about politics. And that can only mean that the political situation is stable enough and good enough that it does not concern most people. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Even if they just picked a name from a hat blindfolded life would go on... Of course life would go on. What kind of argument is that? The question isn't about whether life would go on, but whether we would be better off if voting was mandatory. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 If a large percentage of those voters are completely disengaged and simply marking an X without even the level of thought that a hardened unwavering partisan puts into a vote, then how does that increase the legitimacy of an election? To my mind, it actually undermines it. The only thing that gives a government legitimacy beyond naked force is implied consent of the governed. If not one single person showed up to vote, the government could not claim it represented anybody at all. Indirect democracy is essentially crowd control and if the crowd stops believing it wont work. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The only thing that gives a government legitimacy beyond naked force is implied consent of the governed. If not one single person showed up to vote, the government could not claim it represented anybody at all. Indirect democracy is essentially crowd control and if the crowd stops believing it wont work. But no one expects the number of voters to come anywhere close to zero, so that's really an unwarranted hypothetical. And note that I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage people to vote. I'm saying that forcing disengaged and apathetic people to the polls does not produce legitimacy, and it might very well harm the legitimacy of a vote. If people are voting for a guy just because he's the incumbent or because his name is at the top of the ballot, then what has been accomplished? Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The only thing that gives a government legitimacy beyond naked force is implied consent of the governed. If not one single person showed up to vote, the government could not claim it represented anybody at all. Indirect democracy is essentially crowd control and if the crowd stops believing it wont work. And if people are forced to vote, then you have no idea how many would have actually voted if they weren't forced to do so. Therefore you would no longer be able to make any valid implication about the consent of the governed, since all votes would be coerced votes, regardless of which party they were for. Making voting into something that your government forces you to do perverts the very idea of voting, which is something that a free person does of their own free will to exercise a measure of control over their own government. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No, if people lose interest in large numbers it means they are fine with the status quo and don't really care about politics. And that can only mean that the political situation is stable enough and good enough that it does not concern most people. No it more likely means that they dont believe dont believe their vote really makes a difference and that the system does not work for them. And its bad because it undermines the governments ability to claim it is representitive. It also causes real under-representation. For example young people are much less likely to vote than old people (40% vs 80%). This causes governments to ignore issues important to young people, and dole out endless perks to seniors. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No it more likely means that they dont believe dont believe their vote really makes a difference and that the system does not work for them. And its bad because it undermines the governments ability to claim it is representitive. It also causes real under-representation. For example young people are much less likely to vote than old people (40% vs 80%). This causes governments to ignore issues important to young people, and dole out endless perks to seniors. Putting a gun to their head will somehow make them feel differently? Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No it more likely means that they dont believe dont believe their vote really makes a difference and that the system does not work for them. And its bad because it undermines the governments ability to claim it is representitive. I disagree. Voter turnouts are typically very high in countries experiencing unrest, countries new to democracy, etc. These are the times when people are most likely to think that the system does not work for them or to doubt the government's claims of it being representative. And yet, these are the times when politics most affect people, and so they will do what they can to have some impact on it. In contrast, as standards of living in Western countries have risen since WWII and the political situation has increasingly become more stable and less likely to affect people's personal lives in any significant way, voter turnouts have steadily fallen. People aren't voting because the outcome doesn't really affect them enough for them to bother. It also causes real under-representation. For example young people are much less likely to vote than old people (40% vs 80%). This causes governments to ignore issues important to young people, and dole out endless perks to seniors. Governments are institutionally incapable of representing young people, regardless of voting statistics. How many young people are in positions of real power? Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Putting a gun to their head will somehow make them feel differently? No but it WOULD force political parties to consider those demographics. For example if young people were going to be forced to vote parties would need to compete for that demographic. But I still dont think you NEED to force them. Just make it really easy... young people could vote at school as part of a short civics course. Make it so that people can vote easily online. Instead we force 20 million people to give up hours of their time stand in sometimes long lines, leave their place of employment or give up hours of their free time, so that they can make a mark on a piece of paper with ink so that piece of paper can be manually counted later LOL. Just make it so easy that everyone does it. 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
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.