This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
In a democracy should voting be compulsory
I am really undecided on this one. I see examples of both having effects I don't like. In Australia voting is compulsory so elections are often decided by a small group of swinging voters. This has resulted in the homogenisation of the two major political parties as they both fight over the middle ground. In the US I see elections swung by appealing to the extremes as an election where only half the population vote can be decided by encouraging a small extremist group to take part. The middle majority don't vote as they can't make up their minds. How do we get an election result that is truly indicative of the wishes of the whole population without homogenising the debate to the point where the parties are indestinguishable?
Robert Winner 50+
There was a close race in Navada last year and the Senator sent buses into the latino housing districts and delivered them to the polls making promises that would be hard to keep. He stayed in office by the skin of his teeth. Was it ethical. Probally not. Was it illegal probally not. To the winner goes the spoils.
No I don't agree that voting should b compulsory. It is a right that we should exercise. All the best. Bob
Laurens Rademakers 50+
My hypothesis is that there is indeed such a relation. Countries in which voting is compulsory are more equal than those where it is not.
Perhaps Richard Wilkinson has analysed this?
EDIT: oops, a quick check shows it would actually be the contray. But the number of countries with compulsory voting is too small to be sure.
Laurens Rademakers 50+
There's a huge difference between "the right to vote", and "the duty to vote".
Those who are in favor of a mere right to vote have a weak, passive view on citizenship (a citizen is someone who simply undergoes what the powerful decide). In a sense, it is an empty concept of citizenship that undermines democracy.
Those who are in favor of "the duty to vote" have an active notion of citizenship (a citizen is someone who educates himself and desires to be educated into the values of democracy).
peter lindsay 30+
Laurens Rademakers 50+
I maintain: we need compulsory voting, in combination with efforts to create active citizenship for all.
Len Rheuben
Mohammad Tauheed 500+
What I see here is the parliamentary election turns out to be a national festival among people. They love the excitement, noise, neighborhood events before the election. And they find it fun to go for voting. They feel good, they feel important, they meet neighbors and many other people and they have fun.
So you may rather think of turning the voting into a social phenomenon, a festival. Making it compulsory would rather threaten the core intention of voting.
Len Rheuben
peter lindsay 30+
Derek Young 30+
Terry Harman
Derek Young 30+
OR
I am not sure if this idea already exists, but I was thinking of there being a party that stands for anything. Then there would be large discussions that are timed or mandated to have a limit for each speaker, so there is no fillibusterers. Each person would pose new issues, if they had any, and a discussion would ensue. During major presidential or other positions in the government, then there would be an inner debate about issues with labeling it as either liberal or conservative. Eventually the party would vote for a candidate with the best issue with solution or something that is important. Any issues that are prejudiced will be removed. The importance, in my view, of this system is the fact that they don't represent any specific view, and they also represent every issue.
I call this party the Individualists. This will cause people to be more interested in the candidates running, and voting would be optional, but more individuals' would vote if the candidates were more realistic. They wouldn't be childish, and they wouldn't pit themselves against any specific party, like democrats vs republicans. They will be revolutionary and they are like liquid forming any shape it is contained in, but this liquid will have its own will and can move where it pleases!
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Hope to read yours. =)
Bernd Schröder
Giving a vote is not a religious in-group ritual, it is the expression of policy preference. If I have no clue what policy to prefer, or not enough motivation to go to the voting booth for it, I should let those co-citizens decide who do have both an opinion and sufficient motivation.
Voting without knowledge is not altruistic. Making people vote against their will is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard.
Comment deleted
Bernd Schröder
1) Who should have the right to vote?
2) For whom does it make sense to vote?
3) Who should be forced to vote?
My answers are:
1) All citizens, including minors and felons.
2) Only people who have at least some knowledge and motivation to affect policy.
3) No one.
There is no slippery slope unless one is confusing the questions.
Michaela Rožňavská 20+
The main pillars of democracy lie in egalitarianism and in complete freedom of choice and expression. Therefore, giving the citizens an opportunity to freely choose among political parties, but at the same time take their opportunity to decide whether they want to vote, (and have the slightest interest in election), foremost, does not seem like an appropriate solution.
If voting is voluntary, the results of the election, (no matter how fatal they turn out), are a true reflection of the state and of its inhabitants. The outcome is a valuable piece of knowledge, which can, in the end, struck people's lazy or undecided minds much more than just a simple command.
Linda Taylor 50+
Democracy is about choice.
Brad Mildern
Our view of democracy is stilted though. What we have is NOT democracy but now is Corporateocracy but we need to think outside the square. I believe the problem is Party Politics. Who says we need a government AND an opposition.
