EDR? No, compulsory voting.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I was about to make a post about EDR--Election Day Registration, where anybody who is eligible to vote can register, the day of the election, and vote in that election.
But then I thought, fuck-it.
That's silly.

We need compulsory voting.

The link has arguments for and against.
There may be other arguments too.

To me, the whole "freedom argument" boils down to:
If you don't like any candidate, or don't want to vote for religious reasons, or dislike politics for any of the myriad other non-religious reasons, just cast a blank ballot, or write in your name, or the word "refuse" or anything else you like. There's no reason to think that being made to vote is so much worse than being made to show up for jury duty or pay taxes or get a license to drive a car on the highway.

It eliminates the problem of voter-registration and voter-access. It eliminates the need for big voter registration drives. It makes sure politicians aren't talking to the five voters on the block, but all fifteen houses on the block. It makes public-financing of elections a far, far more sensible thing. Voting to avoid a monetary fine and then more people will ask "since i'm voting anyway, is there anybody i support" than if they never have to consider it. I can only imagine that most people would vote if it was to avoid a small fine. The criminal theory is that the smallest punishment is enough if the criminal is SURE they are going to get caught. So, so long as we fine folks for not voting, they'll vote. And if they dislike it, they can vote blank, but, since they're voting, maybe they'll ensure we don't get any fringe loonies that only 10% of the people like, but since only that 10% vote, we get fringe loonies elected to congress.

Now, I'm not suggesting we imprison anybody for not voting, or go so far as:
"If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the citizen may be denied withdrawal of his or her salary from the bank for three months." (from the wiki at top of post)

I think Turkey may be closer to the right idea here:
"In Turkey, according to a law passed by the parliament in 1986, if an eligible elector does not cast a vote in the elections, then they pay a fee of about 5 Turkish lira (about $8 US)" (also wiki)

If the fine was small enough, and I think $25 is plenty, we could encourage voter turnout and truly walk around the country on election day and say "this is what democracy looks like" because, my friends, we do not vote in the numbers we need to.

So why not have compulsory voting?

The pragmatist in me wants to mention that in NY there's a state bill in the assembly for EDR, which is a step in the right direction and far more likely than compulsory voting. I'm curious too, my NY comrades, what you feel about the idea of NY passing a law for election-day-registration?


(oh, and for fridays fun sake:
)

Comments

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I'm down with compulsory voting.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

hooray for using our brains

[404.livejournal.com]

Compulsory voting is one of the dumbest ideas ever.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why?

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

No. Not good.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Ok, why not?
Reasons?

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> I can only imagine that most people would vote if it was to avoid a small fine. The criminal theory is that the smallest punishment...

The punishment is to prevent people from wrong-doing. Not-voting does no, and can't possibly do any harm to anyone. What's the punishment for?

Do you like Labor Day BBQ or Halloween parties? People are getting together, meet their neighbors, date someone, it's fun and really great for the community. Yet so many people stay at home 24/7 playing Xbox or reading Internets instead of having fun...
We need compulsory partying!
If the fine was small enough, and I think $25 is plenty, we could encourage people turnout and truly walk around the place on the day and say "this is what my neighbors looks like!" because, my friends, we do not mate in the numbers we need to.
I can only imagine that most people would party if it was to avoid a small fine...

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

What's the punishment for?

For not buying government-sponsored health insurance.

Oh wait. Wrong thread. Nevermind.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Great idea, now how do we enforce compulsory voting? How, in fact, is compulsory voting for the purposes of democracy possible at all?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

did you read the post?

enforced with a monetary fine

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

This is so stupid. No I wont take your hand and marry the state.

The reason some of us refuse to vote is because we dont
acknowledge the nees for someone other than ourselves
to represent us, dont recognize the legitimacy of government,
dont want a politician using the state to steal and kill and repress
in our name, and dont want to suffer the ignominy of picking
a master to rule over us. At least my conscience is clean.

Whoever they vote for, we are ungovernable!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Is that what you say when the state taxes you?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

well, it's an interesting concept. I dearly wish this country had a bill of responsibilities to go with the bill of rights.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> a bill of responsibilities

Code of Laws?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Why would you want everyone to vote? Some people don't care. Why do you want them voting?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I want them to care, and I trust them enough to feel that on balance they will not elect someone detrimental to the total good.
Or at least not on purpose.

Blank ballots instead of "just choose 1" would be what I would tell the apathetic.

