California introduces mandatory voting bill

Architect said:
It's a shame nobody tried it elsewhere, to see how it works.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Don't a lot of countries do this? I agree with this but I also agree that there should be a mandatory paid holiday off from work to vote; however, you have to provide proof you voted. Whether that be just a ticket stub with your name on it from the polling place, or something to that effect. The better the turn out the better the representation of the country. I have no idea how this could be conceived as a bad thing.
 
It's not the government's business whether I voted or not. I can abstain, and spend the day at work, or abstain, and spend the day fishing, or abstain, and spend the day doing whatever I damn well please, and it's just as valid an exercise of my voting rights as anything else. It's also entirely my business how I choose to exercise those rights.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's like universal health care. Things that work fine in other countries won't work in the US because ... vague hand waves ... reasons. Something ... something ... population. Look over there!!
Click to expand...

On the other hand, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Just because A and B like something doesn't mean C has to.
 
theprestige said:
It's not the government's business whether I voted or not. I can abstain, and spend the day at work, or abstain, and spend the day fishing, or abstain, and spend the day doing whatever I damn well please, and it's just as valid an exercise of my voting rights as anything else. It's also entirely my business how I choose to exercise those rights.
Click to expand...

I mean, there are several duties that the government can force you to perform. Jury duty and military service in time of war are two examples.

The question is whether society wants voting to be a discretion or a duty.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, there are several duties that the government can force you to perform. Jury duty and military service in time of war are two examples.

The question is whether society wants voting to be a discretion or a duty.
Click to expand...

Heh heh heh. You said "duty".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, there are several duties that the government can force you to perform. Jury duty and military service in time of war are two examples.

The question is whether society wants voting to be a discretion or a duty.
Click to expand...

The question is whether making it a duty actually solves a problem worth solving.

It creates a fresh obligation of the citizen to the government. It creates a fresh category of criminal activity. This is not the sort of thing you should want to do, unless you have a very good reason for it.

Jury duty has a good argument, since jury trials are a fundamental part of our system of justice, and they won't work unless people show up.

Military service in time of war is another obvious one.

Mandatory voting? I have yet to see a compelling argument that it's necessary.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, there are several duties that the government can force you to perform. Jury duty and military service in time of war are two examples.

The question is whether society wants voting to be a discretion or a duty.
Click to expand...

Discretion. I don't think making somebody who does not care about politics ,does not pay attention to them, and knows nothng about the issue
go and cast a ballot in ignorance is a smart idea.

Yes, there are duties we have to perform but they should be kept to a minimum.

AMericans really don't like being told what to do.They will go along to a point if they think it is necessary,I don't think forcing people to vote is one of them.

And I consider this bill to be a direct assault on individual liberty, and that is the big problem I have with a lot of the left..they are ready to sacrifice individual rights on the alter of :the good of society far too quickly for my taste.
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
It's like universal health care. Things that work fine in other countries won't work in the US because ... vague hand waves ... reasons. Something ... something ... population. Look over there!!
Click to expand...

Because Americans don't like being told what to do by the Government,and want to keep it to a minimum.
 
plague311 said:
I was thinking the same thing. Don't a lot of countries do this? I agree with this but I also agree that there should be a mandatory paid holiday off from work to vote; however, you have to provide proof you voted. Whether that be just a ticket stub with your name on it from the polling place, or something to that effect. The better the turn out the better the representation of the country. I have no idea how this could be conceived as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Because having people who don't give a damn about politics or issues vote without knowing what the hell they doing is NOT a good idea?
 
Moot point, this bill will go nowhere.
And if by some insanity it is passed it will be overturned by a intaitive to repeal it next election. And the margin will not even be close.
 
Belz... said:
Correction: you don't want it to be government's business.
Click to expand...

Please don't pretend to speak for me. I don't just want this. I believe in it as a fundamental principle. Feel free to argue against it. Feel free to present your own principles and argue from them. Don't feel free to "correct" what I actually think and believe. That's flatly not for you to say.
 
theprestige said:
The question is whether making it a duty actually solves a problem worth solving.
Click to expand...

It does solve a problem worth solving. That problem might not be worth solving to you, but to me it certainly is and that problem is low voter turnout. As I said, the more representation, the better the representation.

theprestige said:
It creates a fresh obligation of the citizen to the government. It creates a fresh category of criminal activity. This is not the sort of thing you should want to do, unless you have a very good reason for it.
Click to expand...

Not really a fresh category. Just add it to the category of voter fraud. It would, in essence, be the same thing. Perhaps just have a varying degree.

