Should abstaining from voting in elections be allowed?

[newsbone]

Don’t you guys think that those who do not exercise their rights to vote should be jailed? I say these because those who do not participate are the ones who end up are very vocal in complaining against the governments policies. Okay I know some of are about to jump up shouting that it is your right either to vote or not, I think some rights suck! Honestly.

[Barcs]

I think that all citizens should be required to vote, and an option on the poll for "no confidence" should be included. This way, those that don't like the candidates, or feel discontent with our system, can still have their voices heard. It should also be law that if no confidence beats the candidates, the candidates are dismissed and new ones are picked and the system will get evaluated. I also feel that EVERY legal citizen should be allowed to vote. Whether you're in prison, have had past felony convictions, or whatever. You still live here and still should have a say in what happens.

[WebCaptain]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Don’t you guys think that those who do not exercise their rights to vote should be jailed? I say these because those who do not participate are the ones who end up are very vocal in complaining against the governments policies. Okay I know some of are about to jump up shouting that it is your right either to vote or not, I think some rights suck! Honestly.

Voting is an act of violence; its results stand only because men with guns are willing to murder those who resist the policies of those who voted in the "majority" A far stronger case can be made to jail those who DO vote.

Complainers might be annoying, but they don't hurt anyone. The guy people voted for who is raising taxes, starting wars, murdering and imprisoning peaceful drug users and travelers is certainly hurting people.

A gun-toting gangster hurts people who disagree with them. But a voter would rather not deal with such dirty business personally, so he chooses his preferred gun-toting gangster at the ballot box to do it for him.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[Brutha]

Even if you think that people should be forced to vote a small fine is probably a lot more reasonable than prison.

It should also be law that if no confidence beats the candidates, the candidates are dismissed and new ones are picked and the system will get evaluated.

And who should do the evaluating?
Should the CIA just continue working without someone democratically elected overseeing them?
If you would just shut down everything that government does overnight, release all people from prison and stop law enforcement you will get problem that people who 'vote' no confidence probably don't want to see.

Of course you could declare that the past president continues to rule instead of a new president but I don't think that's either what people who vote no confidence would want.

[Parthon]

In our country, you get a $100 fine if you don't vote. And you don't even have to vote, you just have to show up.

I think it's a fair compromise, but I wish voting was more convenient. One time they did it in the middle of a long weekend, such a pain in the butt.

But really, what does voting achieve. I prefer everyone to vote purely because those that have the time to vote when it's optional aren't exactly the best representation of the community.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even if you think that people should be forced to vote a small fine is probably a lot more reasonable than prison.
And who should do the evaluating?
Should the CIA just continue working without someone democratically elected overseeing them?
If you would just shut down everything that government does overnight, release all people from prison and stop law enforcement you will get problem that people who 'vote' no confidence probably don't want to see.

Of course you could declare that the past president continues to rule instead of a new president but I don't think that's either what people who vote no confidence would want.

i see what you're saying. Obviously the past president should continue until a suitable replacement is found. I would say that the people that evaluate the system would be a non government entity (and not appointed by the government), and there should be several of them. Hell, pick people at random. We keep hearing all this rhetoric about power to the people, but not once have the actual citizens of this country ever determined anything in America, besides casting votes for mostly hand picked representatives. The people have no power, which is why we are not a democracy. What you mentioned may not be exactly what the no confidence voters would want, but it still is progress.

[Andrew Brunelle]

You know, this is a free country and we have the right to vote or not vote. Besides, most of the time, the choices we have who actually stand a chance of winning are atrocious, so if someone decides to not vote because he does not want to be responsible for the destruction that will follow from either candidate, then why should you fault them for not waiting 3 hours to vote for someone they believe in who doesn't stand a chance to win the election?

[Brutha]

(and not appointed by the government)

i see what you're saying. Obviously the past president should continue until a suitable replacement is found.

I think that a lot of people who would vote "no confidence" aren't happy with the job he did.
It also creates the problem that he will stay in power indefinitely if nobody else gets found.

Hell, pick people at random. We keep hearing all this rhetoric about power to the people, but not once have the actual citizens of this country ever determined anything in America, besides casting votes for mostly hand picked representatives.

