Should voting in Ireland be compulsory?

CelticDragon7

Should voting in Ireland be compulsory?

Ok so there are obvious reasons against such a proposal mainly that such a law would affect the freedom of an individual but could voting be considered as much of a civic duty as jury duty is?

Around the world 24 countries at present have a form of compulsory voting including:

Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Republic of Congo
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Greece
Honduras
Lebanon
Libya
Luxembourg
Nauru
Mexico
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Singapore
Switzerland
Thailand
Uruguay

And previously the US state of Georgia, Austria, Chile, Netherlands, Spain and Venezuela have also had a form of compulsory voting.

With 100% of the electorate casting their vote on voting day it would mean politicians would really have to work a lot harder to get elected and perhaps if elected would hold themselves accountable to ALL of society and not just a proportion.

There would also be a spoil your ballet option or a so called 'none of the above' option if the voters in a constituency did not agree with any of the candidates and if this option received the most votes then there would have to be a re-vote in that area. This would allow for someone else to run or the previous candidates working harder to prove that they are what the constituency needs. This along with a system of recall would ensure that politicians are representative and accountable to the people that elect them and not just the party whip.

What do we all think? I am sure many of you will disagree and so as always debate and opinion is welcomed!

Thanks!

Boulevardier

I agree. One of the reasons for our national malaise is that many poor voters dont vote, which means politicians dont cater to them, which in turn means they feel ever more left out of decision making, thus becoming even more cynical and alienated.

Compulsory voting would do a lot to even up that imbalance.

Iwasfrozen

No it shouldn't be compulsory, apathy is a good way of preventing those who care the least about politics from voting.

Jhcx

Sounds good in theory. As a non voter i like the world to revolve around me while i dont really care what happens in politics.

If i was to start voting the first thing i would do is vote that the Taoiseach get the boot and all power(within reason) given to the president. to hell with this stupid 2 tier government then they will be fighting for our votes.

Manach

I'd be against it. The State has significantly grown in power and tax raising revenue over recent decades, and is using the current economic woes in part caused by state overspend to increase its remit. That the state should command the citizen in such a fashion would re-enforce the consciousnesses of master/servant relationship with the voter in the latter category. Whilst the vote is important, it only changes the present incumbent government and does not change the entrenched power of the state.

Sierra Oscar

For some people, not voting is a form of voicing their opinion. Might sound absurd to some, but that is the mentality out there nonetheless.

Jcarroll07

I would like the idea of it. But ideologically i am against it. I believe the government should not be able to force people to do things that they don't want. (obviously within reason e.g taxes)

jimmycrackcorm

Not voting is itself a vote so I don't see the issue. On the other hand, spoiling a vote seems to me to be ridiculous as it just wastes the time of people counting votes.

Jericho.

I wouldn't make voting compulsory but I'd have maybe a small decrease in tax credits and/or welfare if you don't. Nothing huge though, €50 - €100. Would motivate people to vote but they still have the option not to if they choose but it'd cost them a few quid.

Manach

Well AFAIR, to better perfect the Athenian democracy the electors were paid to show up to vote. At least it is more a positive model than taxing, but given the current state of finances perhaps not a viable one.

walshb

CelticDragon7 wrote: »

With 100% of the electorate casting their vote on voting day!

I very much doubt that this has ever occurred.

fianna saor

i would be in favour of this, with a fine for those who dont vote

nesf

But you don't want all of society voting. This sounds strange and weird to many but it is unfortunately true. The reason is that people can only reasonably vote in a good way for our country (your good and my good will be different but ignore that) if they are reasonably informed politically, economically and socially. A lot of people aren't. You don't want people voting who don't have a clue what they're voting on, this is precisely the problem with EU referendums, most people don't have more than a vague notion of what is involved in the treaty and vote based on what posters are saying or politicians/interest groups are pitching.

Now we do get plenty of uninformed people voting anyway because they care about politics but for some reason don't go out of their way to understand the issues. This will only get worse if we force the people who don't care about politics, and therefore will be even less inclined to inform themselves, into voting.