We dont get to vote on who runs the country. All we get to vote on is our own region/electorate member and he/she may end up as an opposition member. Thats not what I want and not what anyone wants. If we elect our local member why cant all elected local members form a party free government and debate issues without formally nominated oppositions like grown men. Most of the formal opposition members are told now the position thay must take on issues involving debate and voting. Who we vote for is irrelevant under this system. Lets ban political parties and let every elected member run the no party government, deciding among themselves after the elections as to who does which job.
Maybe the people would vote if they thought they could elect the leader directly (which doesnt even happen in the USA) and if they knew that their elected representative would be actually IN the government not in the opposition.
Chittaranjan Ghoshal
Verble Gherulous 20+
Compulsory voting in my opinion would not create a more informed electorate, but rather an electorate that sees it as a processto be auffered through, much like how Americans see jury duty as suffering rather than taking pride in being part of the government they so claim they want to change.
I think all peoples of all societies should take a look at Egypt, who are having television debates from two candidates for president. Half the population is expected to watch. This is e first time in decades - decades! - that this countey of 80 million or so people will have the opportunity to spress their opinion as to who they want to be their leader.
It is the shame of the people in democracies who do not exercise their roght to vote. However, i will grant them their right to not vote, but in my opinion they lose their right to complain about the outcome.
Don't vote? Then don't whine!
That's my motto.
Chris Fadley
Daxesh Degdawala
george lockwood 20+
like I am a conservative influencing voters are those who choose to vote informed?
Chris Kelly 20+
Some people were outraged by this, but they shouldn't be. All politicians are crooks ... this one is simply already in jail.
;-)
To answer the question, no, the entire point of democracy is freedom of choice, including the choice of whether or not to vote.
Scott Armstrong 50+
I've always thought that opposing political parties vying to run the same country is the height of idiocracy. Most of the time a political party lies it's way into office.
Then there's the inane "if you didn't vote, you can't complain" - possibly one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard uttered.
It's time that the best and brightest applies for the jobs in central government, applying just as you would to any other job.
The public then vote on the issues. The "politicans" then simply put those decisions into action.
Maybe then, democracy wouldn't just be a catchy facade..
vince vernile
I suppose the "real statistics" could be manipulated into reinforcing whatever point of view you want to adhere to.
But here, the 'majority of voters' are a minority of the population, but also a majority of the money, too.
Gary Lea
Nikolaos Benias 50+
Before expressing my thought, let me just tell you that according to our Constitution, voting is mandatory in Greece.
All European country leaders are concerned about the elections we had last Sunday.
I have relatives and friends who voted and others who didn't.
We have been having this same conversation that you are asking every time we have election in Greece.
I'm always one of those persons who wake up early in the morning every time we have elections and exercise my right to do so.
Others say that since we have democracy not voting is a choice.
Last Sunday the abstention rate was 35%. This means that a lot of people didn’t vote, although these were (and still are since we still have no government) very crucial elections. This resulted in 65% of the Greeks to choose for the rest
Also, due to some recent amendments in our election laws, whichever party gets the most votes is given 50 more seats in our Parliament as a bonus and parties that do not get a least 3% of the votes (this is a new limit that never existed) are not represented in the Parliament.
This resulted in 20% of those who voted not being represented in the Parliament, since small parties got less than 3%!!!!
The thing is that the politicians are given the power to manipulate the masses and the voting results in their favor every time.
If there was a mechanism ever to be invented that could protect the citizens from the above, then it does not matter if voting is mandatory or compulsory.
Until then, politicians shall do as they please, no matter if you and I vote or not.
Edmond Hui 500+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
edward long 100+
Verble Gherulous 20+
edward long 100+
R H 20+
Sónia Noronha
The reason why I mention "true democracy" is because, in my opinion, being a citizen in a democratic nation should imply more that voting every 4 or 5 years. It should imply being well informed by the public servers, being called upon to make big decisions about the country (such as asking for a barbaric loan payed with barbaric interest rates, aka bale-out), and to search for solutions for our problems. As it is now, the only citizenship my country expects (and I think tolerates) from me is a cross on one of a limited choice of parties, every 4 or 5 years.
Given the chance to participate, to make myself heard, to contribute with real solutions and measures to the Portuguese' problems, I would also, gladly vote, without anyone or any law having to make it compulsory.
edward long 100+
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
Chris Kelly 20+
peter lindsay 30+
edward long 100+
Chetan Somani
In order to choose/select the right government we need equal participation from youth and elders and equal participation is encouraged by voting rights that is provided to the people who are above the age 18.
So, all we can do is to awake people to vote and choose the right government that should play an active role in alleviating the pain faced by common people!!
edward long 100+