(Non-Partisan) Should voting be compulsory for registered US citizens?

[IMA SOL MAN]

Jury duty is compulsory--we have to register for the Selective Service, there are other compulsory things like pay taxes, obey laws, etc. Should registered US citizens be required by law to vote? In my local election, less than 12% of the registered voters in the county voted, and we have to live with the results of that. What do you think?

 

[Chauncey Gardener]

I think it would be the equivalent of giving typewriters to monkeys. No matter how long they bang on the keyboards, they're not going to write any Shakespeare.

 

[bykfixer]

Voting is a choice. And in my state the voters had 45 days to vote. And turnout was still embarrasing.

People in the middle keep complaining that the far left and far right are running things yet the only people voting are the far left and far right trying to beat the other. So the people in the middle have only themselves to blame.

 

[raggie33]

Would have to kill me to keep me from my right to vote . Not voting is like wearing a muzzle

 

[bykfixer]

I used to think about voting and often did but not always. Then one day I saw on tv people in voting for the first time ever in an African country and have voted at every election since. Especially primaries where you and about 784 other people decide who gets to run.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

I was somewhat dismayed when the poll workers kept thanking me for voting. I couldn't understand why they were thanking me for voting--it's just what you do! Right? Well, that's what I thought until I saw the election returns--pathetic turnout.

 

[jabe1]

It's always a pathetic turnout. So many people spend their time worrying about what the Kardashians or Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce are doing, instead of educating themselves on those things which can actually make a difference in their lives.
My point is that we already have enough uneducated voters; as much as I would like to have 100% participation in our democracy, as a democracy should be, compulsory doesn't make sense at the moment.
Maybe if we also limited campaigning time and funding, so that those running for office had to focus on the issues, instead of letting it become a process that literally takes years, it would make more sense. We've diluted and drawn it out so much that i can see how people just tune out and get sick of it. Even the amount of time from an election until the newly elected assume office is too long.
It just feels too much PT Barnum anymore.
And in the end, of course, all you get are clowns.

 

[bykfixer]

It's always a pathetic turnout. So many people spend their time worrying about what the Kardashians or Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce are doing, instead of educating themselves on those things which can actually make a difference in their lives.
My point is that we already have enough uneducated voters; as much as I would like to have 100% participation in our democracy, as a democracy should be, compulsory doesn't make sense at the moment.
Maybe if we also limited campaigning time and funding, so that those running for office had to focus on the issues, instead of letting it become a process that literally takes years, it would make more sense. We've diluted and drawn it out so much that it's can see how people just tune out and get sick of it. Even the amount of time from an election until the newly elected assume office is too long.
It just feels too much PT Barnum anymore.
And in the end, of course, all you get are clowns.

It's that way by design these days.

 

[Chauncey Gardener]

Never wanting to be thought of as pedantic, however, the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic.

 

[jabe1]

Yes, and a representative democracy.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

It's always a pathetic turnout. So many people spend their time worrying about what the Kardashians or Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce are doing, instead of educating themselves on those things which can actually make a difference in their lives.
My point is that we already have enough uneducated voters; as much as I would like to have 100% participation in our democracy, as a democracy should be, compulsory doesn't make sense at the moment.
Maybe if we also limited campaigning time and funding, so that those running for office had to focus on the issues, instead of letting it become a process that literally takes years, it would make more sense. We've diluted and drawn it out so much that i can see how people just tune out and get sick of it. Even the amount of time from an election until the newly elected assume office is too long.
It just feels too much PT Barnum anymore.
And in the end, of course, all you get are clowns.

Travis who?

I was listening to the local FM broadcast station the other day, and the DJ was announcing somebody's sexiest men in pop culture or something. I didn't recognize any of the names. I am so out of touch with today's pop culture. I don't know what movies are out, or who the movie stars are now, I don't know the current pop music stars, TV stars, TV or pop culture personalities, etc. But, my givadamn is broken, so there you go. I guess that is the "problem".

 

[jtr1962]

I'm kind of moving in the other direction of having minimum education and intelligence requirements for voting. Not that this will solve 100% of the problems, but an educated, informed citizenry is necessary for democracies to survive. I'd say 75% plus of the population misses on one or both counts. If you're deciding who to vote for based on TV commercials, or even worse, just party affiliation, you shouldn't be voting. Point of fact, I'd love to see political parties banned. At the very least this would force voters to learn a candidate's positions. It would also get rid of the litmus tests each party does where anyone not kowtowing to the party line has little chance of winning a primary. In some states Mickey Mouse would get most of the vote if he had a D next to his name. In others Donald Duck would win big with an R.

