It would be asinine. People don't vote because they think no candidate is worth getting up and going out to vote for. If you make a law that people have to vote even when candidates fail to be inspiring enough on their own to induce people to vote you effectively allow politicians to say the following: "Because I suck as a candidate I can jail you for acknowledging my suckiness by not voting." Is that not sheer lunacy? Where a majority of people don't vote, it seems that the candidates need fixing before the people. Are we followers of Stalin, that we should re-make the people in our image? If a majority currently don't vote, forcing them to vote will result in an apathetic majority that does not want to be part of the process controlling the minority that cares and is civic-minded. If someone does not care to vote, then my vote counts for more. Why should it be diluted in favor of the vote of someone who doesn't care? Ultimately, it is a liberty issue. The right to free speech includes the right to keep your mouth shut. The right to associate includes the right to remain alone. The right to travel includes the right to stay home. The right to retain ownership of property you legitimately acquire includes the right to refrain from acquiring property in the first place. The right to worship freely includes the right to not be compelled by the government to worship. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (which is part of the first amendment) includes the right not to petition. That includes not voting. Should we repeal the first amendment because politicians suck?
I think if you make illegal... You end up with Iraq, with their "100%" turnout... We have the right to choose in the US, and not choosing is also making a choice...
Was it Oregon that had the mail in ballots in 2000? Had a remarkable turnout number (not Iraqi numbers mind you, but great turnout as far as our system is concerned). There's nothing in our Constitution that says we can't make voting user-friendly. Make it easy, people will vote. Make people stand in line for four hours to use a machine they're not confident will count their vote, and people will not vote.
agreed. I don't want people voting who don't follow politics to a reasonable degree. I also don't want to pay forthe imprisonment/ probation officers and state apparatus to incacerate/monitor people for not having an interest in politics. Seems like a violation of liberty to me.
Bull. A person much smarter than I am once said that as long as you pay taxes, you have every right to whine, and that's the truth.
Well I sent away for an absentee ballot and never received it, meaning that if it was illegal not to vote I'd be arrested and have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers to prove that I didn't vote because Radnor Township voting office ************ed up... Alex
An interesting accusation considering that I once helped to run a statewide campaign here in California to elect a Democrat to Insurance Commissioner. Nonetheless, too many damn people vote.
Care to be more specific than that? I assume you mean, "too many dumb people" vote, or "too many people who don't see the world the way I do" vote. I actually would not going to a pure lottery style representation, for state congress at least, and even for the House. Simply have any interested parties take a fairly tough Civics test, (a la Foreign Service Exam), get FBI background checks, and then put their names in a big hat. It absolutely could not be worse than what we have now...
If we can try and really think what kind of mandate any candidate earns in some election, especially in a non-presidential year, we can see that they have no real power to lead. How you ask? Well, let's consider some race for governor when only about 25% of the people registered vote. That doesn't include all the people over 18 and able to leagally vote. Ok, then you can split that vote in half, for sake of argument. Round up a few percentage point for the winner and at best, any candidate will have been given the power to make change, lead and do whatever the job entails. With what mandate? These folks get their power from the people or the voters? A technicality, but a sad comment on our society. You can blame the people for not being informed or not finding a person of interest making them want to vote, but you can always find a person you rather have taste a loss, right? Interestingly, I looked in the local paper today to see if they included some "special voter section" but found nothing. Every sports season, they always include some special pull out section, but I guess elections are not as important as sports.
You assume far too much. I suspect that your two categories are practically only one - "dumb people" generally being the same as "people who don't think like me." It would seem that most people like to think that they are smart and that, hence, those who don't think like them are dumb. But this is certainly not the basis for my judgment that too many people vote as it would imply that I think a certain way. I'm pretty sure I don't.
Then please...I'm still waiting for you to clarify what is "too many" people voting? Are you basing this opinion on a certain percentage you have in mind? On sheer population size of America? What? I mean, if you're going to make assine anti-democratic statements like that, at least be ready to explain yourself...
Fine. I'll elaborate - which is not the same thing as explaining myself. I'm critical of the turn in politics, really starting with the advent of modern democracies in the 19th century, to elevate voting to the place of political action. The upshot of that - skipping my various reasons for saying this - is that I don't take voting very seriously as an important form of political action. In fact, I think voting is a degraded, if not degrading, form of political action. Here's an example. (Again, an example is not an explanation.) For one thing, it transforms people into statistics. I find that unsettling. Indeed, it's ironic that with the advent of modern democracies, that is with the advent of the promise to articulate the people as a political thing, the people were reduced to a mere statistic. So, yes, I do find it very troubling that so many people vote. Indeed, if you feel seriously about democracy I think you should too. And all that said, I still voted in this election.
Post of the year? It's actually quite brilliant in a Chevy Chase sort of way. Remember the scene in "Spies Like Us" when he is handling the press conference and gets asked a tough question? "Well, the president...that is, our president of course...feels that....microphone....breaking up....so I must go." (He went on longer, but that was the gist of it) Your "elaboration...which is not, of course, an explanation" makes about as much sense, even with your "example, which is also, of course, not an explanation." Anyway, what is the alternative in democratic society to "voting," which you find degrading? Street protests? Letters to editors? How could the peoples' voices ever be heard? The lottery system as I suggest above?
people can't even correctly vote for the MLS all star game and you think these same people should pick our politicians? and where do you draw the line at calling people apathetic? what if today they voted for governor but didn't vote on proposal 849c-90210 about tobasco sauce warning labels? "a vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil" - KRS One