ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th February 2019, 12:09 PM   #201
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I agree. You can make it mandatory to show up at the polling place, or to return a mail in ballot, with a fine for failing to do so, but as long as you have a secret ballot, you can't prevent people from returning a blank ballot, or marking their ballot randomly. I really don't see how mandatory voting makes any difference at all.
Well if you're going to actually physically get to the polls, you might as well make a choice, I guess.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:37 PM   #202
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
What seems to be missed, again, in this discussion about personal liberty, etc, is that mandatory voting turns the issue of disenfranchisement on its head. Again, it makes it illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.

Why is that important? Cast your memory back to all the kerfuffle, protests, column-inches, headlines and outright bastardry where US voters have been prevented from registering through dirty tricks or frank bad laws, pre-emptively deregistered, and denied access to polls, etc. It continues even today - McConnell has been open about it. Both sides use these tricks to prevent you from voting if they think your vote will go against them. The low turnout helps them, especially if the low turnout is by people who might oppose them. So all the effort for legal voters is to prove they ARE legal voters. You have to work at it, and spend a whole lot more than a few minutes to actually be allowed exercise your right to vote. It becomes easy to foil that effort. And that's how it becomes a denial of your right to vote. That does not seem to be part of the ethos of rights in the USA to me.

However with mandatory voting, much of that disappears because the onus is reversed. Such tactics that prevent you from voting are immediately illegal. Disenfranchisement, hiding polling booths, voter suppression - illegal. Straight to the courts for prosecution if found. If you want to think about it in terms of rights, mandatory voting is a solid protection for your right to vote as a citizen. Your voting right cannot be refused or removed for any reason at any time (except under certain legal conditions). You don't have to fight for it, it is there.

Also, we make it a fun day out when we vote. So it's hardly a burden on our lives.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:41 PM   #203
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
What seems to be missed, again, in this discussion about personal liberty, etc, is that mandatory voting turns the issue of disenfranchisement on its head. Again, it makes it illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.

Why is that important? Cast your memory back to all the kerfuffle, protests, column-inches, headlines and outright bastardry where US voters have been prevented from registering through dirty tricks or frank bad laws, pre-emptively deregistered, and denied access to polls, etc. It continues even today - McConnell has been open about it. Both sides use these tricks to prevent you from voting if they think your vote will go against them. The low turnout helps them, especially if the low turnout is by people who might oppose them. So all the effort for legal voters is to prove they ARE legal voters. You have to work at it, and spend a whole lot more than a few minutes to actually be allowed exercise your right to vote. It becomes easy to foil that effort. And that's how it becomes a denial of your right to vote. That does not seem to be part of the ethos of rights in the USA to me.

However with mandatory voting, much of that disappears because the onus is reversed. Such tactics that prevent you from voting are immediately illegal. Disenfranchisement, hiding polling booths, voter suppression - illegal. Straight to the courts for prosecution if found. If you want to think about it in terms of rights, mandatory voting is a solid protection for your right to vote as a citizen. Your voting right cannot be refused or removed for any reason at any time (except under certain legal conditions). You don't have to fight for it, it is there.

Also, we make it a fun day out when we vote. So it's hardly a burden on our lives.
So your argument is then that mandatory voting, counter-intuitively, actually protects your rights by preventing the government from interfereing with your vote?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:45 PM   #204
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
So your argument is then that mandatory voting, counter-intuitively, actually protects your rights by preventing the government from interfereing with your vote?
It's not counter-intuitive. Your voting right is like your citizenship. You have it, you may exercise it, it may not be arbitrarily prevented.

Also, instead of trying to prevent you from voting, your politicians have to spend their efforts trying to convince you which way you should vote. Which is as it should be.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:47 PM   #205
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
It seems like you could have the same level of "You can't make it harder to vote" laws/legal standards without adding the "Therefore you have to do it" clause.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:47 PM   #206
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
It's not counter-intuitive.
What I mean is that in this case, by forcing you to do something, the government is protecting your freedom. You don't think that's a bit counter-intuitive? That doesn't mean that it's false, of course.

