Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Voting should be compulsory!

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,773 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    The idea of giving people a test to decide whether their vote should count is so exploitable it's laughable.


  • Options
    #33
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,773 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    legologic wrote: »
    It may seem silly but a persons right to political freedom affords them the right to not care about this. You may be passionate about politics but if they're passionate about celebrities dancing on ice in a jungle then that's their free choice.

    In a free society you cannot force someone to engage in politics even if it would force them to learn about it. Also you said "might just force them", a rather accurate statement. This too is an uncertainty.

    Would you also encourage punishment for those who did not vote? Perhaps a fine which takes away the money they earned and payed taxes on? Maybe prison time to take away their social freedom... why? Because you have denied them political freedom?

    The premise of the op is fundamentally flawed in a free democratic society.

    This.

    Great post.


  • Options
    #34
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »
    Being more informed could also make more people not want to vote, some of the people who vote do so based on who their parents voted for, that is uminformed to say the least

    So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.


  • Options
    #35
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,773 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.

    It's only a right to vote if people have a right not to vote.


  • Options
    #36
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    It may seem silly but a persons right to political freedom affords them the right to not care about this. You may be passionate about politics but if they're passionate about celebrities dancing on ice in a jungle then that's their free choice.

    In a free society you cannot force someone to engage in politics even if it would force them to learn about it. Also you said "might just force them", a rather accurate statement. This too is an uncertainty.

    Would you also encourage punishment for those who did not vote? Perhaps a fine which takes away the money they earned and payed taxes on? Maybe prison time to take away their social freedom... why? Because you have denied them political freedom?

    The premise of the op is fundamentally flawed in a free democratic society.

    Everything is an uncertainty in life , just because you don't know what will happen isn't a reason for not trying. It works in australia, why not here! And yes i think a E50 fine would be appropriate. No jail time(unless they don't pay the fine of course)

    The thing is we're not living in a completely free society. If we were there would be no rules. If a few people go out and learn about the system of politics it would have been worth it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    keane2097 wrote: »
    It's only a right to vote if people have a right not to vote.

    I'm going to change that and say people have a right and a RESPONSIBILTY to vote!


  • Options
    #38
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    thebman wrote: »
    I think a half decent system would be to ask people to vote for the policies they want implemented which the candidates can agree on before hand which ones will be on the ballot (they can argue it out between them).

    Candidates select what their policies are on the issues then people select which they want on the ballot paper and everything gets counted and which ever candidate gets the most votes for each of the issues added up gets elected.

    I think that the above is the only way you'd prevent people voting for the same person every time is to hide who they vote for and force them to vote on policies. If two politicians have the same policies on many issues such as lowering/raising taxes then they would get the same marks and it would cancel itself out so it would make it harder to buy the election by making false promises.

    It would be a nightmare to implement though :P

    There's no way this could work because politics and policies are rarely black and white, and politicians will inevitably twist things.

    Example: The Lisbon Treaty

    No to Lisbon claim that voting no is pro-European, pro-Irish, pro-Democratic.
    Yes to Lisbon claim exactly the same thing.

    Also Ireland's political culture and political parties are nowhere near diverse enough to be differentiated purely on policies. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael often stand for pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to economic policies, so how are you going to separate them on the ballot?


  • Options
    #39
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    I'm going to change that and say people have a right and a RESPONSIBILTY to vote!

    I get where you're coming from Inquisitor and I admire your idealism, but I honestly think there are some people who will never be interested or informed on politics, and for those people I would argue they have a responsibility to not vote, so that elections would be based purely on an individual's own informed opinion.