Also, apathy must be defeated.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You want us to turn into that socialist terror that is Australia?! GOOD DAY, SIR.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

the water will run backwards, and that, that is just unacceptable

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Voting rights need to be expanded exponentially as well. Full online voting, can be done from public libraries, and really long voting periods. Fuck this 'in person' shit. And if you're worried about fraud, ask the countries that do online voting how they're doing.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't change anything. 60 percent voter turn-out is pretty indicative of what 100 percent turnout would be, statistically.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I bet the urban popular vote would skyrocket though, as many abstain because they know it's a lock for their party.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

In many philosophical ways I disagree with it, practically it works pretty well in Australia. The most important effect is to keep small pressure groups from having too much power, I mean sure you may have X members, who you can guarantee will turn out to vote, but when everyone does that reduces your clout a lot.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

But it gives a lot of power to people with the ability to manipulate large uninformed groups. Shock jocks for example.

(and since their audience probably isn't restricted to a racial minority, I probably don't have to bother saying that "this doesn't imply that all, or most, shock-jock listeners are uninformed", but I'll say it anyways)

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If you want someone to care about something, convince them why they should. Pass a law like this, and I'll care less and give less thought than I do now. Maybe I'll mail in a ballot with a photocopy of my butt as a reciprocal demonstration for the level of respect such a law affords me.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I actually like the idea of mailing photocopied bodily parts.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>>we do not vote in the numbers we need to.

Why, by the way?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Because your elections are held on a freakin' tuesday, when most people are at work and seem to be held at randomplace mcrandomtown. Ours are compulsory, but they're also on a saturday and you can vote at any public school (or at the local electoral office anytime in the six weeks before an election, or you can do a postal).

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Let's collect every american who doesn't understand what the term bi-partisan means and force them to vote on issues they know absolutely nothing about.

Sounds good, am I rite?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

All the people who don't vote are the ones who avoid politics because it's all about who can yell the loudest. Force those people to vote and they'll tell the politicians to calm the hell down.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

First we have to define if voting is a right or a duty. We could start from there.

Then, there's the freedom not to speak (which is part of the freedom of speech).

There's also the issue with limited access to the polls to disabled, elderly, sick people, or people living in remote areas without reliable transportation, etc.

And then of course, there's the reality of already a lot of uninformed, misinformed or outright ignorant people who'd vote solely on things like "how does that guy look and speak", or why not "he's not one of Our Guys". Now imagine 100% of all uninformed or uninterested people being compelled to "vote anyway", for fear of getting fined, and their uninformed decisions defining the policies of your country for years to come. And let me remind you that electing the president and House of the US carries much more weight than the same in another country, as it sends ripples throughout the rest of the world (the US influencing most other parts of the world). So it's not like taking informed decisions that potentially bring consequences for millions of people beyond your borders, is not an important issue.

If the fine is $25 I'm sure many would be willing to pay it and still not vote. However, there are those for whom $25 is a considerable amount of money. Which would mean an argument could be made about economic discrimination.

There's also that segment who believe the whole political system is inherently corrupt and they don't want to be part of it by way of voting for corrupt politicians. Or those, as you mentioned, who never vote due to their religious principles. If we're to tolerate various religions, the question could be asked why should some of them be discriminated against.

At the end of the day, if we're to work with a hypothetical situation where voting is compulsory, we should probably at least include a "none of the above" option in the ballot. And if that option somehow wins a majority of the votes, then work out a scenario where a new election with a completely different set candidates is organised. Or something like that, I'm not sure of the details at this point.

Ps. I'm curious about this NY bill which is far more likely than compulsory voting. I'm sure most Newyorkers are well familiar with it, but I'm afraid our international pals are not. Could you summarise it in a few words, or gimme a link so I could educate myself please?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Right and a duty. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy. If you have religious objections then don't vote, but you still have to rock up and have your name ticked off.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You mean instead of going fishing by the lake on election day, I should spend half the day in town, queue in the heat for an hour at my local school, just to cast an empty ballot and leave? Cause that's what I'm going to do anyway.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You'd prefer to not have elections again?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Did you mean this for the US only? I mean how would you make the Yakut guy living in the taiga, 400 km away from the nearest polling station, actually mount their yak and travel for 5 days there. And for what? To vote for someone who lives 5,000 km away and who will never visit his yurt, and whose policies don't affect said Yakut guy in any way whatsoever? And about whose political platform our guy doesn't know anything in the first place? And that - to avoid a fine of a few thousand Rubles which he doesn't have in the first place?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Woah, woah woah! There are places outside of the US? I mean, other than those sand countries we drop bombs on....that's it tho right? Just US, iraq and afghanistan, right?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Whilst we don't have compulsory voting, it is compulsory to submit a ballot. You can do as my grandmother did her whole life and write "You're all a bunch of donkeys", a hat tip to the donkey vote, and not number any box, therefore not voting. This is fundamentally different to not voting because you have to work or can't be bothered as you are actively registered your dislike of the entire system.

I don't understand the "freedom" argument at all. We don't have voluntary taxes (unless you're really rich, then it seems you do). We don't have voluntary murder laws. It's a civil responsibility, so why should it be voluntary?

