RE: Mandatory Voting

RE: Mandatory Voting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 7:30:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Actually majoritary systems discourage voters more than proportional systems, for a simple fact: many people's ideas have no chance to gain representation. What do you mean by a "proportional system," and what country would be a good example of that? DS, I believe Israel is a proportional system. They tally the votes and whatever percentage of votes a party gets, entitles them to that percentage of seats in the kinessit (their senate) and the party with the most votes (most seats) selects the leader (PM). Michael Thanks, Michael. I'll keep preferring a republic, but hope we eventually get more than 2 parties (I know, we "technically" have more than 2, but we pretty much don't have more than 2 that matter).

DaddySatyr -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 7:35:08 AM)
LOL! You forget; I'm a Libertarian. I have to admit that I would like to see a Libertarian make a splash on a national level (which might "*require*" a proportional vote), but I am with you in that I think a republic may be (slightly) better than an all-out democracy or a proportional system. Of course, I also think "the power of the vote" is a romantic anachronism; that our votes aren't even counted, anymore and the powers-that-be just install whoever they want. Michael

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 7:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr LOL! You forget; I'm a Libertarian. I have to admit that I would like to see a Libertarian make a splash on a national level (which might "*require*" a proportional vote), but I am with you in that I think a republic may be (slightly) better than an all-out democracy or a proportional system. Of course, I also think "the power of the vote" is a romantic anachronism; that our votes aren't even counted, anymore and the powers-that-be just install whoever they want. Michael I didn't forget. Technically, we have A LOT of different parties, but there are only two real choices at this point in time. I, too, am a Libertarian. Democracy is a good way to elect people, but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority.

kdsub -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 10:37:26 AM)
quote: but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority Well in theory and some extent reality that is what the Supreme court prevents...its main job. And it works a good part of the time. As far as more than two parties go it has not happened often in our history and there is a good reason... it is not practical. Our form of democracy works best with a two party system it seems. Butch

DaddySatyr -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 11:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Democracy is a good way to elect people, but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority. For a long time, I have not been a fan of the way the Electoral College operates. It is not federally controlled and, therefore, rules vary from state-to-state. In some states (California is one, I believe), if a candidate gets the majority of the vote, they get *all* of the Electoral ballots. This, obviously, disenfranchises whatever the opposing percentage vote is. In some states (Texas is one, I think and I'm almost positive about Michigan), the Electoral College is not obligated to vote the way the populace does. Ex: A candidate could get 75% of the popular vote and the EC could just vote the other way, at their whim. This is one of the reasons why I believe our votes don't count. All of that said; if I believed that the congressional voting was on the up-and-up, I would be all for electing a president based upon popular vote since the congress would be "the peoples' voice" (of course, we would also need to eliminate executive orders and the like and get back to a true checks-and-balances system). Michael

eulero83 -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 11:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Actually majoritary systems discourage voters more than proportional systems, for a simple fact: many people's ideas have no chance to gain representation. What do you mean by a "proportional system," and what country would be a good example of that? A proportional electoral system (by the way is the one in place here and I think in germany, probably also in france but I'm not sure) means basically that parties get sits in parlament not by winning a district but in proportion of the votes they get in the whole country. There can be some variations as a minimum amount of votes to be represented or a prize in seats to the party with most votes, but basically the pure proportional means if a party has 50% of votes that party gets 50% of seats. This usually leads to a bigger turnout because not only all the votes matters but a third, fourth or fifth party can get a place in the parlament so even if you don't vote the mainstream parties there is a concrete chance to see someone defending your views in the parlament.

blnymph -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 12:00:38 PM)
Most european countries have a proportional system, and most Commonwealth countries. There are differences in detail, to limit the power of big political parties, and often a minimum percentage of votes needed to gain a seat in parliament

