Would You Support Mandatory Voting (if it could be done on phone/internet)?

[Warhammer]

In the near future, would you support the idea of mandatory voting in the United States if it could be done over the internet or on a phone?

Would that make things closer to a proportional representation voting system?
Would it slowly allow the two party system to be eliminated?
Would it give the voters a better chance at picking the right candidate?
Is it ethical?
Does it violate freedom of choice?
Corruption?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Please share your opinion, list potential pros and cons, or whatever.

 

[DDS]

No, because it feels like a breach in a person's rights, and will lead to an influx of uniformed voters.

We need to keep making information more readily available, and create a culture where being politically minded and participating in EVERY election is seen as a necessity. But we can't force people to vote.

Part of the problem too is that some people have to choose between voting and working, in addition to other barriers making it harder for some to vote. One pretty easy solution would be to make major (or even just presidential) elections official holidays so people can get time off to get to the polls.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think voting should be mandatory. If you don't want to vote, you should be able not to, but it would require a simple form. Alternatively, pay a fine.

Election days should be a national holiday.

 

[SV Fan]

I don't think we should have mandatory voting but I do think we should turn major elections into 3 day weekend events(start Friday end Sunday)

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Voting should stay voluntary since forcing people to do would seem to against everything America is supposed to be about. There should be a rule/law that says you can't complain about certain issues if you didn't bother to vote.

 

[Charlatan]

yes voting should be mandatory
an uninformed voter isn't as bad as a mis-informed voter is it?
people should get a receipt for voting and receive one day's pay for the trouble.
some states have no problem with vote by mail. this should suffice for everyone.
also campaigning should be restricted to a 2 month period before the election and everyone who qualifies should receive an equal amount of press and ad time donated by all television stations. mandatory.
no other money allowed.
no other time for campaigning
as it is, that is all they do is campaign and raise freaking money.
so lets make it all fair and judge you on your merits and not by how many rich guys you can make promises to.
also you should be able to take your receipt and verify your vote was counted correctly. I'm guess some sort of encryption key would work for this. Use it when you vote and use it to verify it.

 

[kedrell]

In the near future, would you support the idea of mandatory voting in the United States if it could be done over the internet or on a phone?

Would that make things closer to a proportional representation voting system?
Would it slowly allow the two party system to be eliminated?
Would it give the voters a better chance at picking the right candidate?
Is it ethical?
Does it violate freedom of choice?
Corruption?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Please share your opinion, list potential pros and cons, or whatever.

Bingo!

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Man... I'd probably give it some thought.

Obviously there'd be some real stipulations. I mean, what are they going to jail you if you dont? I'd say that it should be more like, incentives to vote (tax breaks?) rather than punishment not to vote.

And even then it can't just be like two check boxes with the big ticket nominees. They have to give you the ability to write-in or vote for independents. Hell, even giving you the option of "None of the Above" would seem logical to me.

 

[PacificBoy]

Would Americans be amenable to the idea of online voting in the first place? The cost and security issues of maintaining digital certificates for the entire country aside, voting online would necessitate some form of centralised database, which could be seen as a contravention of American civil liberties.

 

[chaseter]

I would rather there be a mandatory intelligence test before you can vote.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

No. Part of having the right to vote in a democracy is the right to not vote.

Why compel people to vote that have no interest or those that just dislike all the candidates? You'd have thousands of people doing write in votes for "Deez Nuts" etc.

Also what would you do? Have the police going to the houses of those who haven't voted to drag them to polls, or make them click their mouse? Elections would take weeks or months.

 

[Duke]

I wouldn't because it would infringe on a person's liberties & rights.

 

[Majik1387]

Yes, and for those saying they should have the option of no voting, that should just be an option as "N/A" or something similar.

It's not an infringement on liberty or rights at all.

 

[Evelisse]

No, If I want to sit out of an election for whatever reason it should be my business alone.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

mandatory as in what, you have to pay a $500 fine if you don't do it?

 

[Majik1387]

I don't think a fine is necessary.

 

[Matt]

No. If someone does not want to vote it is better for them to sit out rather than making an uninformed, disinterested decision.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think a fine is necessary.

How would you enforce it, then? Jail? Community Service? Dispatch government agents to force the voter to the polls? Lose other priveleges (kind of like how failing to register for Selective Service can cost you)?

Or maybe we could relabel it a penalty, or a tax, or something far more progressive-sounding . . . like a "shared responsibility payment." Then we can say, "You're free to not vote, but you will have a shared responsibility payment deducted from your tax refund next year." You know, kind of like health insurance.

No one should be forced to vote or penalized for not voting. Period.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Yes, and for those saying they should have the option of no voting, that should just be an option as "N/A" or something similar.

It's not an infringement on liberty or rights at all.

This makes no sense. Why compel people to do something (voting for n/a) that would also cost the government money to oversee, and that has the same exact effect as them not voting at all? It would be voting for voting's sake.

And yes, it would be an infringement. Voting isnt a requirement. It's a privilege, and its one that you're free to choose to use or not.

 

[Handsome Rob]

This makes no sense. Why compel people to do something (voting for n/a) that would also cost the government money to oversee, and that has the same exact effect as them not voting at all? It would be voting for voting's sake.

And yes, it would be an infringement. Voting isnt a requirement. It's a privilege, and its one that you're free to choose to use or not.

I don't know about Majik, but it seems a lot of support for mandatory voting comes from the left. And, it seems that a lot of non-voters are assumed to be Democrat voters.

So, that pretty much answers why there is support for it from among some of them.

I think the best solution would be for states, counties, municipalities, etc. to get together with the federal government and establish a single day each year on which voting will be held. Then, one of the existing federal holidays could be changed to the day in which voting is held (I don't support adding a new federal holiday). Maybe that would help improve turnout without making it mandatory.

 

[Duke]

This makes no sense. Why compel people to do something (voting for n/a) that would also cost the government money to oversee, and that has the same exact effect as them not voting at all? It would be voting for voting's sake.

And yes, it would be an infringement. Voting isnt a requirement. It's a privilege, and its one that you're free to choose to use or not.

How would you enforce it, then? Jail? Community Service? Dispatch government agents to force the voter to the polls? Lose other priveleges (kind of like how failing to register for Selective Service can cost you)?

Or maybe we could relabel it a penalty, or a tax, or something far more progressive-sounding . . . like a "shared responsibility payment." Then we can say, "You're free to not vote, but you will have a shared responsibility payment deducted from your tax refund next year." You know, kind of like health insurance.

No one should be forced to vote or penalized for not voting. Period.

Thank You!! Incredible Hulk just hit the nail right on the head!!!

 

[chaseter]

It's illegal to lie to the Census. Is that more important than electing a leader?

#devilsadvocate

 

[kedrell]

You can refuse to cooperate with the census. I know I sure have every time their crap comes around. They mail that form to me and I toss it in the trash. Any census taker comes to my door and I don't even answer it. Simple and I've never had any legal issues over it.

I don't know about Majik, but it seems a lot of support for mandatory voting comes from the left.

Of course. It's right up their alley. These are the people who support forcing healthcare for everyone even if they don't want it.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I think voting should be easier. They gotta streamline it somehow. Voting is a jumbled mess in my hometown. The booths are run by a bunch of surly old women who look down their nose at anyone under 45 coming to vote. Granted, it's a town of about 11k people and most likely the exception to any rule.

 

[kedrell]

It's very simple where I live. Even a trained monkey could figure it out. I have about 175k people in my suburb.