Obama to Force You to Vote Taking Away Your Freedom.

[dystopian]

You know, it seems a bit silly to argue for compulsory voting by saying that other countries have it too. The list of countries with compulsory voting isn't exactly inspiring.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Refusing to vote IS a political statement. Not just apathy. Some people don't vote because of apathy, others because they refuse to condone the choices presented.

Do you, oh health food devotee, want Coke or Pepsi?

And here in California it is even more valid. Thanks to top two in many districts you can choose between two people in the same party. That's your only choice.

Do you want Coke or Diet Coke?

The only way around this is to undervote, turning in a blank ballot.

Anyway, this just entrenches the status quo even more. Even though Obama proposed it and he is Change^TM we are supposed to believe he isn't just another self-serving politician. The apathy voters will generally vote in an apathetic manner. "I've heard that name, vote for him." Way to go status quo.

 

[Sarpedon]

Wouldn't mandatory voting be a violation of the 1st amendment, in effect compelling speech and criminalizing those for not engaging in said speech?

Is voting speech? What? Voting is secret. Speech isn't.

If you want to talk about the first amendment, you might invoke that bit about 'petitioning the government' instead. Still not a good fit though.

Refusing to vote IS a political statement.

Which is why I would insist on number of spoiled ballots should be published. Spoiling your ballot is a political statement, and a much clearer one than simply not showing up. Your point is well taken: mandatory voting should not be used as a fig leaf to give the appearence of a mandate to those who don't really earn one.

 

[Axulus]

Is voting speech? What? Voting is secret. Speech isn't.

If you want to talk about the first amendment, you might invoke that bit about 'petitioning the government' instead. Still not a good fit though.

It is expressing a preference/opinion. Since when does speech need to be public for it to qualify as speech?

Even the terminology for voting uses speech terminology: "make your voice heard", "have your say.

Yes, it may be stretching a strict definition a little bit, but the courts have given the definition of speech a broad interpretation under the first amendment.

However, you do make an interesting suggestion that it may be considered compulsory petitioning of the government (although I'm not so sure this has such a broad interpretation like speech does).

 

[Sarpedon]

An interesting philosophical point, but I have little patience for semantic arguments, as you may know.

Voting is exercising political power. I can ignore your opinion, but I can't ignore your vote. It is fundamentally different from speech in that respect.

The fact that the terminology is identical is simply due to tradition. A vote can be called a 'poll' just as an opinion poll is called a 'poll.' But they are fundamentally different. I suspect that the linguistic similarities simply are carry overs from the days when voting was entirely verbal and usually held directly after open debate.

Frankly, I feel it is quite dangerous for democracy if people start to confuse the two. God help us if votes are considered to be the same as opinions!

Since when does speech need to be public for it to qualify as speech?

What is the point of having the right to speak in secret? "You can be as gay as you want, so long as you do it in private." Self expression has to be public (at least potentially) or it is not 'expression.'

 

[Axulus]

An interesting philosophical point, but I have little patience for semantic arguments, as you may know.

Voting is exercising political power. I can ignore your opinion, but I can't ignore your vote. It is fundamentally different from speech in that respect.

The fact that the terminology is identical is simply due to tradition. A vote can be called a 'poll' just as an opinion poll is called a 'poll.' But they are fundamentally different. I suspect that the linguistic similarities simply are carry overs from the days when voting was entirely verbal and usually held directly after open debate.

The issue has apparently been considered by the courts previously. There is no clear answer:

The Nevada Supreme Court agreed and held the relevant statute unconstitutional because voting contains “a communicative element” and “serves an important role in political speech.” The respondent’s brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case cites to Miller v. Town of Hull (1st Circuit, 1989): “There can be no more definitive expression of opinion than by voting on a controversial public issue.” Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion that is really a dissent, echoes the sentiment: “Voting has an expressive component in and of itself.”

Further analysis of both sides of the argument found here:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/is-voting-speech/

 

[Sarpedon]

It is that sort of argument that has produced the idea that spending money is speech.

I would love it if the law would differentiate the three, and protect the freedom of each, within the bounds of well defined and necessary regulations.