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 1:50:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Democracy is a good way to elect people, but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority. For a long time, I have not been a fan of the way the Electoral College operates. It is not federally controlled and, therefore, rules vary from state-to-state. In some states (California is one, I believe), if a candidate gets the majority of the vote, they get *all* of the Electoral ballots. This, obviously, disenfranchises whatever the opposing percentage vote is. In some states (Texas is one, I think and I'm almost positive about Michigan), the Electoral College is not obligated to vote the way the populace does. Ex: A candidate could get 75% of the popular vote and the EC could just vote the other way, at their whim. This is one of the reasons why I believe our votes don't count. All of that said; if I believed that the congressional voting was on the up-and-up, I would be all for electing a president based upon popular vote since the congress would be "the peoples' voice" (of course, we would also need to eliminate executive orders and the like and get back to a true checks-and-balances system). Michael I wonder if it's ever happened that an Electoral College Elector didn't vote according to the majority of the State. The State chooses the Electors, so that could change things, but I don't know that it's ever happened.

joether -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 2:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr LOL! You forget; I'm a Libertarian. I have to admit that I would like to see a Libertarian make a splash on a national level (which might "*require" a proportional vote), but I am with you in that I think a republic may be (slightly) better than an all-out democracy or a proportional system. You do have a party of your own: The Tea Party! And there are several candidates that have run and will run for 2016: Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Tex Cruz.... None of them had a chance nor have a future chance. Because the longer they start talking the more sane people simply become confused how someone can support something they are against. And be against something they support. I've always gotten a smile when you did it. quote:* ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Of course, I also think "the power of the vote" is a romantic anachronism; that our votes aren't even counted, anymore and the powers-that-be just install whoever they want. If that is true, then we should simply throw are hands up, put the slave collars on, and obey our multi-billionaire masters. Throw the US Constitution out, and accept that we are only mindless servants, not able to forge our own destiny as one people. Yeah, in just one sentence you manage to state something your usually against. I've seen your work, you would find what I wrote above in the logical 'train of thought' to your own; which you would be in disagreement over. Your for what your against. AND Your against what your for. It makes perfect sense to you, but to the rest of us in reality, it never makes rational sense.

joether -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 2:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Most european countries have a proportional system, and most Commonwealth countries. There are differences in detail, to limit the power of big political parties, and often a minimum percentage of votes needed to gain a seat in parliament Please name these countries.

eulero83 -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 5:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Most european countries have a proportional system, and most Commonwealth countries. There are differences in detail, to limit the power of big political parties, and often a minimum percentage of votes needed to gain a seat in parliament Please name these countries. look at this map those in blue-ish colours use a proportional electoral systems those in red-ish colours use a majoritary electoral system It seems that's true for most eropean (and south amercan) countries but not for the commonwealth.

Kirata -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 5:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 look at this map those in blue-ish colours use a proportional electoral systems those in red-ish colours use a majoritary electoral system It seems that's true for most eropean (and south amercan) countries but not for the commonwealth. Another reference can be found here. K.

BamaD -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:09:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Democracy is a good way to elect people, but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority. For a long time, I have not been a fan of the way the Electoral College operates. It is not federally controlled and, therefore, rules vary from state-to-state. In some states (California is one, I believe), if a candidate gets the majority of the vote, they get *all* of the Electoral ballots. This, obviously, disenfranchises whatever the opposing percentage vote is. In some states (Texas is one, I think and I'm almost positive about Michigan), the Electoral College is not obligated to vote the way the populace does. Ex: A candidate could get 75% of the popular vote and the EC could just vote the other way, at their whim. This is one of the reasons why I believe our votes don't count. All of that said; if I believed that the congressional voting was on the up-and-up, I would be all for electing a president based upon popular vote since the congress would be "the peoples' voice" (of course, we would also need to eliminate executive orders and the like and get back to a true checks-and-balances system). Michael In every state other than Vermont and Nebraska that is the case. California is working on a law where regardless of how Californians vote their electoral votes would go the the person with the most votes nation wide