Again, very good reason is more representation of the people, and I also believe it will decrease voter disenfranchisement. Instead of putting up road blocks to keep people from voting, it will be recognized as law, which would lead to a lot of good things.

theprestige said:
Jury duty has a good argument, since jury trials are a fundamental part of our system of justice, and they won't work unless people show up.
Click to expand...

You could very easily use this exact same argument for voting. A democracy built on the vote doesn't work as well with only 50% of the populace showing up. Half a jury probably wouldn't be as good either.

theprestige said:
Military service in time of war is another obvious one.

Mandatory voting? I have yet to see a compelling argument that it's necessary.
Click to expand...

You might never see a compelling argument since that's a subjective bar to clear. Currently there are people who want to vote that don't get that opportunity because of a myriad of reasons.

It's ok to say, "There is nothing that you can say that will convince me of this" at the beginning of a thread, and then not participate. It's ok to never be convinced of something.
 
They have compulsory voting in Aussie for the national elections (and some states)

We have compulsory enrollment, but you can chose to vote or not.
 
dudalb said:
Because having people who don't give a damn about politics or issues vote without knowing what the hell they doing is NOT a good idea?
Click to expand...

There are people voting now that fit that criteria. Should we stop them from voting? After all, it's not a good idea, right? There's even a name for them, care to guess what it is?
 
In the US we have compulsory education. Most of us went to public schools and got to see, day in and day out, the kind of participation you get from someone who doesn't want to be there but is forced to be.
 
theprestige said:
The question is whether making it a duty actually solves a problem worth solving.

It creates a fresh obligation of the citizen to the government. It creates a fresh category of criminal activity. This is not the sort of thing you should want to do, unless you have a very good reason for it.

Jury duty has a good argument, since jury trials are a fundamental part of our system of justice, and they won't work unless people show up.

Military service in time of war is another obvious one.

Mandatory voting? I have yet to see a compelling argument that it's necessary.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where i fall on this one. There are probably better things to worry about around voting than making it compulsory.

I can see non-participation as a valid choice. Assuming voting is convenient, I don't think I would support making it mandatory.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
There are people voting now that fit that criteria. Should we stop them from voting? After all, it's not a good idea, right? There's even a name for them, care to guess what it is?
Click to expand...

So an ignorant vote is a good thing in your book. Nice.
Or maybe you just get jollies by wanting to tell other people what to do.
 
dudalb said:
So an ignorant vote is a good thing in your book. Nice.
Click to expand...

Any vote is a good thing in my book because it provides that person with a voice. Whether that voice is ignorant, to me, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve representation. I don't pretend my voice is the only voice that matters.

You do.

Nice.

dudalb said:
Or maybe you just get jollies by wanting to tell other people what to do.
Click to expand...

I didn't propose the ******* law buddy. So I'm not getting my jollies from a ******* thing. I live in NoDak, not California. This law has absolutely **** all to do with me.

The flip can be said, perhaps you just get jollies by watching people being denied the right to vote through voter suppression. Just because it would mandatory voting doesn't mean people would have to do anything more than pay a fine, or give a reason why they couldn't make it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I don't even know where i fall on this one. There are probably better things to worry about around voting than making it compulsory.

I can see non-participation as a valid choice. Assuming voting is convenient, I don't think I would support making it mandatory.
Click to expand...

Everybody who is a citizen should have the right to vote. That is absolute,and the GOP's messing around with it is one of the things I really hate about them.
But the thing about rights is being able to decide when to exercise it and when not to do so is a basic part of it being a right.
I admit, in some ways I have Libertarian instincts; I am a big believer in individual freedom.
 
plague311 said:
Any vote is a good thing in my book because it provides that person with a voice. Whether that voice is ignorant, to me, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve representation. I don't pretend my voice is the only voice that matters.

You do.

Nice.



I didn't propose the ******* law buddy. So I'm not getting my jollies from a ******* thing. I live in NoDak, not California. This law has absolutely **** all to do with me.

The flip can be said, perhaps you just get jollies by watching people being denied the right to vote through voter suppression. Just because it would mandatory voting doesn't mean people would have to do anything more than pay a fine, or give a reason why they couldn't make it.
Click to expand...


More terrible reasoning.
 
theprestige said:
Please don't pretend to speak for me. I don't just want this. I believe in it as a fundamental principle. Feel free to argue against it. Feel free to present your own principles and argue from them. Don't feel free to "correct" what I actually think and believe. That's flatly not for you to say.
Click to expand...

But you said it. You said it's not for the government to do this, but it's your OPINION, ergo what I said is true. Don't pretend that your values are somehow universal or objective.
 
dudalb said:
More terrible reasoning.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, since you said though then I guess that's it then.

dudalb said:
Everybody who is a citizen should have the right to vote. That is absolute,and the GOP's messing around with it is one of the things I really hate about them.
But the thing about rights is being able to decide when to exercise it and when not to do so is a basic part of it being a right.
I admit, in some ways I have Libertarian instincts; I am a big believer in individual freedom.
Click to expand...

