Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Or is it Fascism?

Your take

(this is a Philosophical/Political question not a fallacy question)

Well it would be a democracy as long as you can vote for several party's. I just wouldn't call it a free democracy. Seeing as you can't choose not to vote, which should be a required thing especially in a democracy. It limits freedom and pushes you into doing something that shouldn't in any way be required therefor it's wrong.

However on the plus side of a law like that. It would mean that the people always decide and not just the people that went to vote. It would also stop these second and third voting rounds bullshit crap things that take place when less then 50% of a country goes to vote, happens sometimes in Eastern Europe. Waste of time and money if you ask me.

Still personally heavily against this, although there are more pro's then cons.

There really would be no point to a voting law because people that dont vote generally know very little about who they are voting for anyways -other that the obvious whose party they are on -and if thats the case they shouldnt vote anyways.

Democracy is the right to choose who you are going to elect if anyone, were I live in order to be a citizen you do not have to vote. So I believe it is not democracy that forces people to vote. Due to the fact that democracy is the choice to vote or not.

P.S It may not mean the same thing where you live.

Mandatory voting could still be a democracy, just a theocratic one. If anything, a democracy is the ability to choose one's dictator lol!

I can see both good and bad in that. More people should vote, it aggarvates me to know so many don't out of sheer apathy and no ambition to fight for what's right.

Then again, do I really want retarded people like them to vote to begin with?

This is why democrats want to drill it into our heads that voting's so important, because they know the guys that don't vote lean liberal.

No

I don't like wearing seat belts either. That was once elective.

Forcing people to participate in the basic tenet of democracy is sort of mocking the democratic process, in my opinion. You don't want to force people to make a decision if they haven't thought about it. In America, only the people who care enough to go out of their way on a Tuesday vote. And that's a good thing. You want people to make a conscious decision, not just doing it because they have to.

So, to answer your question, forcing people to vote is not Fascism. It's just not very smart.

Forcing one to vote is an arrogant and ignorant decision. Only those who keep with the matters at hand and volunteer to vote should actually proceed in doing so.

Sure it's democracy. Why wouldn't it be? We make people pay taxes, drive under certain speeds, wear clothes in public, and do any number of other things; what's different about making people vote that causes it to be "fascist?"

Originally posted by Gregory
Sure it's democracy. Why wouldn't it be? We make people pay taxes, drive under certain speeds, wear clothes in public, and do any number of other things; what's different about making people vote that causes it to be "fascist?"

I suppose it is democracy -but it would be a useless law in today's world because many would not take the time to make an educated vote, and it would defeat the purpose of voting at all. Thats the reason it isnt a law and simply a "responsibility".

as long as they dont tell us who to vote for then it is still a democracy

It is a perverted democracy, and my no stretch of the imagination what it was supposed to be.

Forcing someone to vote seems like something ''fascist''desguised as democracy - kind of ''lets get the ''democrasy'' bit out of the way then we'll do how we please.''

Not REALLY democratic is it...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is a perverted democracy, and my no stretch of the imagination what it was supposed to be.

Forcing someone to vote seems like something ''fascist''desguised as democracy - kind of ''lets get the ''democrasy'' bit out of the way then we'll do how we please.''

Not REALLY democratic is it...

Is only being able to vote for two parties just as bad? too many times its damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Requiring a vote could change the ignorance in the voters. If one is required to vote one may be inclined to learn a bit more about the candidates, making the democratic process that much better.

I heard that in Iran that, while it's not required that you vote, there are incentives to do so, such as colleges take it into account when considering your admission, and it reflects positively if you have done so

something like that...

um...

"democracy" in no way means individual freedom of any kind. It is simply a government in which the people choose the officials to represent them. Being forced to choose is in no way hypocritical of democracy, as long as you are free to choose whichever individual you wish to represent you. If you wish to choose no other individual to represent you, you are still free to write in your own name to represent yourself.

I was thinking...if a government did force the citizens to vote. Wouldn't a "vote of no confidence" automatically collapses the system? The citizen is require to vote. But not require to choose a certain party.

Does this fly for anyone?

Voting is compulsory over here. More than 90 % of the population participates. In 2003, there were
6 551 512 valid votes and 383 093 blank or invalid ballot papers.

I hate Voting, its BORING !

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I hate Voting, its BORING !

and so the democratic process is meaningless

For a government to be a true democracy, power must be vested in and directly exercised by the people. Whether the direct exorcising of this power by the people is compulsory or on a volunteer basis is incidental.

Originally posted by Marxman
and so the democratic process is meaningless


the what ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
the what ?

If the people don't vote than democracy is wasted. If you want people to make decisions for you go to.....

Originally posted by Marxman
If the people don't vote than democracy is wasted. If you want people to make decisions for you go to.....


