So if there is a law that forces you to vote...is that Democracy?

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)

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:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

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 Mišt

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

I disagree with this

My opinion would be that the only people who are allowed to complain are the ones who don't vote

people who vote in the corrupt democratic systems don't deserve the right to complain when its over.

The problems I see worth complaining about aren't those that can be changed by the election of a differnt party. I'm sure each nation has its own flavours, but there are serious problems with a system of government that reduces political systems to the lowest common denominator.

The obvious answer to this is "vote for someone who supports your ideas" however, the vast majority of people don't share my ideas and are content with the system as is. They are content to have politics made up for them on a nice line of right to left wing. Because of this, there is very little pandering to the ideas that I support.

Unfortunatly healthcare and global warming will remain much more salient topics of political discourse than electorial reform or government accountability.

Originally posted by Mišt
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.

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.

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?