Mandatory Voting in the United States?

[Randy Bobandy]

Of course not. Too many registered voters are already apathetic, un- or misinformed, or bizarrely obsessed with a single issue anyway.

[Franzl]

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.

I think this is a wonderful argument for ensuring universal ability to vote, but I don't believe it's a good one for mandatory voting.

If everyone is able to participate (something that's not necessarily true in the States right now, that obviously should be changed....even if it won't), then I would argue that choosing not to vote is also a demonstration of one's opinion.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Wouldn't oppose if there was any real choice in liberal democracy, but as it stands...

[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?

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.

Yes - which is a decent argument for automatic registration.

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.

Is there any thing out there that would suggest this to actually be true? I suppose there would be no real way to measure such a thing. What makes you think that these "misinformed voters" who don't care enough to vote any way would only be a slight fraction? I'd rather have the vote of someone who has made the choice to be there than someone who is just there to avoid punishment, and as Franzi noted, just picks a random name off the ballot or whatever.

I'm not trying to be a dick but if we're going to start fining people, or throwing them in prison as some have indicated, I would think there would have to be some sort of evidence or research that these theories hold true.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You would be surprised at how many people who vote already - and vote regularly - barely care. There are a lot of people who legitimately cannot remember who they voted for at the last major election.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You would be surprised at how many people who vote already - and vote regularly - barely care. There are a lot of people who legitimately cannot remember who they voted for at the last major election.

I'm not sure about the second sentence but I agree with the first.  Precisely why exacerbating the problem is a really bad idea.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The second part is a well observed phenomenon, as horrifying as it must be to people here. But in a democracy everyone's opinion ought to matter, even if stunningly poorly informed... and I would also argue that it is the responsibility of those in the political process - and in the media and so on and so forth - to inform the electorate of what they need to know in order to make their choice.

Besides, there's certainly no reason to believe that the electorate in a low-turnout election is better informed than in a high-turnout one.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Besides, there's certainly no reason to believe that the electorate in a low-turnout election is better informed than in a high-turnout one.

I don't know about this, but we can disagree, that's fine.  When I go the polls (without fail) in elections where we're not electing a Governor or President, there's barely a line to wait, if any at all, and the few people I do see, in my view, came out for a reason.  They want Joe Shmoe as their State Representative, or Judge Judy as a Common Pleas Court judge.  Something.  Something brings them out, Al.    It's hard to determine how educated they are in the issues or candidate's positions, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that some information has sunk into their skull which makes them want to come out and vote, when nobody else cares.

Who knows.

[Paul Kemp]

The second part is a well observed phenomenon, as horrifying as it must be to people here. But in a democracy everyone's opinion ought to matter, even if stunningly poorly informed... and I would also argue that it is the responsibility of those in the political process - and in the media and so on and so forth - to inform the electorate of what they need to know in order to make their choice.

Besides, there's certainly no reason to believe that the electorate in a low-turnout election is better informed than in a high-turnout one.

True. My concern isn't that an electorate will be any more or less informed but that we'd be penalizing individuals who have no interest in taking part in the process - which is fine.

[Ebowed]

It seems to work well here.  I support it for the United States.

[Suburbia]

If Americans want to be uninformed, then let's raise the voting age to 30.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No.  I believe the right to vote includes the right to not vote if people so choose.  As much as I believe in the importance of voting (and believe me, I do), I don't think people should have to do it if they don't want to.

[Suburbia]

http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/21/congressional-approval-drops-to-5/
Voters are just uninformed. Some think that the U.S. should impose a civics literacy test to test voters' intelligence on history issues. Some people don't even know the history of our country, let alone the representative of their district.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Some think that the U.S. should impose a civics literacy test to test voters' intelligence on history issues.

Yay, great idea! Who cares about democracy anyways?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

[TDAS04]

Of course not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

I'd have nothing against this, if it wasn't so impractical (endless ballots, tons of paperwork, etc)

[Franzl]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

I'd have nothing against this, if it wasn't so impractical (endless ballots, tons of paperwork, etc)

Would you also force them to accept the office if they win?

[°Leprechaun]

I would say yes, without a fine, but first other reforms should come first, like approval voting and what Nevada has "none of these candidates", easier ballot access for third parties etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

I'd have nothing against this, if it wasn't so impractical (endless ballots, tons of paperwork, etc)

Would you also force them to accept the office if they win?

