Compulsory Voting

[Stephanie]

Scratch a Liberal find a FASCIST

especially after they LOSE POWER and only has a duck in as President and a wounded and lame one at that

frikken control freaks sore ass losers

 

[SwimExpert]

First, compel the presentation of candidates who don't suck. Only then will can I consider supporting compulsory voting.

 

[norwegen]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

Who would determine this standard? I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed, and vice versa, even though I know I'm not and you likely believe the same about yourself.

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote. Weekend voting won't solve the problem because lots of folks work weekends. For that matter, my suggestion isn't terrific because lots of folks don't get holidays off, either.

Voting should be protected - and compulsory - like jury duty, such that employers MUST provide adequate time away from work to vote.

Everyone should have the opportunity to vote, yet voting should be compulsory.

Have you been drinking?

 

[BoSoxGal]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

Who would determine this standard? I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed, and vice versa, even though I know I'm not and you likely believe the same about yourself.

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote. Weekend voting won't solve the problem because lots of folks work weekends. For that matter, my suggestion isn't terrific because lots of folks don't get holidays off, either.

Voting should be protected - and compulsory - like jury duty, such that employers MUST provide adequate time away from work to vote.

Everyone should have the opportunity to vote, yet voting should be compulsory.

Have you been drinking?

No, it seems you just have reading comprehension issues.

I didn't say that not voting should incur possible legal penalties, like skipping jury duty does - I said it should be compulsory to the extent that employers must provide employees the opportunity to vote like employers must allow employees the time off required to serve jury duty.

Is this hard for you to understand? Please let me know and I'll do my best to dumb it down to your level, if I can.

I admit my assertion was made in such a way that you are required to make the logical leap that 'opportunity to vote' requires a compulsory aspect placed on employers; if my presentation somehow lacked clarity such that you were not able to make that leap, I won't insult you by assuming your use of substances was the obstacle.

Beware, you might find yourself on someone's list of stupid and uninformed who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Given Norway's incredibly high voter participation rate, clearly they have no such limitations on voting.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

No, that's not a stupid statement, it's a normative statement.

Who would determine this standard?

Let me help you develop your thinking skills.

"Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period" "Young people shouldn't smoke." "Pregnant women shouldn't drink."

How does it follow that one is proposing an enforcement mechanism to go along with their normative declarations? That's just you conjuring up an inference that can't logically be made from the statement you've read.

I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed

Why would you need to guess what you're thinking? Don't you actually know what you're thinking?

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote.

Really? So a 2 year old boy should have the right to vote? Are you now going to declare that you're walking back your universal declaration? If so, now we're into subjective territory, some people shouldn't vote because we have reasons to believe that their voting doesn't serve the public interest. What interest does the public have in preventing a 14 year old and a severely retarded person from voting? Does reaching the age of majority erase the public's concern which led to prohibiting the 14 year old from voting?

 

[BoSoxGal]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

No, that's not a stupid statement, it's a normative statement.

Who would determine this standard?

Let me help you develop your thinking skills.

"Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period" "Young people shouldn't smoke." "Pregnant women shouldn't drink."

How does it follow that one is proposing an enforcement mechanism to go along with their normative declarations? That's just you conjuring up an inference that can't logically be made from the statement you've read.

I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed

Why would you need to guess what you're thinking? Don't you actually know what you're thinking?

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote.

Really? So a 2 year old boy should have the right to vote? Are you now going to declare that you're walking back your universal declaration? If so, now we're into subjective territory, some people shouldn't vote because we have reasons to believe that their voting doesn't serve the public interest. What interest does the public have in preventing a 14 year old and a severely retarded person from voting? Does reaching the age of majority erase the public's concern which led to prohibiting the 14 year old from voting?

I'd assumed we were having this discussion about within the existing parameters regarding legal age to vote, etc. maybe you just like to throw out ridiculous non sequiturs in place of actual substantive responses?

Yes, I know what I'm thinking - yay for you for making another statement that is in no way substantive to address the point I offered to the discussion, but rather serves only as a personal attack.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I WASN'T willing to leap to the conclusion that you are stupid and uninformed just based on that one assertion - after all, I'm new here.

I'd have to say, you are rather quickly convincing me that I might indeed end up in the mindset I was only speculating about in my previous post.

