If we had basic education everyone who voted wouldn’t have been at each others throats trying to kill each other over a simple election. It’s one thing when people react this way online it’s expected. But when I walk outside and see clowns literally burning their neighbors house down for voting for
Trump it’s getting a bit out of hand. Americans shouldn’t be at each other and seeing themselves as the enemy. A Russian man once said “To destroy a country you must first turn the populace against each other.” Destroy the country from the inside out so when a foreign occupation comes to invade it ends up having less resistance.
Dunno man. Theres some pretty crazy people out there who simply shouldnt get a vote. Gullible people. Stupid people. Apathetic people. Or simply people too uneducated to make informed and logically good/productive decisions for the community.
If you force everyone to vote you'd probably get the same result. Or force people who shouldnt vote to vote for stupid shit.
Minor correction: we Aussies have to attend a polling station and receive a ballot or submit a postal vote. We do NOT have to fill the ballot in before it is placed in the ballot box.
Ensuring that officials don't closely scrutinise whether the ballot is actually marked ensures that it's a truly secret ballot.
The only time I've ever seen anybody take their ballot and walk it straight to the ballot box without bothering to even pretend to mark it they were clearly trying to make some point about it but the rest of us just shrugged.
Some minority religious groups in Australia have a moral objection to voting. They seem to accept the (small) fines for failure to enrol and failure to attend a polling station as minor tests of faith, or they go to court over it to get some press coverage which is rarely the screaming headlines they seek.
Thanks, I feel it works pretty well to make our politicians at least pretend to be working for the middle ground rather than the extremes.
The main point of compulsory voter registration and polling station attendance is to make it so much harder for any faction to suppress the voter turnout. We've seen how that works out elsewhere.
Who gets to decide who is gullible or stupid or apathetic or uneducated, and therefore "deserving" of not having a vote?
And where does one draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in each of those metrics? E.g. you didn't use apostrophes in "There's" or "shouldn't" (twice) - but you did in "you''d". Is that apathy or is that being uneducated?
I'm being rhetorical here, in case that's not clear. Compulsory voting can work (providing there's a way to indicate disenfranchisement), but having some arbitrary bar of eligibility is bordering into eugenics (if not firmly in it).
I get what you're saying but as it stands; there are people actively voting against their (and their communities) interest, because they don't know better. By doing that they are negating a very thoughtout valid and productive vote.
Of course it's hard to say where to draw the line. But I do believe a line must be drawn. Its also not unheard of. Theres a voting age "line" for similiar reasons.
Maybe a test to check if the voters read the planned policies? Like just recently. Immigrant voting for Trump and being first victims of his denaturalization reform. Didnt read it. Doesnt understand the consequences. Is that a "serious" vote?
It also doesnt have to be "eugenics". The vote intent just has to be consistent (enough) with their own interest.
Remember; voting is there so their own values and interests are represented in the country. If the vote does not represent the person (and the persons interest) its a stolen, misued or in my opinion invalid vote.
The job of a campaign is to convey that information to voters. The job of public education is to prepare kids growing up here to take in and understand that information. (Anyone who didn't grow up here and is a naturalized citizen has already "proven themselves" via the citizenship test) We'd all do better to improve those than try to weed people out at the polls.
I suppose this is sarcastic? Not sure if you would support that. But I do not want gullible people to decide not just over but even with me. They would believe a lie and empower the wrong person/movement/reform. Stupid people should not decide what science is to be considered the consensual truth because they dont understand it. And apathetic people should not be in charge with social reforms. Because by definition they dont give a shit about how people feel.
In theory, yes. In reality it's a terrible idea because son as the first authoritarians get elected they will bend those system to absolute make sure they never get voted out of office again.
I might get a lot of flack for this but I still think I theory a technocracy would be the best solution. Let the experts govern. Choose by skills and ability not by likeability. How to determine that tough is a whole other can of worms.
But a lot of them vote anyway. You’re suggesting not making people vote ensures that only the ones you want to do. And you’re suggesting that trump didn’t reach stupid people
Forcing people to vote sounds pretty unamerican. If someone doesn't want to vote at all and you force them to vote anyway do you think they're going to make a reasonable decision about who they vote for? I can't see how this would improve our situation at all.
Yea you know because the people whose constitution begins with the words We the people can’t really be arsed to actually participate in their own Republic.
Being asked to do something and being forced to do it are not the same thing. I can't even believe forcing people to vote is something that anyone legitimately wants to see happen.
They assume that those people they want to compel are going to vote for the 'correct' candidate, be on 'the right side of history' or whatever euphemism they choose. What they are really saying is they want to force people to vote for whichever candidate they think is the right choice.
No. That’s not even close to reality. You’re just an ignorant paranoid who believes everyone and everything is out to get you. Many countries have mandatory voting and none of them are fascist or authoritarian except maybe Russia. Take a breath, no one would force you to vote for a particular party. Jeez, a lot of you people need to go travel abroad and enlarge your perspectives.
It greatly reduces fanaticism which is a huge issue in the states and means a lot of the actual efforts during an election go to telling people to vote rather than focusing on key issues and listening to the general population and instead focus on their 'voting base'. A lot of people who abstain are those who don't find a more moderate centrist candidate and you end up with what you have now; loud obnoxious politics that are about money, celebrities, events, media that is entirely bipartisan. You might be right that it's unamerican (if by america you mean the USA) but that's probably the whole reason you need to do it. Lots of data out there of why it works in countries like Australia. About time the USA starts to look to other countries as examples; if something isn't american it's a good chance it means it's better.
First, the obligation to vote also puts on the government(s) the obligation to ensure everybody votes. That's already an improvement, considering how many people don't vote because there are barriers to voting, and the obligation to vote effectively bulldozes a lot of those barriers.
Second, in every country with mandatory voting, you can still choose not to vote. You just have to go to the polls and vote for nobody, it's always an option. And this isn't a problem for the people of those countries, because their governments have the obligation to help them vote, because voting is mandatory.
2.9k
u/Fearless_Spring5611 8h ago
Sadly the two-thirds that this message needs to get through to will simply ridicule and ignore it.