Compulsory vs. Elective voting?

Kaeis said:
compulsory voting?

compulsory freedom(?)?



well, im glad that most countries dont do this.

BarryManilow said:
In the oppression stakes, having to sign a ballot isn't up there on my list.

dity said:
compulsory voting means those who don't vote pay a fine, meaning that the government makes money off of non-voters. win-win.

Kaeis said:

huh? wut? oppression stakes?

I'm politically apathetic and inept.



Ya, just force people to vote. No need to think about how shit your system/candidates are or maybe how you could make it easier for people to vote. Just punish those who don't. Save the hassle of improving all these outdated systems.

BarryManilow said:
Again, how is forcing you to vote actually going to negatively impact you in any meaningful way, and how would you suggest making it easier to drive to a location and mark a piece of paper? You do know in places like Australia you can leave the ballot unmarked? You just need to show up, you don't have to actually cast a vote.

And I do agree that inept apathetic voters are the downfall of the compulsory voting system. Both systems have pitfalls, pros and cons.

In an ideal system, compulsory voting would mean people actually research politics so their vote was an actual vote from themselves, not a vote from sloganeering and campaigning. The whole "You win if you don't vote" is a load of bull, not voting simply makes you irrelevant, you still have to live with the tool in charge regardless, why not research candidates and make a miniscule difference instead of just taking yourself out of consideration??

Kaeis said:


I don't believe that I necessarily speak for everyone, but compulsory voting would make me despise the system in question.

its not about making it easier to drive to the location. In this day and age you shouldn't have to drive/walk/bike anywhere to voice your opinion in the first place. If I could express my opinion on compulsory/elective voting, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to tell the govt. that I prefer A over B with the same amount of effort.

So in Australia they'd make me commute to a voting centre just so I can choose not vote. cool. I thought they had compulsory voting so more people voted. I don't know what they're trying to do now.

If I am to vote, I would make a researched vote. And I would probably spend about an hour doing this. At this point I would most likely realize that neither choice really appeals to me. But I may feel that one of them is the lesser evil, and would prefer that candidate. Come voting day I would have to commute AT LEAST across the street (but most likely I'd have to burn gas or pay fare) so I could tell the government that I prefer candidate B over A, or vice versa. But then also knowing that it is just one opinion amongst many millions of equally weighted opinionss (double s to emphasis the number).

This is the voting simulation I have in my mind. I see myself facing the option above, to spend time and effort to voice a single piece of a opinion that is (lets be honest) fairly meaningless. Or, I could just pretend that none of this is happening and carry on with my own business. Personally, this is the winning (I only decided to use 'winning' since you chose to quote that saying, which I had no idea even existed) choice. I don't mind being irrelevant, or even (worst case scenario) having to live under a tyrant. Because I know my vote was not the problem. In the endless iterations of vote distribution possibilities, the number of times when my vote would have made (the miniscule part of) the difference, countless more iterations exists where it didn't matter. Because when I face the numbers I feel that I know, deep down, I'm irrelevant either way.

And that's pretty much how I feel.

But if, someday, I am able to voice a simple piece of preference from my home with a few clicks, and if I just at least kinda like just one of the candidates, I will vote for him/her. I don't mind researching, since it's fun as long as you're not being forced to in excessive amounts.

Udgey said:
Corruption will always find a way to affect both forms of voting. It's unavoidable.

MiniSiets said:
Voters can still be misled just as easily to vote against their own interests in either system, and I don't see compulsory voting as particularly fixing any of our real problems, so I'd rather just opt for the system that offers more choice; including the option to not participate at all.

BarryManilow said:

The effort required to travel to the voting receptacle makes you more likely to think "I came all this way, might as well vote". Basically it puts effort into not voting, removing apathy as a factor as you still have to consciously not vote. The choice is still there, but it's in your face as opposed to being an easy default option. I agree voting online would be a great way to solve a lot of problems, and they could provide unbias political information on the voting website that you had to click through to raise the probability of informed votes. That said, this system would need a lot of security otherwise Anonymous would hack Alex Jones into the Presidency or something equally as whacky.

The system needs more transparency and more information available, and a two way street where the public actually takes advantage of information instead of ignoring it.

BritishBeans said:
One party systems like china don't have this problem.

BritishBeans said:
Government is one of the biggest parts of society I don't see why everybody must'nt vote. If you don't like the candidates leave society if you don't wanna pick between them.

I say this yet I never voted once. I Am Hypocrite (movie coming soon).

Kaeis said:


That makes sense. About compulsory voting in Australia. But it still sounds revolting to me and feels like the government is taking away my right of choice (No! you MUST come to the voting centre!). I will basically never see compulsory voting to eye.



lol. Not that it really matters but I heard that officials corruption on the high-end level isn't really a problem. I know second hand just how bad the lower-end corruption is tho.

BritishBeans said:
I don't get what you're trying to say. The party chooses their own replacements within it independent of civilian say not to say that their opinion will be neglected as a reasoning factor in the decision. Corruption within the government is high but is it present in the appointment of the leaders? Even if it is I bet it's to a much lesser degree than in non-one party systems.

Kaeis said:


Now THAT's interesting. Could it just be that you see not voting as anti-social but don't have anything against anti-socials?

BritishBeans said:

I don't get what you're trying to say. The party chooses their own replacements within it independent of civilian say not to say that their opinion will be neglected as a reasoning factor in the decision. Corruption within the government is high but is it present in the appointment of the leaders? Even if it is I bet it's to a much lesser degree than in non-one party systems.

Kaeis said:

lol. Not that it really matters but

BritishBeans said:
Spot on.
I wonder, how, from that did you guess I don't have anything against "anti-socials"?

BarryManilow said:
That is fine as long as the party does a good job at selecting the leader. Like with monarchy, absolute power works out well with a good guy, but being spawned from a good guys nutsack is not a great criteria for choosing a leader.

Kaeis said:




I just wish they had better goals than 'to create a strong chinese state', like to increase the standard of living or opportunities or something.

Kaeis said:


You pretty much said it yourself. 'If one doesn't do this they're not part of society. I don't do this.'. I ruled out the possibility that you might have something against yourself.