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 [b]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. [/B]
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.
Re: So if there is law that forces you to vote...is that Democracy?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or is it Fascism?Your take
(this is a Philosophical/Political question not a fallacy question)
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.
Re: Re: So if there is law that forces you to vote...is that Democracy?
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.
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.
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...