Randomly picking people certainly have an appeal.

You could just randomly pick one of the people who are registered to vote in a district that votes no confidence and sent him to congress (if he declines another gets picked randomly) and give congress the power to elect a president when no candidate gets more than the no confidence vote.

A randomly elected person still isn't the people anymore than a congressman at the moment but getting a few outsides into congress might be what people who vote no confidence want.

[TexasSky]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Don’t you guys think that those who do not exercise their rights to vote should be jailed? I say these because those who do not participate are the ones who end up are very vocal in complaining against the governments policies. Okay I know some of are about to jump up shouting that it is your right either to vote or not, I think some rights suck! Honestly.

I do not think people should be required to vote.
If someone is not smart enough to understand the importance of voting, they aren't smart enough to decide the law of the land or choose the leaders of the land just because they are forced to do so.

[funchy]

What about the people who abstain from voting for an office because they know nothing about the candidates? Isn't non-voting better than closing ones eyes and just randomly pressing a button? I try to stay informed, but sometimes I'll find names I don't know. During an election not only am I voting for president and Congress, but I'm also voting for my state's elected officials, my delegate, my county commissioners, the sheriff, judges, and recorder of wills. Those are a lot of people to keep track of.

We'd need to fix the political system whereby only the candidates with big money or with newspaper influence get talked about on the news media. Some names I literally have never heard of, despite reading the local newspaper. We'd also need to fix the broken 2 party system because it keeps out good people.

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US there are also some people who are proud of their ignorance and lack of education. Theyz don't need no skooling. They're content living their life without participating in any community leadership-type activities. Do you want to force them to vote? And would you be happy to know that in a close race, Candidate B won because he's got prettier colors on his sign? IMO it's more important the right person wins.

So to answer your question, if someone doesn't want to vote, that is their choice. But if they don't vote, they are just as much to blame as anyone. They had the power to do something about it and they chose not to.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that a lot of people who would vote "no confidence" aren't happy with the job he did.
It also creates the problem that he will stay in power indefinitely if nobody else gets found.

This is true. Although I still think it's better than what we have. This is why I suggested a committee to help improve the system. The electoral college is a joke.

A randomly elected person still isn't the people anymore than a congressman at the moment but getting a few outsides into congress might be what people who vote no confidence want.

A randomly elected person still isn't the people anymore than a congressman at the moment but getting a few outsides into congress might be what people who vote no confidence want.

Definitely. At least on a temporary basis. I'm not so sure about letting congress pick the new ones, but if it's a combination of congress and the committee representatives from each district, I believe they could come to terms and at least nominate some worthy candidates and/or help reform the system. I doubt this would happen often (except maybe the first time), but the system definitely needs reform, IMO.

[freddy]

I’m educated enough to know that I’m not wasting my short amount of time on this planet. Standing in some ballet box picking the less of two evils. The financial sector hand picks the person they want in the office. The current system is run by greed. Look at the current crises the world is in. Not too many politicians hurting like the average family. My choice not to vote is made by observing history. Look back in history about the voting problems in FL. and else where. If I was forced to vote. I can see it now. Taxes going up to pay for all the jails to put people like me in. Or they can just release the murders and rapist. Why don’t all the supposedly smart people that vote, get that written into law. HAHAHAHAH
Right now 3 meals and a cot sounds very good to a lot of people who live in the streets due to the financial mess. Stop blaming the people who chose not to vote. And start a revolution to over throw the government and its current system. Why not be different and just sit back and see for yourself what happen when you don’t vote.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Don’t you guys think that those who do not exercise their rights to vote should be jailed? I say these because those who do not participate are the ones who end up are very vocal in complaining against the government’s policies. Okay I know some of are about to jump up shouting that it is your right either to vote or not, I think some rights suck! Honestly.

I believe only 1/3rd of the population votes or so.. I voted in 2006 the only time I've ever voted

Those that complain don't understand how to effect change.. and would complain about just about everything.. they give their power to those they hope will help them.. they can all be self empowered if they choose..

The truth is if you understand how to effect change.. if you understand the illusion is you.. you are the illusion.. you create everywhere!

