Three things I feel like the US could implement nation wide to improve its voting system.
Voting day on a weekend or a federal holiday
The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)
Reasoning for each being
1: People should not be denied the opportunity to vote because they cannot afford to take time of work to do so.
2: If the vote is the voter's representation in government, they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list.
3: Representative democracy relies on the people actually voting. It's too important of an issue to just leave to apathy and laziness. With a system like what I'm proposing, people can even still be apathetic and lazy, but they are at least given an incentive to take an interest if they have to make some kind of effort either way. The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well, unless it's not as important? Especially when paying taxes is a bigger deal than just showing up to vote once every four years.
In particular to Americans, which of these points do you agree/disagree with and why?
1: Hell yes.
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
3: No. Australia, I hate to break it to you, but you are violating your citizens' civil rights by making voting mandatory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1: 100% Agree. I think it is beyond stupid that it doesn't work this way right now. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to vote and having it on a federal voting holiday to give everyone a fair opportunity to be able to vote without worry about work or otherwise is both important and necessary.
2: I will disagree. I think the current pick one for each position is the best way to handle it (one person, one vote for one person in each position up for election, etc etc)
3: 100% Disagree. I think change #1 would solve a lot of the issues with people not voting. Beyond that, as Blinking Spirit said, voting is a right not a responsibility. While I would love if every person took the time to go vote to make sure their voice was heard and (hopefully) had taken the time to become educated about the candidates before voting, I don't believe forcing people to vote is the answer. Forcing people to vote who don't care I think can actually do more harm than good, I would rather people who care to vote and are knowledgeable and care who they are voting for vote, if the rest don't want to vote then they should have the option not to, whether as a protest against a lack of good candidates or otherwise.
The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.
Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)
Definitely not.
The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well
In addition to how this so obviously violates the freedom of speech, I've always been appalled at the idea of any group of people lobbying for the government to threaten you to go vote, and then calling this in any way acceptable in a free society.
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
That's not really an answer.
3: No. Australia, I hate to break it to you, but you are violating your citizens' civil rights by making voting mandatory.
The freedom argument. I specifically pre emptively addressed this. You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government. Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
2: I will disagree. I think the current pick one for each position is the best way to handle it (one person, one vote for one person in each position up for election, etc etc)
I prepared opening cases for these ideas, please address them and give more of an actual reason why you disagree.
3: 100% Disagree. I think change #1 would solve a lot of the issues with people not voting. Beyond that, as Blinking Spirit said, voting is a right not a responsibility. While I would love if every person took the time to go vote to make sure their voice was heard and (hopefully) had taken the time to become educated about the candidates before voting, I don't believe forcing people to vote is the answer. Forcing people to vote who don't care I think can actually do more harm than good, I would rather people who care to vote and are knowledgeable and care who they are voting for vote, if the rest don't want to vote then they should have the option not to, whether as a protest against a lack of good candidates or otherwise.
As I said earlier, you don't have to actually put down a vote, but you do have to show up and cast one whether ot has anything on it or not. So if people don't want to vote in protest or don't feel confident, they still can, but they have to commit to that decision. Note here is that preference voting helps people vote on a more conflicted position. What mandatory voting does is mean people don't not vote simply because they can't be bothered to make the effort, not because they don’t have a vote they would cast.
This one is unsuprisingly popular. Good. Maybe we'll actually see it happen one day soon.
The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.
Why? Because with preferences you can specify not just your most preferred candidate, but how the rest rank behind them. That way a candidate can win of the most overall support from the population not just from the most people who prefer specifically them.
Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)
Definitely not.
What a surprise.
The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well
In addition to how this so obviously violates the freedom of speech, I've always been appalled at the idea of any group of people lobbying for the government to threaten you to go vote, and then calling this in any way acceptable in a free society.
Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.
Why is it important to get a vote from someone who does not want to vote? Or to make them drive out to a potentially out of the way location to prove that they don't wish to vote? What of absentee ballots?
The freedom argument. I specifically pre emptively addressed this.
