Voting...what do you think? (1 Viewer)

[copkiller]

I'm not even going to bother answering that. You don't even think democracy is a good thing because you don't like the notion that you 'only' have as much of a vote as Joe Average and that he might vote for a government which promises universal healthcare.

The same question could have been asked by anyone in the thread. It seems you're using my anarcho-capitalist leanings as an excuse to avoid justifying your position.

You're putting words in my mouth. I do in fact like the notion that I only have as much vote as Joe Average. If we must have a government it should at least be democratic and everyone should have an equal vote.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

The same question could have been asked by anyone in the thread. It seems you're using my anarcho-capitalist leanings as an excuse to avoid justifying your position.

You're putting words in my mouth. I do in fact like the notion that I only have as much vote as Joe Average. If we must have a government it should at least be democratic and everyone should have an equal vote.

Fine: a high turnout is good because it signifies active, healthy participation in our democracy by its citizenry. A high turn-out means almost everyone is having their say and there is little disenfranchisement by groups in need (due to apathy, fear, or whatever).

When turn-out is low, as in somewhere like America, you get large swathes of people - hundreds of millions - who just give up on the process. They don't think their vote matters, they don't think who wins matters (and admittedly in America, it largely doesn't). Their voices are not being heard en mass, their political needs hence being ignored. That doesn't bode well for a society's health, both political and economic.

Why would you think a high turnout wouldn't matter? More to the point, why do you think a low turn-out would be desirable (because that's the implication I'm getting)?

 

[copkiller]

Fine: a high turnout is good because it signifies active, healthy participation in our democracy by its citizenry.

How does it signify this? If people who are not interested in voting and are ill-informed vote because they are forced to, how does this in any way strengthen the democracy?

A high turn-out means almost everyone is having their say and there is little disenfranchisement by groups in need (due to apathy, fear, or whatever).

I hardly think fear of voting is a real issue in contemporary Australia.

Once again, why is forcing apathetic people to vote good?

When turn-out is low, as in somewhere like America, you get large swathes of people - hundreds of millions - who just give up on the process. They don't think their vote matters, they don't think who wins matters (and admittedly in America, it largely doesn't). Their voices are not being heard en mass, their political needs hence being ignored. That doesn't bode well for a society's health, both political and economic.

If they feel they are being ignored they may still choose to vote.

I'd argue that not voting is also a way of sending an important message. If a lot of people are feeling disenchanted with the democratic process and not voting, maybe this is itself a crucial signal that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.

Why would you think a high turnout wouldn't matter? More to the point, why do you think a low turn-out would be desirable (because that's the implication I'm getting)?

I don't think a low turn out is desirable. A high turnout would be better if people were voting because they genuinely believed it was important and wanted to have a say. But you can not achieve this sort of desirable culture simply by forcing people to turn up to a polling booth.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

So in other words this question you asked me was just a pointless annoyance like I originally thought?

But why is a high turnout rate a good thing?

 

[copkiller]

So in other words this question you asked me was just a pointless annoyance like I originally thought?

No, you said why you think it is important.

I explained why I disagree.

That is how an debate generally works.

It is only a pointless annoyance to the extent that anyone who disagrees with you is a pointless annoyance.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

No, you said why you think it is important.

I explained why I disagree.

That is how an debate generally works.

It is only a pointless annoyance to the extent that anyone who disagrees with you is a pointless annoyance.

Except you asked an absolutely retarded question and then quickly changed the subject when I answered you - you switched the question from why high turnout is good to why high turnout justifies compulsory voting. Nice bit of sleight of hand which I've noticed you play over and over again in these forums but one I frankly I don't have the time for.

Put it this way: your original question was essentially saying "why is a good thing a good thing?"

 

[spence]

Fine: a high turnout is good because it signifies active, healthy participation in our democracy by its citizenry. A high turn-out means almost everyone is having their say and there is little disenfranchisement by groups in need (due to apathy, fear, or whatever).

When turn-out is low, as in somewhere like America, you get large swathes of people - hundreds of millions - who just give up on the process. They don't think their vote matters, they don't think who wins matters (and admittedly in America, it largely doesn't). Their voices are not being heard en mass, their political needs hence being ignored. That doesn't bode well for a society's health, both political and economic.

Why would you think a high turnout wouldn't matter? More to the point, why do you think a low turn-out would be desirable (because that's the implication I'm getting)?

How can less people voting possibly devalue a vote?

 

[copkiller]

Except you asked an absolutely retarded question and then quickly changed the subject when I answered you - you switched the question from why high turnout is good to why high turnout justifies compulsory voting. Nice bit of sleight of hand which I've noticed you play over and over again in these forums but one I frankly I don't have the time for.

Put it this way: your original question was essentially saying "why is a good thing a good thing?"

What sleight of hand?

The whole point of the thread is whether compulsory voting is justified.

What is wrong with distinguishing a high turn out that is the result of forcing people to turn up from a high turn out that is caused by people having a genuine interest in the running of the country?

