WI US had compulsory voting?

NapoleonXIV

Banned
One of the other threads just mentioned that Australia apparently has compulsory voting. (what is the penalty, by the way?)

WI the US had such, from lets say 1972. (this is to eliminate the obvious big diff that would be put in by blacks not being disenfranchised for 100 years)

Would it be a lot different country since everybody had to be taken into account by pols?
 
NapoleonXIV said:
One of the other threads just mentioned that Australia apparently has compulsory voting. (what is the penalty, by the way?)

?


The penalty is a fine - and compulsory voting extends to ALL elections - local, state and federal.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Wombat said:
The penalty is a fine - and compulsory voting extends to ALL elections - local, state and federal.

What a wonderful idea. Altho I might not really like it that much. Voting is one of the few things that those of us among the really powerless can do to feel powerful. One the US's more pathetic delusions, I suppose.
 
I imagine if voting was made mandatory, the party that made it so would immediately be voted out of office (which is why it probably won't get done here). However, in the long run, it would force people to pay attention to politics and thus our republic would be healthier.

At the very least, there would be no "tax the young folks too lazy to vote to pay for benefits for the older people who do" anymore.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Voter turnout in Australia is apparently like 95% (despite the fine being really small, IIRC it's 25 dollars or something like that). That compares to the US which hits 50% on a good day.

It would probably have a pretty significant effect on politics. Non-voters in the US are disproportionately young people, poor people, and racial minorities - all groups which vote relatively democrat when they do vote. The Republican party and the interests it represents have been fairly clear winners from low US voter turnout.
 
Ian Montgomerie said:
Voter turnout in Australia is apparently like 95% (despite the fine being really small, IIRC it's 25 dollars or something like that). That compares to the US which hits 50% on a good day.

It would probably have a pretty significant effect on politics. Non-voters in the US are disproportionately young people, poor people, and racial minorities - all groups which vote relatively democrat when they do vote. The Republican party and the interests it represents have been fairly clear winners from low US voter turnout.

Significantly, the turnout for the Democratic primaries has been abnormally high, despite the fact that the candidates have about as much personality as boxes of hair. This to me indicates large-scale disatisfaction with Bush. With the implosion of Dean, for the first time it seems possible to me that Bush might actually be removed from power.
 
Compulsory suffrage is a downright stupid proposition in America. The only Americans that vote are those that are interested in politics, and old people. And, generally, even those voters are too stupid to make decisions. Now, if you force the entire partially-mentally challenged populace of America to vote, the results would be even worse. Look what the perversion of democracy got California, for example.

In fact, if I were going to change voting restrictions in any way, I'd restrict them. First, only land (condos, houses, land, etc.) owners can vote. After all, land-owners pay the majority of the taxes and take the majority of the risk involved in the economy, why shouldn't they get a greater say? Second, restrict the voting age to between 18 and 60. After 60, you aren't going to live more (on average) than 15 years longer. Thus, since you no longer have a stake in the future of the nation, why should you have a SAY in that future? Third, if you have a criminal record, with ANY FELONY, you're no longer allowed to vote in ANY election. Probably not a problem. Most people who commit felonies don't vote anyhow. Finally, administer some, at least, basic IQ test. Do you honestly think that it is fair that a burnout or just plain stupid person, has the same say in the government, or the insight to use that voice, that someone like Albert Einstein does (or did, in this case)?
 
---It would probably have a pretty significant effect on politics. Non-voters in the US are disproportionately young people, poor people, and racial minorities - all groups which vote relatively democrat when they do vote. The Republican party and the interests it represents have been fairly clear winners from low US voter turnout.----



Very true. Based on demographics,with compulsory voting,the Republicans would have to shift to the left or get used to losing. I assume this would put the electoral college to bed also- which as exhibited in 2000 has also shielded the Republicans from losing-especially in Dixie.
 
Jazz and Cinemas

In Australia's 1922 Federal election, only 59.38 percent of the people voted and this drop from the usual 70 plus percent promted the Federal Government to introduce compulsory voting. At the 1925 election, the turnout was 91.38 percent and the Nationalist Country coalition was re-elected. At that time, the world's oldest man, James Wardley, was an Australian and when he cast his vote in South Melbourne he said "Young folks nowadays do not take sufficient interest in affairs of state. What with jazz and cinemas, they neglect their dearest possession, the right to vote."
The penalty for not voting is 50 Australian dollars which is about 38 US dollars. And while voting in Germany wasn't compulsory in 1933, I can't help but notice that the 40 percent who didn't vote in that election paid a penalty considerably more than 40 US dollars.
I personaly think that regardless of how few actually vote, extremists produce a 100 percent turn out. ie Mainstream political parties have nothing to fear. Maybe by having to answer to everyone, they become more mainstream.
 
Mark Ford said:
And while voting in Germany wasn't compulsory in 1933, I can't help but notice that the 40 percent who didn't vote in that election paid a penalty considerably more than 40 US dollars.
I personaly think that regardless of how few actually vote, extremists produce a 100 percent turn out. ie Mainstream political parties have nothing to fear. Maybe by having to answer to everyone, they become more mainstream.

Actually, 88.x % voted in 1933. It was the HIGHEST turnout during the whole Weimar Republic.

The rise of the Nazis in Germany shows that a the popular equations
high turnout=democracy
attraction of young voters=good
don´t have to work.
 
I might not mind if there was compulsory voting, if there was proportional representation. That way there would be a wider variety of thoughts and opinions expressed at the State and Federal levels of government.
 