Quote:
Also, instead of trying to prevent you from voting, your politicians have to spend their efforts trying to convince you which way you should vote. Which is as it should be.
Indeed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:48 PM   #207
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It seems like you could have the same level of "You can't make it harder to vote" laws/legal standards without adding the "Therefore you have to do it" clause.
Yes, but that's one way to do it rather simply.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:51 PM   #208
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, but that's one way to do it rather simply.
It is but I do have a pretty solid rule of thumb that if you multiple ways of achieving the same goal the one that leaves the most freedom intact is always the superior one.

Both sides have fair and arguable advantages but is our goal "Get the most people to vote" or "Get the most people who want to vote to vote."

If our goal is I lean (not married to, just lean more to) some form of mandatory voting, if it's the latter I do not.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:53 PM   #209
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
What seems to be missed, again, in this discussion about personal liberty, etc, is that mandatory voting turns the issue of disenfranchisement on its head. Again, it makes it illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.
It's already illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:54 PM   #210
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It is but I do have a pretty solid rule of thumb that if you multiple ways of achieving the same goal the one that leaves the most freedom intact is always the superior one.
yes, although Norman's argument sort of makes the case for the idea that in this case your freedoms _are_ protected this way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:55 PM   #211
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's already illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.
And yet they manage to find ways to purge people from the voting lists and so on. Even that would be eliminated if _everyone_ in age of voting _had_ to vote.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:56 PM   #212
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's already illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.
Some of this is leaning a little toward "Make a new law because we aren't effectively enforcing the old ones."

Now there are some problems with the system and some problems with people subverting the system, both of which we need to address, but they aren't the same thing.

Gerrymandering needs to go away. There needs to be standards for how accessible polling places need to be for all voters. Broader voting reform needs to at least put on the table for discussion.

But running people out of a polling station or blocking it is already illegal. When something is illegal making it illegal again doesn't matter.

A lot of the shady stuff that got pulled last election was already illegal. Enforce the laws you've already got, don't make new ones.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:57 PM   #213
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
It's not counter-intuitive. Your voting right is like your citizenship. You have it, you may exercise it, it may not be arbitrarily prevented.
But this is already the case in the US. Nor does mandatory voting prevent the government from interfering with your exercise of your rights, arbitrarily or otherwise.

To your formulation I would add, nor may it be arbitrarily compelled. The only remaining questions are about specific policies. Are they arbitrary? Are they justified? Etc.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:01 PM   #214
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
yes, although Norman's argument sort of makes the case for the idea that in this case your freedoms _are_ protected this way.
There's a good point in there to be sure, but "I'm gonna make you exercise your freedom to keep you from losing them" just... rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe I'm just seeing "You have to vote" to "You have to vote for these 'approved candidate that we've vetted to keep you safe'" to "You have to vote for this guy" as shorter hops then others are.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 4th February 2019 at 01:02 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:04 PM   #215
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's a good point in there to be sure, but "I'm gonna make you exercise your freedom to keep you from losing them" just... rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe I'm just seeing "You have to vote" to "You have to vote for these 'approved candidate that we've vetted to keep you safe'" to "You have to vote for this guy" as shorter hops then others are.
Again, not a bad argument. On the other hand, there's nothing that stops the DNC and RNC from dropping primaries altogether right now and vetting their own candidates like they used to.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:11 PM   #216
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Again, not a bad argument. On the other hand, there's nothing that stops the DNC and RNC from dropping primaries altogether right now and vetting their own candidates like they used to.
And at the end of the day we are always going to hit that paradox when we're talking government if we don't "trust*" the system you can't just replace the system because the same people are going to learn how to play the new system before any real change happens.