I argue that voting is an act, just as when Congress passes a law, it is called an act, even though it takes the form of words. Congress is merely a surrogate for the people, and selecting them is a very real act, upon which their acts depend: The acts of the voters produces a Congress that can itself act.

 

[Axulus]

It is that sort of argument that has produced the idea that spending money is speech.

But that sort of protection also protects us against laws that could ban the purchase of newspapers or political movies (because spending money wouldn't be protected). In general, I think it is a good idea to strengthen speech protections rather than weaken them.

I would love it if the law would differentiate the three, and protect the freedom of each, within the bounds of well defined and necessary regulations.

I argue that voting is an act, just as when Congress passes a law, it is called an act, even though it takes the form of words. Congress is merely a surrogate for the people, and selecting them is a very real act, upon which their acts depend: The acts of the voters produces a Congress that can itself act.

Could be. However, compulsory voting seems to be the antithesis of freedom and rights: "You have a right to vote. Oh, what's that you say? You don't want to exercise that right? Well, you must not of heard me the first time, I wasn't giving you a choice."

 

[dismal]

It is that sort of argument that has produced the idea that spending money is speech.

I would love it if the law would differentiate the three, and protect the freedom of each, within the bounds of well defined and necessary regulations.

I argue that voting is an act, just as when Congress passes a law, it is called an act, even though it takes the form of words. Congress is merely a surrogate for the people, and selecting them is a very real act, upon which their acts depend: The acts of the voters produces a Congress that can itself act.

There is no argument that "money is speech" outside the city of straw men. The argument is that restricting money spent on speech is restricting speech. Which of course it is.

 

[bilby]

You know, it seems a bit silly to argue for compulsory voting by saying that other countries have it too. The list of countries with compulsory voting isn't exactly inspiring.

Gee, thanks.

 

[bilby]

Refusing to vote IS a political statement. Not just apathy. Some people don't vote because of apathy, others because they refuse to condone the choices presented.

Do you, oh health food devotee, want Coke or Pepsi?

And here in California it is even more valid. Thanks to top two in many districts you can choose between two people in the same party. That's your only choice.

Do you want Coke or Diet Coke?

The only way around this is to undervote, turning in a blank ballot.

Anyway, this just entrenches the status quo even more. Even though Obama proposed it and he is Change^TM we are supposed to believe he isn't just another self-serving politician. The apathy voters will generally vote in an apathetic manner. "I've heard that name, vote for him." Way to go status quo.

Refusing to vote is a political statement. Not voting because you can't be bothered to get off your arse is apathy.

The only way to sort the one case from the other is to make attendance at the polls mandatory. Making voting mandatory is impossible without giving up the secrecy of the ballot, and over here, no effort is made to enforce mandatory voting, for exactly that reason - but failure to attend without a valid excuse will lead to a fine.

Once you have recorded your attendance and been issued a ballot paper, you can leave it blank, or deliberately deface it, or take it away with you without putting it in the ballot box; those who choose not to vote are completely at liberty to exercise their choice.

So, what is the proportion of deliberate non-voters, vs those who do not vote from apathy? Well, it is difficult to know precisely, but a comparison of turnout and spoiled or invalid ballots in Australia, where attendance is required, vs the USA or UK where it is not, should give us some ball-park figures.

At the 2013 Australian Federal election, the turnout was 93.23% (13,726,070 attendees out of 14,723,385 eligible voters). The number of 'Informal' (spoiled, blank or otherwise invalid) votes was 811,143

So with mandatory attendance, at most 997,315 people chose to risk a fine by not voting (although some of those would be apathetic, or have forgotten to vote, or were unable to reach a polling place - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement); and 811,143 chose to attend a polling place, but failed to cast a valid ballot (although some of those would be people who attempted to vote, but failed - perhaps because they didn't write legibly, or didn't understand the instructions - but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement too).

So we estimate 997,315+811,143 = 1,808,458 people (at most) who made a deliberate political statement; out of 14,723,385 eligible to vote, for a total 'protest' vote of 12.3%

If not voting is solely a political statement, and assuming similar levels of political protest in Australia and in the USA, then we would expect to see turnouts in US presidential elections of at least 85%.

