Mandatory Voting in the United States?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hilariously undemocratic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Terribly authoritarian and terribly shortsighted. Mandatory voting seems to me like a refuge of utopian thinking.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, except replace a fine with an actual punitive measure of some sort (I'm cool with jail time). It's the only long-term solution to the undercurrent of perpetual insistence in this country on denying people access to the ballot. We keep playing small-ball; "let's expand access to voting", we say. Nah, let's take away some peoples' ability to deny ballot access entirely. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed to see less insistence on this from the international left.

And we all know that this is what it's about - who wins if every adult citizen in the United States were to vote? If such a system had been in place for the last century, it's very likely that the last Republican president would have been Reagan, and the last time that the right would have outvoted the left would have been in '72. Democracy is a system reliant upon participation - it's ridiculous to guarantee non-participation as a right under our civilization and way of life. I hear the same conservative argument in many cases on other issues. Based on current events, unions/at-will/right-to-work come to mind the most. "If you don't like your current home, then you are free to leave and go somewhere else". There'd still be plenty of countries out there that would tolerate such interpretations of "freedom".

[Marokai Backbeat]

We're not even playing "small ball," which is really my frustration.

Almost no states have really made any serious effort at busting elections and voting access wide open, and anywhere even the smallest efforts have been made, half the time they're just overturned the next time the state legislature flips Republican. Only, what, three states have had same-day registration? And those have come under attack by GOP Governors. We have no automatic voter registration, and even online registration is only available in a handful (!) of states. There's no national standardization for voting times, voting rights for criminals, early voting access, number of employees, number of ballot box locations, or nearly anything else. Absolutely no efforts have been made on the federal level whatsoever. Added to that, we have no electoral watchdog agency of any weight to bring attention to any of this.

For being the country that has delusions of bringing democracy to the rest of the world, our own democratic efforts at home are genuinely embarrassing.

[dead0man]

I don't understand why people think that the apathetic and the ignorant voting more often would help anything.  Oh, because they're more likely to vote for your guy?  Think about that for a mintute.



Though it is pretty funny that some of you would fine or imprison the dumb, the apathetic and the poor for not voting.  All to help them of course!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't understand why people think that the apathetic and the ignorant voting more often would help anything.  Oh, because they're more likely to vote for your guy?  Think about that for a mintute.

Because they all have a stake in the election's outcome.

Yes, sometimes people ought be helped against their own will. I find it baffling that this statement is even controversial.

[dead0man]

I don't understand why people think that the apathetic and the ignorant voting more often would help anything.  Oh, because they're more likely to vote for your guy?  Think about that for a minute.

Because they all have a stake in the election's outcome.

I think you missed my point there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand how people that want to help the poor would gladly create a law that will unequally harm the very same poor people they want to help by taking their money or their freedom away from them.  That's baffling.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Can you imagine the bureaucracy needed to implement and enforce mandatory voting?  Ugh.

[politicallefty]

No. However, I would support automatic voter registration with automatic voting by mail (all eligible voters would get their ballots by mail). In other words, I'd take the Oregon model and add automatic voter registration so that all eligible voters are registered and receive a ballot.

[tik 🪀✨]

You guys are being silly. You're discarding an entire group of people who would vote for a particular candidate or party if they thought that their single vote meant anything. The greatest drives by political campaigns aren't to actively engage the ignorant and uninterested but the droves of people who are loyal to a party but sit out elections for whatever reasons.

Of course there are apathetic people who will be voting, too. But nobody's acknowledging that they're probably still apathetic and only showing up not to get fined or otherwise penalized. They're just signing to show that they showed up, drawing tits on the ballot, then going home. It's not about those guys. And if they do get fined? They can provide an excuse. They can also be given ample easy opportunities to vote early and by mail. Hell, let them vote late. Let them give a valid excuse. You can't penalize someone into being engaged in politics if they never cared. You can, however, threaten to penalize someone who does have an opinion but doesn't feel like it's worth it to express it by being active. Those are the people that compulsory voting motivates. And again, those are the people that most political campaigns are trying to motivate to vote in the first place.