*I say "Trust" but that actually has connotations too specific. "Distrusts" in that context is more paranoid and conspiratorial sound then I mean. But something along those lines in more neutral terms.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:12 PM   #217
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Again, not a bad argument. On the other hand, there's nothing that stops the DNC and RNC from dropping primaries altogether right now and vetting their own candidates like they used to.
Even if they did, at least under the current system I'm allowed to conclude that it'll be a **** show no matter how I vote, and I'm allowed go for a long bike ride instead.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a Strict Scrutiny argument for why my freedom to go for a ride on election day should be infringed.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:17 PM   #218
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Even if they did, at least under the current system I'm allowed to conclude that it'll be a **** show no matter how I vote, and I'm allowed go for a long bike ride instead.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a Strict Scrutiny argument for why my freedom to go for a ride on election day should be infringed.
Because outside of pure anarchy even the most hypothetical libertarian dream societies the citizen still have some responsibilities.

I'm actually with you in our current system, somewhat. "You MUST report to this place between 0800 and 1600 on this day to vote" is a bit restrictive and does reduce our ability to mandate our own priorities.

Now stretch that out to a week, two weeks, add in voting by mail, etc and so forth and that burden is severely downgraded to the point the needle starts moving back for me. It's not an absolute but it's moving.

Again I can't let libertarianism turn into "The government never gets to put any onus on me as a citizen at all for anything" That's just "Anarchy when I feel like it."

I'm still a pretty libertarian but it has to be more than just "Selective Selfish Personal Anarchy."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:18 PM   #219
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Even if they did, at least under the current system I'm allowed to conclude that it'll be a **** show no matter how I vote, and I'm allowed go for a long bike ride instead.
You absolutely are. It's your freedom to let others make the choice for you. Just take care that the number doesn't get so small that the only people making that choice are the ones actually getting elected.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:21 PM   #220
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You absolutely are. It's your freedom to let others make the choice for you. Just take care that the number doesn't get so small that the only people making that choice are the ones actually getting elected.
This moving back to the "Should people vote question" instead of the "Should people have to vote" question but one of the things that really drove home why "I'm disillusioned so I'm just gonna vote" is a bad idea is when someone said in everything from politics to staff meetings to your local HOA you are never doing yourself a favor by only letting the people who are obsessed with a decision be the ones who get a say in it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:21 PM   #221
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,086
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still waiting for someone to make a Strict Scrutiny argument for why my freedom to go for a ride on election day should be infringed.
The same reason that you can't brush off jury duty service. it's been decided as a nation that a jury of your peers is a necessary element of our society, so jury duty service is not optional if you are called. Jury duty is much more disruptive than voting as it can easily take weeks of largely uncompensated time, and you will get an arrest warrant for failing to show up.

Whether or not voting rises to that level of compulsory service is a open question to me. I think a modest fee would be best in communicating society's displeasure in not voting.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:30 PM   #222
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You absolutely are. It's your freedom to let others make the choice for you. Just take care that the number doesn't get so small that the only people making that choice are the ones actually getting elected.
Thanks for the advice. I still think that it should be advice, and not government coercion.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:34 PM   #223
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The same reason that you can't brush off jury duty service.
It absolutely is not the same reason.

Each exception must be argued on its own merits, on a case-by-case basis. Simply saying that one exception is accepted, doesn't actually justify any other exception. Hell, it doesn't even necessarily justify the exception that's already been accepted. Government intrusion is excused for bull **** reasons all the time.

ETA: Also, I specifically required a Strict Scrutiny argument. Not only did you not provide one for mandatory voting; you didn't even provide one for mandatory jury duty, which is supposedly your analogue argument.

Last edited by theprestige; 4th February 2019 at 01:35 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:36 PM   #224
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Whether or not voting rises to that level of compulsory service is a open question to me. I think a modest fee would be best in communicating society's displeasure in not voting.
And I think people exercising their freedom of speech to communicate their displeasure would be best in communicating their displeasure. In what Suburban Turkey Dimension of Pain do I owe you money because I don't vote the way you want me to?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:40 PM   #225
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,631
If voting were mandatory in the U.S., how would that affect attempts to suppress voters? Efforts that include making Native Americans show a street address when they live on a reservation without street addresses, or putting a town's only polling place one mile outside the city limits?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:47 PM   #226
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,086
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It absolutely is not the same reason.