Mentioning the word freedom is not the same as comprehending why this violates the freedom of American citizens and giving a satisfactory response to it. You have not, in any meaningful way, "addressed this."
You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government.
The authority of Congress to levy taxes is guaranteed within the Constitution.
Likewise, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. Guess what you're talking about violating?
Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
If I point a gun at you, and force you to go somewhere, and then force you to say something, I do not get to say that I didn't infringe on your rights if I gave you the choice as to what to say. Forced speech is not free speech.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
No, a voting incentive is giving someone a sticker after they voted.
Forcing someone to vote would be making it against the law not to vote. Guess what you're proposing?
Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
Appropriate, because the taxation is theft argument has always been demonstrative of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 buddy.
Why is it important to get a vote from someone who does not want to vote? Or to make them drive out to a potentially out of the way location to prove that they don't wish to vote?
Yes, basically (In my opinion the out of the way location is something that should be separately addressed in some cases). As I said earlier, the point is to stop people not voting because they can't be bothered to show up when they could and do have opinions.
Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
If I point a gun at you, and force you to go somewhere, and then force you to say something, I do not get to say that I didn't infringe on your rights if I gave you the choice as to what to say. Forced speech is not free speech.
1. Death is a lot more severe than the penalties for mandatory voting
2. You can be exempted if you have a valid reason
3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
No, a voting incentive is giving someone a sticker after they voted.
Forcing someone to vote would be making it against the law not to vote. Guess what you're proposing?
Except for the fact that in order to fulfill your legal obligation to vote, you don't have to actually properly vote, only turn in a ballot regardless of what, if anything, is written on it. So it's an incentive to actually properly vote because you don't really have the choice to just not show up.
Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
Appropriate, because the taxation is theft argument has always been demonstrative of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 buddy.
And similarly, compelling people to show up to vote does not violate freedom of speech, just as compelling people to turn up to school doesn't.
Paying taxes is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Sending your children to school is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Voting is a right. When you make it a responsibility, it is no longer a right. You are proposing eliminating voting rights.
Or from the empirical/pragmatic standpoint:
Compulsory taxation vastly improves a country's governmental performance. Look at the U.S. government 1776-1788 compared to the U.S. government post-1788.
Compulsory education vastly improves a country's social and economic performance. Look at European society in the 18th Century compared to European society in the 20th.
Compulsory voting does not vastly improve a country's political performance. Look Australian politics compared to German politics, or Argentine politics compared to Canadian politics, or Brazilian politics compared to Swedish politics.
So when you're proposing violating the citizenry's civil rights, you can argue that it's just a teeny-tiny little violation, but even if it is, there's still no reason for doing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
That's not really an answer.
There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Paying taxes is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Sending your children to school is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Voting is a right. When you make it a responsibility, it is no longer a right. You are proposing eliminating voting rights.
It's not voting rights in terms of what people care most about with a vote- they actual voting process itself. But mandatory voting doesn't affect that. It only compels you to participate in that process.
Compulsory taxation vastly improves a country's governmental performance. Look at the U.S. government 1776-1788 compared to the U.S. government post-1788.
Compulsory education vastly improves a country's social and economic performance. Look at European society in the 18th Century compared to European society in the 20th.
Compulsory voting does not vastly improve a country's political performance. Look Australian politics compared to German politics, or Argentine politics compared to Canadian politics, or Brazilian politics compared to Swedish politics.
So when you're proposing violating the citizenry's civil rights, you can argue that it's just a teeny-tiny little violation, but even if it is, there's still no reason for doing it.
Yes, there is. Because more people end up voting because of it. And voting is an essential part of the democratic process that people are supposed to participate in. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be at all helpful, but there are major issues with related issues to this, so if it can help, that's something. I don't think it's a very significant freedom for people to not even participate enough to even show up in an essential part of government process when they don't have a reason why they can't.
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
That's not really an answer.
There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.
