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
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    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 ?



    If I dont have an opinion on an issue why should I be forced vote yes or no to it ?

    You should have an opinion because it concerns you. If you don't have one well then you should read up on whats being voted on and form an opinion. I agree though it would be difficult to enforce


  • Options
    #63
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    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?

    No it's not... It's like saying if we have a vote where 10,000 people vote and 1,000 people vote yay or nay there'll be less acuracy if the counters have to sift through 10,000 ballots 9,000 of which are spoiled to find the people who actually voted.

    Irregardless my other points are still valid.


  • Options
    #64
    FruitLover
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭FruitLover


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Well then they can spoil their votes or do the right thing...and get informed!!!

    And dogs could stop licking their balls. Let's be realistic, this isn't likely to happen.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Yes but forcing people to vote might just force them to become informed about politics!

    I certainly wouldn't be willing to take the gamble that all the feckless wasters out there who haven't bothered informing themselves of how their own country is run would suddenly take a change of heart just because they're being dragged by the ear into the ballots. What I think we'd have instead is even more voters who'll deliberately spoil their vote out of spite.
    Morzadec wrote: »
    Some people might see this as anti-democratic

    Personally, I'd rather that than the current system. The inherent flaw with our currently implemented flavour of democracy is the assumption that everyone is equal, and each opinion is equally valid.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    I'm going to change that and say people have a right and a RESPONSIBILTY to vote!

    I'd like to amend that once more and tender that people have a responsibility to vote responsibly! (i.e. an informed, calculated vote)


  • Options
    #65
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    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.



    Again no. People (and eventually their children) have a right to vote.



    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...

    I'm saying i consider it a responsibilty to vote and i don't think thats a bad thing.

    Printing, counting costs, people that sell the pens etc? A vote is for everyone you can't be afraid of the costs when you have one. They don't even count.


  • Options
    #66
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    You should have an opinion because it concerns you. If you don't have one well then you should read up on whats being voted on and form an opinion.
    FruitLover wrote: »
    I'd like to amend that once more and tender that people have a responsibility to vote responsibly! (i.e. an informed, calculated vote)

    An if their informed opinion is that they don't want to or see the point in voting then what is wrong with that


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    No it's not... It's like saying if we have a vote where 10,000 people vote and 1,000 people vote yay or nay there'll be less acuracy if the counters have to sift through 10,000 ballots 9,000 of which are spoiled to find the people who actually voted.

    Irregardless my other points are still valid.

    90 % of votes aren't going to be spolit. Max 10-15%.


  • Options
    #68
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »
    An if their informed opinion is that they don't want to or see the point in voting then what is wrong with that

    Well then those people cannot complain if the vote somehow negatively affects them in the future.


  • Options
    #69
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    90 % of votes aren't going to be spolit. Max 10-15%.

    And your guessing this based on what?

    What are the current percentages of voters in the last few elections?
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Well then those people cannot complain if the vote somehow negatively affects them in the future.

    Of course they do, they can complain about the people who informed themselves and still voted for the wrong thing

    Anyway that has nothing to do with this topic


  • Options
    #70
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Printing, counting costs, people that sell the pens etc? A vote is for everyone you can't be afraid of the costs when you have one. They don't even count.

    yeah... the un-nesiscary use of thousands of tons of taxes-paid stationary is justified by the hundreds of thousands of wasted votes. Especially considdering the overall turnout in the last election means 1/3 of people would be going to the polls by coersion.

    and
    legologic wrote: »
    The cost of issuing and pursuing each fine, the cost of issuing and pursuing each summons, the time wasted in the courts, etc...

    I suppose this is acceptible also.


  • Options
    #71
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    90 % of votes aren't going to be spolit. Max 10-15%.

    This like the issue we're discussing was a hypothetical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    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.

    You seem to be aligning a greater turnout with a better result for the country. I just don't see this as being the case.

    Lets say 35% roughly of the country don't vote, and lets assume that the reason they don't vote is because they don't give a toss and are uninformed. How many of these 35% are going to suddenly decide to inform themselves on politics just because they are forced to vote? Honestly how many do you think? I would guess a very very small percentage. So what we'll be left with is a huge amount of uninformed people either spoiling votes, or voting for the names they know, or the pictures of the candidate they like best, or the colour of the party they like best. How is this best for the country?

