"I Voted" incentive

OU812

Was listening to some us radio about the elections & apparently a lot of states give an I voted sticker, a lot of businesses will offer a financial incentive (discount) to anyone with a sticker, which helps to drive business as well as driving voter turnout.

Would such an introduction work here do you think?

In one city, Dunlin doughnuts gave a free doughnut to anyone with a sticker, the owner of one store was interviewed & said almost all who claimed one bought a coffee, which lead to large profits that day.

Manach

An interesting idea by OP.
The satisfaction that I voted "X", as a measure of how much I truely approve/despise the proposal/candidate is usually enough for me (delete as appropriate).
However there is the issue of proof that the person voted, in that AFAIR, it is illegal in some jurisdictions to take a photo of the completed ballot paper.

Boulevardier

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

Feathers

Manach wrote: »

However there is the issue of proof that the person voted, in that AFAIR, it is illegal in some jurisdictions to take a photo of the completed ballot paper.

Well if you get the badge when you go down to the polling booth & are given a paper, and that paper is put in the ballot box regardless of whether it's a spoil/blank, is that not proof enough?

Or do you mean that people would pass the badge around to get a free donut?

Conmaicne Mara

Boulevardier wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

I would agree with that, I'd question whether a voter incentive would work in the first instance, and also the cost to "someone".

I think citizens do have to accept some responsibility for how their country is governed. As they say, if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. It's my view that everyone of a voting age (which I think should be raised to 21) should have to vote - obviously unforeseen circumstances may not allow that and should be catered for.

The electoral register could be used as a record of who voted and who didn't - note: not how they voted obviously.

colly10

I'd prefer if people who aren't bothered voting don't vote. It's better to have people not voting than to not read up what they're voting on and guess.

seamus

Boulevardier wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

Only if the ballot contains a "none of the above" option.

In Ireland anyway, being forced to vote would inspire voters to vote against the government as a protest at being forced to vote. Irish people hate being told what to do, but do it anyway while protesting silently.

Far from increasing participation and improving democracy, unwilling voters would create less democracy.

Conmaicne Mara

seamus wrote: »

Only if the ballot contains a "none of the above" option.

They can always spoil their vote. Someone wrote something about Sean Quinn on their ballot paper yesterday.

bbam

Boulevardier wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

I agree, a €50 fine for not voting.
Too much whining and moaning from people who don't bother to go out and vote. I know lots of people who don't vote and then bang on about how the state has let them down and not provided for them.

Even a spoiled vote is a clearer message than no vote.

OU812

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

They can always spoil their vote. Someone wrote something about Sean Quinn on their ballot paper yesterday.

But that's a different thing to "none of the above".

I'd love the introduction of compulsary, postal & nota

SerialComplaint

Subscribe

Conmaicne Mara

OU812 wrote: »

But that's a different thing to "none of the above".

I'd love the introduction of compulsary, postal & nota

Yeah I suppose, I've no problem with a none of the above being put on it.

As Bbam said there's lots who will whine and moan about things but not even know there's an election or referendum on, or who's running in their area etc. It's a bit pathetic really.

juan.kerr

I have to laugh when I see people advocating compulsory voting.

Introduce it here and Dustin the Turkey will get elected, regardless of whether he is on the ballot or not.

No doubt the enforcement would be a bit like ticket inspectors on the Luas - ignore the scumbags that they know don't have tickets.

I'd also have concerns about privacy. Does anyone know what they do with the lists they currently use to mark off the people who have voted. Are they retained or destroyed?

And let's not forget the quality of the voter register.

I travel regularly for work, what happens if I'm out of the country on the date, do I have to go to court to prove I was out of the country, since we don't have postal voting?

We have enough laws that currently aren't enforced (unaccompanied provisional drivers for one), compulsory voting is completely un-necessary and of no benefit.

OU812

No he won't. He'd have to be on the ballot to be elected.

In several states in the US, they do a voter's report card. If you didn't vote, you get a visit from an official who checks that you're still alive & you had good reason from abstaining. If you just didn't bother, you're fined.

They don't know who or what you voted for, just that you did or didn't.