And hey, nobody should smoke - not just young people.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

No, that's not a stupid statement, it's a normative statement.

Who would determine this standard?

Let me help you develop your thinking skills.

"Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period" "Young people shouldn't smoke." "Pregnant women shouldn't drink."

How does it follow that one is proposing an enforcement mechanism to go along with their normative declarations? That's just you conjuring up an inference that can't logically be made from the statement you've read.

I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed

Why would you need to guess what you're thinking? Don't you actually know what you're thinking?

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote.

Really? So a 2 year old boy should have the right to vote? Are you now going to declare that you're walking back your universal declaration? If so, now we're into subjective territory, some people shouldn't vote because we have reasons to believe that their voting doesn't serve the public interest. What interest does the public have in preventing a 14 year old and a severely retarded person from voting? Does reaching the age of majority erase the public's concern which led to prohibiting the 14 year old from voting?

I'd assumed we were having this discussion about within the existing parameters regarding legal age to vote, etc. maybe you just like to throw out ridiculous non sequiturs in place of actual substantive responses?

Many jurisdictions limit the rights of felons to vote, many limit the rights of the mentally disabled. You seem to acknowledge that those under a defined age SHOULD (see, there's that word again) not have the right to vote.

The public interest can be served by limiting the franchise. There's nothing wrong with the normative position that stupid, uninformed citizens shouldn't vote. That position shares the same concern as the positions which limit those who are underage, those who are mentally infirm and those who are felons, from voting. That's an easily defensible position to hold.

Yes, I know what I'm thinking - yay for you for making another statement that is in no way substantive to address the point I offered to the discussion, but rather serves only as a personal attack.

Hey, you're Miss PrissyPants coming in here all smarmy-like so I thought I'd hold you to the demanding standards you're holding everyone else - allowing no interpretative leeway on what people have written. You wrote "I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed." Why would anyone have to guess what they're thinking? I don't know but you wrote that you would have to guess as what was in your mind, so I'm simply taking you at your word.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I WASN'T willing to leap to the conclusion that you are stupid and uninformed just based on that one assertion - after all, I'm new here.

You keep making these types of statements in this thread, as though your opinion of people matters to us and we should work to be well regarded by you so that you can reward us with your approval. I don't understand why you think your approval is something that people should seek.

I'd have to say, you are rather quickly convincing me that I might indeed end up in the mindset I was only speculating about in my previous post.

Well then, don't let me hold you back.

And hey, nobody should smoke - not just young people.

And stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

No, that's not a stupid statement, it's a normative statement.

Who would determine this standard?

Let me help you develop your thinking skills.

"Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period" "Young people shouldn't smoke." "Pregnant women shouldn't drink."

How does it follow that one is proposing an enforcement mechanism to go along with their normative declarations? That's just you conjuring up an inference that can't logically be made from the statement you've read.

I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed

Why would you need to guess what you're thinking? Don't you actually know what you're thinking?

EVERYONE should have the opportunity to vote.

Really? So a 2 year old boy should have the right to vote? Are you now going to declare that you're walking back your universal declaration? If so, now we're into subjective territory, some people shouldn't vote because we have reasons to believe that their voting doesn't serve the public interest. What interest does the public have in preventing a 14 year old and a severely retarded person from voting? Does reaching the age of majority erase the public's concern which led to prohibiting the 14 year old from voting?

I'd assumed we were having this discussion about within the existing parameters regarding legal age to vote, etc. maybe you just like to throw out ridiculous non sequiturs in place of actual substantive responses?

Many jurisdictions limit the rights of felons to vote, many limit the rights of the mentally disabled. You seem to acknowledge that those under a defined age SHOULD (see, there's that word again) not have the right to vote.

The public interest can be served by limiting the franchise. There's nothing wrong with the normative position that stupid, uninformed citizens shouldn't vote. That position shares the same concern as the positions which limit those who are underage, those who are mentally infirm and those who are felons, from voting. That's an easily defensible position to hold.

Yes, I know what I'm thinking - yay for you for making another statement that is in no way substantive to address the point I offered to the discussion, but rather serves only as a personal attack.

