Compulsory voting is a good thing.

At a minimum!

There are quite a few brain dead types around here, & intersections are tricky enough!

I watched from a gas station near one yesterday as a matter of fact, as 3, NO **** 3 cars were doing the Clarke Griswald in London Bit!

 

It doesn't follow that I should therefore start liking those things. I will voice my opinion where it is called for, as I have done here.

Some things we're quite justified in being forced into. Others we are not. I am of the view that compulsory voting belongs firmly in the latter group.

 

When they work roundabouts are way more efficient and effective than traffic lights. The trouble is no one teaches drivers how to use them effectively by judging and altering their approach speed to time the other cars already in the circle. Getting a bit off topic here so I won't vent my feelings about clueless out of state tourists on the roads.

 

No doubt. When you're surrounded by retards, it's an even bigger drag!

 

Nothing that includes the word "compulsory" can ever be seen as good and is never anything more than a form of slavery. Compulsory voting would not force more people to be interested in politics, infact it would most likely make people even less interested in it as it is something they do against their will (just look at what happened to school results when school attendance became compulsory).

Voting is a waste of time and people are just standing in queue for hours only to put a piece of paper in a box, an action that will not mean any real practical change anyways. Instead of wasting their time on democracy, the voters could have been at work, producing valueble stuff for society.

As have already been mentioned, compulsory voting still does not mean you have to vote - you can still cast a blank vote or draw a penis on the ballot. The ultimate goal is to abolish - or at least denationalise - democracy altogether and not making it even more centralised and powerful. As a matter of fact, if anything, voting should be heavily restricted and be more like in the good old days where the more productive you are, the more is your vote worth.

Seeing people almost crying of joy on election-day because "they get to decide" always makes me sick. Absolutely ridiculous is what it is.

 

it would be even more divided, the third party candidates are considered communists as in jill stein, or anarchists as in gary johnson.

our President and hillary clinton represented the hive mind perfectly, and to the victor went the spoils.

you must join the collective, resistance is futile.

 

You would be partially correct on both counts. On count one, I am not overly concerned over which psychopath the unknowing selects to be their master. On count two, I care even less that others chose to live in slavery, it doesn't apply to me.

Yes, you are wrong. What part do you fail to understand on the absolute failure of government as so well documented throughout the millennia? Actually you don't even need to go that far back in history, 1775 would do and this country would be the subject. Here we have a monarchy, the form of collapse. In 1776 was the Declaration of Independence, the form of chaos instilled until 1783 wherein there was a form of anarchy, freedom from the ruler but not total freedom as their were 13 states (countries in their own rights). Then there was 1787, the establishment of a republic followed by the start of democracy in 1803 that solidified in 1850 and full fledged socialism in 1933. The foothold of fascism started in 1899 followed by a diversion of full collectivism in 2016. The start of chaos has begun in 2017.

So tell me, where in history has it ever been implemented correctly? Tell me the benefit of the slaughter of 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands, millions of lives? But even more important, tell me what this is necessity?

Anarchy, a term of which it seems you have no clue. I would suggest you read John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chapters 2 and 5. But more important:

Now tell at what form government uses the state of war.

No, we cannot argue that at all. History has proven you have no argument, just a refusal to acknowledge that which is available to be known, ignorance. This country has been through all the forms of government even though it was acknowledged by the founders to have started with the purest of forms. What they knew that most today refuse to acknowledge was the ultimate course of the history to follow. They knew we would be where we are today and they even knew the approximate time frame. This was even acknowledged by Ben Franklin when he was asked the form of government chosen and he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." He knew it was impossible. But he also knew that the actions he and his fellow conspirators has just taken would be to their prosperity, they would become very rich men due to government.

We the people have always had to make choices. To somehow believe a large and diverse group has some authority that an individual does not have is pure insanity. Authority is an illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, Slavery.

Ah, voting, the rule of the mob, democracy better portrayed as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. Let's start with direct democracy where one hopes they are part of the majority so there will is forced upon another instead of the minority where the other's will is forced upon them. Please explain to me how you morally justify this? Please explain to me how this does not always create that which you want to reform by starting again? Do you not understand that if you start again, your ancestors approximately 200 years from now will be right back were you are today?

That leads to the misconception that many hold, voting to have another represent them that invokes that maxim of law, the agency.

If you vote, a secret ballot no doubt, you may not prove as an action of law that you did not create agency. I don't vote therefore by action of law, I have created no agency therefore the actions of the action are not of my doing. I am not bound by any of those actions, a premise I can prove in any court of law. You have no such defense as there is that little voter registration card wherein you agreed to be bound. So who is free and who is the slave?

But what is even more idiotic of voters in general, they vote for a representative that never represents them as that representative owes his soul to those that paid for his pleasure. I find it very amusing when all the whiners and cryers are up in arms when their representative do things that the majority of the people object. In closing...