Woah..woah.....woah....what are you talkn about ?


What does Democracy have to do with making decisions ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Woah..woah.....woah....what are you talkn about ?


What does Democracy have to do with making decisions ?

ok then explain to me what democracy is.

Originally posted by Green Arrow
Mandatory voting could still be a democracy, just a theocratic one. If anything, a democracy is the ability to choose one's dictator lol!

I can see both good and bad in that. More people should vote, it aggarvates me to know so many don't out of sheer apathy and no ambition to fight for what's right.

Then again, do I really want retarded people like them to vote to begin with?

This is why democrats want to drill it into our heads that voting's so important, because they know the guys that don't vote lean liberal.

Theocratic? What the hell? Are you a little confused with your terms or something?

And I'm not quite sure why people think democracy = freedom. It would only become undemocratic if you only had one choice of who to vote for.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or is it Fascism?

Your take

(this is a Philosophical/Political question not a fallacy question)
No it's not fascism, it doesn't come close to fascism.

Now as Storm said Belgium is one of a few countries in which voting is mandatory by law.

First let's explain this a little better. The law doesn't force you to vote, it forces you to show up. You are still free to vote blanco or to cast an invalid vote, both types of votes will be dismissed in the electoral process. If you decide not to show up you get a fine. But everyone knows the courts do no longer prosecute people for not voting.

Now why a mandatory vote is a good thing. Many studies from all over the world have shown that the first groups to drop out are the weaker groups in society: the poor, the homeless, the elderly. The reasons for dropping out are diverse and do not really matter. The real problem is what happens next. All political parties will match their platforms to their voters. What we can see, is that many -but not all- political parties stop investing in groups of people that don't turn up to vote anyway. This is only logical, from a strategic point of view, but it's wrong and in my opinion simply dangerous. This is why many people feel Belgium should keep the mandatory vote.

People who are against mandatory voting often advocate that it pushes you to vote. This argument is pretty easy to counter. A) You aren't forced to vote, you are forced to show up (big difference). B) The elections are held on a Sunday and voting offices are open from 9 AM to 3 PM (at least) so you have enough time to go and vote. C) If you have to work, are sick, out of the country, or unable to go and vote in many other ways you can simply delegate someone else to go and vote in your stead.

Another argument opponents of mandatory voting use, is claiming that mandatory voting increases the score of extreme right wing or left wing parties. Well again national studies have been done on this subject and they all conclude that the effect would be marginal at best. In Belgium the extreme right or left wing parties generally have the most determined voters so they would show up regardless of the law.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with mandatory voting and every country should instate it.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
No

Originally posted by Lana


And I'm not quite sure why people think democracy = freedom.

It's the brainwashing they give you when you live in a "democracy"

Its better than some places at least, although quite true... there is no government with total freedom though- thats anarchy, and so far there have been no real plausable societal anarchies to base off of.

It's like that in Belgium

Originally posted by Fire
No it's not fascism, it doesn't come close to fascism.

Now as Storm said Belgium is one of a few countries in which voting is mandatory by law.

First let's explain this a little better. The law doesn't force you to vote, it forces you to show up. You are still free to vote blanco or to cast an invalid vote, both types of votes will be dismissed in the electoral process. If you decide not to show up you get a fine. But everyone knows the courts do no longer prosecute people for not voting.

Now why a mandatory vote is a good thing. Many studies from all over the world have shown that the first groups to drop out are the weaker groups in society: the poor, the homeless, the elderly. The reasons for dropping out are diverse and do not really matter. The real problem is what happens next. All political parties will match their platforms to their voters. What we can see, is that many -but not all- political parties stop investing in groups of people that don't turn up to vote anyway. This is only logical, from a strategic point of view, but it's wrong and in my opinion simply dangerous. This is why many people feel Belgium should keep the mandatory vote.

People who are against mandatory voting often advocate that it pushes you to vote. This argument is pretty easy to counter. A) You aren't forced to vote, you are forced to show up (big difference). B) The elections are held on a Sunday and voting offices are open from 9 AM to 3 PM (at least) so you have enough time to go and vote. C) If you have to work, are sick, out of the country, or unable to go and vote in many other ways you can simply delegate someone else to go and vote in your stead.

Another argument opponents of mandatory voting use, is claiming that mandatory voting increases the score of extreme right wing or left wing parties. Well again national studies have been done on this subject and they all conclude that the effect would be marginal at best. In Belgium the extreme right or left wing parties generally have the most determined voters so they would show up regardless of the law.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with mandatory voting and every country should instate it.

Okay all of those things are good things, except for the fact that Belgium has extreme party's but hey what country doesn't?

Anyway what about the other side. Right now there are plenty of idiots out there that don't know who to vote for and just press a button when they need to go. Now of course in theory they could vote blank or whatever, but people here rarely do that. I would imagine that if voting became required by law a lot of dutch citizens would vote for a party they have no understanding of and just screams the hardest.

