Should voting be mandatory?

[Grumps]

Derek, I'll buy the plane ticket if you go.

[Edu]

You wouldn't without nominally mandatory voting (or at least the tradition of it). Count on it.

Well, yeah, of course it would be a way lower turnout if it stops being mandatory. in the 2007 presidential election there was a turnout of 77% and 1.500.000 protest votes (either null or blank). I'm guessing a huge chunk of those would stay home and then you have to add a bunch of people who actually voted for someone but would surely stay home if they didn't have to vote.
Still, i found it funny that despite making virtually no problems for the person who skips the vote (and this is pretty much widely known) we still have between 75% and 80+% of turnout.

Having mandatory voting is interesting in times of economic crisis or great population rage, where elections give us some hilarious results.
Like for instance in the 2001 legislative elections (just 2 months before the collapse) there was a pretty big campaing where it was said that if you were going to vote you should make a protest vote. This was due to the anger people felt against president De La Rua. Blank or null votes made up nearly 25% of the votes (like 5 million people) and in some provinces the amount of null or blank votes was much greater than the number of votes of candidates who actually won the election
In the province of Santa fe for instance out of 1.700.000 votes, only 58% of those went to actual candidates, the other 42% was made up of blank and null protest votes. And in the City of Buenos Aires the number of null and blank votes doubled the number of votes that the winner party of the election got

[nclib]

No, this would not be a good idea. That said, I really dislike the attitude that voting isn't worth the time and effort. Yes, one vote is unlikely to make a direct difference, but enough people having that attitude can (and sometimes does) affect the outcome of an election.

[Senator Libertas]

No, this was not be a good idea. That said, I really dislike the attitude that voting isn't worth the time and effort. Yes, one vote is unlikely to make a direct difference, but enough people having that attitude can (and sometimes does) affect the outcome of an election.

Most elections in the U.S. only have one possible outcome: Republocrat victory.

[Marokai]

I would lean no, for the reasons stated before, but there should be efforts to expand turnout as much as possible, like making election day a federal holiday.

I completely understand and sympathize with the goals of mandatory voting, though.

[memphis]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place.

What do you suggest we do with the millions that don't?  People don't always follow the law, you know.

[Χahar]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place.

What do you suggest we do with the millions that don't?  People don't always follow the law, you know.

Countries with compulsory voting generally levy a fine.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place. Also, there should be an "Abstention" option on the ballot.

Why should people be forced to wreck an entire day of their lives to take part in a meaningless exercise in futility? Life is too short to waste it waiting on line at the polling place.

Seriously?

[SPC]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place.

What do you suggest we do with the millions that don't?  People don't always follow the law, you know.

Countries with compulsory voting generally levy a fine.

Oh, so it has more to do with revenue collection than any actual concern for civil participation.

[shua]

why does it seem to be mainly those on the Left who are looking for ways to get uninformed and apathetic people into voting booths?

[Χahar]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place.

What do you suggest we do with the millions that don't?  People don't always follow the law, you know.

Countries with compulsory voting generally levy a fine.

Oh, so it has more to do with revenue collection than any actual concern for civil participation.

I'm pretty sure that the revenue collected is insignificant.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

You should at least be required to show up at the polling place.

What do you suggest we do with the millions that don't?  People don't always follow the law, you know.

Countries with compulsory voting generally levy a fine.

Oh, so it has more to do with revenue collection than any actual concern for civil participation.

I'm pretty sure that the revenue collected is insignificant.

     In which case, just don't have a fine. I could tolerate that system.

[Brandon H]

No, but if it were, "None of the above" should be an option on all ballots.

What if our government put as much effort into getting people to vote as they did on conducting the census. People going door to door "Did you vote yet?".

[Free Palestine]

No, but if it were, "None of the above" should be an option on all ballots.

What if our government put as much effort into getting people to vote as they did on conducting the census. People going door to door "Did you vote yet?".

Everything short of legal coercion should be used to get people to vote.  Bad politicians are elected by people who don't vote.

[Earth]

Bad politicians are elected by people who don't vote.

Same could be said about those supporting anyone.

[Gustaf]

No, but if it were, "None of the above" should be an option on all ballots.

What if our government put as much effort into getting people to vote as they did on conducting the census. People going door to door "Did you vote yet?".

Everything short of legal coercion should be used to get people to vote.  Bad politicians are elected by people who don't vote.

Actually, I believe there is considerable evidence to the contrary - bad politicians are elected by people who don't want to vote but are forced by law to do so. I know I have seen that offered as an explanation for the success of certain populist, xenophobic parties in some countries. Basically, people who don't want to vote and don't like the system of being forced to do so vote for outrageous parties to say  you to the establishment.

[Free Palestine]

No, but if it were, "None of the above" should be an option on all ballots.

What if our government put as much effort into getting people to vote as they did on conducting the census. People going door to door "Did you vote yet?".

Everything short of legal coercion should be used to get people to vote.  Bad politicians are elected by people who don't vote.

Actually, I believe there is considerable evidence to the contrary - bad politicians are elected by people who don't want to vote but are forced by law to do so. I know I have seen that offered as an explanation for the success of certain populist, xenophobic parties in some countries. Basically, people who don't want to vote and don't like the system of being forced to do so vote for outrageous parties to say  you to the establishment.

That's different.  I'm talking about educating potential voters and convincing them to vote.

[N.i.K.]

No, that would be a terrible idea. It's more then likely that the people that don't vote would be just as uninformed if not more then those who vote already.

Another note is what if someone is interested in politics, but hates all the candidates - why should he be forced to make the "lesser of two evils" choice?

EDIT: I agree with Brandon that if this was ever implemented, a NOTA option would have to be required.

[Magic 8-Ball]

No, that would be a terrible idea. It's more then likely that the people that don't vote would be just as uninformed if not more then those who vote already.

Yeah.  I'm not sure how adding hordes of cantankerous, uninformed voters to a pool of cantankerous, predominantly uninformed voters would produce the effect people here want.

[Dr. Cynic]

My fiancee is Australian and voting is mandatory there. So, she often asks me for advice on how to vote since she's non-political. She's best matched with Australia's Labor Party, but I have a feeling she would never vote at all if it wasn't.

Really, I don't think it should be mandatory.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

If this happened in the UK, it would probably help Labour more than the Tories, but the BNP might get a lot of "spite votes".

In any case, I oppose. It's too authoritarian.

[N.i.K.]

If this happened in the UK, it would probably help Labour more than the Tories, but the BNP might get a lot of "spite votes".

In any case, I oppose. It's too authoritarian.

In truth, I would suspect the Democrats would ultimately benefit from this. The Republicans are masters of keeping their voters loyal, but the Democrats have much easier ideas to sell.

"You want everyone to have health care? Then vote Democrat! You want Social Security when you are older? Vote Democrat! You want to end the Iraq war? Then vote Democrat on November 4th!"

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

I don't see any good argument for why it should be mandatory, so no.

[feeblepizza]

I would support doing so if non-political people could choose NOTA

[Sasquatch]

Have better candidates and more than two viable options, then more people might actually vote.