Each exception must be argued on its own merits, on a case-by-case basis. Simply saying that one exception is accepted, doesn't actually justify any other exception. Hell, it doesn't even necessarily justify the exception that's already been accepted. Government intrusion is excused for bull **** reasons all the time.

ETA: Also, I specifically required a Strict Scrutiny argument. Not only did you not provide one for mandatory voting; you didn't even provide one for mandatory jury duty, which is supposedly your analogue argument.
Why would strict scrutiny apply?

My point about Jury Duty is that it demonstrates that, for very limited reasons, the state can compel service from a citizen.

I'm not a constitutional scholar. Who knows how the laws would have to be passed to make mandatory voting constitutional. Maybe an amendment would have to be ratified. It's a thought experiment, I don't really care about the legal details.

I'm more interested in the question of should voting be mandatory, not how such a thing could happen and be constitutional.

I imagine the argument could be made that not voting is a valid form of political expression and protected by 1A. I imagine that a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to rectify this problem. Given that certain political figures are making it as difficult as possible for some to voluntarily vote, mandatory voting is not in the near future.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:48 PM   #227
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,048
Theprestige seems to be arguing a larger point (to his credit, this is not a criticism since his larger point is at the core of what is being discussed.) It's not one I'm really 100% onboard with, but it is valid.

Again even in the most libertarian of societies in any governmental system short of pure anarchy "The Government" is going to have some things it has to task "The People" with.

So the question on the table is to what degree does the Government have the right to task specific people with something they need the generic "people" to do.

The government doesn't need a specific person to sit on a jury. They need X amount of people who meet Y specifications to fill a number of juries. The government doesn't need John Smith of 123 Main Street, Anytown USA to sit on a jury.

Now personally I think the idea that we are going to have enough "volunteers" to do the jobs that the government tasks the "people" as a group with is a little... not likely.

And honestly the same people who have a problem with being told "You, yes you specifically has to come to court on Monday to sit on a jury" are also going to have a problem with paying jurors enough to ensure enough people want to sit on a jury "voluntarily."

And how this applies to voting, something that every should want to do also raises its own questions.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 02:47 PM   #228
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,721
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Theprestige seems to be arguing a larger point (to his credit, this is not a criticism since his larger point is at the core of what is being discussed.) It's not one I'm really 100% onboard with, but it is valid.

Again even in the most libertarian of societies in any governmental system short of pure anarchy "The Government" is going to have some things it has to task "The People" with.

So the question on the table is to what degree does the Government have the right to task specific people with something they need the generic "people" to do.

The government doesn't need a specific person to sit on a jury. They need X amount of people who meet Y specifications to fill a number of juries. The government doesn't need John Smith of 123 Main Street, Anytown USA to sit on a jury.

Now personally I think the idea that we are going to have enough "volunteers" to do the jobs that the government tasks the "people" as a group with is a little... not likely.

And honestly the same people who have a problem with being told "You, yes you specifically has to come to court on Monday to sit on a jury" are also going to have a problem with paying jurors enough to ensure enough people want to sit on a jury "voluntarily."

And how this applies to voting, something that every should want to do also raises its own questions.
Libertarians would generally favor levels of compensation until there are enough volunteers.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 03:11 PM   #229
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,065
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Do you pay your taxes?
Only if I have taxes to pay, otherwise no. If I don't work a day this year I do not need to pay income tax.

If I purchase nothing I don't need to pay sales tax.

The only mandatory "tax" I can think of is Obamacare.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I ABSOLUTELY love mgidm86's response. As if he has no responsibility to society at all.
What a dishonest response.

Now do either of you have an opinion on my idea? You commented on the one half-silly aspect of my post, I even admitted it was when I added the hilighted.......

Quote:
I don't agree with mandatory anything from my government. I'm probably forgetting something important but in general - hell no.
But you took the easy snark instead.