    (I realise my views are conjectural, but surely the general consensus would be that people that don't vote will, in the main, not be encouraged to inform themselves if they are forced to vote)


  • Options
    #73
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    The Recliner wrote: »
    And your guessing this based on what?

    What are the current percentages of voters in the last few elections?



    Of course they do, they can complain about the people who informed themselves and still voted for the wrong thing

    Anyway that has nothing to do with this topic


    I hate to use wikipedia but the figures are correct. Only .4% of votes were spoilt!! 6171. thats why when i say 10-15% i still think thats a worse case scenario. More likely 2-5 %
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#At_a_glance


  • Options
    #74
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Morzadec wrote: »
    You seem to be aligning a greater turnout with a better result for the country. I just don't see this as being the case.

    Lets say 35% roughly of the country don't vote, and lets assume that the reason they don't vote is because they don't give a toss and are uninformed. How many of these 35% are going to suddenly decide to inform themselves on politics just because they are forced to vote? Honestly how many do you think? I would guess a very very small percentage. So what we'll be left with is a huge amount of uninformed people either spoiling votes, or voting for the names they know, or the pictures of the candidate they like best, or the colour of the party they like best. How is this best for the country?

    (I realise my views are conjectural, but surely the general consensus would be that people that don't vote will, in the main, not be encouraged to inform themselves if they are forced to vote)

    If people are forced to vote i can guarantee you not all 35% would spoil their votes. Most would look into it and pick a canditate hopefully the best canditate.

    I agree though uninformed voters voting is not a good idea. I suppose my idea relies on people becoming informed. I think a lot of these people would inform themselves if they were forced to vote. Obviously many still wouldn't but i would also assume over time and over many votes more people would become informed.


  • Options
    #75
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    sigh...
    The cost of issuing and pursuing each fine. The cost of issuing and pursuing each summons, the time wasted in the courts, etc.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    I hate to use wikipedia but the figures are correct. Only .4% of votes were spoilt!! 6171. thats why when i say 10-15% i still think thats a worse case scenario. More likely 2-5 %
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#At_a_glance

    Really? Quoting Lisbon and it's 45% turnout?


  • Options
    #76
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    yeah... the un-nesiscary use of thousands of tons of taxes-paid stationary is justified by the hundreds of thousands of wasted votes. Especially considdering the overall turnout in the last election means 1/3 of people would be going to the polls by coersion.

    and



    I suppose this is acceptible also.

    Thousands of tonnes of extra stationary? a bit over the top. It might cost an extra few million.

    With the courts at the moment now , no it wouldnt be a good idea, but theoretically if the courts were free etc i would agree with it.


  • Options
    #77
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    legologic wrote: »
    sigh...




    Really? Quoting Lisbon and it's 45% turnout?

    Fine then the recent general election. turnout was 67% . less than 1% spoilt votes AGAIN!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2007#Result


  • Options
    #78
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Thousands of tonnes of extra stationary? a bit over the top. It might cost an extra few million.

    Unfortunately I dont think it is.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    With the courts at the moment now , no it wouldnt be a good idea, but theoretically if the courts were free etc i would agree with it.

    Well, different strokes. I still think compulsory democracy is paradoxical.

    I enjoyed the debate anyway Mr.Inquisitor but must go earn a bob :D Ta.


  • Options
    #79
    legologic
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭legologic


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Fine then the recent general election. turnout was 67% . less than 1% spoilt votes AGAIN!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2007#Result

    Yeah I quoted that earlier. It's still a third of people.

    Sorry... I really can't seem to help myself.


  • Options
    #80
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    If people are forced to vote i can guarantee you not all 35% would spoil their votes. Most would look into it and pick a canditate hopefully the best canditate.

    I agree though uninformed voters voting is not a good idea. I suppose my idea relies on people becoming informed. I think a lot of these people would inform themselves if they were forced to vote. Obviously many still wouldn't but i would also assume over time and over many votes more people would become informed.

    Well fair enough that's your view, but I feel its unrealistic and extremely idealistic. Then again maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I wouldn't expect the majority to make a fully informed opinion. I think its more likely they will vote for the name they know, or be easily influenced by a friend/family member to vote for a candidate that may well not be the best candidate for them. I feel forcing these uninformed people to vote could result in election results being even more uninformed than they are already.

    This is all conjectural and hypothetical, but I don't have the same faith in the politically ignorant people of Ireland as you do.