So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
False. People have the privilege of participating in it. You're not doing anything wrong if you choose not to vote, any more than you're doing something wrong if you choose not to eat cake on your birthday. The cake is a gift. You can do what you like with it. To make cake-eating mandatory is to utterly miss the point. In fact, it's even worse than that: voting is the foundation of your power over the government, so for the government to exercise its power to compel a vote is downright perverse.
So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good?
No. But I don't think they make a significant practical difference. The same first-past-the-post voting system elected both Franklin Roosevelt and Donald Trump. The same parliamentary proportional system elected both Angela Merkel and Adolf Hitler. You are not going to improve the quality of governance by adding a few flourishes to the rules of the voting game.
If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
You shouldn't have to say "I think" here. This is an objective and testable hypothesis. Do the voter turnout data bear it out?
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
That's not really an answer.
There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.
So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
They are not equally good or equally bad. All of them have issues. And they can't all be applied to every country.
With the US in particular which is effectively a 2 party state bar a couple of enterprising independants there is no point in having a nuanced poll as it is effectively a binary choice, vote Republican or vote Democrat.
In other countries which have more parties like the UK and you still vote for your representative yes it could be better if it was easier to rank the different parties if nothing else to reduce the number of safe seats that exist so the people aren't routinely ignored until elections come round, but that raises different problems as B_S alludes to.
Likewise if you move away from voting directly for your representative you then surrender that power to the parties themselves and they are going to have vastly different criteria for selecting who they want to see in the Senate, House of Representatives than the voters. If you went to a form of Proportional Representation I would be very surprised is Bernie Sanders remained in the Senate as a true independant.
The changes to the Voting system in the US that would have the biggest positive effect don't concern the actual mechanics of what you actually do in the voting booth. Its in all the background work that leads up to that point.
Make it easier to vote, either by making it a federal holiday or increasing the availablity of postal voting
Standardised Identification rules across the Union. If a driving licence allows you to vote in Wyoming the same driversID should be acceptable in Texas.
Reduce the amount of Gerrymandering to reduce the amount of safe seats. If the parties aren't guarenteed a seat year in, year out they should pay attention more.
And then specifically for the Presidential election, stop the practice of winner takes all for allocating a states Electors instead allocate them according to the % gained in the popular vote.
Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
Mandatory voter attendance (like in Australia, you don't have to actually put anything down as a vote, but you have to turn up to cast one)
Reasoning for each being
1: People should not be denied the opportunity to vote because they cannot afford to take time of work to do so.
2: If the vote is the voter's representation in government, they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list.
3: Representative democracy relies on the people actually voting. It's too important of an issue to just leave to apathy and laziness. With a system like what I'm proposing, people can even still be apathetic and lazy, but they are at least given an incentive to take an interest if they have to make some kind of effort either way. The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well, unless it's not as important? Especially when paying taxes is a bigger deal than just showing up to vote once every four years.
In particular to Americans, which of these points do you agree/disagree with and why?
Voting on a weekend wouldn't really solve anything. A lot of people work on weekends too. You'd also get people complaining that they have to take time out of their day off to go vote.
Multiple options is a highly problematic issue. If you really believe that the electorate is educated and knowledgeable, this is a potentially good idea. However, I certainly don't believe the electorate is anywhere near competent enough to handle something like this. Most people have no idea what the people they vote for actually stand for. It's sad, but a very large chunk of voters choose entirely based on the D or R next to the name. For the Primary, a ranking system would actually be a good idea. But for the General Election (thinking Presidential elections here) it's almost always a 2-way race anyway. The non-main-party candidates have very little effect on the result. A ranking system wouldn't change this.
Mandatory voter turnout is clearly Unconstitutional in the US. To be honest, I'd rather go the other direction and require a competency test before allowing a voter to be allowed to vote. This is a very unpopular concept today, but it is the way things were done in the beginning and quite honestly, I think better decisions were made back then.
You're right that people shouldn't be prevented from voting because of their jobs. Fact is, it doesn't happen. If someone claims they couldn't vote because of their job, they're lying. The polls are open for at least 12 hours. Very few people have 12 hour shifts. Additionally, most employers are extremely accommodating in allowing workers to take an hour off to go vote. And then there's the fact that you can cast an absentee vote weeks ahead of time. Not finding an opportunity to vote is 100% the fault of the voter. There are many opportunities over a long period of time to vote.