The 2008 US Presidential election had the largest turnout since the 1960s; It was 58.23%.

This suggests an 'apathy' non-voting bloc of at least 26% of the eligible voters; and a 'political statement' non-voting bloc of no more than 13% - so for every three non-voters, I estimate that at least two don't vote because they are apathetic.

Given that so called 'mandatory voting' does not in anyway diminish people's right to cast a null ballot as a political statement, and given that at least two out of three non-voters are not making such a statement, I would argue that mandatory voting is a very good idea. It goes some way towards preventing the intimidation of voters - or at least makes such intimidation harder to carry out - and it leads to a result that includes the opinions of those who are otherwise disenfranchised.

Having lived under both mandatory and optional voting systems, I prefer the mandatory system, which I believe leads to a fairer result. For example, in the UK, the Labour vote always suffered if it rained on polling day - because in an optional system, rain on polling day decreases the votes cast, but the decrease is disproportionately higher for those who have to walk or use public transport to get to the polling place.

 

[dismal]

Refusing to vote IS a political statement. Not just apathy. Some people don't vote because of apathy, others because they refuse to condone the choices presented.

Do you, oh health food devotee, want Coke or Pepsi?

And here in California it is even more valid. Thanks to top two in many districts you can choose between two people in the same party. That's your only choice.

Do you want Coke or Diet Coke?

The only way around this is to undervote, turning in a blank ballot.

Anyway, this just entrenches the status quo even more. Even though Obama proposed it and he is Change^TM we are supposed to believe he isn't just another self-serving politician. The apathy voters will generally vote in an apathetic manner. "I've heard that name, vote for him." Way to go status quo.

Refusing to vote is a political statement. Not voting because you can't be bothered to get off your arse is apathy.

The only way to sort the one case from the other is to make attendance at the polls mandatory. Making voting mandatory is impossible without giving up the secrecy of the ballot, and over here, no effort is made to enforce mandatory voting, for exactly that reason - but failure to attend without a valid excuse will lead to a fine.

Once you have recorded your attendance and been issued a ballot paper, you can leave it blank, or deliberately deface it, or take it away with you without putting it in the ballot box; those who choose not to vote are completely at liberty to exercise their choice.

So, what is the proportion of deliberate non-voters, vs those who do not vote from apathy? Well, it is difficult to know precisely, but a comparison of turnout and spoiled or invalid ballots in Australia, where attendance is required, vs the USA or UK where it is not, should give us some ball-park figures.

At the 2013 Australian Federal election, the turnout was 93.23% (13,726,070 attendees out of 14,723,385 eligible voters). The number of 'Informal' (spoiled, blank or otherwise invalid) votes was 811,143

So with mandatory attendance, at most 997,315 people chose to risk a fine by not voting (although some of those would be apathetic, or have forgotten to vote, or were unable to reach a polling place - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement); and 811,143 chose to attend a polling place, but failed to cast a valid ballot (although some of those would be people who attempted to vote, but failed - perhaps because they didn't write legibly, or didn't understand the instructions - but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement too).

So we estimate 997,315+811,143 = 1,808,458 people (at most) who made a deliberate political statement; out of 14,723,385 eligible to vote, for a total 'protest' vote of 12.3%

If not voting is solely a political statement, and assuming similar levels of political protest in Australia and in the USA, then we would expect to see turnouts in US presidential elections of at least 85%.

The 2008 US Presidential election had the largest turnout since the 1960s; It was 58.23%.

This suggests an 'apathy' non-voting bloc of at least 26% of the eligible voters; and a 'political statement' non-voting bloc of no more than 13% - so for every three non-voters, I estimate that at least two don't vote because they are apathetic.

Given that so called 'mandatory voting' does not in anyway diminish people's right to cast a null ballot as a political statement, and given that at least two out of three non-voters are not making such a statement, I would argue that mandatory voting is a very good idea. It goes some way towards preventing the intimidation of voters - or at least makes such intimidation harder to carry out - and it leads to a result that includes the opinions of those who are otherwise disenfranchised.