I'm not sure mandatory voting would even be enforceable.

One change I would like is to move the system to online voting only. If you want good participation, make it as easy as possible. As for any concerns about security, we already have a security apparatus for financial transactions which largely works very well. No reason it can't be applied to voting.

Another thing is quite a few people don't vote simply because they use voting records (among other things) to make lists of potential jurors. I personally think we should do away with compulsory jury duty. Either go to an all volunteer system, or have paid employees whose job it is to serve on juries. Jury duty is one of the most hated and disruptive things expected of regular citizens. Based on some of the idiotic decisions coming from juries, I don't even think it's great from a justice perspective. In fact, jury systems have been abolished in most countries for the reasons given in the link. Maybe it's time the US follows suit.

As for military service, if it's ever to be made compulsory it must include both sexes. That means everyone should have to register with the Selective Service, not just men. I actually read last week with the military running far short of its recruiting goals some are making noise about bringing back the draft. Politically that would be huge uphill battle, but now it has me worried. Would they give exemptions to people who are caretakers like myself? I might not mind having to fight for my country if we were in danger of being invaded, but who takes care of my mother if I do?

 

[vadimax]

I was too lazy to vote... until my country didn't fell into the hands of queers, marxists, drug fiends, thieves and crystal clear morons...

Guess who must I blame now?

 

[Guitar Guy]

I would be happy to just go back to paper ballots, manual counts, voter ID, and election DAY instead of election MONTH.

 

[JimIslander]

I think you should have to pass both a history test and a civics test to vote.

 

[this_is_nascar]

Absolutely not. The last thing I want are ill-informed people voting. I think the current state of the nation and my state of NJ prove my point.

 

[bykfixer]

Travis who?

I was listening to the local FM broadcast station the other day, and the DJ was announcing somebody's sexiest men in pop culture or something. I didn't recognize any of the names. I am so out of touch with today's pop culture. I don't know what movies are out, or who the movie stars are now, I don't know the current pop music stars, TV stars, TV or pop culture personalities, etc. But, my givadamn is broken, so there you go. I guess that is the "problem".

Not long ago my radio was playing a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment and the host kept talking about somebody named Taylor Swift. I asked Mrs Fixer later "who is Taylor Swift?" She said "I think she's a pop singer, but maybe country, I'm not sure".

I asked my boss who replied "boy or girl? I've never heard of him". I asked my oldest son who replied "dad, you aint missing much".

But we all know who Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McAurthey and numerous other people who run the gubment are. If Taylor Swift gets money from me it's because I give it to her voluntarily. The gubment can send cops to my house to get money so you d@m right I'm going to know who they are.

 

[orbital]

I would be happy to just go back to paper ballots, manual counts, voter ID, and election DAY instead of election MONTH.

+

There should be a Federal Law that every mail-in ballot must be postmarked by October 25th to be counted,
absolutely no exceptions.

Meaning; no drop boxes.

 

[Poppy]

I think that required voting is NOT a good idea.

All this talk of educational requirements, and test taking is a bit off base too.

No doubt we have an uninformed populace. I too am guilty of being uninformed. This election cycle, we had to elect our school board. I didn't know a single one. My daughter made the decision for me. She knew the history of some of them.

Even our state level politicians, didn't advertise much, and I went to a trusted colleague who is very politically involved, and asked him... who am I voting for?

I do get a lot of my information about national politicians from the news stations. Unfortunately I have to watch more than one station to get a somewhat balanced view.

There aught to be a requirement that political speech should be required to be TRUTHFUL.

The concept that a person running for office can make up any lie and tell it often enough, with enough conviction that people believe him and elect him to office based on a series of lies, is absurd! Oh and that it is allowed as his First Amendment Right.

Just look at all of the lies that George Santos told. He is still in office!

 

[whelmFlash]

In Belgium, this is the case, if I am correct. The counterargument is that this way, people who have no clue about what's happening in the world will go to vote. Unfortunately, these are perhaps the individuals who are awake but just want nothing to do with politics, and as a result, we get a skewed election outcome that doesn't reflect what the citizens actually want.

Then there are the non-voters because they believe that no one, absolutely no one, is trustworthy in politics.