Sorry, but people can't really handle nuance. All you have to do is watch a few political adds and you realize just how dumb people really are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Aether Revolt was a revolting pre-release. As if Vehicles weren't frustrating enough, now you don't even have to crew them.
You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government. Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
You're confusing a RIGHT with a governmentally imposed OBLIGATION.
You also have the RIGHT to bear arms. I doubt you'd contend that the government should require everyone to own and carry a handgun.
Oh, and in the US, voting taxes are 100% ILLEGAL.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Aether Revolt was a revolting pre-release. As if Vehicles weren't frustrating enough, now you don't even have to crew them.
With the US in particular which is effectively a 2 party state bar a couple of enterprising independants there is no point in having a nuanced poll as it is effectively a binary choice, vote Republican or vote Democrat.
To be fair, the two-party system is a consequence of the first-past-the-post process called Duverger's law. (Your own UK politics are unusual in somewhat resisting this effect despite having first-past-the-post elections.)
The changes to the Voting system in the US that would have the biggest positive effect don't concern the actual mechanics of what you actually do in the voting booth. Its in all the background work that leads up to that point.
Make it easier to vote, either by making it a federal holiday or increasing the availablity of postal voting
There's no problem with the availability of postal voting. Everybody's entitled to it. But it's not a solution to the problem of unmotivated voters. It takes more motivation to remember to vote in advance than it does to turn up at a polling station on Election Day.
Standardised Identification rules across the Union. If a driving licence allows you to vote in Wyoming the same driversID should be acceptable in Texas.
In most states, no ID is required to vote. The institution in some states of rules requiring proof of identity is recent, controversial, and politically motivated.
And if you're registered to vote in Wyoming, you can't vote in Texas. Because, y'know, you're already registered in Wyoming. If you happen to be in Texas on Election Day, that's what absentee ballots are for.
Reduce the amount of Gerrymandering to reduce the amount of safe seats. If the parties aren't guarenteed a seat year in, year out they should pay attention more.
Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.
I know it's weird for me to say with one of the wealthiest presidents ever (maybe) currently sitting in the Oval Office, but Trump's victory is actually proof that this isn't true. The Clinton campaign was vastly better funded and organized than the Trump campaign. Major conservative donors shunned Trump for a long time. The Koch brothers, the big bogeymen of the rich right, never backed him. Trump won because the masses didn't care.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
False. People have the privilege of participating in it. You're not doing anything wrong if you choose not to vote, any more than you're doing something wrong if you choose not to eat cake on your birthday. The cake is a gift. You can do what you like with it. To make cake-eating mandatory is to utterly miss the point. In fact, it's even worse than that: voting is the foundation of your power over the government, so for the government to exercise its power to compel a vote is downright perverse.
To continue with your cake metaphor, mandatory voting means you have to show up to the party, it doesn't mean you have to actually eat it. Informal votes are a thing.
I don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.
I have just pointed out that the empirical evidence suggests it doesn't help.
I have just pointed out that turnout is itself important and it affects that. And your empirical evidence is heavily dependant on complex value analysis. It's going to take more than what you have given me so far to convince me it doesn’t help. It won't massively improve things, but I think it will help by promoting engagement with politics.
So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good?
No. But I don't think they make a significant practical difference. The same first-past-the-post voting system elected both Franklin Roosevelt and Donald Trump. The same parliamentary proportional system elected both Angela Merkel and Adolf Hitler. You are not going to improve the quality of governance by adding a few flourishes to the rules of the voting game.
So some systems are better but it won'tmake any difference... because? If it's better, surely it's going to make some difference by definition?
If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
You shouldn't have to say "I think" here. This is an objective and testable hypothesis. Do the voter turnout data bear it out?
