Mandatory Voting in the United States?

[Paul Kemp]

No, it's a finely formed American tradition to be apathetic.

[Paul Kemp]

I fully support mandatory voting everywhere.

What penalty do you propose for those who don't vote if it's mandatory?

You could get a moderate fine after the 2nd missed vote, gradually increasing as you miss more elections.

Of course, mandatory voting would also imply making voting much easier, through stuff like early voting, mail voting, universal registration, etc.

It might be PC to say, Tony, but the poors (black and white) are the vast majority that don't vote.  So fine them?

That's a very valid concern.

[Paul Kemp]

I fully support mandatory voting everywhere.

What penalty do you propose for those who don't vote if it's mandatory?

You could get a moderate fine after the 2nd missed vote, gradually increasing as you miss more elections.

Of course, mandatory voting would also imply making voting much easier, through stuff like early voting, mail voting, universal registration, etc.

It might be PC to say, Tony, but the poors (black and white) are the vast majority that don't vote.  So fine them?

That's a very valid concern.

And I meant it might NOT be politically correct to say.......sorry.

Yea, I know what you meant; I wouldn't expect you to be PC . I still think it is an interesting issue.

[Paul Kemp]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

What makes you think that would change other than idealism?

Similarly, has mandatory jury duty made the public more aware of the judicial system and/or created a more just process?

[Paul Kemp]

I disagree with that. Anyone, regardless of their competence or interest in politics, should be able to express their voice in the democratic process.

Although I agree with this in principle, I don't think it's very realistic. A large number of people literally know nothing about parties, candidates, ideologies or policies.

Those people exist, but I don't think they come close to making up the majority of nonvoters. Most of them know very well which party they would vote for if they bothered to (whether they would do so for the right reasons or not is another debate), but they are convinced their vote doesn't matter.

Many people who vote know essentially nothing about politics either.

Indeed, that's my point.

What makes you think that would change other than idealism?

I never said that would change. You're still missing the point.

Yes. Many people who vote are and will be ridiculously misinformed. They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

Yes - which is a decent argument for automatic registration.

They still should be able to express their ridiculously misinformed choices.

I think you're arguing for mandatory voting? So you don't want them to be able to vote, you want them to be obligated to vote.

And what if their ridiculously misinformed choice amounts to them voting for "Newt Gingrich" because Newt sounds like a cool name?

I don't really get what is gained by having that opinion expressed?

But this kind of misinformed vote is marginal. Most "misinformed voters" more or less vote based on some kind of issues, even though they don't really grasp the specifics of these issues. In short, they do have opinions on stuff, and if we are a true democracy, their opinions should be taken into account regardless of what we think of them.

Is there any thing out there that would suggest this to actually be true? I suppose there would be no real way to measure such a thing. What makes you think that these "misinformed voters" who don't care enough to vote any way would only be a slight fraction? I'd rather have the vote of someone who has made the choice to be there than someone who is just there to avoid punishment, and as Franzi noted, just picks a random name off the ballot or whatever.

I'm not trying to be a dick but if we're going to start fining people, or throwing them in prison as some have indicated, I would think there would have to be some sort of evidence or research that these theories hold true.  

[Paul Kemp]

The second part is a well observed phenomenon, as horrifying as it must be to people here. But in a democracy everyone's opinion ought to matter, even if stunningly poorly informed... and I would also argue that it is the responsibility of those in the political process - and in the media and so on and so forth - to inform the electorate of what they need to know in order to make their choice.

Besides, there's certainly no reason to believe that the electorate in a low-turnout election is better informed than in a high-turnout one.

True. My concern isn't that an electorate will be any more or less informed but that we'd be penalizing individuals who have no interest in taking part in the process - which is fine.