Then you can change everything through simple LOA.. there is no reason to vote.. there is no bother.. my excuse lately.. why subject myself to the idea of "jury duty"

Why do you buy into the illusion.. that all the power is in the hands of "people" that are not you?

Here is same question in a different context..
Should people be jailed if they:
don't mow their lawns?
don't pay for insurance?
don't pay a trash man to take away their piling trash?
don't vote?

As you can see change the context.. and you might feel the above 3 questions are maybe silly.. my suggestion to use is ease back and take your power back.. you have 200000000% more effect in Washington then any single politician.. run some political intentions if you wish and see your effect..

[David Cain]

Requiring people to vote is insane. More votes does not necessarily produce better leadership, given that most people don't even know the platforms these candidates are running on.

In fact, I would prefer people don't vote if they haven't researched the candidates beyond what they see in the news.

I would rather have only the 25% or so of the populace who are reasonably politically aware and politically educated to choose our government, rather than add in that extra 75% from people who either don't care or don't know the platforms.

If somebody does not want to contribute their opinion as to who should lead the country, why the hell do we want their opinion in the mix?

[bluedragon]

Don’t you guys think that those who do not exercise their rights to vote should be jailed?

And what's next? Jailing people who refuse to chose a TV channel to watch?

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by funchy

What about the people who abstain from voting for an office because they know nothing about the candidates? Isn't non-voting better than closing ones eyes and just randomly pressing a button? I try to stay informed, but sometimes I'll find names I don't know.

Exactly, I think this is a good point. I would certainly sympathize with that. On the other hand, that means that you're leaving the voting to a lot of other people, who may not be any more well informed that you. I think many people, when they're not sure who to vote for, make their choices based on rather arbitrary criteria. Your guess may be as good as theirs, in other words (or slightly better, if you happen to have just a tiny bit of background information about the candidates).

As for the OP's question, yes, I think abstaining from voting should be allowed. If you force people to take political action, you may get better results in the short run (a higher turnout), but you'll probably get much worse results in the long run (by undermining the principles of freedom and democracy). There's much more to democracy than just voting.

For one thing, who'll decide what parties and people are available on the ballots? What if I want to create my own party, or be some sort of non-affiliated activist? Power needs to come directly from the people, not from the political establishment or the people who create the voting system.

[aelle]

How odd that some of you compare mandatory vote with forced consumerism. Voting is a civic duty, like jury duty, or taking part in the draft when applicable. If you decide (and you can) to object to one of these, you need to provide the community with another valuable participation.
Criticizing mandatory voting also completely ignores that in countries where it is enforced, one of its purposes is to protect the right to vote - if everyone must vote, then no one can be forced to abstain - not by their boss, not by their husbands, not by the corrupt political opposition.

I am not big on enforcing mandatory participation to the state community life, but if you choose to abstain or can't be bothered, at least be thorough with it. Don't ask or expect any help getting a passport, driving permit or marriage licence, don't expect well-maintained roads or school system, or fire department. Don't expect to reap the benefits of being a citizen.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by aelle

How odd that some of you compare mandatory vote with forced consumerism. Voting is a civic duty, like jury duty, or taking part in the draft when applicable. If you decide (and you can) to object to one of these, you need to provide the community with another valuable participation.
Criticizing mandatory voting also completely ignores that in countries where it is enforced, one of its purposes is to protect the right to vote - if everyone must vote, then no one can be forced to abstain - not by their boss, not by their husbands, not by the corrupt political opposition.

I am not big on enforcing mandatory participation to the state community life, but if you choose to abstain or can't be bothered, at least be thorough with it. Don't ask or expect any help getting a passport, driving permit or marriage licence, don't expect well-maintained roads or school system, or fire department. Don't expect to reap the benefits of being a citizen.

There may be a point in that, but to be honest I think the proper question in any free society is how to maximize turnout without (essentially) putting a gun to someone's head and telling him to make a choice. The ideal situation is one where people become politically active because they understand that it's in their self interest. Education plays an important role here.

There are many factors that can be manipulated to increase turnout apart from force.

[Xanafax]

Voting is a right in any democracy.

If you don't want to, then don't. You shouldn't be forced. But you abdicate any moral right to complain about the government when you don't.

