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

[IMA SOL MAN]

Yep, it is sad. Give the average Joe Lunchbox a six pack of beer and cable or satellite TV, and they will be tranquilized to the reality of what is happening to them. Like cooking a live frog by turning the heat up slowly, we are losing our freedoms, at first slowly, and now faster and faster. If we aren't smart and energetic in fighting to keep our freedoms, they will be gone within our lifetime, and likely never regained for centuries. When you look back at history, you realize that monarchies and empires were the norm, and not until recently did this great experiment in self government become possible. It was passed to us by our fathers, let's keep it to pass on to our kids and grandkids. God help us.

 

[Ocelot808]

I wish there was an option to vote for NONE of the available dismal/mediocre choices. Instead have my vote count as a ratification of the sentiment demanding better choices for candidates. It may seem pointless but I maintain there should be much higher standards of character requisite for statesmanship. The upcoming presidential election: it infuriates me that it will likely be a showdown between two geriatric partisans to lead the future of the country I love so much.

In theory compulsory voting makes a great deal of sense as a civic responsibility like jury duty. It's simply the right thing to do as a citizen. I'm always angered and saddened by pathetic voter turnout numbers. Decades ago I envisioned an internet based voting system. Make it incredibly easy and accessible for most people to vote instead of going to polling places and it would likely see a radical improvement in voter participation. Still nowhere on the horizon.

What is a necessity is a holistic cure for voter apathy. A compulsory mandate for participation doesn't fix the problem of having lousy candidates to choose from.

 

[Galane]

A "None of the Above" option that if it gets the majority, all the candidates are out and don't get to try again. Do over. Select someone else!

 

[Toulouse42]

Speaking from the point of view of the UK, we all vote for the stupid party because we are afraid that the STUPID party will get in. So does the other side but in reverse. I'm now in my 60s and I've come to realise that none of them care what we the public wants. And yet every 4 years or so, they all pretend that they really care because they want our votes. After that 4 more years of contempt for the electorate. I could name many things that we want sorted but our elected officials and the civil service constantly stymie any progress. They still spend lots of money though. They can all agree on that.

Our Labour party wants to extend voting to 16 year olds. Not because they have any considered opinion about the future of our once great nation but because children believe fairy stories and will vote for whatever sounds nice, rather than what actually works. Promise them cake today and cake tomorrow and you have their vote.

I have contempt for them all. I would reluctantly accept compulsory voting but only if there was a "None of the above" option.

The other thing is that if you understand statistics, then you know that a sample of 10% or so will be very good representation of the views of the whole. (if done properly). If only 50% vote then you have a sample that has a very high confidence level. Compulsory voting won't change the outcome.

One last word. I voted in a local referendum some years ago but the result was not enacted because "not enough" people voted. Oddly enough I have never heard that objection when it comes to voting them in to office. Double standards.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

There's millions of others thinking it, because it's all there to see right in front of us, and if someone else upstream in the thread starts this line of conversation, it's hard not to respond.

YEP! 👆 Me struggling to not respond to politics. 😁

 

[jtr1962]

One last word. I voted in a local referendum some years ago but the result was not enacted because "not enough" people voted. Oddly enough I have never heard that objection when it comes to voting them in to office. Double standards.

I recall something similar in NYC:

New York City mayoral elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In 1993, the voters approved a two-term (eight-year) limit, and reconfirmed this limit when the issue was submitted to referendum in 1996. In 2008, the New York City Council voted to change the two-term limit to three terms (without submitting the issue to the voters).[2] Legal challenges to the Council's action were rejected by Federal courts in January and April, 2009.[3] However, in 2010, yet another referendum, reverting the limit to two terms, passed overwhelmingly."

So the will of the voters was subverted twice, only finally passing in 2010.

More recently you have this:

Voters back abortion rights, but some foes won't relent.

I'm tired of politicians not accepting it when often unpopular positions they support get rejected by voters. Why bother voting if they refuse to abide by the results?

 

[raggie33]

im no expert but perhaps politicians need a iq and character test

 

[jtr1962]

im no expert but perhaps politicians need a iq and character test

Test for IQ, education, personality disorders, conflicts of interest just for a start. Plus quite honestly wanting the job should be an automatic disqualification. The best leaders are the ones dragged into it kicking and screaming by their friends, family, and associates. At least you'll know from day one they're not in it for a power trip.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

im no expert but perhaps politicians need a iq and character test

Trump took a mental faculty test of some kind and allegedly passed perfect. IIRC, Biden refused to take one.