The consequence of over 100 years of compulsory voting is that we have had a century of moderate governments. This is in combination with preferential voting and a parliamentary system that gives a blow off valve for the crazy fringe (meaning they don't have to take over major parties to get a voice). US democracy is dying under polarisation that comes from "getting out the base" being the most important thing in winning elections. If the base *have* to vote, then the tussle is always over the middle, meaning extreme politics make you unelectable.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So the reason for compulsory voting is to have moderate governments and shut the fringe out, am I reading this right? Because the moderate majority is not as mobilized as the louder fringe, it has to be forcefully mobilized. Right?

See, I'm of the moderate majority. And while part of me likes the idea of the moderates dominating the political landscape forever, somehow the whole "forcing" part doesn't ring well in my mind.

You're seriously equating voting rights to the tax obligation? Why are they called voting rights then?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Why not actually think of ways to improve political representation, as opposed to trying to tilt politics in ways that are favorable to this or that voter segment (in this case: moderates) by way of introducing arbitrary laws? Right now, even if you introduced compulsory voting, you'd still be stuck with two major parties who are doing their best to not let anyone else in the club. And people who don't necessarily feel represented, still having to choose between the lesser among two evils.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The segment of the American population that does not vote is large enough to rival the support either major party gets.

While compulsory voting would not necessarily bring about third-parties, it would make them much more attractive to people.

Since your forced to vote, why not vote for the minor-party that supports what you like? Maybe we'll start talking about representational voting, or some alternative to first-past-the-post.

My buddy lives in Queens and a local election there was just decided by 500 votes. 500 vote victory margin--out of some 4000 voters, in a district with over 25,000 total eligible voters (and that ignores all the unregistered but eligible to register citizens)

So, some 4000 people decided (with 500 tipping point voters) who would represent some 25,000 people (it was a primary, so the winner of the primary may represent many more than 25,000!)

The idea of compulsory voting increases the odds that people will engage with the political system, and as we see such low-levels of involvement I think it's a good idea.

And of course, it won't detract from those already involved, so the only downside I see is that libertarians will oppose it on principle, but then again, they oppose govt on principle, so they can go shove it.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

People should be glad to vote! Why are people making it sound like an imposition!?

"Oh, no, you don't want to vote, that guy over there would make you vote, you don't want to do that!"

Blech.

Make election day a national holiday, and make it a crime to prevent any of your employees from voting. You get to vote. We ask your input. That's important.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

People should be glad to vote! Why are people making it sound like an imposition!?

People with such attitudes should not be allowed to make decisions that affect other people.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why is it an issue if only 45% bother to vote? Why is it an issue if only 1% or less bothers to vote? Why is that considered a "bad" thing?

If you live in democracy, you have to try to listen to the majority regardless of voter turn-out. By low voter turn-out and high percentages not voting these people have spoken. They are exercising their right to have the citizens who do vote making these election decisions for them!

I have no problem with apathy. Places without a democratic process are not necessarily worse off then places that cherish democracy.

Think about it. Most political decisions are not decided by voters but by representatives of the voters. And a great many more political decisions are decided by those who are simply hired for the job.

I know that democratic election decisions are not made by citizens but only by citizens who vote. So what? Isn't there supposed to be freedom in America, like the freedom to be apathetic?

There is great mythology that historically many of our service men (and women) died on battlefields for our right to vote. We are told we should honour them by exercising our right to vote. But is that really why kids sign up with the military? Isn't it that they signed up to kill bad guys? To protect their families, defend their towns, and maintain their lifestyles? Making marking a ballot mandatory denies the very freedom we believe in.

If some folks don't care if the commander-in-chief of American forces is Republican or Democrat, and don't care if others make that decision for them, then isn't that what freedom is all about?

And I suppose if we make voting mandatory, it would have to be for ALL CITIZENS without ineligible status. Not just the ones who "registered". Not just the ones who have obeyed the law. Not just the ones who are mentally competent. Not just for white males. Not just the ones who are deemed worthy. Because mandatory voting for all who are deemed "eligible" could easily corrupt the electoral process through the denial of voting rights to those deemed "ineligible". I mean it's bad enough now with voting being entirely voluntary. Ensuring that nobody suspected of being a commie/socialist votes makes pro-corporation capitalists a shoe-in.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, so long as we fine folks for not voting, they'll vote.

How are you going to know to fine them? You would have to have everyone registered somewhere...and we're back to voter registration problems.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

We shouldn't have 'voter registration'. All citizens should just have the right to vote.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

For the record, Australia - strictly speaking - doesn't have compulsory voting. But we do have "compulsory attendance" on the day of the ballot. In the privacy of the polling both, you can do what you want with the ballot paper.

Elections are also held on a weekend and with absentee, prepoll, and provisional votes accepted.

As a result, we have a high voter input, and therefore a more representative government, for better or for worse.

We also have an independent statutory authority to conduct the election ("oh noes! socialism!").

I think other countries could learn a little from some of these ideas.