Having lived under both mandatory and optional voting systems, I prefer the mandatory system, which I believe leads to a fairer result. For example, in the UK, the Labour vote always suffered if it rained on polling day - because in an optional system, rain on polling day decreases the votes cast, but the decrease is disproportionately higher for those who have to walk or use public transport to get to the polling place.

Who gives a shit if it's apathy?

Where is it written that in a free society people can't be as apathetic as they want?

Why is apathy different than a man wanting buttsex or wanting to have a vagina instead of a penis?

Why would we point guns at apathetic-Americans (or Australians) and forcd them to behave as if they aren't what they are?

 

[bilby]

Refusing to vote is a political statement. Not voting because you can't be bothered to get off your arse is apathy.

The only way to sort the one case from the other is to make attendance at the polls mandatory. Making voting mandatory is impossible without giving up the secrecy of the ballot, and over here, no effort is made to enforce mandatory voting, for exactly that reason - but failure to attend without a valid excuse will lead to a fine.

Once you have recorded your attendance and been issued a ballot paper, you can leave it blank, or deliberately deface it, or take it away with you without putting it in the ballot box; those who choose not to vote are completely at liberty to exercise their choice.

So, what is the proportion of deliberate non-voters, vs those who do not vote from apathy? Well, it is difficult to know precisely, but a comparison of turnout and spoiled or invalid ballots in Australia, where attendance is required, vs the USA or UK where it is not, should give us some ball-park figures.

At the 2013 Australian Federal election, the turnout was 93.23% (13,726,070 attendees out of 14,723,385 eligible voters). The number of 'Informal' (spoiled, blank or otherwise invalid) votes was 811,143

So with mandatory attendance, at most 997,315 people chose to risk a fine by not voting (although some of those would be apathetic, or have forgotten to vote, or were unable to reach a polling place - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement); and 811,143 chose to attend a polling place, but failed to cast a valid ballot (although some of those would be people who attempted to vote, but failed - perhaps because they didn't write legibly, or didn't understand the instructions - but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement too).

So we estimate 997,315+811,143 = 1,808,458 people (at most) who made a deliberate political statement; out of 14,723,385 eligible to vote, for a total 'protest' vote of 12.3%

If not voting is solely a political statement, and assuming similar levels of political protest in Australia and in the USA, then we would expect to see turnouts in US presidential elections of at least 85%.

The 2008 US Presidential election had the largest turnout since the 1960s; It was 58.23%.

This suggests an 'apathy' non-voting bloc of at least 26% of the eligible voters; and a 'political statement' non-voting bloc of no more than 13% - so for every three non-voters, I estimate that at least two don't vote because they are apathetic.

Given that so called 'mandatory voting' does not in anyway diminish people's right to cast a null ballot as a political statement, and given that at least two out of three non-voters are not making such a statement, I would argue that mandatory voting is a very good idea. It goes some way towards preventing the intimidation of voters - or at least makes such intimidation harder to carry out - and it leads to a result that includes the opinions of those who are otherwise disenfranchised.

Having lived under both mandatory and optional voting systems, I prefer the mandatory system, which I believe leads to a fairer result. For example, in the UK, the Labour vote always suffered if it rained on polling day - because in an optional system, rain on polling day decreases the votes cast, but the decrease is disproportionately higher for those who have to walk or use public transport to get to the polling place.

Who gives a shit if it's apathy?

Where is it written that in a free society people can't be as apathetic as they want?

Why is apathy different than a man wanting buttsex or wanting to have a vagina instead of a penis?

Why would we point guns at apathetic-Americans (or Australians) and forcd them to behave as if they aren't what they are?

Where is there, has there ever been, or could there ever be a "free society"? "Free society" is an oxymoron; If people can choose when and whether to participate, then there isn't a society at all.

I have been voting in Australian elections since 1996, during which time it has always been mandatory. I have worked at polling booths on a number of occasions, and have seen thousands of people vote; not once have I seen anyone point a gun at anyone.

What is it with Americans and their obsession with guns, and with cheer-leading for fictional constructs such as Christianity and Freedom? Don't you guys ever get bored with that crap?