    Returning to the issue of people voting as there parents did, my main problem is that their parents may be voting for what their own parents voted for and so on... And this all stems from a treaty that bears absolutely no relevance to today. We have seemingly no choice in this country with 2 parties who are essentially ideologically identical. If a reason for their sustained position as the dominant parties of Irish politics stems from voters 'supporting' political parties as they would support a football team, then I would have a huge problem with this, and I would rather these people either got informed and made a decision based on that, or if they wish to remain ignorant (which is their own choice) I would rather they did not vote at all


  • Options
    #40
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    So are you saying that just because someone votes for the same people that their parents voted for , their votes are less important or something? I don't care for the reasons people vote, like i don't care that bart simpson get 5000 votes every election. The important thing is that everyone exercises their right to vote even if it meaning spoiling it.

    No I am not saying their votes are less important I am saying that their votes are no more educated than people who chose not to vote, the assumption being made earlier that people who don't vote are not informed on the issues

    People who exercising their right not to vote is just as valid as people spoiling votes
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    If a few people go out and learn about the system of politics it would have been worth it.

    Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote


  • Options
    #41
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Morzadec wrote: »
    There's no way this could work because politics and policies are rarely black and white, and politicians will inevitably twist things.

    Example: The Lisbon Treaty

    No to Lisbon claim that voting no is pro-European, pro-Irish, pro-Democratic.
    Yes to Lisbon claim exactly the same thing.

    Also Ireland's political culture and political parties are nowhere near diverse enough to be differentiated purely on policies. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael often stand for pretty much the same thing, especially when it comes to economic policies, so how are you going to separate them on the ballot?

    I know but it would rock if it could work :(

    I think the current system is the best we have except of course elections should be on weekends so people can't use work/college/other as an excuse.

    I know some people work weekends too but it would suit most people more than the current arrangement I think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Everything is an uncertainty in life , just because you don't know what will happen isn't a reason for not trying. It works in australia, why not here! And yes i think a E50 fine would be appropriate. No jail time(unless they don't pay the fine of course)

    Not when it comes to putting paprika on your eggs or buying a pet goldfish. It is when it comes to national governance. There's always a level of uncertainty sure yeah but complete uncertainty is a rediculous premise to "give something a go".
    Universal Declaration of Human rights:
    Article 19
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    If it is my opinion that there is no candidate that is voteworthy and I wish to express this by not voting then forcing me to vote is a breach of article 19 surely.


  • Options
    #43
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    Not when it comes to putting paprika on your eggs or buying a pet goldfish. It is when it comes to national governance. There's always a level of uncertainty sure yeah but complete uncertainty is a rediculous premise to "give something a go".


    If it is my opinion that there is no candidate that is voteworthy and I wish to express this by not voting then focing me to vote is a breach of article 19.

    Where is the complete uncertainty? I'm hardly that fool hardy as to think everything should be given a go, but i think this is a good idea, an idea that has worked for other countries.

    Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.


  • Options
    #44
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »
    No I am not saying their votes are less important I am saying that their votes are no more educated than people who chose not to vote, the assumption being made earlier that people who don't vote are not informed on the issues

    People who exercising their right not to vote is just as valid as people spoiling votes

    At least the people voting are being more pro active. I'd have more respect for them than people that don't bother
    The Recliner wrote: »
    Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote

    How have you found this out?


  • Options
    #45
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    The Recliner wrote: »

    Actually I have found that educating people about politics will make them less likely to vote

    Kind of disagree with that. It depends on how you educate them.

    If you can show people how their vote might help them in the future when trying to push their agenda to politicians, they would be more willing to engage in the process I would imagine.

    I think people in their early 20's will not have an interest in voting as if you have no responsibilities or few, you'll be less likely to care about politics.


  • Options
    #46
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.

    Spoiling your vote is wasting it also, I don't see a difference between not voting and spoiling a vote
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    At least the people voting are being more pro active. I'd have more respect for them than people that don't bother

    The right not to vote is just as worthy as the right to vote, I don't see how you can respect one more than another

    Maybe you can think that of people who couldn't be bothered to vote but I see a difference for people who have looked at the people involved and decided not to vote because all the candidates are non entities
    How have you found this out?

    I studied Politics, the general consensus among my classmates was that our vote would make feck all difference


  • Options
    #47
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    thebman wrote: »
    Kind of disagree with that. It depends on how you educate them.

