|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/20/2015 3:34:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the 'duties to community' mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn't elected into power.
No, it doesn't. The "occasional inconvenience" that might occur by exercising your right to vote isn't a roadblock, if you give enough of a fuck. That midterm elections have very poor turnout, compared to Presidential elections, is proof that people care more about who is elected President than who is elected to Congress. If you don't care enough to overcome the "inconvenience" of voting (as long as it's a choice you are making), then I don't want you to vote, because you're certainly don't care enough to go through the "inconvenience" of educating yourself on the candidates and issues.
quote:
Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacy because they result in high voter turnout. The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.
That's wrong, too. It's an illusion of legitimacy. Presidential elections get almost 2/3 voter turnout. If that other 1/3 isn't politically motivated enough to actually vote without being forced, then their votes are suspect (regarding legitimacy of representing their actual beliefs).
quote:
Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers.
More bullshit. It isn't going to reduce the impact that external factors play. It's going to piss off those who wouldn't otherwise care enough to "brave the elements" to vote.
quote:
If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.
All that can be done without forcing people to vote. Are we really holding elections on the first Tuesday of November because we don't have mandatory voting? We have mail-in ballots, and pre-election day polling is probably available to pretty much everyone (States control that, though, don't they?).
quote:
If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.
You mean like people brandishing weapons outside a polling place?
quote:
Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process.
There's nothing like forcing people who don't give a fuck to vote to mute the votes of those who do. [8|]
quote:
The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (who do I want to lead the country ?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (do I even want to vote today ?).
That's also bullshit. Those who don't currently care enough to vote obviously don't care about who leads the country, and aren't motivated by any candidates to vote. If the only reason a voter is casting a ballot is because he/she has to, the vote cast might only indicate whose commercial or sign was seen last.
quote:
Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Compulsory voting won't necessarily lead to a better informed population, either.
Campaigns will switch from getting people out to vote, to getting people to vote for their candidate. That's not necessarily going to reduce campaign spending. Even if you show that Aussies spend 1% what the US spends (per capita) on election campaigns, it's not proof that compulsory voting is the cause.
quote:
There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.
Proof that it's causation and not just correlation?
|
|
|
|