That's going to be pretty hard to compare entitely different countries or multiple countries change across a significant time, while accounting for all the variables involved. For the purposes of this thread, that's a bit much with everything already going on. I'll have a bit of look later maybe for some papers or such.
Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.
Education is once again, not a RIGHT. It's a governmentally mandated OBLIGATION.
3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.
Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression. This would include writing or the prevention thereof. So being required to turn in a ballot, blank or not, is in effect a forced act of speech and therefore violates Free Speech laws.
As far as your comparison with education, you're partly right. The US has not always had mandatory education. That was a creation of the Progressive movement. Instead of trying to argue against your point, I'll actually agree that there really isn't much of a difference. However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.
And since it's been mentioned, there is a debate as to the legality of the Income Tax in the US. The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.
Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.
I know it's weird for me to say with one of the wealthiest presidents ever (maybe) currently sitting in the Oval Office, but Trump's victory is actually proof that this isn't true. The Clinton campaign was vastly better funded and organized than the Trump campaign. Major conservative donors shunned Trump for a long time. The Koch brothers, the big bogeymen of the rich right, never backed him. Trump won because the masses didn't care.
True but he is a very odd case. And a lot of it is dependant on the people involved. If the Democrat Candidate was any one other than Clinton the race would have likely have ended with Trump losing by a landslide.
My concern is more down the road at Congress though. The US has one of the most efficient lobbying industries in the world and they are able to influence policy to an almost unprecedented extent in a democracy. Purely in the intrests of their own bottom line and against the interests of the people who live in an area.
As an example Cranberry farmers have succeeded in getting them exempted from the clean waters act, so each Autumn they are free to flood there fields for harvesting and then when finished dump the used water back into the local water courses with out filtering out any of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals that have been used on them causing environmental issues downstream.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
To continue with your cake metaphor, mandatory voting means you have to show up to the party, it doesn't mean you have to actually eat it. Informal votes are a thing.
I don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.
Wait, what? If I "invited" you to my birthday party and demanded a fine from you if you didn't come, this would be acceptable conduct?
So some systems are better but it won'tmake any difference... because? If it's better, surely it's going to make some difference by definition?
No. The Mona Lisa is better art than Cecilia Jiménez's Jesus, but you could hang either in the Louvre and it wouldn't really make a practical difference.
That's going to be pretty hard to compare entitely different countries or multiple countries change across a significant time, while accounting for all the variables involved. For the purposes of this thread, that's a bit much with everything already going on.
Then consider the possibility that the claims you're making are also "a bit much".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.
Education is mandated at the state level -- it cannot be a violation of the US Constitution unless the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from doing that (which it doesn't). And the Founders, although a collection of various men with a variety of opinions, were overall strongly in favor.
The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.
Reasoning for each being
1: People should not be denied the opportunity to vote because they cannot afford to take time of work to do so.
2: If the vote is the voter's representation in government, they should be able to represent something a little more sophisticated than simply picking a single favorite from a limited list.
3: Representative democracy relies on the people actually voting. It's too important of an issue to just leave to apathy and laziness. With a system like what I'm proposing, people can even still be apathetic and lazy, but they are at least given an incentive to take an interest if they have to make some kind of effort either way. The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well, unless it's not as important? Especially when paying taxes is a bigger deal than just showing up to vote once every four years.
In particular to Americans, which of these points do you agree/disagree with and why?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.
3: No. Australia, I hate to break it to you, but you are violating your citizens' civil rights by making voting mandatory.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2: I will disagree. I think the current pick one for each position is the best way to handle it (one person, one vote for one person in each position up for election, etc etc)
3: 100% Disagree. I think change #1 would solve a lot of the issues with people not voting. Beyond that, as Blinking Spirit said, voting is a right not a responsibility. While I would love if every person took the time to go vote to make sure their voice was heard and (hopefully) had taken the time to become educated about the candidates before voting, I don't believe forcing people to vote is the answer. Forcing people to vote who don't care I think can actually do more harm than good, I would rather people who care to vote and are knowledgeable and care who they are voting for vote, if the rest don't want to vote then they should have the option not to, whether as a protest against a lack of good candidates or otherwise.