    If you can show people how their vote might help them in the future when trying to push their agenda to politicians, they would be more willing to engage in the process I would imagine.

    I think people in their early 20's will not have an interest in voting as if you have no responsibilities or few, you'll be less likely to care about politics.

    Maybe I worded it badly, educating people about how the political system works and how you can get your representatives to work for you might help people to vote

    I was referring to educating people in political theory and the differences between each ideology, personally I feel this makes people more inclined not to vote


  • Options
    #48
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Where is the complete uncertainty? I'm hardly that fool hardy as to think everything should be given a go, but i think this is a good idea, an idea that has worked for other countries.

    There can be no certainty that because this worked for another country on the opposite side of the planet that it will work for us. Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is. I like marmalade and cheese.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Thats fine and thats why i said spoil your vote if you don't like the pick of choices but don't show complete apathy and do nothing. A vote only comes around every few years, why waste it.

    I am completely failing to see your argument here. You would have more respect for someone who was forced (by threat of fine or imprisonment) to go somewhere they didn't want to go and do something they didnt want to do, than someone who does exactly what they want to do. Unless I break (or in some cases threaten to break) the laws of this land no government body will ever take any of my political or social freedoms nor should they be entitled to.


  • Options
    #49
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »


    I studied Politics, the general consensus among my classmates was that our vote would make feck all difference

    Sure why does anyone vote so if your going to have that attitude to voting? Every vote counts.

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/one-man-one-vote/396352/


  • Options
    #50
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    There can be no certainty that because this worked for another country on the opposite side of the planet that it will work for us. Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean it is. I like marmalade and cheese.



    I am completely failing to see your argument here. You would have more respect for someone who was forced (by threat of fine or imprisonment) to go somewhere they didn't want to go and do something they didnt want to do, than someone who does exactly what they want to do. Unless I break (or in some cases threaten to break) the laws of this land no government body will ever take any of my political or social freedoms nor should they be entitled to.

    No what i said was i have more respect for someone that gets off their arse walks up to the polling station votes for someone or spoils their vote than i do for someone that doesn't even bother.


  • Options
    #51
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Sure why does anyone vote so if your going to have that attitude to voting? Every vote counts.

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/one-man-one-vote/396352/

    People vote because they think their vote makes a difference

    You said educating people would encourage them to vote, I was pointing out that educating people in political theory and ideology could actually do the opposite

    Of course the number of votes decide an election but it still doesn't change the fact that in our system the parties are all pretty much the same


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    No what i said was i have more respect for someone that gets off their arse walks up to the polling station votes for someone or spoils their vote than i do for someone that doesn't even bother.

    You forgot the even if they're forced to part... this is what you are actually saying. You support a fine and imprisonment on non payment for not voting. That's coersion.

    I think what you are missing is the fact that a right is something we can choose to invoke or not. If compulsory voting was brought in the constitution and several amendments would have to be changed to remove the words "have the right to" and replace it with the words "must (subject to statutory provisions on punishment)".

    This would have to be done. If it's a right then it's a right. If it's something else you cannot call it a right.


  • Options
    #53
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    You forgot the even if they're forced to part... this is what you are actually saying. You support a fine and imprisonment on non payment for not voting. That's coersion.

    I think what you are missing is the fact that a right is something we can choose to invoke or not. If compulsory voting was brought in the constitution and several amendments would have to be changed to remove the words "have the right to" and replace it with the words "must (subject to statutory provisions on punishment)".

    This would have to be done. If it's a right then it's a right. If it's something else you cannot call it a right.

    Sure people had a right to smoke in pubs 4 years ago now its gone and they'll get fined (a lot more than E50) if they do it. No difference with compulsory voting. They wouldn't even have to vote for a canditate if they didn't want to, there could be a box for people that didn't want to vote for anyone. People have a responsibility to themselves and their children to vote. Pick the best canditate who can hopefully improve peoples lives in their constituency.