I'm not advocating it, mind you, just pointing that out. The apathetic vote wouldn't change, 3rd parties would probably have a much better showing, and you'd get a more accurate reading of the majority of the country's political leanings and possibly less grating ads. It's a great idea for a relatively small country like Australia. The bureaucracy for the US would be large, of course, but I don't understand why that's necessarily a problem. I thought the US liked to attempt big ideas, once upon a time.

[Franzl]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies. I don't believe mandatory voting would suddenly cause people to become more politically aware. Whose fault this is, is up for debate, of course, and there is a strong correlation between wealth and political participation that isn't healthy.

That said, I think you'd have lots of people just randomly selecting a name, maybe based on which one sounds best. Or marking the first one on the ballot. Some might just vote invalidly, but those that do that on purpose are probably not those that are the least informed.

I think practical reasons are sufficient to oppose this, even if it's a nice idea in theory.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Let's not pollute the system any more than it already is. If the "disenfranchised masses" don't feel like representing themselves, then let them do as they please. It makes sense that only those that would show up to the polls would have their interests represented. Think of it as its own little reward for actually giving a sh#t.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Voting shouldn't be mandatory, but it should be a lot easier than it is.

Of course, more civic participation won't be a magic bullet that will solve society's problems.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

...but many voters are not just uninformed, they're horribly misinformed. Look at the Republican Party voter base.

No amount of education, or access to information, or access to democratic participation will solve this.

[Paul Kemp]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

What makes you think that would change other than idealism?

Similarly, has mandatory jury duty made the public more aware of the judicial system and/or created a more just process?

[tik 🪀✨]

It's not about getting more people aware of and engaged in politics. That's not realistic - lots of people just don't care and that's their prerogative.. It's about getting the votes of the informed and/or opinionated who aren't motivated to vote. Once again, that's the main target for political campaigns: getting your silent, inactive base motivated enough to participate. Or, keeping the other side's base disenchanted or disenfranchised so they stay home.

You can't coerce people into becoming engaged. It's not about them.

[Adam Griffin]

Fun fact: the US state of Georgia had mandatory voting for 12 years, from 1777 to 1789:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Five pounds certainly sounds like a lot. I suppose some of those Freedom Fighters hated freedom.

[Sol]

Mandatory voting is a great idea, but of course it'll never pass- so turnout, automatic registration, etc. should be our focus.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

What makes you think that would change other than idealism?

I never said that would change. You're still missing the point.

Yes. Many people who vote are and will be ridiculously misinformed. They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

[Franzl]

They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

I think you're arguing for mandatory voting? So you don't want them to be able to vote, you want them to be obligated to vote.

And what if their ridiculously misinformed choice amounts to them voting for "Newt Gingrich" because Newt sounds like a cool name?

I don't really get what is gained by having that opinion expressed?

[Antonio the Sixth]

They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

I think you're arguing for mandatory voting? So you don't want them to be able to vote, you want them to be obligated to vote.

And what if their ridiculously misinformed choice amounts to them voting for "Newt Gingrich" because Newt sounds like a cool name?

I don't really get what is gained by having that opinion expressed?

But this kind of misinformed vote is marginal. Most "misinformed voters" more or less vote based on some kind of issues, even though they don't really grasp the specifics of these issues. In short, they do have opinions on stuff, and if we are a true democracy, their opinions should be taken into account regardless of what we think of them.

[Goldwater]

They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

I think you're arguing for mandatory voting? So you don't want them to be able to vote, you want them to be obligated to vote.

And what if their ridiculously misinformed choice amounts to them voting for "Newt Gingrich" because Newt sounds like a cool name?

I don't really get what is gained by having that opinion expressed?

But this kind of misinformed vote is marginal. Most "misinformed voters" more or less vote based on some kind of issues, even though they don't really grasp the specifics of these issues. In short, they do have opinions on stuff, and if we are a true democracy, their opinions should be taken into account regardless of what we think of them.

If they care so much about those issues,why do we need to make voting mandatory for them to bother voting?