BamaD -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Democracy is a good way to elect people, but it will end up as an abuse of the minority at the hands of the majority. For a long time, I have not been a fan of the way the Electoral College operates. It is not federally controlled and, therefore, rules vary from state-to-state. In some states (California is one, I believe), if a candidate gets the majority of the vote, they get *all* of the Electoral ballots. This, obviously, disenfranchises whatever the opposing percentage vote is. In some states (Texas is one, I think and I'm almost positive about Michigan), the Electoral College is not obligated to vote the way the populace does. Ex: A candidate could get 75% of the popular vote and the EC could just vote the other way, at their whim. This is one of the reasons why I believe our votes don't count. All of that said; if I believed that the congressional voting was on the up-and-up, I would be all for electing a president based upon popular vote since the congress would be "the peoples' voice" (of course, we would also need to eliminate executive orders and the like and get back to a true checks-and-balances system). Michael I wonder if it's ever happened that an Electoral College Elector didn't vote according to the majority of the State. The State chooses the Electors, so that could change things, but I don't know that it's ever happened. Yes, the reconstruction governors in the Tilden Hayes election did that, the last time I know of was in 68, someone from Oregon voted for Wallace.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes, the reconstruction governors in the Tilden Hayes election did that, the last time I know of was in 68, someone from Oregon voted for Wallace. Faithless Electors Interesting.

tweakabelle -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/23/2015 5:10:52 AM)
FR One of the most basic principles of democratic voting is that each vote should be of equal value, the elimination of gerrymandering. If one person's vote carries more electoral weight than another's it is understandable that the second person will feel alienated and relatively powerless, and therefore less inclined to vote and participate in electing government. Another factor to consider here is the imposition of obstacles, legal or otherwise, to disenfranchise certain communities with the aim of preserving another community's grip on power. It is my understanding that both of these principles are widely violated in the arrangements for voting for House of Representatives in the US. If Americans are concerned with low voter turnouts these are two areas where they might look to boost public participation in the electoral process.

joether -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/23/2015 3:35:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle FR One of the most basic principles of democratic voting is that each vote should be of equal value, the elimination of gerrymandering. If one person's vote carries more electoral weight than another's it is understandable that the second person will feel alienated and relatively powerless, and therefore less inclined to vote and participate in electing government. Another factor to consider here is the imposition of obstacles, legal or otherwise, to disenfranchise certain communities with the aim of preserving another community's grip on power. It is my understanding that both of these principles are widely violated in the arrangements for voting for House of Representatives in the US. If Americans are concerned with low voter turnouts these are two areas where they might look to boost public participation in the electoral process. Yes, forgot to outlaw gerrymandering from most list a few pages back. Thanks Tweaks! I would love to see a database that Americans could access to find who didnt vote in a general or mid-term election. That way when those individuals complain about government, we know to ignore them, as they had a chance and did nothing about it. I bring this up, because only 1/3rd of the nation voted, yet, based on all the complaining, you would think 90% of the nation had voted.

eulero83 -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/23/2015 3:51:17 PM)
that was the penality when mandatory voting was in place in Italy, no fines but your name was published in the city hall.

NorthernGent -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/24/2015 1:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph Most european countries have a proportional system, and most Commonwealth countries. There are differences in detail, to limit the power of big political parties, and often a minimum percentage of votes needed to gain a seat in parliament Please name these countries. look at this map those in blue-ish colours use a proportional electoral systems those in red-ish colours use a majoritary electoral system It seems that's true for most eropean (and south amercan) countries but not for the commonwealth. Whatever 'most Europeans do', it's generally a good idea to do the opposite.

BamaD -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/24/2015 1:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle FR One of the most basic principles of democratic voting is that each vote should be of equal value, the elimination of gerrymandering. If one person's vote carries more electoral weight than another's it is understandable that the second person will feel alienated and relatively powerless, and therefore less inclined to vote and participate in electing government. Another factor to consider here is the imposition of obstacles, legal or otherwise, to disenfranchise certain communities with the aim of preserving another community's grip on power. It is my understanding that both of these principles are widely violated in the arrangements for voting for House of Representatives in the US. If Americans are concerned with low voter turnouts these are two areas where they might look to boost public participation in the electoral process. Yes, forgot to outlaw gerrymandering from most list a few pages back. Thanks Tweaks! I would love to see a database that Americans could access to find who didnt vote in a general or mid-term election. That way when those individuals complain about government, we know to ignore them, as they had a chance and did nothing about it. I bring this up, because only 1/3rd of the nation voted, yet, based on all the complaining, you would think 90% of the nation had voted. Gerrymandering has been outlawed sorry you missed the courts stepping in and changing districts when they think it has happenrf.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02