    I have no problem changing that right to a legal requirement. Who gets hurt by that happening - no one.


  • Options
    #54
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »
    People vote because they think their vote makes a difference

    You said educating people would encourage them to vote, I was pointing out that educating people in political theory and ideology could actually do the opposite

    Of course the number of votes decide an election but it still doesn't change the fact that in our system the parties are all pretty much the same

    Well its as simple as i think your wrong with that. The more educated you are the more likely you are to vote. Thats why the least educated from the poorest areas always have the lowest turnout rates


  • Options
    #55
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Well its as simple as i think your wrong with that. The more educated you are the more likely you are to vote. Thats why the least educated from the poorest areas always have the lowest turnout rates

    It depends what you are educated in, we were talking about educating people in Politics, not education in general

    Also I don't agree that people in the poorest areas don't turn out due to lack of education, some to be sure bot others don't turn out because they feel that it wont make a difference because they have seen nothing been done for them


  • Options
    #56
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Well its as simple as i think your wrong with that. The more educated you are the more likely you are to vote. Thats why the least educated from the poorest areas always have the lowest turnout rates

    Is it not because the system has failed them, time and time again and they are disillusioned by life experience?


  • Options
    #57
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Sure people had a right to smoke in pubs 4 years ago now its gone and they'll get fined (a lot more than E50) if they do it. No difference with compulsory voting. They wouldn't even have to vote for a canditate if they didn't want to, there could be a box for people that didn't want to vote for anyone.

    UNBELIEVEABLY MASSIVE DIFFERENCE with compulsary voting. People did not have a constitutional right to smoke in pubs. It's a whole world of difference. Statutory law may not contradict the constitution. The most fundamental laws (such as the right to vote) is enshrined in the constitution.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    People have a responsibility to themselves and their children to vote. Pick the best canditate who can hopefully improve peoples lives in their constituency.

    Again no. People (and eventually their children) have a right to vote.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    I have no problem changing that right to a legal requirement. Who gets hurt by that happening - no one.

    Who benefits from somebody ticking a box as opposed to not turning up? The people who print the ballots? the people who sell the pens? The lawyers represesenting those who do not turn up?

    Who's hurt? The taxpayer. More printing, more counting, higher statistical error. The cost of issuing and pursuing each fine. The cost of issuing and pursuing each summons, the time wasted in the courts, etc...


  • Options
    #58
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    Actually the higher statistical error is something to really considder. The more respondents the higher the statistical error in the counting especially since it's all done by hand. By forcing everyone to vote you actually effect the quality and legitimacy of the result.

    Edit: On further considderation this may only be true in tight results. but previous points still stand.


  • Options
    #59
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    In general I strongly believe everyone SHOULD vote (or spoil their ballots in protest if they REALLY cant find any candidate worth who is better or "less bad" than the others) but making it compulsary would be unworkable.

    Under such a system what would be a lawful excuse for not voting ?
    Abroad/In another part of the country on election day/Ilness/disability/age/caring for relatives/Unable to travel to polling station/**** up (your fault or someone elses) in registration process/Death of close family member/Arrested (rightfully or otherwise)/Detained/kidnapped/car broken down/missed bus/train strike/no money/death (your own) ?

    How much resources/priority should the police/courts etc give to chasing it up when they are clearly overstreached and have better things for doing ?

    but for general elections and referendums, I agree it should be compulsory
    If I dont have an opinion on an issue why should I be forced vote yes or no to it ?


  • Options
    #60
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    Actually the higher statistical error is something to really considder. The more respondents the higher the statistical error in the counting especially since it's all done by hand. By forcing everyone to vote you actually effect the quality and legitimacy of the result.

    You've got to be joking?? Thats like saying we should do a survey with only 10 people because if we do it with anymore someone might count the results wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    thebman wrote: »
    Is it not because the system has failed them, time and time again and they are disillusioned by life experience?

    No


Advertisement