That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.
Definitely not.
In addition to how this so obviously violates the freedom of speech, I've always been appalled at the idea of any group of people lobbying for the government to threaten you to go vote, and then calling this in any way acceptable in a free society.
That's not really an answer.
The freedom argument. I specifically pre emptively addressed this. You pay tax despite the fact that it's mandatory- because it is the duty of citizens to contribute to maintain government. Is the vote not also important to maintaining government? And keep in mind here, you can still neglect to fill in the ballot and just leave it blank, effectively not voting. All you have to do is show up, even then you can neglect to and just essentially pay a voting tax and if you have a good reason you can avoid payment.
All in all, the system works more like a voting incentive than forcing people to vote.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I prepared opening cases for these ideas, please address them and give more of an actual reason why you disagree.
As I said earlier, you don't have to actually put down a vote, but you do have to show up and cast one whether ot has anything on it or not. So if people don't want to vote in protest or don't feel confident, they still can, but they have to commit to that decision. Note here is that preference voting helps people vote on a more conflicted position. What mandatory voting does is mean people don't not vote simply because they can't be bothered to make the effort, not because they don’t have a vote they would cast.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
This one is unsuprisingly popular. Good. Maybe we'll actually see it happen one day soon.
Why? Because with preferences you can specify not just your most preferred candidate, but how the rest rank behind them. That way a candidate can win of the most overall support from the population not just from the most people who prefer specifically them.
What a surprise.
Again- taxes. Remember the whole taxstion ie theft argument? That's what we are going to be comparing to.
On the subject of freedom of speech, to repeat myself again, you just have to show up and submit your ballot regardless of what you put on it- you don't actuallly have to cast a meaningful vote. Here's another example- education is mandatory in the US. Just look at that violation of your freedoms. Sacrifices, Highroller.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The authority of Congress to levy taxes is guaranteed within the Constitution.
Likewise, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. Guess what you're talking about violating?
If I point a gun at you, and force you to go somewhere, and then force you to say something, I do not get to say that I didn't infringe on your rights if I gave you the choice as to what to say. Forced speech is not free speech.
No, a voting incentive is giving someone a sticker after they voted.
Forcing someone to vote would be making it against the law not to vote. Guess what you're proposing?
Appropriate, because the taxation is theft argument has always been demonstrative of a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 buddy.
Yes, basically (In my opinion the out of the way location is something that should be separately addressed in some cases). As I said earlier, the point is to stop people not voting because they can't be bothered to show up when they could and do have opinions.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
1. Death is a lot more severe than the penalties for mandatory voting
2. You can be exempted if you have a valid reason
3. You don't have to write anything, just submit the ballot, as I've said like ten times now. There's no speech involved, only showing up, signing on the roll and turning in the ballot. Actually putting a vote on the ballot is not actually the mandatory part.
So no, Highroller, it's not restricting your freedom of speech unless mandatory education which also compels you to turn up and sign onto a roll, is also.
Until you can tell me what mandatory voting involves that mandatory education doesn't, your argument there is clearly invalid.
Except for the fact that in order to fulfill your legal obligation to vote, you don't have to actually properly vote, only turn in a ballot regardless of what, if anything, is written on it. So it's an incentive to actually properly vote because you don't really have the choice to just not show up.
And similarly, compelling people to show up to vote does not violate freedom of speech, just as compelling people to turn up to school doesn't.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Sending your children to school is not a right, it is a responsibility.
Voting is a right. When you make it a responsibility, it is no longer a right. You are proposing eliminating voting rights.
Or from the empirical/pragmatic standpoint:
Compulsory taxation vastly improves a country's governmental performance. Look at the U.S. government 1776-1788 compared to the U.S. government post-1788.
Compulsory education vastly improves a country's social and economic performance. Look at European society in the 18th Century compared to European society in the 20th.
Compulsory voting does not vastly improve a country's political performance. Look Australian politics compared to German politics, or Argentine politics compared to Canadian politics, or Brazilian politics compared to Swedish politics.
