Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    22 Mar '15 03:31
    Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

    (For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there would be no immediate political gain to be reaped for either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)
  2. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    22 Mar '15 05:41
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

    (For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)
    As long as you can cast a vote for "none of the above" I guess it would be okay. A stipulation where if "none of the above" were to garner the most votes then another election where all candidates who lost could not run again would be nice.
  3. 22 Mar '15 12:09 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

    (For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)
    Obama recently suggested that there be mandatory voting, and we all know why. Every mid term election the turn out is worse than during Presidential elections, which keeps the GOP viable. This mid term, I believe only 37% of voters showed up as the GOP picked up a myriad of seats.

    I'm not sure who has a dimmer view of the American voter, Obama or myself. When they turn out in mass they always vote for the carrot dangling in from of them whether it be an Obama phone or "free" this or that. As for Big Brother, their only position can be, apparently the American voter is not smart enough to vote as often as they should. Either way, it makes them look like idiots, which the appear to be.

    Looking at the debacle of the GOP after their sweeping wins in the last mid term election, I could really care less if the GOP becomes extinct if voters are required to vote every election. In my view there is no real opposition party to the Dims. However, just the thought of one less freedom gone saddens me to no end.

    So what is the penalty for those who don't vote in other countries that require voting? For those proponents of compulsory voting, what should the penalty be?
  4. 22 Mar '15 12:17
    Would you really want these people voting?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=325PJrTv7Es
  5. 22 Mar '15 12:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    Obama recently suggested that there be mandatory voting [...]
    Quote?
  6. 22 Mar '15 13:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Quote?
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mandatory.asp

    He kind of sort of did and didn't.
  7. 22 Mar '15 13:27
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mandatory.asp

    He kind of sort of did and didn't.
    There is nothing about mandatory voting in that quote, implied, suggested, or otherwise.
  8. 22 Mar '15 13:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Quote?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu3AZ1Hjw0c

    His theory is that it would counteract "money" coming in to the political establishment.

    In Obama's world, I guess he got to where he is at devoid of "the money".

    LOL.
  9. 22 Mar '15 14:02
    I support a voting holiday so most people don't skip voting who are too busy working. If anyone should vote more it is those that work hard.

    Mandatory voting is impractical. All it does is pressure uninformed people to vote. Those people will likely vote for the person they hear about most. That just insures the corporate news media will influence who people vote for to an increased degree.
  10. 22 Mar '15 14:14
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

    (For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)
    How about starting by making voting easier. Why limit it to one weekday from 8am to 8pm? Make voting more accessible by extending it to perhaps a Thursday through Saturday. Another real issue is the extreme insurgence of money into politics. Are we a democracy or an oligarchy? Also, if a news agency or political campaign tells a blatant lie about a candidate, they should be heavily fined. Forcing everyone to vote when it is difficult to get to the polls and the information we get on candidates is so spotty doesn't make sense to me.
  11. 22 Mar '15 14:17
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I support a voting holiday so most people don't skip voting who are too busy working. If anyone should vote more it is those that work hard.

    Mandatory voting is impractical. All it does is pressure uninformed people to vote. Those people will likely vote for the person they hear about most. That just insures the corporate news media will influence who people vote for to an increased degree.
    Even if we had a voting day designated as a national holiday, some people are going to have to work.
  12. 22 Mar '15 14:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu3AZ1Hjw0c

    His theory is that it would counteract "money" coming in to the political establishment.

    In Obama's world, I guess he got to where he is at devoid of "the money".

    LOL.
    He says there is mandatory voting in Australia, and then discusses how it would "change the political landscape" (i.e. it would help the Dems) if turnout was higher. He is not saying nor implying that the US should have mandatory voting.

    I suggest some mandatory English lessons.
  13. 22 Mar '15 15:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There is nothing about mandatory voting in that quote, implied, suggested, or otherwise.
    You didn't read the article then, because
    Obama certainly DOES mention mandatory voting and the positive effect it might have.
    Try again.
  14. 22 Mar '15 15:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    He says there is mandatory voting in Australia, and then discusses how it would "change the political landscape" (i.e. it would help the Dems) if turnout was higher. He is not saying nor implying that the US should have mandatory voting.

    I suggest some mandatory English lessons.
    Obama is saying that mandatory voting would fight all the "evil money" in politics and transform it.

    Is this not an endorsement or does he like the "evil money", as he calls it?
  15. 22 Mar '15 15:23
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    You didn't read the article then, because
    Obama certainly DOES mention mandatory voting and the positive effect it might have.
    Try again.
    Define "is".

    It's the Clinton defense.