These usually are the extremist party's because they like to scream and ignore every bit of logic.

I would rather have some kind of check system before people are allowed to vote to make sure they know what they are talking about, then to have everybody in the country vote because the majority's doesn't know what they are voting for.

Good point, but such a check system would probably be considered discrimination by many if not all courts. Thing is you have to educate people about politics, it isn't easy. But I'd rather have it this way than sacrificing whole groups of people to get rid of unfounded votes.

Originally posted by Fire
Good point, but such a check system would probably be considered discrimination by many if not all courts. Thing is you have to educate people about politics, it isn't easy. But I'd rather have it this way than sacrificing whole groups of people to get rid of unfounded votes.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't think we should actually even try a check system, it's absolutely impossible. Besides it would actually make it possible for people to find out who others would vote for. It's only normal to know more about the party you are voting for then others. And you are generally more positive about that party then others. So only letting people educated on politics vote would be impossible and a serious breach of the voting privacy.

But it was just to show that I don't think forcing everybody to vote (even with the possibility of a blanc vote) is a good idea. I just think that there are to many people out there that would vote for a party anyway if they were there, without even knowing anything about the party.

Could be true, there probably is research on how much voters know about the party they voted for. I'll see what I can find after my exams

Originally posted by Lana
Theocratic? What the hell? Are you a little confused with your terms or something?

And I'm not quite sure why people think democracy = freedom. It would only become undemocratic if you only had one choice of who to vote for.

the same reason they think of the "free world" and "free market" as representing freedom when its anything but. MARX 101 false class conciousness, ruling class ideology. people have no power in democracy{specially when a corrupt extremist president can veto proposals by the opposite party and ignore any and all human please by the nation} its just about having a vague choice between two or more dictaters {who btw can represent normal peopl as no normal man has the funds and contacts to run a succesful capaign} with no real reason to believe one is better than the other.

Originally posted by Fire
Could be true, there probably is research on how much voters know about the party they voted for. I'll see what I can find after my exams

There's been a test here in the Netherlands, I'll see if I can find it. I don't remember the exact results but it showed that more then 70% of the people voting for the more extreme party's didn't know more then 2 politicians on the list, and that for the most part they couldn't put forward many idea's. Except for those that they shared with the more moderate party's.

With moderate party's the people knew a bit more but it was still small amongst most, especially younger people knew very little. Who for some reason usually started voting what their parents voted, even if they heavily disagreed with it.

I'll try and dig it up, because I'm not entirely sure on those figures...

It is not the best kind of democracy, and some people would be doing better by not voting.

I think by not forcing people to vote we allow more conscious people to vote.

Well, if we go by rights. Then you can't really impose rights on the citizens of the state. For example, I have the right to go to my public library and read. However, if the state were to make me go to the library and read....that's something I don't find quite comfortable. I love to read and enjoy going to the library occasionally but you can't really order me my rights. Much less impose the rights when I don't need them.

My take in this philosophical loop is that the state should provide you with the rights. That doesn't mean it can impose them on you whenever they feel like it.

One cannot allow totalitarians to command you even if they are given you something beneficial.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well, if we go by rights. Then you can't really impose rights on the citizens of the state. For example, I have the right to go to my public library and read. However, if the state were to make me go to the library and read....that's something I don't find quite comfortable. I love to read and enjoy going to the library occasionally but you can't really order me my rights. Much less impose the rights when I don't need them.

My take in this philosophical loop is that the state should provide you with the rights. That doesn't mean it can impose them on you whenever they feel like it.

One cannot allow totalitarians to command you even if they are given you something beneficial.

Can't say I agree with you there. The government should be able to force you to do things like pay taxes go to school and try to find a job. Any government should be able to force people to take basic actions to make sure they don't end up hurting the rest of the country.

Voting although a stretch could perhaps be seen as something that you need to do otherwise you will just end up hurting the country.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or is it Fascism?

Your take

(this is a Philosophical/Political question not a fallacy question)
Democracy is a form of government, not a method of voting. if the government is democratically elected, then it is loosely called a "democracy."


I don't see the facism in this at all. "Facism" is usually a word thrown around by people who don't really know its meaning.

Originally posted by Alliance
Democracy is a form of government, not a method of voting. if the government is democratically elected, then it is loosely called a "democracy."


I don't see the facism in this at all. "Facism" is usually a word thrown around by people who don't really know its meaning.

Oh, no problemo.... I'll let wiki define the word so that you know what we're talking about:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

Thank you so much. What about the actual point?

Statement:

Democracy does not truly exsist. Democracy is suppose to be the rule of the majority. Instead it's the rule of the minority that appeases the majority with false sense of power.