P_1

Rather than making voting compulsory I wonder if making educating oneself on how the political system works compulsory would have any merit?

fianna saor

nesf wrote: »

But you don't want all of society voting. This sounds strange and weird to many but it is unfortunately true. The reason is that people can only reasonably vote in a good way for our country (your good and my good will be different but ignore that) if they are reasonably informed politically, economically and socially. A lot of people aren't. You don't want people voting who don't have a clue what they're voting on, this is precisely the problem with EU referendums, most people don't have more than a vague notion of what is involved in the treaty and vote based on what posters are saying or politicians/interest groups are pitching.

Now we do get plenty of uninformed people voting anyway because they care about politics but for some reason don't go out of their way to understand the issues. This will only get worse if we force the people who don't care about politics, and therefore will be even less inclined to inform themselves, into voting.

it is a possibility that a large percentage of those who previously didnt vote could educate themselves (even basically) on candidates/parties/issues. im sure a lot of them would see that if they had to vote they might as well understand what they are voting

anto3473

They rarely have ballots on weekends, ensuring that students often cant vote.

Not a student any more but this annoyed me when I was, Even still there's no way of predicting where in the country I'll be on the next election day. I don't see how compulsory voting could work.

fianna saor

anto3473 wrote: »

They rarely have ballots on weekends, ensuring that students often cant vote.

Not a student any more but this annoyed me when I was, Even still there's no way of predicting where in the country I'll be on the next election day. I don't see how compulsory voting could work.

they could hold it over 2/3 days. this was the case in some recent election in a different country, it escapes me at the moment where it was.

JohnC83

Maybe better if you include a poll, and make people vote! haha. Seriously though IMO I dont think people should be forced to vote. Too many people uneducated on the subject will be just voting for the name that sounds the best or "for the laugh".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I'm a no here as well.

The idea what I should vote implies that there is a candidate worth voting for. And spoiling a vote just brings us back to square one.

And I don't go with this ****e that if you don;t vote you give up your right to complain about the government. If you did vote and your choice was elected, THEN you give up such a right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

fianna saor

JohnC83 wrote: »

Maybe better if you include a poll, and make people vote! haha. Seriously though IMO I dont think people should be forced to vote. Too many people uneducated on the subject will be just voting for the name that sounds the best or "for the laugh".

granted, but i do think as ive mentioned earlier that if you were of the nonvoting persuasion and you were made to either vote or be fined, that you would educate yourself to some degree at least on what you are voting

fianna saor

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I'm a no here as well.

The idea what I should vote implies that there is a candidate worth voting for. And spoiling a vote just brings us back to square one.

And I don't go with this ****e that if you don;t vote you give up your right to complain about the government. If you did vote and your choice was elected, THEN you give up such a right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

if you were going to spoil your vote, you at least had the knowledge that no candidate suited your requirements

nesf

fianna saor wrote: »

it is a possibility that a large percentage of those who previously didnt vote could educate themselves (even basically) on candidates/parties/issues. im sure a lot of them would see that if they had to vote they might as well understand what they are voting

Basic isn't good enough though. They need to be engaged with the political process to some extent to stay informed. They need the experience of years of doing this not to fall for the spiel of one party which is flat out unrealistic but very appealing.

A lot of people just are not interested in politics except when it directly affects them. That is fair enough, I can understand that. These people are not in a good position to judge what direction the country should take overall though.


All that said, it is not like political parties try and sell a comprehensive platform anyway as much as bundles of policies designed to appeal to specific groups of voters. Compulsory voting would make this even worse I think because the parties will be trying to sell to even less interested people.

JohnC83

fianna saor wrote: »

granted, but i do think as ive mentioned earlier that if you were of the nonvoting persuasion and you were made to either vote or be fined, that you would educate yourself to some degree at least on what you are voting

I honestly dont think so. If they are too lazy to vote now then they will be too lazy to educate themselves on the matter. They would just show up and pick the first one they see

melekalikimaka

ridiculous idea, theres enough ignorance in this country when it comes to politics and economics with out making people vote, the lisbon treaty showed this and tbh I'm happy with the option not to vote, if I don't feel informed enough on a topic I abstain from the vote, to allow people informed on the topic make the decisions, making people vote is madness

gizmo555

anto3473 wrote: »

They rarely have ballots on weekends, ensuring that students often cant vote.