[Bas]

I don't think you should be forced to participate in a system you fundamentally disagree with. If I were living in the US (or most countries in the world actually), I would completely give up on politics and spend my time on making society better from the bottom up.

I disagree with not being allowed to complain about the government if you don't vote. If the systems in place would truly be fair for every person, yes, then I would agree... but they're not, so to me it is completely understandable when people don't vote. If you want drastic change, you're not going to get what you want by voting - at least not much - and some people even refuse to participate (and this is how they let themselves be heard!).

We're painting a too black and white picture here, which is exactly the problem with politics.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Voting is a right in any democracy.

If you don't want to, then don't. You shouldn't be forced. But you abdicate any moral right to complain about the government when you don't.

So, if you chose one of 2 options when (let's assume) you are not satisfied with neither of them, then you ARE allowed to complain. Why? When you are responsible for something, then you can complain more?

But if you are unsatisfied with both choices and you don't vote, then you are not allowed to be unsatisfied anymore? Why? Because other voters are the ones who put in motion the politics that you are against? Because you didn't support the choices you were opposed to?

I believe I see a flaw in this logic.

[Trezker]

If you're not satisfied with the two major parties, why can't you vote for a third party?

Sweden has lots of parties. New ones pop up now and then.
List of political parties in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes they die after a few years. There was a party that started up, got into parliament and stirred things up for a while and then disappeared. They had a lasting effect on the bigger parties even if they didn't hang around for long.

Others keep on fighting with the few voters they have, we have a party that's a bit hostile towards immigrants. They generally have a bad reputation and most people think it should be shut down, but we live in a democracy so even nazis have the right to vote and form parties. They deny being racist or having nazi sympathies but lots of people see them as both. This party has seats in a few small communities and discontent citizens sometimes vote for them just to scare the bigger parties when parliament does bad stuff.

In some cases a new party comes along that has a very good ideology. Our socialist party started off by focusing on worker issues and is now our biggest party. The Green party started with their environmental issues and now play a big part in our parliament. I don't know which parties are the original ones that took power away from the king, they're not really important anymore.

Lately we have a new and fresh party called the Pirate Party. May sound like a joke name, and in a way it is, but the party is very serious and has certainly become the party to vote for if you don't like that our parliament is dismantling our human rights.

Last but not least (just kidding, it is the least actually), people can vote for whatever the hell they want. A few voters choose to write the name of some famous person, a fictional character or various jokes. They may also draw some doodles and vote for that, but not many people choose to do so.

[Bas]

I think we should stop worrying so much about voting and start caring more about open source governance:

Proponents of open source governance call for creating democratic, wiki-like online platforms which consist solely of user-generated content. For instance, a local community could govern itself and all members of the community can contribute to a particular policy by adding on to it. The three aforementioned critical elements of citizen journalism – open publishing, collaborative editing and distributed content – are vital to this system. This is not some futuristic concept, but it is happening now.

A Swedish political party called Aktiv Demokrati, aiming for the national parliament, believes that “all citizens from different parts in the society should be able to influence important issues both directly and indirectly straight into parliament through an internet based democracy system.” And they’ve enacted such a system for their own party already.

Another example of this is the Trots Op Nederland (TON) (Proud of The Netherlands) party founded by Rita Verdonk, a prominent Dutch politician. The party doesn’t use the traditional membership system, as is common in The Netherlands, instead the party invites people to participate using its Wiki-system. This Wiki-technology is also the basis of popular online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. “In the Wiki of TON, you can deliver your own contribution to the first eight main themes that TON is focussing on.” (TON) In this way Dutch citizens can contribute to the party’s political programme. The party is currently not part of the Dutch parliament, as Rita Verdonk founded it after a post-election boot from her former party, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. Although prognosis at one point were that TON would be the second biggest party if elections were held at that point, the party has now dropped to a prognosis of becoming one of the smallest parties in the parliament.

A final example of this type of e-democracy is the global Metagovernment project which is involved in developing open source (‘free’) software “which will run the Metagovernment and potentially any other community wishing to govern itself through open source governance.” It “makes the basic assumption that the participating parties are on some level willing to cooperate with each other and work towards common solutions, at least to the extent that they recognize they are members of some common community.” If the participating parties meet up to that, the software should “make discussion within and among large communities viable and effective.”