It seems like a very important distinction to make. It also seems as you though love ranting about your views but hate being asked to justify them or back them up, you seem to constantly be searching for excuses to avoid answering any criticisms of your posts.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

How can less people voting possibly devalue a vote?

How the heck did you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? The part you bolded is simply a frequent assertion by Americans: that their vote doesn't matter or count (and hence why vote). It's wrong - I am entirely against that mindset, but they hold it just the same, partly because America's electoral system is fucked up (first past the post for a start) and thus they're almost correct.

Less people voting does devalue the system, since fewer people are having their say making it less representative, but I don't see how one could justify less people voting devaluing an individual's vote.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

What is wrong with distinguishing a high turn out that is the result of forcing people to turn up from a high turn out that is caused by people having a genuine interest in the running of the country?

Nothing is wrong with that. It's a pity you didn't do it. Instead you asked a stupidly vague blanket statement which was divorced from the issue of compulsory or voluntary voting. (Id est: "Why is high voter turnout a good thing?")

It also seems as you though love ranting about your views but hate being asked to justify them or back them up, you seem to constantly be searching for excuses to avoid answering any criticisms of your posts.

No, I'm just tired of beating the same old dead horse with the fresh new Libertarian kids who come on here each year thinking they have this wonderful solution to the world's problems: no government. Nolan, waf, Kwayera, zimmerman and Graney have argued the cases for Libertarianism far better than I feel you ever will. They were very interesting to argue with.

It's much like I grew tired of trying to get religious folk to see reason and rehashing the same damn arguments every time I met a new one and now tend to only interact with them when mocking them. A desirable state of affairs? No, but it preserves my sanity.

 

[copkiller]

Nothing is wrong with that. It's a pity you didn't do it. Instead you asked a stupidly vague blanket statement which was divorced from the issue of compulsory or voluntary voting. (Id est: "Why is high voter turnout a good thing?")

Well sir, you said:

I still support compulsory voting, since Australia has continually posted the highest voter participation rates in the world, but I wouldn't care as much now if it were scrapped.

You just said that you support compulsory voting because it leads to high voter participation rates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication here is very clearly that high participation rates are good.

So I challenged you to show why they are good.

You were the one who initially made the "stupidly vague blanket statement."

If you don't want to debate me, or feel others are better at making the libertarian case, fine. Just ignore my posts. But don't just quote me and then reply that what I say is stupid without backing it up.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Well sir, you said:



You just said that you support compulsory voting because it leads to high voter participation rates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication here is very clearly that high participation rates are good.

So I challenged you to show why they are good.

You were the one who initially made the "stupidly vague blanket statement."

If you don't want to debate me, or feel others are better at making the libertarian case, fine. Just ignore my posts. But don't just quote me and then reply that what I say is stupid without backing it up.

Just take the time to write what you actually mean in future instead of expecting others to read between the lines. You seem to have meant to write: "Why are high voter turn-out rates good if they occur from compulsory voting?" Which is pretty fucking clearly a lot different to the generalisation "Why are high voter turn-out rates good?".

Anyway, I'll probably respond to that tomorrow at work when I'm bored, but right now I need to get at least 5 hours sleep.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

If people don't vote, you end up with morons incharge, spose that happens the vast majority of the time anywayz...

 

[SylviaB]

If people don't vote, you end up with morons incharge, spose that happens the vast majority of the time anywayz...

On the contrary, the less people that vote, the less chance they'll be a moron.

Forcing idiots who don't caree about politics to vote can only favour the moron.

 

[John McCain]

Mandatory voting only leads to a higher proportion of ignorant and random voting.

It's likely voters who don't turn-out see little importance in the outcome and would be equally satisfied with either candidate. If they had any decent objections or opinion on the major candidates, they would turn out in a voluntary system. Forcing these people to vote means the vote will be increasingly driven by personality, pork barreling and other piddling issues that sway undecided voters.

Mandatory voting forces the major political parties to become more cautious, conservative and mediocre. I don't believe conservatism is ever a good thing, it reduces real choice for the electorate.

higher voter turn-out rates are meaningless, implicit satisfaction with either candidate is indicated by the non-voter.

 

[ay0_x]

Mandatory voting only leads to a higher proportion of ignorant and random voting.

It's likely voters who don't turn-out see little importance in the outcome and would be equally satisfied with either candidate. If they had any decent objections or opinion on the major candidates, they would turn out in a voluntary system. Forcing these people to vote means the vote will be increasingly driven by personality, pork barreling and other piddling issues that sway undecided voters.

Mandatory voting forces the major political parties to become more cautious, conservative and mediocre. I don't believe conservatism is ever a good thing, it reduces real choice for the electorate.

higher voter turn-out rates are meaningless, implicit satisfaction with either candidate is indicated by the non-voter.

+1

Most people couldn't care less.

Thanks to compulsory voting Kevin Rudd gives out free money so Supre bitches can wear shirts that say "Thank$ Kev!".