Not a student any more but this annoyed me when I was, Even still there's no way of predicting where in the country I'll be on the next election day. I don't see how compulsory voting could work.

Students should register to vote where they study instead of whinging interminably about this non-issue.

Markcheese

anto3473 wrote: »

They rarely have ballots on weekends, ensuring that students often cant vote.

Not a student any more but this annoyed me when I was, Even still there's no way of predicting where in the country I'll be on the next election day. I don't see how compulsory voting could work.

Didn't they try that with the children's referendum and got the lowest turnout ever... (possible exAgerAtion but very low anyway)

mrkiscool2

gizmo555 wrote: »

Students should register to vote where they study instead of whinging interminably about this non-issue.

Here we go again, bash the students time. I registered to vote near my college, and I made it to vote with about 15 minutes remaining. A Thursday in college fr most is an extremely long day, so it is an issue. On Fridays students have college and then go home, meaning there day is hectic enough as it is. Also, students sometimes forgot to change where they register. They are already registered in their home constituency, so they don't feel the need to change it, as they would be more engaged at home than they would be at college. Also, if every single student registered where they went college, it would make places like Galway East, Central Dublin and whatever constituency Cork is in a lot more important than say Dublin North or Laois/Offaly. Hence the leaders would visit here more often and forget about the smaller ones. There are negatives to all sides of your idea.

Markcheese

Ah shucks , really busy days on Thursday's ..... The polling stations for the last election were open 7am to 10 pm ...... You were in a city constituency so the polling station wasn't far away...
On the plus side you made an effort to transfer your vote and get up and use it...
My vote (s) have just followed me round, at last check I had 3 votes across 2 constituencies, which goes to show how wonky the register still is ... ( don't panic, I only vote where I live )

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

Students should register to vote where they study instead of whinging interminably about this non-issue.

Or register for a postal vote.

AlanG

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Here we go again, bash the students time. I registered to vote near my college, and I made it to vote with about 15 minutes remaining. A Thursday in college fr most is an extremely long day

I often heard this argument from our Student Union President (who was elected on a 15% turnout even though the electorate only had to cross a hall to cast their ballot).

There is nothing stopping more students from transferring their ballots from where their parents live to where they now reside most of the time. Should working people who go home to mammy every weekend keep their votes in their mammy’s constituency?

As for having enough time – the ballots tend to open at 7am and I have yet to see a college course starting that early.

anto3473

AlanG wrote: »

I often heard this argument from our Student Union President (who was elected on a 15% turnout even though the electorate only had to cross a hall to cast their ballot).

There is nothing stopping more students from transferring their ballots from where their parents live to where they now reside most of the time. Should working people who go home to mammy every weekend keep their votes in their mammy’s constituency?

As for having enough time – the ballots tend to open at 7am and I have yet to see a college course starting that early.

In fairness I've moved 3 times in the last year with work. Its a pain. I never went home at weekends, but I would if there was a vote on, I couldent register for postal ballot because I dont have a disability ect.... It's not a non issue, just put the bloody elections on a saturday.... sorted

StudentDad

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

And you seriously expect it to be a secret ballot??

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And you seriously expect it to be a secret ballot??

Of course. Whether or not you have voted, has nothing to do with how you voted.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Of course. Whether or not you have voted, has nothing to do with how you voted.

SD

To check any actions by a voter using thier personal information is an infringment of voter anonymity. If it were made legal, this would not change. Also, do you seriously expect the liks of Fianna Fail to not abuse this?

StudentDad

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

To check any actions by a voter using thier personal information is an infringment of voter anonymity. If it were made legal, this would not change. Also, do you seriously expect the liks of Fianna Fail to not abuse this?

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

SD

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

Yes voting should be compulsory for all with special provision made for those with physical constraints who cannot attend a polling station.

Voting should also be held on weekends.

Whether or not an individual has voted could be linked to pps numbers, easy way to track. If a person chooses not to vote there should be a financial cost to the individual if they do not have a valid reason for not voting as in being outside the jurisdiction on polling day.