Walter_Kaufmann said:
Compulsory suffrage is a downright stupid proposition in America. The only Americans that vote are those that are interested in politics, and old people. And, generally, even those voters are too stupid to make decisions. Now, if you force the entire partially-mentally challenged populace of America to vote, the results would be even worse. Look what the perversion of democracy got California, for example.

In fact, if I were going to change voting restrictions in any way, I'd restrict them. First, only land (condos, houses, land, etc.) owners can vote. After all, land-owners pay the majority of the taxes and take the majority of the risk involved in the economy, why shouldn't they get a greater say? Second, restrict the voting age to between 18 and 60. After 60, you aren't going to live more (on average) than 15 years longer. Thus, since you no longer have a stake in the future of the nation, why should you have a SAY in that future? Third, if you have a criminal record, with ANY FELONY, you're no longer allowed to vote in ANY election. Probably not a problem. Most people who commit felonies don't vote anyhow. Finally, administer some, at least, basic IQ test. Do you honestly think that it is fair that a burnout or just plain stupid person, has the same say in the government, or the insight to use that voice, that someone like Albert Einstein does (or did, in this case)?

Agree with the land owning idea, as well as the age limite (maybe), but limiting the vote based on criminal records and intellegence probably isn't a good idea, as those could be corrupted to deny people the right to vote.
 
I don't think 100% turnout would automatically mean Democrats win every election. Nothing could have saved Carter in 1980. 100% turnout would favor the Democrats, but if the economy goes down the tubes or if foreign powers are trampling all over our overseas interests, Republicans will be back in power. At the state level, would it change the south that much? Blacks are a large majority there; if you add them to the left wing whites, do they outnumber the right wing whites? In some states, particularly the west, higher voter turnout would merely solidify the Republican party; states like ID, WY, UT, MT are fairly conservative anyway. Of course, these states are not political powerhouses.....
 
The point of a democracy, even one so undemocratic as the United States, is that every citizen, no matter what, gets a vote. If criminals and the poor and others aren't allowed to vote, then that pretty much removes democracy.

However, maybe there should be a mandatory IQ test ofr lawmakers, and it should be required that they actually be able to speak English...
 
---Third, if you have a criminal record, with ANY FELONY, you're no longer allowed to vote in ANY election. Probably not a problem. Most people who commit felonies don't vote anyhow. ----


Except that in the US certain felonies involve drugs and property charges which is questionable in and of itself.
 
What is this fascination with IQ tests? Does anyone out there know what they were developed for or what they measure? Do folk really think they are some kind of absolute measure of intelligence? They were developed to identify children who were falling behind at school so they could be given extra tuition. Also, most of the top Nazi's were very well educated and I am sure that they would have scored very highly on IQ tests....I would much rather have my potential political representatives sit an ethics exam.
 
As one of the old guys on this board, I have problems that some of the stuff here is being talked about.

The issue isn't age, (or race or sex or education or wealth), it is how do you seperate the people that shold vote from those that sell their votes based on a poitician's promises, or runs on the basis of 'splitting the nation', i.e. "the welfare of this group is being threatened by that group, vote for me and I'll out it to that group."

However, I do believe that obviously incompetent people shouldn't vote. There are too many examples of incompetents voting, but this is based on a legal and medical definitions, not political.

How about Robert Heinlien's idea, only those that have somehow 'served' the country are allowed to vote?
 
Norman said:
How about Robert Heinlien's idea, only those that have somehow 'served' the country are allowed to vote?

...and who decides what serving constitutes? All these limited voting system ideas will just end up with a self-serving oligarchy. Universal suffrage (with only the extremely mental ill and serious convicted criminals barred) is the only system that can be called democracy. It may rile that the bloke who lives next door and thinks the sun goes round the earth has as much influence on whether we should have GM crops as you do, but that's democracy.
 
7 votes

I wonder what kind of outcry there would have been if South Africa had adopted some form of the 7vote system instead of bowing to the one man-one vote pressure.

Before you ask, you can have any combination of from 1 to 6, without the other ones.

1. Citizen Vote-- everyone gets this one
2. Education Vote-- Masters or bettter [Schools ARE suppose to teach Critical thinking]
3. Service Vote-- [Milatary/Alternate] personal, AFTER Discharge , You gave to your Country, shows you care about it
4. Foriegn travel Vote-- must of spend [XX] years Aboard, [You have been exposed to Other ways of living]
5. Business Vote,-- You run a business employing [XX] number of People, You have a stake in Good Goverment.
6. Investors Vote. Not the same as Business, You have over $X,million invest in the Country, [foriegn investment don't count]. You have a Stake in the Countrys success.
7. The Seventh Vote, No Sitting Gov't Personal [ any level], usally given PostHumerously. Your Livingstons, Einsteins, Jonas Salks, Privite Yorks Ect.
Given by Speacil Super Majority vote of Congress [Parilament]. This one gives all the others.

For more details read Neil Shutes "In The Wet". About what happens after Austrulia followed by NZ, Adopt the System. :rolleyes:
 
I don't share Walter's poor opinion of the electorate. I think the American public generally makes the right decisions WHEN PROPERLY INFORMED. The Forces of Darkness prevent that, or voters are so overwhelmed by endless poorly-written initiatives and the like that it is nearly impossible to be properly informed.

Let's see what happens in the Presidential election. If the tyrant remains in office, I'll likely have to concede your point.
 
Top