Most voters do not know thier congressmen, and they're the really important people in law-making. Wouldn't it make more logical sense for congress to serve as an intern of lawmanship, but ultimately leave laws up to the voters through democratic process?

Example:
When Roe vs Wade was declared, congress made it. A band of X men and women who took it upon themselves to change this country forever.

Rather then ofcourse leaving it into the hands of Y voters. Which would've been a true democracy. Because Y would be everyone, where as instead Y leaves X to decide. This is not democracy, this is democratic-fascism. True democracy closely resembles a communism.


Conclusion:
A law to force the people to vote could only take place in a society that was never a true democracy to begin-with.

In a true democracy, it would take the majority to vote for said law to be enforced. And as dumb as humans are, I don't think they're that dumb to directly put the gun to thier head. But then.. I could be wrong..

You are not force to vote at all.I know alot of people who are not registered or is but don't vote.My older brother is one of them.JM

Originally posted by HK47
Statement:

Democracy does not truly exsist. Democracy is suppose to be the rule of the majority. Instead it's the rule of the minority that appeases the majority with false sense of power.

Most voters do not know thier congressmen, and they're the really important people in law-making. Wouldn't it make more logical sense for congress to serve as an intern of lawmanship, but ultimately leave laws up to the voters through democratic process?

Example:
When Roe vs Wade was declared, congress made it. A band of X men and women who took it upon themselves to change this country forever.

Rather then ofcourse leaving it into the hands of Y voters. Which would've been a true democracy. Because Y would be everyone, where as instead Y leaves X to decide. This is not democracy, this is democratic-fascism. True democracy closely resembles a communism.


Conclusion:
A law to force the people to vote could only take place in a society that was never a true democracy to begin-with.

In a true democracy, it would take the majority to vote for said law to be enforced. And as dumb as humans are, I don't think they're that dumb to directly put the gun to thier head. But then.. I could be wrong..

Crappy impersonations aside, anyone who says "Democracy is suppose to be the rule of the majority" is a dangerous fool.

That's mob rule, not Democracy.

Democracy is about everyone having participation in the political process, not all decisions being taken by public majority. Geez.

As the vast majority of modern Democracies are represenative ones, the people power is focussed by being able to vote for your representative, NOT being able to vote on actual pollitical decisions, which would be a nightmare situation considering how many social and political advances have been made despite, not instead of, majority opinion. Pandering to the mob is a mark of failure for any Government.

Anyway. Voting is a right, not a responsibility (unlike taxes), and it should be up to those that wield the vote to choose whether to use it nor not.

Statement:
Indeed, voting is not an obligation (and arugably neither are taxes. What the government does is coercion and no better then a thug asking for your wallet b gunpoint).

But to say otherwise is un-democratic. Democracy is mob-rule.

That is simply and spectacularly not true.

We have compulsory voting here, its not so bad. If you dont want to vote, you can just void it. Its not that hard to spend 3mins ticking a box, its not like 'OH GOD VOTING! WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS TO DECLINE???', thats just silly. I cant see optional voting as stable, really. Only those who bother to turn up determine the outcome, its not a good reflection of the state as a whole.

If you dont vote, then you cant complain about who got elected.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

meanwhile, considering the breadth of political idwas that get applied over time, if you genuinely say that absolutely no candidate approaches your political views at all, that almost certainly says something more about the poor quality of your views than the democratic system.

probably true

for that reason it is pragmatic that I do not vote

as a reformed anarchist, I am willing to say what I might THINK is good for the state has very little bearing on what actually IS good for it

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Saying it is ok bevause you can spoil your vote is vulnerable to the analogy made earlier- it;s like making it compulsory for people to go to the library, but not requiring to read a book. It's just a dumbass intrusion on liberty for no decent return.

Most democracies in the world do not have mandatory voting and are perfectly stable. Everyone has the darn choice.

meanwhile, considering the breadth of political idwas that get applied over time, if you genuinely say that absolutely no candidate approaches your political views at all, that almost certainly says something more about the poor quality of your views than the democratic system.

Spending half an hour to go the the voting booth, ticking a box and leaving, once every few years...is it that much of an intrusion? You'd think something important like a presidential election would make people want to go, it's a once off vote that will affect the whole country for a period of time. Its not like you have to go vote for every single law that gets passed.


Stable was probably the wrong word I was looking for...say if voting was optional, and only 1 person in the whole country bothered to vote, then the outcome is solely determined by that individual, not by the whole nation. Its not a representation of what the people as a whole want. Choosing whether to turn up to vote or not might be a freedom you have, but how can you live in a democractic state when people dont even go to choose their government? Defeats the meaning of democracy.



Question for anyone who doesnt vote: Why do you choose not to have a say? Do you disagree with the political parties you have to vote for, or you cant be buggered to go, or something else?