SD

Forcing people to vote via financial penalties will not necessarily change anything worthwhile. Many will go into the polling station and simply vote for the 1st candidate on the ballot or close their eyes and pick one at random.
These type of scenarios do little good imo

StudentDad

Hidalgo wrote: »

Forcing people to vote via financial penalties will not necessarily change anything worthwhile. Many will go into the polling station and simply vote for the 1st candidate on the ballot or close their eyes and pick one at random.
These type of scenarios do little good imo

I disagree. To my mind it is preferable to having a situation where for important issues the level of apathy is such that it isn't a true vote.

People fought tooth and nail for the right to vote. Now that we have it, it's being relinquished tacitly by not voting.

SD

who_me

StudentDad wrote: »

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

SD

Except many people don't like control-freaks forcing decisions upon them.

Why do you have such a problem with people choosing not to vote? They're not affecting anyone by doing so, so where is the issue that demands fixing?

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

I disagree. To my mind it is preferable to having a situation where for important issues the level of apathy is such that it isn't a true vote.

People fought tooth and nail for the right to vote. Now that we have it, it's being relinquished tacitly by not voting.

SD

I fail to see what improvement we will see by forcing people to vote if it simply results in many citizens simply casting 'meh' type votes apart from the statistic of %

For me, your right not to vote is as important a personal freedom as your right to cast a vote. No citizen should be pressurized into voting for no other reason than getting 100% of the voting population to the polls.

mrkiscool2

AlanG wrote: »

I often heard this argument from our Student Union President (who was elected on a 15% turnout even though the electorate only had to cross a hall to cast their ballot).

There is nothing stopping more students from transferring their ballots from where their parents live to where they now reside most of the time. Should working people who go home to mammy every weekend keep their votes in their mammy’s constituency?

As for having enough time – the ballots tend to open at 7am and I have yet to see a college course starting that early.

Ok, I am going to address this point (as a few people have made it) before getting on topic. So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college? Are you actually having a laugh?

Anywho, apart from that no, voting should not be compulsory. As mentioned by previous people on here non-voting is a way of voicing ones opinion. It lowers the turn-out, thus showing that people are pissed off in the way politics and politicians are in this country. I predict we will see a low turn-out in the next general election due to people being pissed off at the three big parties.

StudentDad

Hidalgo wrote: »

I fail to see what improvement we will see by forcing people to vote if it simply results in many citizens simply casting 'meh' type votes apart from the statistic of %

For me, your right not to vote is as important a personal freedom as your right to cast a vote. No citizen should be pressurized into voting for no other reason than getting 100% of the voting population to the polls.

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

gizmo555

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ok, I am going to address this point (as a few people have made it) before getting on topic. So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college? Are you actually having a laugh?

Which is more important to you? Not missing your clubs and societies for one evening every four years or so, or exercising your right to vote?

The polling stations are open for 15 hours. It takes just a minute or two to vote. I expect college students to just go and do it, like the rest of us, instead of inventing ever more elaborate reasons why it's impossible for them to vote on a weekday.

oscarBravo

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you expect a college student who has a college day of 9-6 on a Thursday followed by societies or clubs to wake up at 6am in the morning, get ready, go out of their way to vote (which I had to last time) and then head to college?

...or register for a postal vote.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or register for a postal vote.

Shush now! People don't bother to read past the first bullet point normally so they think only disabled people get them!

Hidalgo

StudentDad wrote: »

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

Forcing people to the polls with a big stick will not lead to a true majority, rather a forced one.
In an ideal world, people would go to the polling station because they have gone and informed themselves about each candidate/referendum etc

Red Pepper

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it shouldn't be compulsory, apathy is a good way of preventing those who care the least about politics from voting.

Agreed. I vote regularly but if it was made compulsory, I would stop immediately.

fianna saor

nesf wrote: »

Basic isn't good enough though. They need to be engaged with the political process to some extent to stay informed. They need the experience of years of doing this not to fall for the spiel of one party which is flat out unrealistic but very appealing.