It's not only a privilege or a right to vote, it's a duty. It's your say in how the country or county or state is run. The result may not be what you voted for, but that's democracy.

Victor

I would go for reward over punishment - punishment would be too costly to enforce.

oscarBravo

OU812 wrote: »

It's not only a privilege or a right to vote, it's a duty.

I'd qualify that further and say that it's a duty not only to vote, but to vote thoughtfully after researching and carefully weighing up the alternatives.

Sadly, there's no way whatsoever of enforcing that.

viclemronny

Boulevardier wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

You would have to include some option like 'Re-open Nominations' to allow fir those who do not favour any of the candidates.

juan.kerr

OU812 wrote: »

No he won't. He'd have to be on the ballot to be elected.

I predict a riot if he isn't elected.

In several states in the US, they do a voter's report card. If you didn't vote, you get a visit from an official who checks that you're still alive & you had good reason from abstaining. If you just didn't bother, you're fined.

Considering the difficulties with TV licence and household charge collection among others I don't see this ever working here.

If I'm not already on the voter registry or am renting and move, what's my motivation to get myself added / updated when I can just blame the system?

It's not only a privilege or a right to vote, it's a duty. It's your say in how the country or county or state is run. The result may not be what you voted for, but that's democracy

I've never subscribed to voting being a 'duty'. Forcing people to vote isn't 'democratic'.

If I'm a neo nazi or a communist but there isn't any suitable candidate to vote for then I'm being forced to either vote for someone that I don't want to vote for, or I'm forced to spoil my vote.

Tombo2001

I reallt cant understand why people dont vote.

You are offered a say in how society is operated, and you turn it down? It doesnt make sense to me.

One idea: a person who misses 4 elections/ referendums in a row has their voting rights withdrawn.

There was absolutely no excuse not to vote yesterday for 95%o of the electorate.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I would agree with that, I'd question whether a voter incentive would work in the first instance, and also the cost to "someone".

I think citizens do have to accept some responsibility for how their country is governed. As they say, if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. It's my view that everyone of a voting age (which I think should be raised to 21) should have to vote - obviously unforeseen circumstances may not allow that and should be catered for.

The electoral register could be used as a record of who voted and who didn't - note: not how they voted obviously.

I'd disagree with compulsory voting as you should also have a right not to vote as as the right to vote.

Why however would you raise the voting age to 21? Why should I as a recognised adult, who takes an interest in politics not be able to vote?

Tombo2001

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I'd disagree with compulsory voting as you should also have a right not to vote as as the right to vote.

Why however would you raise the voting age to 21? Why should I as a recognised adult, who takes an interest in politics not be able to vote?

I agree with compulsory voting for reasons mentioned earlier.

Everyone has a responsibility for how society is run. If you dont participate in elections you are basically making someone else do your work for you.

endacl

bbam wrote: »

I agree, a €50 fine for not voting.
Too much whining and moaning from people who don't bother to go out and vote. I know lots of people who don't vote and then bang on about how the state has let them down and not provided for them.

Even a spoiled vote is a clearer message than no vote.

Agree with all if that. Plus, that fine would pay for ten years of polls if it had been applied to yesterday's referendum.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I agree with compulsory voting for reasons mentioned earlier.

Everyone has a responsibility for how society is run. If you dont participate in elections you are basically making someone else do your work for you.

But a lot of people simply aren't interested in politics and don't care about it. I doubt forcing them to vote will change this resulting in people who are completely ill informed voting on something they know nothing about. Now this may already happen, but it would happen a lot more if people were forced to vote.

I also don't understand you last point, how is it making someone else do your work for you?

juan.kerr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There was absolutely no excuse not to vote yesterday for 95%o of the electorate.

What I find funny and I suspect I'm not the only one, is the radio advert that the Referendum Commission ran claiming we have a say in changing the most important document in the country....

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but what a joke that is.

The two Brians made a decision that cost the state tens of billions of Euros. This is probably the most important decision that will ever be made in this country. What input did the poeple have into that decision?

Tombo2001

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But a lot of people simply aren't interested in politics and don't care about it. I doubt forcing them to vote will change this resulting in people who are completely ill informed voting on something they know nothing about. Now these may already happen, but it would happen a lot more if people were forced to vote.