Nah, since there's no way to ensure they'd effectively perform their office. Still, since it's effectively impossible to win without campaigning, this wouldn't happen.

[Franzl]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

I'd have nothing against this, if it wasn't so impractical (endless ballots, tons of paperwork, etc)

Would you also force them to accept the office if they win?

Nah, since there's no way to ensure they'd effectively perform their office. Still, since it's effectively impossible to win without campaigning, this wouldn't happen.

So what's the point then? I understand you said it's not practical. This is obviously true, but I don't see what's preferable about it in theory either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why stop there?  If the goal is to make sure even participates in the political process whether they like it or not, how about mandating everyone has to run for office?

I'd have nothing against this, if it wasn't so impractical (endless ballots, tons of paperwork, etc)

Would you also force them to accept the office if they win?

Nah, since there's no way to ensure they'd effectively perform their office. Still, since it's effectively impossible to win without campaigning, this wouldn't happen.

So what's the point then? I understand you said it's not practical. This is obviously true, but I don't see what's preferable about it in theory either.

I've no idea why we're even discussing this. I just said I'd have nothing against it, I didn't say it would be an awesome thing or whatever.

[TNF]

This is an insane proposal, given that there are plenty of reasons why people choose not to vote (and some do so as a show of their displeasure with the choice of candidates or parties, or just don't on the principle that voting changes little, which is definitively true, given that voting alone has never been and will never be a cure-all for society's ills). If you want people to participate, the solution is to create participatory means of self-governance.

Thomas Jefferson's "Ward Republic" immediately comes to mind as an example of such a system, as do the early Soviets (prior to their liquidation by the Bolsheviks) and Factory Committees of the Russian Revolution. Power should be devolved and exercised directly by the people themselves. The New England "Town Meeting" is an excellent example of what democracy should look like, rather than what Really Existing Democracy does look like, which is simply the selection of different elements of a privileged class of people to rule over us every few years. People don't participate now because they understand that the system doesn't work for them. If the system did work for them, if they were able to elect and hold sway over their delegates (not representatives, who vote however they like, regardless of the opinion of those who put them in office), then they would participate. We need less lawyers in government and more electricians, more plumbers, more nurses, more sex workers (actual ones, not the corporate whores who currently represent us), tattoo artists, prisoners, etc, etc.

Make government as a whole more democratic and you won't have the problem of participation that you have now under undemocratic "representative democracy."

[Peter the Lefty]

If it were imposed, it would show that the political class somehow thinks that the lack of turnout is the electorate's fault rather than their own (which, it clearly is, entirely due to their failure to present any decent options).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is an insane proposal, given that there are plenty of reasons why people choose not to vote (and some do so as a show of their displeasure with the choice of candidates or parties, or just don't on the principle that voting changes little, which is definitively true, given that voting alone has never been and will never be a cure-all for society's ills). If you want people to participate, the solution is to create participatory means of self-governance.

Thomas Jefferson's "Ward Republic" immediately comes to mind as an example of such a system, as do the early Soviets (prior to their liquidation by the Bolsheviks) and Factory Committees of the Russian Revolution. Power should be devolved and exercised directly by the people themselves. The New England "Town Meeting" is an excellent example of what democracy should look like, rather than what Really Existing Democracy does look like, which is simply the selection of different elements of a privileged class of people to rule over us every few years. People don't participate now because they understand that the system doesn't work for them. If the system did work for them, if they were able to elect and hold sway over their delegates (not representatives, who vote however they like, regardless of the opinion of those who put them in office), then they would participate. We need less lawyers in government and more electricians, more plumbers, more nurses, more sex workers (actual ones, not the corporate whores who currently represent us), tattoo artists, prisoners, etc, etc.

Make government as a whole more democratic and you won't have the problem of participation that you have now under undemocratic "representative democracy."

I definitely think that somewhere along the way the idea of democracy got boiled down to voting as if that were the whole show.  Maybe that comes out of Social Contract Theory, I don't know, but it strikes me as wholly inadequate. Whether you support a representative democracy or more direct means, voting is only a small piece of what participatory government involves.  It's interesting to compare with someplace like Ukraine or many other places in the world, where people feel as though by not voting in a flawed election they are making a statement.  I'm not sure whether that makes sense as a strategy, but it's surely not a matter of anyone being apathetic.