So when you're proposing violating the citizenry's civil rights, you can argue that it's just a teeny-tiny little violation, but even if it is, there's still no reason for doing it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's not voting rights in terms of what people care most about with a vote- they actual voting process itself. But mandatory voting doesn't affect that. It only compels you to participate in that process.
Yes, there is. Because more people end up voting because of it. And voting is an essential part of the democratic process that people are supposed to participate in. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be at all helpful, but there are major issues with related issues to this, so if it can help, that's something. I don't think it's a very significant freedom for people to not even participate enough to even show up in an essential part of government process when they don't have a reason why they can't.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
False. People have the privilege of participating in it. You're not doing anything wrong if you choose not to vote, any more than you're doing something wrong if you choose not to eat cake on your birthday. The cake is a gift. You can do what you like with it. To make cake-eating mandatory is to utterly miss the point. In fact, it's even worse than that: voting is the foundation of your power over the government, so for the government to exercise its power to compel a vote is downright perverse.
I have just pointed out that the empirical evidence suggests it doesn't help.
No. But I don't think they make a significant practical difference. The same first-past-the-post voting system elected both Franklin Roosevelt and Donald Trump. The same parliamentary proportional system elected both Angela Merkel and Adolf Hitler. You are not going to improve the quality of governance by adding a few flourishes to the rules of the voting game.
You shouldn't have to say "I think" here. This is an objective and testable hypothesis. Do the voter turnout data bear it out?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They are not equally good or equally bad. All of them have issues. And they can't all be applied to every country.
With the US in particular which is effectively a 2 party state bar a couple of enterprising independants there is no point in having a nuanced poll as it is effectively a binary choice, vote Republican or vote Democrat.
In other countries which have more parties like the UK and you still vote for your representative yes it could be better if it was easier to rank the different parties if nothing else to reduce the number of safe seats that exist so the people aren't routinely ignored until elections come round, but that raises different problems as B_S alludes to.
Likewise if you move away from voting directly for your representative you then surrender that power to the parties themselves and they are going to have vastly different criteria for selecting who they want to see in the Senate, House of Representatives than the voters. If you went to a form of Proportional Representation I would be very surprised is Bernie Sanders remained in the Senate as a true independant.
The changes to the Voting system in the US that would have the biggest positive effect don't concern the actual mechanics of what you actually do in the voting booth. Its in all the background work that leads up to that point.
And then specifically for the Presidential election, stop the practice of winner takes all for allocating a states Electors instead allocate them according to the % gained in the popular vote.
Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Voting on a weekend wouldn't really solve anything. A lot of people work on weekends too. You'd also get people complaining that they have to take time out of their day off to go vote.
Multiple options is a highly problematic issue. If you really believe that the electorate is educated and knowledgeable, this is a potentially good idea. However, I certainly don't believe the electorate is anywhere near competent enough to handle something like this. Most people have no idea what the people they vote for actually stand for. It's sad, but a very large chunk of voters choose entirely based on the D or R next to the name. For the Primary, a ranking system would actually be a good idea. But for the General Election (thinking Presidential elections here) it's almost always a 2-way race anyway. The non-main-party candidates have very little effect on the result. A ranking system wouldn't change this.
Mandatory voter turnout is clearly Unconstitutional in the US. To be honest, I'd rather go the other direction and require a competency test before allowing a voter to be allowed to vote. This is a very unpopular concept today, but it is the way things were done in the beginning and quite honestly, I think better decisions were made back then.
You're right that people shouldn't be prevented from voting because of their jobs. Fact is, it doesn't happen. If someone claims they couldn't vote because of their job, they're lying. The polls are open for at least 12 hours. Very few people have 12 hour shifts. Additionally, most employers are extremely accommodating in allowing workers to take an hour off to go vote. And then there's the fact that you can cast an absentee vote weeks ahead of time. Not finding an opportunity to vote is 100% the fault of the voter. There are many opportunities over a long period of time to vote.