Ya, I thought of taxes. Gee! I never thought anyone would mention taxes! You're friggin geniuses!

So now please...rather than being lazy why not add to the conversation?

My idea was to move Presidents day to Novemeber, make it Voting Day, have it on a Friday so that Saturday and maybe Sunday can be voting days as well.

You didn't respond the first time so I guess it's a great idea!?!?!
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 03:14 PM   #230
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
If voting were mandatory in the U.S., how would that affect attempts to suppress voters? Efforts that include making Native Americans show a street address when they live on a reservation without street addresses, or putting a town's only polling place one mile outside the city limits?
Threatening eligible voters with jail time if they don't vote doesn't actually have anything to do with the question of how you determine eligible voters in the first place. Native Americans who couldn't show a street address still wouldn't be able to vote. On the other hand, the government wouldn't be able to prove they were in violation of mandatory voting.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 03:20 PM   #231
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Why would strict scrutiny apply?
Because that's my baseline standard for determining whether the government is justified in infringing on a right.

Quote:
My point about Jury Duty is that it demonstrates that, for very limited reasons, the state can compel service from a citizen.
Nobody is disputing that. What I'm asking is, what argument on limited reasons are you prepared to make to compel this particular service?

Quote:
I'm not a constitutional scholar. Who knows how the laws would have to be passed to make mandatory voting constitutional. Maybe an amendment would have to be ratified. It's a thought experiment, I don't really care about the legal details.
Then I recommend you don't bother replying to me, since at this point in the discussion all I'm really interested in is specific arguments in favor of this specific infringement.

Quote:
I'm more interested in the question of should voting be mandatory, not how such a thing could happen and be constitutional.
And I'm saying the question of should depends very much on the question of whether it can be made to be constitutional.

Put it another way: By default, it should not be mandatory, unless someone can shoulder the burden of proof and argue convincingly for an exception in this case. You claim to be interested in the question, but you won't actually bother to make a real argument?

Quote:
I imagine the argument could be made that not voting is a valid form of political expression and protected by 1A. I imagine that a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to rectify this problem. Given that certain political figures are making it as difficult as possible for some to voluntarily vote, mandatory voting is not in the near future.
The same things that prevent someone from voting voluntarily would also prevent them from voting mandatorily.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 04:36 PM   #232
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,253
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm never getting those 8 minutes back!

Eight minutes once every three years? Too high a price to pay for having a say in who should represent you in the larger scheme of things.


Actually it takes me a lot longer, stopping to chat with people, having a coffee and a sausage at the booth, having to squander 10 minutes walking to and from my Polling Station. I guess I will just have to continue to suffer that horrible and onerous duty so that the evil powers to be can continue to force me into voting so that they can.... what exactly?



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 04:40 PM   #233
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It seems like you could have the same level of "You can't make it harder to vote" laws/legal standards without adding the "Therefore you have to do it" clause.
Not quite.

The former - ease of voting - in the USA is indeed an issue because every state has their own unique way of voting and counting. In Australia, we have one federal election law. Everyone votes and it is counted using the same method in every seat (paper electoral rolls, paper ballot voting, optional preferential counting). So it is vastly simpler to operate and far more predictable in how it works. But is it the best method available? Arguable indeed.

With mandatory voting as it runs here, most of us view voting as a civic duty. It is drummed into us from young that as adults we are not only entitled but required to take voting seriously. When we turn 18, one of the things we do (besides getting our first legal drink!) is to register to vote. It's a one-off permanent status, which changes only when we change address. Having registered we are now on the official electoral roll. And we are expected to turn up and vote when required to do so. I suppose you could think of it as 10 minutes of National Service duty every couple of years. i really don't feel that "infringes on my freedom as an Australian citizen" very much at all. Plus I can get a democracy sausage.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 4th February 2019 at 04:42 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 04:45 PM   #234
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's already illegal to prevent a legal voter from voting.
You seem to have a LOT of issues with voter registration restrictions, disenfranchisement of legal voters, hiding polling booths in bottom drawers, and all sort of other chicanery with certain areas basically trying to prevent people voting who should be able to.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 04:50 PM   #235
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But this is already the case in the US.
And yet it's a major issue in a number of areas.