 

Your whole argument is a contradiction of premises, so which is it a right or a privilege that can be granted or removed?

Voting is a privilege, a privilege granted and removed by your master just as you have stated. Just in case you have a problem deciding contradictions.

 

And you see no contradictions in those terms?

 

Get back to us when you understand what individual rights actually are and the ability of government to regulate them, m'kay?

 

Brilliant.

 

In my case my vote was a tactical vote against both Trump and Clinton. I wanted it registered and official that I voted against both major party candidates. I understand those who vote for the lesser of two evils trying to limit the damage done by one or the other if they think candidate A would do less damage than Candidate B and thus vote for candidate A even though they think candidate A sucks. I imagine a lot of that 25% who detested both candidate decided their vote on the above.

A lot of that 25% decided to vote for the candidate they disliked the least and some for one or the other just because they wanted to vote for a winner. I wonder what the reaction would have been if those 25% of the electorate had voted against both Trump and Clinton as they didn't want either one to become our next president. That probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, popular vote wise, maybe in the states decided by less than a percentage point it might have. But what if we woke up Wednesday after the election and found the popular vote Clinton 38%, Trump 37%, third party candidates 25%?

No third party candidate would have won a state outside of maybe Utah. But what a message that would have sent. Especially when both major parties spent approximately 2.4 billion dollars on the general election to third parties 3 million or so. I think both major parties would have seen that as a threat to their two party monopoly of our election system.

I know after the 1992 election where Perot received 18%, both major parties kept our phone ringing asking us for support for various issues or at least what we thought about them. That lasted until Perot decided to run again in 1996 and then we became both parties number one enemy.

I don't think the ranked voting system is the fix. People, the electorate still wouldn't have the faintest idea who a Johnson, Stein, Castle or any other third party candidate was. Probably 90% or more of the electorate wouldn't know. I assume when one ranked the candidates there would be no requirement to rank all of them. But that might not matter if they aren't on the ballot. In Georgia the choice was between three, Trump, Clinton, Johnson. Stein didn't make it, although she qualified as a write in. Would all third party candidates, 20 or more nationwide on different state ballots have to be listed on every states ballots or just the one's who qualified under existing state laws today?

 

State by State.
The Greatest State of California requires a % of registered voters plus a minimal take in the last election to remain on the ballot.

There was a movement, America Selects. Then after getting on all State ballots, abandoned us.
Sometime y'gotta wonder about diversionary tactics by the others.

What is needed is media exposure and equal time.
A place in primary debates, not limited to the losers' debates.
I would like to see the debates being each candidate asked the same questions in a private, individual format. Then compare the answers at the end. Less theatrics.


Shocked! 23% favor compulsory voting.


Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
​

 

Then do not enter an opion

You actually do not have to vote - all you really HAVE to do is get your name crossed off a register

 

Bull!!

It is "compulsory" not to jaywalk - is that a violation of "rights" ?

Compulsory voting does lead to some interesting sights

 

Okay, Georgia would have been down to three candidates in 2016 with ranked voting, 5 in 2012. 23%, strange. I seen way too many refer to low information voters on this site, as if they don't know enough whom to vote for. My son who is closing in on 50 has never voted and never paid attention to politics at all. He know Trump is president and that is all he knows. For him to have to cast a vote he would just be looking at a bunch of names for all the different offices and not have a clue who was who or what any of them stood for. He's just mark some names and turn in his ballot not caring one iota whom he voted for. He doesn't think it makes any difference as to whom is in power, they are going to do whatever they want to do anyway as he says.

I wonder how many of the 45% who didn't vote are like my son. Just don't give a darn and would just mark any name just to get it over with the his mandatory voting done.

Compulsory voting, would that be for all elections or just the presidency? Midterms, local, special, sales tax etc.

 

Yes. Compulsion is the opposite of freedom and is thus a violation of rights. If I do not believe or even care out democratic elections, I should not be forced to participate. That only hurts both me and the system itself.

How about compulsory Friday prayers in the mosque for everyone? Would that violate your rights?

If I want to see girls in bikinis I can go to the beach, pool or whatever. As if compulsory voting is the only way to see half-nude women.

 

I fundamentally disagree with compulsory voting. I don't want to show up, I don't want to register, I want to be left alone. Like every citizen in a Western country on Earth, bar Greeks and Luxembourgites.

Simple request.

 

"You vant to be alone?"

 

Yes, like citizens are in every Western nation on Earth except Greece and Luxembourg.

 

Do they have compulsory voting ?

 

I haven't voted since I voted for Romney. Lost all faith in the election system and American people after that. I guess it depends on the candidates. If one is clearly better and it's going to be close, I would probably vote. I think this country is so engrained with a two party system, it will be difficult to get a third party or more candidates on the ballot and in the debates. I certainly hope it happens though.