Taken from an essay: Politics 2.0


I don't really believe in voting. I believe in participating.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Bas

I don't really believe in voting. I believe in participating.

Isn't voting one way of participating?

I don't believe in forced voting, but I certainly believe it's in most people's rational self interest to vote (and that a high turnout is a mark of a functioning democratic society).

[Barcs]

Why are so many of you refering to America as a democracy? It is a republic (some refer to it as a democratic republic)! The founding fathers specifically set it up that way. The only thing democratic is the voting system, which is flawed. Democracy does not mean freedom. It means the people have power, which is obviously not the case.

[ns123]

I think punishing people for not voting is not a very effective solution to getting people to become more involved. In this specific case, I suppose your goal is to get people to be more involved and informed and participate in their government and communities, right?

Increasing the vote isn't a very effective way get people to care and become involved, because a side effect of that is, you may get people to vote, but they may not care who they are voting for, just casting blank votes.

If you want people to genuinely care about their government and to participate in community/government issues, forcing them to do so by threat of a fine of jail time is not going to deliver those results. In my own experience, reaching out to others in a gentle way, being what you want to see in the world, inspiring, and connecting with others work more effectively and permanently.

[Brutha]

If you're not satisfied with the two major parties, why can't you vote for a third party?

Sweden has lots of parties. New ones pop up now and then.

Sweden uses proportional voting instead of majority voting and as a result it has more parties.

It “makes the basic assumption that the participating parties are on some level willing to cooperate with each other and work towards common solutions, at least to the extent that they recognize they are members of some common community.” If the participating parties meet up to that, the software should “make discussion within and among large communities viable and effective.”

That's not an basic assumption that's true for states.
That's similar to dreaming of a 100% voting participation. You will always have people who don't want to integrate into the current political consensus and work inside it.

“In the Wiki of TON, you can deliver your own contribution to the first eight main themes that TON is focussing on.” (TON) In this way Dutch citizens can contribute to the party’s political programme.

The actual words of a parties program aren't the thing that matters.
You need commitment of the powerful people in the party and find some process to make decisions.
In Wikipedia decisions are made through authority. Jimmy is the benevolent dictator for life and makes them if other people don't find a consensus.
Then you have admins who also have the power to make decisions at lower level but that also isn't the thing that's typically understand under a democratic process.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Why are so many of you refering to America as a democracy? It is a republic (some refer to it as a democratic republic)! The founding fathers specifically set it up that way. The only thing democratic is the voting system, which is flawed. Democracy does not mean freedom. It means the people have power, which is obviously not the case.

"Democratic republic" is another way of saying representative democracy. So by definition America is a type of democracy, although not a direct democracy, which is the version of democracy that the founding fathers considered tyrannical.

Some people would argue that America is actually turning into an oligarchy (since wealthy elites have so much power), which is a notion that I think, although it's not completely inappropriate, is a bit of an exaggeration.

Anyway, the way I've used the word "democracy" so far has only been in the very general "power to the people" sense. I think the American people have a lot of power, much more so than many other people around the world. I wouldn't disagree, though, that there are some serious flaws in the American system.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by ns123

If you want people to genuinely care about their government and to participate in community/government issues, forcing them to do so by threat of a fine of jail time is not going to deliver those results. In my own experience, reaching out to others in a gentle way, being what you want to see in the world, inspiring, and connecting with others work more effectively and permanently.

Then I think only forced voting can make the people to put the right people in power therefore electing leaders who can inspire and connect with the plight of the majority.

[Xanafax]

You can approach a man and tell him he can vote for you, or not.

You can approach a community and say, vote for me for reasons X, Y and Z, or not.

You can ask any man, community, or country to make a choice. And they will make it. Even if they don't decide they still have made a choice.

However choice ends where a gun begins. When you tell a man to vote or else, what makes you think he will pick logically? He will just pick anyone. You can make him act, but you cannot make him think, and if he doesn't want to vote for any one candidate or party, then he will vote simply out of necessity - not choice. As such a party may gain victory simply because through chance they had the maximum amount of votes, not because anyone wanted them elected.

There is no logic in forced voting. At all.