A democratic society (in the modern sense) is one where the leaders are chosen by the people; or are chosen by representatives chosen by the people. Limiting those who are allowed to participate to exclude people who are, nevertheless, expected to pay taxes and obey the law, is morally suspect; A government elected only by men, or only by white men, or only by white, male landowners, or only by non-apathetic, white, male landowners, is not a truly democratic government.

You don't get to opt out of paying your taxes because you are too lazy to post a check to the tax office; and you don't get to opt out of electing your government because you are to lazy to drag your backside to a polling place once every couple of years.

 

[ksen]

Refusing to vote is a political statement. Not voting because you can't be bothered to get off your arse is apathy.

The only way to sort the one case from the other is to make attendance at the polls mandatory. Making voting mandatory is impossible without giving up the secrecy of the ballot, and over here, no effort is made to enforce mandatory voting, for exactly that reason - but failure to attend without a valid excuse will lead to a fine.

Once you have recorded your attendance and been issued a ballot paper, you can leave it blank, or deliberately deface it, or take it away with you without putting it in the ballot box; those who choose not to vote are completely at liberty to exercise their choice.

So, what is the proportion of deliberate non-voters, vs those who do not vote from apathy? Well, it is difficult to know precisely, but a comparison of turnout and spoiled or invalid ballots in Australia, where attendance is required, vs the USA or UK where it is not, should give us some ball-park figures.

At the 2013 Australian Federal election, the turnout was 93.23% (13,726,070 attendees out of 14,723,385 eligible voters). The number of 'Informal' (spoiled, blank or otherwise invalid) votes was 811,143

So with mandatory attendance, at most 997,315 people chose to risk a fine by not voting (although some of those would be apathetic, or have forgotten to vote, or were unable to reach a polling place - but for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement); and 811,143 chose to attend a polling place, but failed to cast a valid ballot (although some of those would be people who attempted to vote, but failed - perhaps because they didn't write legibly, or didn't understand the instructions - but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they are all making a political statement too).

So we estimate 997,315+811,143 = 1,808,458 people (at most) who made a deliberate political statement; out of 14,723,385 eligible to vote, for a total 'protest' vote of 12.3%

If not voting is solely a political statement, and assuming similar levels of political protest in Australia and in the USA, then we would expect to see turnouts in US presidential elections of at least 85%.

The 2008 US Presidential election had the largest turnout since the 1960s; It was 58.23%.

This suggests an 'apathy' non-voting bloc of at least 26% of the eligible voters; and a 'political statement' non-voting bloc of no more than 13% - so for every three non-voters, I estimate that at least two don't vote because they are apathetic.

Given that so called 'mandatory voting' does not in anyway diminish people's right to cast a null ballot as a political statement, and given that at least two out of three non-voters are not making such a statement, I would argue that mandatory voting is a very good idea. It goes some way towards preventing the intimidation of voters - or at least makes such intimidation harder to carry out - and it leads to a result that includes the opinions of those who are otherwise disenfranchised.

Having lived under both mandatory and optional voting systems, I prefer the mandatory system, which I believe leads to a fairer result. For example, in the UK, the Labour vote always suffered if it rained on polling day - because in an optional system, rain on polling day decreases the votes cast, but the decrease is disproportionately higher for those who have to walk or use public transport to get to the polling place.

Who gives a shit if it's apathy?

Where is it written that in a free society people can't be as apathetic as they want?

Why is apathy different than a man wanting buttsex or wanting to have a vagina instead of a penis?

Why would we point guns at apathetic-Americans (or Australians) and forcd them to behave as if they aren't what they are?

jury duty is mandatory, so there's precedent for requiring citizens to carry out at least one civic duty

 

[dystopian]

You know, it seems a bit silly to argue for compulsory voting by saying that other countries have it too. The list of countries with compulsory voting isn't exactly inspiring.

Gee, thanks.

Australia is the *only* sizeable developed democratic country on the list that still enforces mandatory voting. The only other two are Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, both of which are microstates.

Of course, I wasn't implying that the countries on the list are horrible places to live (although some are). I was saying that the list doesn't really inspire a great deal of confidence in mandatory voting.