Hey, you're Miss PrissyPants coming in here all smarmy-like so I thought I'd hold you to the demanding standards you're holding everyone else - allowing no interpretative leeway on what people have written. You wrote "I'm guessing that I might consider YOU to be stupid and uninformed." Why would anyone have to guess what they're thinking? I don't know but you wrote that you would have to guess as what was in your mind, so I'm simply taking you at your word.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I WASN'T willing to leap to the conclusion that you are stupid and uninformed just based on that one assertion - after all, I'm new here.

You keep making these types of statements in this thread, as though your opinion of people matters to us and we should work to be well regarded by you so that you can reward us with your approval. I don't understand why you think your approval is something that people should seek.

I'd have to say, you are rather quickly convincing me that I might indeed end up in the mindset I was only speculating about in my previous post.

Well then, don't let me hold you back.

And hey, nobody should smoke - not just young people.

And stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote.

Age, felon status, etc. are all definable measures. Just exactly how would you propose enforcing your assertion? Still not a single word about that.

I don't care if you like or respect me, so why not stick to the substance of my contributions to the debate, rather than the repeated efforts to discredit me personally, which is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Age, felon status, etc. are all definable measures. Just exactly how would you propose enforcing your assertion? Still not a single word about that.

Do you understand the definition of a strawman argument? No one was discussing the mechanics of banning stupid, uninformed voters until YOU introduced the issue and now you're asking me, and I suppose others too, to defend the position that no one but YOU has raised.

Here's are two parallel constructions - notice the use of the normative declaration.

Person #1: "There SHOULD be world peace."
Person #2: "How are you going to enforce world peace?"
Person #1: "Whether it can be enforced or not doesn't take away from the philosophical position of how the world SHOULD be."
Person #2: "Bah humbug, unless you can enforce your position it's bullshit. You lose. World peace is a stupid position."

Person #1: "A mother SHOULD love her children"
Person #2: "How are you going to enforce that, to make a mother love her children?"
Person #1: "Whether it can be enforced or not doesn't take away from the philosophical position that mothers SHOULD love their children."
Person #2: "Bah humbug, unless you can enforce your position it's bullshit. You lose. Mothers loving their children is a stupid position."

 

[BoSoxGal]

Again, nothing but bullshit.

We are discussing the proposition of compulsory voting; you weigh with an assertion that would presumably limit suffrage on a subjective basis - especially since your definition of stupid & uninformed could and probably would be vastly different from that of other reasonable citizens.

Your assertion is in no way equivalent to 'there should be world peace' or 'mothers should love their children'.

You are not the genius you believe yourself to be, especially when you resort to calling posters names in lieu of relying on intellectually-based counter argument in reply to assertions with which you don't agree.

But that's just me, someone who debates for a living in a forum where name-calling and other childish responses from behind the safety of a keyboard are not encouraged and generally not allowed.

Now, does this place have an ignore function you'd like to point me to? I'm happy to agree to pretend you don't exist and you are welcome to do me the very same favor.

 

[jon_berzerk]

last time i checked it was a free country

what else you want to mandate

--LOL

The Tigers are showing their stripes.

they certainly are

they have been for awhile

the peoples are just now

starting to see it

 

[jon_berzerk]

Compulsory Voting: Because your government forcing you to buy a product or pay a fine wasn't enough...

next card check at the voting booth

--LOL

Cuomo appointed 8216 vote or else 8217 strategist New York Post

 

[Rikurzhen]

Again, nothing but bullshit.

We are discussing the proposition of compulsory voting; you weigh with an assertion that would presumably limit suffrage on a subjective basis - especially since your definition of stupid & uninformed could and probably would be vastly different from that of other reasonable citizens.

For such a master debater what happened to your mastery of arguing without relying on logical fallacies? Did you miss class when your instructors covered that topic:

Stupid, uniformed people shouldn't vote. Period.

Sorry, but that's a stupid statement.

No, that's not a stupid statement, it's a normative statement.

I didn't weigh in with any assertion. I corrected you in your mistake.

Your assertion is in no way equivalent to 'there should be world peace' or 'mothers should love their children'.

It's exactly identical, which is why I offered you two examples of the trap you've placed yourself in.Grover appealed to a world he'd like to see, a world where stupid and uninformed people didn't vote. Grover didn't offer a plan, he just stated that this SHOULD be what happens.

You are not the genius you believe yourself to be, especially when you resort to calling posters names in lieu of relying on intellectually-based counter argument in reply to assertions with which you don't agree.