  • Options
    #81
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Note the emphisis in my last post RE: Referenda
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    You should have an opinion because it concerns you. If you don't have one well then you should read up on whats being voted on and form an opinion.

    There lots of issues out there which one might concievebly have no personal interest in. Unlikely to be personally affected by and might be put to referendum (indeed some already have)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    I had a very intersting discussion yesterday on this subject outside boards and it went like this!

    If you dont vote fine! you are clearly happy or dont give a dam how the country is run. It could also be that your of a poor standard of education and dont realise the power of your vote!

    However if you dont vote and spend many nights sitting in a pub and moan about the state of the economy what does it say about you personally! Its interesting is it not!

    So to those who dont vote fair enough! but do you complain! and if so how do you see change if you dont take part!

    Its interesting to not that following the breakdown of aparthied in south africa people walked up to 20 miles in blistering heat to a polling station and 20 miles back just to cast there vote. So you have to ask while yes its stong to say voting should be compulsory why are you so disheartened to feel your vote does not matter and lastly

    Why is it that areas like ballymun finglas on the northside of dublin southhill in limerick and dolphins barn in south dublin have the lowest turnout of vote population and yet they are in need most.

    But really you might not believe this! A politician does not know who you vote for but I guarantee you s/he knows if you have voted. How daft do you think it makes you when you ask these people for help and they flick a cople of pages and discover you have not voted in years or maybe never voted!

    Honestly would you do anything if you were this politician! I sometime feel i am talking to 13 year olds when I am explaining the power of the vote but its quite sad to see 30 year olds with families and futures to think off being totally disenfranchised that they do not vote.

    Although at the start I said you should be forced I dont really mean it. Vote not becuase you should or are forced! vote because of the power of it! I can name you 2 politicisan that both got through elections cause of 6 votes and 70 votes! I am sure you can name 70 people who dont vote! Just think of the power of the vote before abusing it!


  • Options
    #83
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Well im glad anyway everyone agrees with me that the sooner voting is compulsory the better!


  • Options
    #84
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Well im glad anyway everyone agrees with me that the sooner voting is compulsory the better!

    I think there were a few people in this thread that disagreed with you to be honest


  • Options
    #85
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    The Recliner wrote: »
    I think there were a few people in this thread that disagreed with you to be honest

    The majority to be honest


  • Options
    #86
    Merch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Merch


    There should be more options, but that would be information the govt doesnt want to measure.

    Spoil is just spoil, there should be deliberate spoil category instead of just you ****ed up the vote, so it can be used to show and determine he mood of the population.


  • Options
    #87
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Merch wrote: »
    There should be more options, but that would be information the govt doesnt want to measure.

    Spoil is just spoil, there should be deliberate spoil category instead of just you ****ed up the vote, so it can be used to show and determine he mood of the population.

    That would be a complete waste. In the last 2 votes we had, the spoiled votes made up less than 1% of votes.


  • Options
    #88
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Morzadec wrote: »
    The majority to be honest

    which proves to me that boards is no the place to discuss politics seriously :D


  • Options
    #89
    Merch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Merch


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    That would be a complete waste. In the last 2 votes we had, the spoiled votes made up less than 1% of votes.

    Well maybe if it was compulsory, those that turn up could say, intentional spoil subdivision, none of the above deserve my vote, or i only turned up because my tax credits rely on it??

    I dont agree it would be a waste, given the amount of apathy in this "democracy" I think it's an important issue to address-why people dont vote.


  • Options
    #90
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Merch wrote: »
    Well maybe if it was compulsory, those that turn up could say, intentional spoil subdivision, none of the above deserve my vote, or i only turned up because my tax credits rely on it??

    I dont agree it would be a waste, given the amount of apathy in this "democracy" I think it's an important issue to address-why people dont vote.

    Oh no i completely agree sorry i thought you meant that we should try to somehow organise the spoil votes of less than 1% into different catagories. If there was complusory voting there would have to be a choice for choosing no canditate or option etc.

    Actually loosing lets say 10% of your tax credits would be a much better idea than a normal fine. I was wavering for a while but dammit this might just work!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Morzadec
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    which proves to me that boards is no the place to discuss politics seriously :D

    Really? Realistic opinions as to why compulsory voting not working were given, and the pitfalls of a large percentage of uniformed voters voting were highlighted - and this makes you think that boards is a bad place to diiscuss politics? :confused:

    If anything it is the thread title that would put me off discussing politics on boards.


Advertisement