Quote:
Nor does mandatory voting prevent the government from interfering with your exercise of your rights, arbitrarily or otherwise.
In that case you will have bigger problems than improperly run voting operations.

Quote:
To your formulation I would add, nor may it be arbitrarily compelled. The only remaining questions are about specific policies. Are they arbitrary? Are they justified? Etc.
We are not arbitrarily compelled to submit a valid vote. We are arbitrarily compelled to participate in the voting process.

And indeed, there has been some questions raised about some recent elections here where the informal vote count became significantly high to be concerning. It's the job of our Electoral Commission to analyse that and make recommendations to address it.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 04:59 PM   #236
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
If voting were mandatory in the U.S., how would that affect attempts to suppress voters? Efforts that include making Native Americans show a street address when they live on a reservation without street addresses, or putting a town's only polling place one mile outside the city limits?
I can't say with any certainty. Is there any way of identifying yourself that does not involve an address? Could there be multiple ways?

I've been told of one way used in a number of places. First, a citizen confirms they are a valid voter some time before an election, and then they are issued with a "voting ticket" (could be in person, or mailed out). They can then go to any polling booth on the day, hand their ticket in and get ballot papers which they can vote with. No ticket, no vote. One ticket per person only. Handing the ticket in gets you ticked off the roll as voting. Job done.

Now, I can see a number of ways to misuse this method. But it does address the issue of no-address identity and also valid access to a polling place.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 05:03 PM   #237
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,253
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Now stretch that out to a week, two weeks, add in voting by mail, etc and so forth and that burden is severely downgraded to the point the needle starts moving back for me. It's not an absolute but it's moving.

With Australia's "mandatory getting your name ticked off", this happens. Postal voting is available for everybody, pre Polling stations are open for a couple of weeks, if you are in Hospital or a Prison Officer on duty, or live in a remote area, the Ballot paper comes to you on the day, if you are overseas you can vote at most Embassies, or if that cannot happen, you are exempted. If you are not mobile, the major political parties have volunteers who will ferry people to Booths back and forth all day on polling day after a phone call.

Edited to Add: At the 2016 election 31% of all votes (4.5 million) were cast prior to election day.

We make it as easy as humanly possible to ensure that people are not disadvantaged in any way.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 4th February 2019 at 05:13 PM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 05:04 PM   #238
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Eight minutes once every three years? Too high a price to pay for having a say in who should represent you in the larger scheme of things.


Actually it takes me a lot longer, stopping to chat with people, having a coffee and a sausage at the booth, having to squander 10 minutes walking to and from my Polling Station. I guess I will just have to continue to suffer that horrible and onerous duty so that the evil powers to be can continue to force me into voting so that they can.... what exactly?



Norm
The biggest imposition?? Numbering that damn Senate paper as big as a tablecloth! Takes AGES!! I prefer to number all below the line because I want to preference certain candidates last...way last...way, WAY last.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 05:04 PM   #239
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,732
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You seem to have a LOT of issues with voter registration restrictions, disenfranchisement of legal voters, hiding polling booths in bottom drawers, and all sort of other chicanery with certain areas basically trying to prevent people voting who should be able to.
None of which is addressed by mandatory voting.

Maybe you're thinking of voter registration reform?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 05:07 PM   #240
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
None of which is addressed by mandatory voting.

Maybe you're thinking of voter registration reform?
Actually, they are very relevant. With mandatory voting, such tactics would be immediately illegal, not just "how we do stuff here".

Voter registration reform is related. If it is mandatory for US citizens to vote then there needs to be a mechanism that allows them to register properly. Having a plethora of different and badly applied laws could be seen as an attempt to deprive citizens of their right and duty to vote.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.