But, @raggie33 , good luck with that.

 

[Poppy]

Trump took a mental faculty test of some kind and allegedly passed perfect. IIRC, Biden refused to take one.

But, @raggie33 , good luck with that.

The problem with both of them is that as they start going down the road of mental decline, it is like falling off of a cliff.

What city are we in? Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Sioux City, Iowa?
IDK Mr. Trump, but we ain't in Kansas anymore.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

The problem with both of them is that as they start going down the road of mental decline, it is like falling off of a cliff.

What city are we in? Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Sioux City, Iowa?
IDK Mr. Trump, but we ain't in Kansas anymore.

Well, for a man that gets sued a lot, I can understand him losing track of which Sioux he was in.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

 

[jtr1962]

Well, for a man that gets sued a lot, I can understand him losing track of which Sioux he was in.

Although a lot of it is his own fault, same as just about any other wealthy person who gets sued a lot. If they wouldn't keep trying to not pay contractors or employees, maybe they would get sued a lot less.

Then there's the lawsuits on account of his sexual escapades. To be fair though, that seems to be a non-partisan thing. Remember Clinton? Guys in power who can't keep their thing in their pants is as old as civilization, probably older. Empires have been lost because of men thinking with the wrong head.

Trump took a mental faculty test of some kind and allegedly passed perfect. IIRC, Biden refused to take one.

Well, seeing him this year, and knowing how it began with my mother, I can tell you it's starting with him. He reminds me of my mom when she was around 70. Within a few years even keeping track of bills eluded her.

Biden's already well on his way.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Please! Just STOP!

 

[Ocelot808]

A "None of the Above" option that if it gets the majority, all the candidates are out and don't get to try again. Do over. Select someone else!

Exactly what I wish was a voting option. Sad to say in this current climate of political choices its not even a lesser of two evils question but it calls for the old Gong Show approach. Career political hacks be gone! For President, septuagenarians need no longer apply. Deep down I long for a present iteration of JFK. Plus internet based voting and popular referendum to backstop Congress: a more genuine democracy.

 

[jabe1]

You should look into the test that Trump took. It's basically to determine if your brain is working at all, not IQ, not competency.

 

[Bimmerboy]

In keeping with the original post... no, voting should not be compulsory. This is an easy one for anyone concerned with individual rights.

 

[Monocrom]

As far a jury duty goes.... I'd like to vote that everyone who can prove they have a job should be excused from it. Let's address the elephant in the room, people in America are ridiculously sue-happy. And, working stiffs who get chosen often face backlash from their employers. Up to and including getting fired. Yeah, legally bosses can't do that. But they just make up excuses. If you live in a "Shall Work" state, your boss doesn't even have to provide a reason for firing you.

But, if you're unemployed and collecting State Aid, you have plenty of time to serve. And I mean actually serve. Not show up for 3-5 days, sit around, and wonder if you'll be selected for a jury. No, you get automatically picked! Then lawyers on both sides decide whether or not to keep you. If they don't, you get randomly assigned to another jury. After 5 rejections, you get to go home. Done! Might take a couple of days at most, plus you get paid extra for participating.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

As far a jury duty goes.... I'd like to vote that everyone who can prove they have a job should be excused from it. Let's address the elephant in the room, people in America are ridiculously sue-happy. And, working stiffs who get chosen often face backlash from their employers. Up to and including getting fired. Yeah, legally bosses can't do that. But they just make up excuses. If you live in a "Shall Work" state, your boss doesn't even have to provide a reason for firing you.

But, if you're unemployed and collecting State Aid, you have plenty of time to serve. And I mean actually serve. Not show up for 3-5 days, sit around, and wonder if you'll be selected for a jury. No, you get automatically picked! Then lawyers on both sides decide whether or not to keep you. If they don't, you get randomly assigned to another jury. After 5 rejections, you get to go home. Done! Might take a couple of days at most, plus you get paid extra for participating.

Umm, so if your freedom was at stake, would you want the chronically unemployed deciding your fate?

 

[bykfixer]