For instance, out of the 195 UN members, 105 have abolished the death penalty altogether, 50 have it in name only but haven't used it in over a decade/have a policy of not using it, and only 36 still practice it. That's the sort of list that inspires confidence that maybe there's something to the idea of abolishing it.

On the other hand, only 11 countries in the world that enforce mandatory voting and only 19 have laws on the books that they don't enforce. Not very inspiring; which was kind of my point about the "other countries have it so we should too" line of reasoning.

We used to have mandatory voting here; but we abolished it in 1970. We abolished it because while you can force people to vote, you can't force them to be politically engaged; meaning that they'll vote on people and parties they barely know anything about and aren't interested in. This means the results are actually less representative of the population's opinions and wishes because name recognition will matter more than actual policies. People who choose to vote are likely to do at least a minimum of research before casting their vote; people who are forced to vote when they don't care, won't.

 

[Sarpedon]

But that sort of protection also protects us against laws that could ban the purchase of newspapers or political movies (because spending money wouldn't be protected). In general, I think it is a good idea to strengthen speech protections rather than weaken them.

Unfortunately, this is where reality intrudes on the realm of words. Money isn't speech, money is economic power. The fact that money can be converted into speech by hiring someone to speak or publish on one's behalf doesn't make it speech. Recognizing spending money on speech as speech attacks the principle of equality: the speech of the rich will be louder and more effective than that of the poor. To ignore the significance of this is to ignore scientific facts about human behavior. Ruling that money can be spent on speech has opened the floodgates of money into our political system. By the laws of supply and demand, the cost of effective speech has risen. Therefore, inevitably, the speech of the poor has been suppressed, because they can no longer afford a way to speak effectively. This is as obvious as the moon.

Speech is speech, voting is political power, money is economic power. To confuse the one for the other is to allow people to manipulate the system by converting one to another to suit themselves and at the detriment of others. The evil effects of this are obvious in our country. For example, if someone can hire someone to speak for them, why can't they buy their vote, if voting is speech? If I can persuade you to vote in a certain way, why can't I pay you to vote a certain way, if spending money is speech?

 

[dismal]

Who gives a shit if it's apathy?

Where is it written that in a free society people can't be as apathetic as they want?

Why is apathy different than a man wanting buttsex or wanting to have a vagina instead of a penis?

Why would we point guns at apathetic-Americans (or Australians) and forcd them to behave as if they aren't what they are?

jury duty is mandatory, so there's precedent for requiring citizens to carry out at least one civic duty

There are democratically elected governments who have marched citizens off to internment camps and even death camps.

That there is precedent don't make it good.

 

[ksen]

mandatory voting = auschwitz?

 

[Sarpedon]

Mandatory voting would defacto make voter suppression illegal.

I would prefer to simply make voter suppression illegal without mandatory voting, but in this unhappy world sometimes the sub-optimal is the only choice.

 

[dismal]

mandatory voting = auschwitz?

Reading fail. Predictable ksen-style reading fail.

- - - Updated - - -

But that sort of protection also protects us against laws that could ban the purchase of newspapers or political movies (because spending money wouldn't be protected). In general, I think it is a good idea to strengthen speech protections rather than weaken them.

Unfortunately, this is where reality intrudes on the realm of words. Money isn't speech, money is economic power. The fact that money can be converted into speech by hiring someone to speak or publish on one's behalf doesn't make it speech. Recognizing spending money on speech as speech attacks the principle of equality: the speech of the rich will be louder and more effective than that of the poor. To ignore the significance of this is to ignore scientific facts about human behavior. Ruling that money can be spent on speech has opened the floodgates of money into our political system. By the laws of supply and demand, the cost of effective speech has risen. Therefore, inevitably, the speech of the poor has been suppressed, because they can no longer afford a way to speak effectively. This is as obvious as the moon.

Speech is speech, voting is political power, money is economic power. To confuse the one for the other is to allow people to manipulate the system by converting one to another to suit themselves and at the detriment of others. The evil effects of this are obvious in our country. For example, if someone can hire someone to speak for them, why can't they buy their vote, if voting is speech? If I can persuade you to vote in a certain way, why can't I pay you to vote a certain way, if spending money is speech?

What's obvious as the moon is that your goal is to restrict some people's speech.