I also don't understand you last point, how is it making someone else do your work for you?

But you make it sound like politics is some abstract thing......

.......the political system is the system through which society is governed.

So voting is about the society we live in.....the education system, the healthcare system, taxes.......if you dont vote you are saying you have no interest in these things......but everyone has an interest in these things.

As for my second point.......society is governed by the government, but society in turn chooses the government; that is a responsibility of society in a democratic society. If you dont vote, you are passing that responsbility on the someone else.

Tombo2001

juan.kerr wrote: »

What I find funny and I suspect I'm not the only one, is the radio advert that the Referendum Commission ran claiming we have a say in changing the most important document in the country....

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but what a joke that is.

The two Brians made a decision that cost the state tens of billions of Euros. This is probably the most important decision that will ever be made in this country. What input did the poeple have into that decision?

eh....2007......Fianna Fail.....

juan.kerr

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But a lot of people simply aren't interested in politics and don't care about it. I doubt forcing them to vote will change this resulting in people who are completely ill informed voting on something they know nothing about. Now this may already happen, but it would happen a lot more if people were forced to vote.

This is a good point. Look at the large numbers of voters the various No compaigns managed in recent Europe related referendums. Force everyone to vote and I have no doubt that the 'anti' everything brigade would be the beneficiaries.

juan.kerr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

eh....2007......Fianna Fail.....

Rubbish.

Tombo2001

I think on wider point, Civics should be part of the education curriculum....why teach people trigonometry and Peig, and not teach them about the importance of voting......

endacl

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But a lot of people simply aren't interested in politics and don't care about it. I doubt forcing them to vote will change this resulting in people who are completely ill informed voting on something they know nothing about. Now this may already happen, but it would happen a lot more if people were forced to vote.

I also don't understand you last point, how is it making someone else do your work for you?

A lot of 'adults' aren't interested in anything beyond jersey shore and their next bag of chips. They do however have to function responsibly as members of a society (adhere to the law), and contribute to its upkeep (pay taxes). I don't see voting as any different. They should contribute. It they don't, I don't see the harm in a sanction. They'd soon get interested. Beyond whining.

Tombo2001

juan.kerr wrote: »

Rubbish.

in what way?

Fianna Fail got voted into power by the Irish electorate in 2007. The people said, you lot are the men and women to run our country.

So why, Rubbish?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But you make it sound like politics is some abstract thing......

.......the political system is the system through which society is governed.

So voting is about the society we live in.....the education system, the healthcare system, taxes.......if you dont vote you are saying you have no interest in these things......but everyone has an interest in these things.

As for my second point.......society is governed by the government, but society in turn chooses the government; that is a responsibility of society in a democratic society. If you dont vote, you are passing that responsbility on the someone else.

That may well all be true. But some people simply don't care. They simply don't have an interest in these things.

Forcing people to vote will simply cause ill informed decisions to be made. If you have no interest in politics you would simply hear something, think it sounds great and vote for it. The consequence of voting for such a "thing" will not be thought of. Imo that is a dangerous thing to do and even more dangerous is forcing people into such a situation.

Now you could say that it is up to the person to get informed, but are we going to force people to do that aswell?

juan.kerr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

in what way?

Fianna Fail got voted into power by the Irish electorate in 2007. The people said, you lot are the men and women to run our country.

So why, Rubbish?

They went way beyond any mandate they may have had.

p1akuw47h5r3it

endacl wrote: »

A lot of 'adults' aren't interested in anything beyond jersey shore and their next bag of chips. They do however have to function responsibly as members of a society (adhere to the law), and contribute to its upkeep (pay taxes). I don't see voting as any different. They should contribute. It they don't, I don't see the harm in a sanction. They'd soon get interested. Beyond whining.

See I disagree. I think they would go down to the polling station and vote for someone who they heard on the tv say something they thought sounded great. No thought or consideration of what they were voting for would be done/put in.

Just because you have to won't necessarily make people interested in politics. We all have to pay taxes but how many people are interested in tax law?

juan.kerr

This utopia where everyone has a duty to vote sounds delightful.