A lot of people just are not interested in politics except when it directly affects them. That is fair enough, I can understand that. These people are not in a good position to judge what direction the country should take overall though.


All that said, it is not like political parties try and sell a comprehensive platform anyway as much as bundles of policies designed to appeal to specific groups of voters. Compulsory voting would make this even worse I think because the parties will be trying to sell to even less interested people.

i fairness i would say theres a lot of people who do vote that are described in your post

Cookie_Monster

StudentDad wrote: »

What voter anonymity? Your name and address is on a register. You take that ballot paper. Your name is checked off the list, etc. etc. The only addition would be that a tag would be added to your PPS file to say you had voted and if you choose not to vote there would be financial consequences.

There is compulsory voting in other countries and it works. No reason why it shouldn't be introduced here.

so tell me, when you have 6 utterly useless candidates who offer nothing who should you vote for. Does a spoiled vote count in your scenario or am I forced to vote for a least one of them just for the sake of it or do I have to rank all 6 due to our ridiculous system?

StudentDad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so tell me, when you have 6 utterly useless candidates who offer nothing who should you vote for. Does a spoiled vote count in your scenario or am I forced to vote for a least one of them just for the sake of it or do I have to rank all 6 due to our ridiculous system?

You're missing the point. Whether or not you should vote for a variety of useless candidates is a product of the political system, not whether or not you should pick one.

If there is just one decent candidate from another party and he/she gets elected over the other 'usual suspects' there is change.

You don't have to put a preference on that ballot beyond the one you want elected.

As it stands we have general elections where somewhere between 30 - 50 percent of the registered electors vote. The main parties count on this because they know full well that as long as their 'core' supporters vote they'll get who they want elected.

If these same parties are in the position where the remaining 50 percent of the electorate who don't usually vote actually cast their ballot the outcome isn't so certain.

As it stands there are whole sections of the country where people don't bother voting, as long as politicians know those areas don't vote, they don't have to worry about those areas.

By opting out, by saying nah - I can't be arsed - you are handing power back to a small group of people who will take that power and further exclude you from the decision making process.

At least if everyone votes politicians have to work that bit harder for that power.

As regards spoiling your vote - at least you are there - you are considering the options.

SD

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StudentDad wrote: »

Not voting is not a decision. At the moment the electorate is not to put too fine a point on it, irrelevant if it does not vote. Politicians count on this apathy. So long as there is apathy the usual suspects will be able to continue to run this country as they see fit. If there is a true majority, it gives greater credence to the political system. As it stands having less than a third of the voting populace turning out to vote makes a mockery of the whole system.

SD

Problem is, that's the case anyway.

It's not so much voter apathy, I think it's voter ignorance. I may know a lot about the candidates and their policies and decide none of them is worthy of my vote and abstain. I may not trust them to follow through on their pledges and decide to abstain. That's not apathy - not after doing the research.

However, people who just go along out of habit or duty and vote for someone they don't know or whom they usually vote for - that's the problem.

Out in Rosocmmon, a chap called Ming Flanagan came along. A left-wing libeal promoting the legalisation of cannabis. And what hapepned? People came out and voted for him!

StudentDad wrote: »

You're missing the point. Whether or not you should vote for a variety of useless candidates is a product of the political system, not whether or not you should pick one.

I see your point, but see the Ming point above. But the leading parties don't really feel comfortable with new blood or change, so discourage it.

If there is just one decent candidate from another party and he/she gets elected over the other 'usual suspects' there is change.

Not always. Funding and publicity is an issue. As is name. Put forward an idiot with the name "Haughy" or "Cowen" or "Healy-Rae" and they'll be elected, I guarantee you.

By opting out, by saying nah - I can't be arsed - you are handing power back to a small group of people who will take that power and further exclude you from the decision making process.

So it's the fault of the people who did vote for them and not those who didn't?

Opting out is NOT the same as "saying nah". I've conversed with pioliticians on the doorstep and told them exactly how I feel. And not voted for them. Sometimes I voted for an Indepedent. Sometimes not at all. Guess what the differenc was?

At least if everyone votes politicians have to work that bit harder for that power.

No it doesn't. Politicians exist to maintain the status quo, not to change.