You mean like a genius who shows up in Montana to grace the country bumpkins with her sophisticated Massachusetts liberalism? That type of genius?

But that's just me, someone who debates for a living in a forum where name-calling and other childish responses from behind the safety of a keyboard are not encouraged and generally not allowed.

Now, does this place have an ignore function you'd like to point me to? I'm happy to agree to pretend you don't exist and you are welcome to do me the very same favor.

You debate for a living? Well, I suppose the debaters you face off with have need for sparring partners like we see with boxers, someone for them to beat down into the mat.

Look, for a professional forum debater you've been caught in a few strawman arguments in just this thread and you seem to have an inability to recognize normative statements when they're presented, so you clearly have a lot more to learn as a professional forum debater.

 

[jon_berzerk]

one has to wonder

how well a law making it a crime to not vote

would turn out for the party that supported such a law

--LOL

 

[Two Thumbs]

.
In this years mid-term election, a pathetic 36.6 percent voted.
In Australia about 92% of eligible voters voted in their last election.
Do you think it's time to start talking about compulsory voting?

The Economist explains
Where is it compulsory to vote?
Sep 19th 2013

<snip>

...in some countries skipping the polling booth can land you in trouble. In Australia non-voters can expect a letter from the electoral commission demanding an explanation for their absenteeism. If they don’t have a good excuse they are fined A$20 ($19). If they fail to pay they can end up in court, where the fine is upped to A$170, plus court fees. Refuse to cough up and they face jail. A survey by Britain’s electoral commission in 2006 categorised three other countries as having “very strict” compulsory-voting regimes. In Brazil and Peru, non-voters are banned from carrying out various administrative transactions (Brazilians cannot apply for passports or sit professional exams, in theory at least), as well as facing small fines. In Singapore, non-voters have their names removed from the electoral roll—which many of them are presumably not too worried by. A host of other countries have varyingly strict rules on voting, along with some curious get-outs. Illiterate people are excused in Brazil and Ecuador; soldiers are excluded in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Lebanon. The elderly are off the hook in several countries. And in Bolivia, where voting is notionally compulsory, married people are enfranchised from the age of 18, whereas singletons must wait until they are 21.

Proponents of mandatory voting argue that democracy is too important to be optional. Others say that compulsory self-determination is something of a contradiction in terms.

<snip>
.

mandated voting
pfft

only leftist would consider forcing people to do or buy something, freedom

 

[Skull Pilot]

Once actions become mandatory rights disappear.


You cannot force people to exercise legal rights just as you cannot stop them from doing so.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Once actions become mandatory rights disappear.


You cannot force people to exercise legal rights just as you cannot stop them from doing so.

You're wrong. Ask any married women, they love telling their husbands to say "I love you, honey." Mandatory declarations of love mean just as much to women as voluntary declarations of love, so I'm sure that this dynamic would also play out in voting and in the arena of freedoms and rights.

 

[Seawytch]

Before making voting compulsory, let's try making Election Day a federal holiday and see how that affects voter turnout.

Another dumb idea like early voting.

Why do you think early voting is a dumb idea? A dumb idea is having just one day for millions to cast votes.

It dumb because it gives the cheaters (read: democrats) extra days to vote multiple times. There is plenty of time to vote and it doesn't take up much space to fill out a ballot, so you can pack many voters in a room.

Just how exactly does early voting do that? You, naturally, have proof of all this multiple voting and how it's accomplished, right. Actual case? Just an "FYI", 33 states have "no excuse" early voting...now go find some proof of you claims.

Waiting six hours to cast a vote is unconscionable.

 

[Unkotare]

one has to wonder

how well a law making it a crime to not vote

would turn out for the party that supported such a law

--LOL

Such laws are almost always championed by whatever party is in power, as their sole purpose is to give the incumbent an advantage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Once actions become mandatory rights disappear.


You cannot force people to exercise legal rights just as you cannot stop them from doing so.

You're wrong. Ask any married women, they love telling their husbands to say "I love you, honey." Mandatory declarations of love mean just as much to women as voluntary declarations of love, so I'm sure that this dynamic would also play out in voting and in the arena of freedoms and rights.

Are we talking about legal rights or human emotion?

Last time I checked they are not the same thing.

And I never said a forced vote means less than a voluntary vote did I?

You cannot force people to exercise a legal right once you force them under the threat of a penalty it is no longer a right.