Will we have the politicians to match? Ones who don't make election promises they have no intention of keeping, or pander to vested interests such as unions or pensioners, or feather their own nests at every opportunity, or take more holidays than the teachers?

endacl

juan.kerr wrote: »

This utopia where everyone has a duty to vote sounds delightful.

Will we have the politicians to match? Ones who don't make election promises they have no intention of keeping, or pander to vested interests such as unions or pensioners, or feather their own nests at every opportunity, or take more holidays than the teachers?

Teachers holidays? Had to happen sooner or later....

OU812

juan.kerr wrote: »

This utopia where everyone has a duty to vote sounds delightful.

Will we have the politicians to match? Ones who don't make election promises they have no intention of keeping, or pander to vested interests such as unions or pensioners, or feather their own nests at every opportunity, or take more holidays than the teachers?

We probably won't have 100%. But there are good people out there, people who will make a change for the good. Some have not even been born yet.

Blood has run through the streets of this land for our right to have a say in the way which it is governed. It's utterly shameful that the populous don't seize their opportunity when it's handed to them.

juan.kerr

endacl wrote: »

Teachers holidays? Had to happen sooner or later....

Constructive. Teachers was chosen for the obvious reason that they are considered to have generous holiday entitlements which are exceeded by politicians.

No doubt you'll focus on that one word to ignore answering the question.

p1akuw47h5r3it

OU812 wrote: »

We probably won't have 100%. But there are good people out there, people who will make a change for the good. Some have not even been born yet.

Blood has run through the streets of this land for our right to have a say in the way which it is governed. It's utterly shameful that the populous don't seize their opportunity when it's handed to them.

I doubt it. The vast majority of Irish politicians are quite frankly ****e. There may be the odd few who are competent and good at what they do, but certainly not enough to make any real difference.

Isn't there a saying that in Ireland the best emigrate? Why this may not be completely true the best certainly don't go into Politics.

juan.kerr

Nothing anyone has said in this thread so far in any way convinces me that people should be forced to vote.

Please explain why voting is a duty.

Jimoslimos

I wouldn't be surprised to see the government make some steps to bring it in. Not so much as a noble cause in promoting civic responsibility but moreso as a revenue stream. ~65% of the electorate paying a €50 fine per vote missed (initial) fine would be a handy little earner.

Cue no end of pointless referenda (kind of like the last one).

juan.kerr

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised to see the government make some steps to bring it in. Not so much as a noble cause in promoting civic responsibility but moreso as a revenue stream. ~65% of the electorate paying a €50 fine per vote missed (initial) fine would be a handy little earner.

Cue no end of pointless referenda (kind of like the last one).

Maybe they should organise a referendum to decide if voting should be mandatory. Persumably it would require a constitutional change?

thebman

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think on wider point, Civics should be part of the education curriculum....why teach people trigonometry and Peig, and not teach them about the importance of voting......

It is I believe.

Maybe a watered down version of a Civics course of course but we did one when I was in secondary school.

oscarBravo

juan.kerr wrote: »

Nothing anyone has said in this thread so far in any way convinces me that people should be forced to vote.

Please explain why voting is a duty.

Let's be clear: when I talk about a duty, I'm talking about a moral obligation. Just because there isn't a law forcing you to do the right thing, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

People have killed and died - are still doing so - for the right to have a say in how their country is governed. It may not be illegal to refuse to accept the concomitant duty that comes with that right, but it's certainly less than noble.

Victor

juan.kerr wrote: »

The two Brians made a decision that cost the state tens of billions of Euros. This is probably the most important decision that will ever be made in this country. What input did the poeple have into that decision?

They fired them in rather spectacular fashion.

Victor

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised to see the government make some steps to bring it in. Not so much as a noble cause in promoting civic responsibility but moreso as a revenue stream. ~65% of the electorate paying a €50 fine per vote missed (initial) fine would be a handy little earner.

How much will it cost to collect all these fines?

podge79

Boulevardier wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer compulsory voting to voter-bribery.

compulsory voting could be argued to be a form of voter bribery in that you are bribing the electorate to vote with the incentive of avoiding a fine.