Some kind of Test before Voting?

[PJ]

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

[PJ]

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

I'm not trying to discourage the apathetic with meaningless hoops.

I'm trying to discourage the unintelligent with a meaningful test.

Regardless of what you intend to do, the results would be transforming voting into a privilege and making it more difficult even for those who pass your absurd test. The imaginary swathes of voters in your head that don't know what country we live in (lol) are merely a scapegoat for discouraging participation in the democratic process altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fine after multiple offenses, but I support structuring all government levied fines progressively, as opposed to regressive flat rates, so that the rich are actually impacted by fines and the poor aren't overly charged.

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

+1

Compulsory voting + automatic registration + a long early window for early ballots + making an election day a national holiday is the way to go.

Agree for the most part. Speaking as an Oregonian, I may be a bit biased, but I have a very favorable opinion of mail-in voting, and the fact that they give people the ability to vote over an extended period of time makes them a better alternative than trying to get as many people to vote in a short period of time (i.e. making election day a holiday).

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

That's just as bad as forcing people to take a test.

This is moderate hero nonsense. There are legitimate concerns about mandatory voting, but to compare being forced to vote with being denied the ability to vote is ridiculous anti-extremism straight out of the Computer09 playbook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of mandatory voting is not to force those who are actively boycotting the democratic process for whatever reason to vote. Its purpose is to give those who believe their vote is meaningless a stake in the political process. The latter reason is much more common among the 42.8% of Americans who chose not to vote in 2012. The issue of uninformed voters (and the uninformed who choose not to vote) is larger than mandatory voting, but no, people do not have a right to remain uninformed. That's ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracy is improved when government is more representative of its constituents, so increasing the number of people voting does indeed improve democracy.

Voting should be mandatory.

Not the best idea either. People should have the right to abstain.

Again, the ultimate goal of mandatory voting is not to prevent boycotting of the democratic process. Write-in and NOTA options should be on the ballot, with or without compulsory voting.

[PJ]

TIL that me not voting is moderate hero nonsense.

Did you even read my post? The moderate hero label was in reference to the absurd claim that forcing people to vote and denying people the right to vote are just as bad.

Besides, haven't you professed that you vote, and disagree with anarchism on boycotting the political process? I even recall you stating critical support for Sanders on AAD.

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

That's just as bad as forcing people to take a test.

This is moderate hero nonsense. There are legitimate concerns about mandatory voting, but to compare being forced to vote with being denied the ability to vote is ridiculous anti-extremism straight out of the Computer09 playbook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of mandatory voting is not to force those who are actively boycotting the democratic process for whatever reason to vote. Its purpose is to give those who believe their vote is meaningless a stake in the political process. The latter reason is much more common among the 42.8% of Americans who chose not to vote in 2012. The issue of uninformed voters (and the uninformed who choose not to vote) is larger than mandatory voting, but no, people do not have a right to remain uninformed. That's ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracy is improved when government is more representative of its constituents, so increasing the number of people voting does indeed improve democracy.

1) Maybe its not as bad, but its pretty bad. Its taking away freedom either way. Whether its the 40% or so Americans that choose not to participate or the millions that would vote but couldn't because of a stupid test.

2) Why would any person who believes their vote isn't worth anything think their vote would be worth something after everyone voted? Its usually because they believes politics in general is corrupt, they don't like the political parties and their establishments, or something along those lines. Having everyone vote would not make people think their vote counted more (actually less since their a smaller piece in the bigger pie). And people do have a right to be uninformed. I choose to be uninformed about all sorts of stuff. We're all somewhat uninformed about our government, its the degree to which its true. But if you don't like freedom, then yeah its a great idea to force people to vote whether their informed or not.

3) Democracy is government by the people. If people are forced to participate in a democracy by the state, then the state is partially determining the outcome, which is antithetical to the idea in the first place.

Side note: Fining people for not voting would probably disproportionately hurt the poor and uneducated, but I know you care about the poor so much so its all good.

One's vote is obviously worth more if they choose to vote than if they choose not to. To say that people do not have a right to be uninformed is not to say that people should be forced to be informed about everything, but to say that a lack of knowledge about the country's political system or anything else is not something that ought to be encouraged, or God forbid, protected. What is the tangible difference between mandatory and voluntary voting in terms of dissatisfaction with the political system if a NOTA option is available on the ballot?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No more than the government is determining the outcome by administering elections under voluntary voting. The state (assuming we are referring to a genuine democracy) does not control who the people vote for in either scenario.

And as I've already stated, flat rate fines disproportionately affect the poor, which is why I favor progressively structured fines.

[PJ]

Compulsory voting is stupid: people should not be coerced to give up their time and energy to sit in a line all day to vote for people they don't want to. You have every right to vote and if you wan to sit out and not exercise that right, its your choice. Low voter turnout says more about the political class than the citizens of the country.

How can the 'political class' be changed when people aren't voting to change it?

Also, voting booths where people must stand in line is one of the worst ways to conduct an election, IMO.

[PJ]

Although, I'd prefer for uninformed people to simply decide not to vote. And when I say "uninformed," I don't mean stupid, I just mean people who don't know enough about the political system, government, and world affairs to make an informed decision.

And how does one define that? Voters don't need an extensive knowledge of the political system to understand how basic issues will affect their day-to-day lives. The interests of the "uninformed" are just as much at stake in elections.