Sorry, but people can't really handle nuance. All you have to do is watch a few political adds and you realize just how dumb people really are.
You're confusing a RIGHT with a governmentally imposed OBLIGATION.
You also have the RIGHT to bear arms. I doubt you'd contend that the government should require everyone to own and carry a handgun.
Oh, and in the US, voting taxes are 100% ILLEGAL.
Yup.
There's no problem with the availability of postal voting. Everybody's entitled to it. But it's not a solution to the problem of unmotivated voters. It takes more motivation to remember to vote in advance than it does to turn up at a polling station on Election Day.
In most states, no ID is required to vote. The institution in some states of rules requiring proof of identity is recent, controversial, and politically motivated.
And if you're registered to vote in Wyoming, you can't vote in Texas. Because, y'know, you're already registered in Wyoming. If you happen to be in Texas on Election Day, that's what absentee ballots are for.
This is a big one.
I know it's weird for me to say with one of the wealthiest presidents ever (maybe) currently sitting in the Oval Office, but Trump's victory is actually proof that this isn't true. The Clinton campaign was vastly better funded and organized than the Trump campaign. Major conservative donors shunned Trump for a long time. The Koch brothers, the big bogeymen of the rich right, never backed him. Trump won because the masses didn't care.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To continue with your cake metaphor, mandatory voting means you have to show up to the party, it doesn't mean you have to actually eat it. Informal votes are a thing.
I don’t see why it's so compromising to be oblogated to show up. It doesn’t give the government any real power to do anything.
I have just pointed out that turnout is itself important and it affects that. And your empirical evidence is heavily dependant on complex value analysis. It's going to take more than what you have given me so far to convince me it doesn’t help. It won't massively improve things, but I think it will help by promoting engagement with politics.
So some systems are better but it won'tmake any difference... because? If it's better, surely it's going to make some difference by definition?
That's going to be pretty hard to compare entitely different countries or multiple countries change across a significant time, while accounting for all the variables involved. For the purposes of this thread, that's a bit much with everything already going on. I'll have a bit of look later maybe for some papers or such.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Education is once again, not a RIGHT. It's a governmentally mandated OBLIGATION.
Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression. This would include writing or the prevention thereof. So being required to turn in a ballot, blank or not, is in effect a forced act of speech and therefore violates Free Speech laws.
As far as your comparison with education, you're partly right. The US has not always had mandatory education. That was a creation of the Progressive movement. Instead of trying to argue against your point, I'll actually agree that there really isn't much of a difference. However, I disagree with your conclusion in this way: mandatory education almost certainly is a violation of the US Constitution. I don't know if there's ever been a serious attempt to fight it in court, but based on their attitude regarding dictatorial central governmental control, I'd bet that the Founding Fathers would been entirely opposed mandatory education.
And since it's been mentioned, there is a debate as to the legality of the Income Tax in the US. The 16th Ammendment which is the justification for the Income Tax was never properly ratified and has language that can be reasonably interpreted to de-legitimize the current tax code.
True but he is a very odd case. And a lot of it is dependant on the people involved. If the Democrat Candidate was any one other than Clinton the race would have likely have ended with Trump losing by a landslide.
My concern is more down the road at Congress though. The US has one of the most efficient lobbying industries in the world and they are able to influence policy to an almost unprecedented extent in a democracy. Purely in the intrests of their own bottom line and against the interests of the people who live in an area.
As an example Cranberry farmers have succeeded in getting them exempted from the clean waters act, so each Autumn they are free to flood there fields for harvesting and then when finished dump the used water back into the local water courses with out filtering out any of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals that have been used on them causing environmental issues downstream.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
You really haven't.
You're the one proposing the change. The onus is on you to demonstrate that it does. "I think... I think... I think..." is not going to cut it.
No. The Mona Lisa is better art than Cecilia Jiménez's Jesus, but you could hang either in the Louvre and it wouldn't really make a practical difference.
Then consider the possibility that the claims you're making are also "a bit much".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
False on both counts.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.