With reasoning like this I can see where you find mine to be a problem.

No one is taking away individual freedom. You don't want to vote? Don't. Send in a blank ballot with your name on it, and be done with it. There are mail-in ballots that don't require anything more than putting a stamp on it and sending it off (if that, I think they're pre-stamped). Just don't fill in the blanks. That's it, infringement averted Mr. Libertarian man! You admit the GOP is taking rights away from citizens, and you really hate it, but making sure those rights are enforced is also a problem. That's some next level reasoning there.
 
Last edited:
This didn't bother me. This sounds less like compulsory voting and more like original Netflix. They send you something by mail and you have to return it eventually. As long as it is opt-in I don't see a problem.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In the US we have compulsory education. Most of us went to public schools and got to see, day in and day out, the kind of participation you get from someone who doesn't want to be there but is forced to be.
Click to expand...
I agree with your basic point, but am not against compulsory education.
 
Belz... said:
But you said it. You said it's not for the government to do this, but it's your OPINION, ergo what I said is true. Don't pretend that your values are somehow universal or objective.
Click to expand...

I pretend only that they are my values. How does pointing out this banality improve the conversation for you? Or is it just a chance for you to be trivially correct?
 
I think voting is a little like parenthood. People who don't want to do it probably are better off not doing it. I would love to see more people caring, believing they can make a difference, and voting. But if they don't it's probably because they really don't believe there's a useful difference between choices - at least not important enough to make any effort - and that's not a fault compulsory voting will solve. In the meantime I don't see much benefit in forcing people to vote if they don't care, don't believe it makes a difference, are just so muddled they don't know what to do, or if they truly believe all the options are equal. If one of the choices is a blank ballot (as it must be), I would consider not voting to be the equivalent of a blank ballot.

Of course I also think people who don't vote shouldn't complain.

Enforcement is another matter. I can't see it as anything but an intrusive and costly enlargement of government. I am not a government-srhinking neo-conservative, but I see no good reason to make it even more complex and cumbersome than it must be.
 
dudalb said:
So an ignorant vote is a good thing in your book. Nice.
Click to expand...

Most people who vote are already ignorant. I'm not convinced that mandatory voting will be such a huge problem. Sure, some people might protest vote or annul their vote; that is their right, but I think most, especially after a few cycles or the next generation, would vote like regular folk.
 
theprestige said:
I pretend only that they are my values. How does pointing out this banality improve the conversation for you? Or is it just a chance for you to be trivially correct?
Click to expand...

It's not trivial. You made a statement that could be seen as one of fact, and I made a point that it is not so. You objected, which further reinforces my initial impression that this was exactly your intent.
 
Good idea. It is the state with the most Republicans, 5,000,000, who are the minority at 40/60, So m,any stay home. So making it a requirement, more Reps will get heard.
 
casebro said:
Good idea. It is the state with the most Republicans, 5,000,000, who are the minority at 40/60, So m,any stay home. So making it a requirement, more Reps will get heard.
Click to expand...

If it's a good idea, it's not because it benefits your side, but because it makes government more representative.
 
plague311 said:
I was thinking the same thing. Don't a lot of countries do this? I agree with this but I also agree that there should be a mandatory paid holiday off from work to vote; however, you have to provide proof you voted. Whether that be just a ticket stub with your name on it from the polling place, or something to that effect. The better the turn out the better the representation of the country. I have no idea how this could be conceived as a bad thing.
Click to expand...


Nothing but custom requires elections to be held on a work day during work hours. Four states conduct their elections entirely by mail, and many have provisions for mail ballots.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/all-mail-elections.aspx

Every state should at least make mail ballots available. And elections could be held on weekends, maybe from 6 a.m. to midnight both days, so they wouldn't interfere with work and other demands. Advance voting could be expanded. Polling places need to be convenient for everyone; as part of their voter suppression efforts, Republicans in some states have reduced polling stations and resources in neighborhoods where voters are most likely to be Democrats (purely by coincidence, no doubt). And of course, they have made it harder to get registered and stay registered in the first place. Every person who is eligible to vote should be registered.

Penalizing people for not voting, even a token amount, would be a hard sell. But one common proposal is that every voter would be entered into a state lottery, either the existing one or one created for the purpose. Suppose 10 prizes of $10,000 each were randomly awarded to voters in every congressional district? Total cost would be less than $44 millon, and it would certainly be an incentive to vote, especially if voting just meant mailing in a form.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom