Should voting be compulsory? [offtopic split from Gillard/Abbott Poll]

[Glockmeister]

Irrelevant.  You're committing post hoc ergo propter hoc

Not everyone knows how to construct a proper  philosophically logical argument. Just putting it out there

The logic isn't actually that advanced - it's basically the equivalent of saying "just because y is present after x has occurred doesn't mean that x has caused y to happen".  I'm just pointing out that you've left a gap in your reasoning, anyhow.  :p

I have done a few Philosophy subjects, both at VCE as well as university level, so I do what a logical argument looks like.

The point of putting that example was an attempt to demonstrate something else. By not having compulsory voting, what happens (and there's empirical evidence for this), that first you get a reduction in the number of people who do vote. You also get the problem that the only people interested enough to vote to be able to get up their arses and actually vote. Theses are the people who are extremists or people who hold their ideology so strongly that they'll never change their position, regardless of how sensible it is. As a result, you find that more extremist politicians, such as Bush here, get elected, even if the majority of the population absolutely hated him.

[EvangelionZeta]

Irrelevant.  You're committing post hoc ergo propter hoc

Not everyone knows how to construct a proper  philosophically logical argument. Just putting it out there

The logic isn't actually that advanced - it's basically the equivalent of saying "just because y is present after x has occurred doesn't mean that x has caused y to happen".  I'm just pointing out that you've left a gap in your reasoning, anyhow.  :p

I have done a few Philosophy subjects, both at VCE as well as university level, so I do what a logical argument looks like.

The point of putting that example was an attempt to demonstrate something else. By not having compulsory voting, what happens (and there's empirical evidence for this), that first you get a reduction in the number of people who do vote. You also get the problem that the only people interested enough to vote to be able to get up their arses and actually vote. Theses are the people who are extremists or people who hold their ideology so strongly that they'll never change their position, regardless of how sensible it is. As a result, you find that more extremist politicians, such as Bush here, get elected, even if the majority of the population absolutely hated him.

I dunno.  From a logical perspective, it seems more like in situations where voting is compulsary, you get extremists, ignorant people and "informed" people voting.  Wouldn't it more likely that in the case of non-compulsary voting, it'll just be extremists and "informed" people?  Surely the desire to have a good leader outweighs the "cbf" factor that the latter may experience.

[Glockmeister]

In a compulsory voting system, what influences elections most are swing voters. Many are those people are the informed opinion. Informed enough that they are willing to hold their vote (because they don't hold an ideology, or aren't lifetime voters of a particular party) until election day (although this bunch might also have the people not interested in politics). This is why parties pander to these folk.

In a non-compulsory voting system, those who aren't sure come election day don't vote (unless there has been a major political controversy or crisis). Hence you get these more extremist people into power though apathy.

[iffets12345]

today tonight and a current affair

I just want to express my particular distaste for these shows. The journalism is so bad it isnt funny. Seriously guys, world news on SBS is so much better. Its pretty much the only news i regularly watch.

Something i posted awhile back:

Very poor, horrible, detestable low class journalism - Just to grab viewers. Half the time they use scare tactics "How you will die in your bed tonight" "Top 10 common household poisons" "Godzilla - is he back?" ect.

Not really slogging off the average joe or anything but you can kind of tell the market they aim for. They don't exactly aim for your college professors. They're stories dont really matter anyway (they just totally ignore the rest of the world :/), Example:

SBS: The war in Gaza
Today Tonight: Top 5 Bikini Waxers

SBS:Anarchists Riot In Greece
Current Afairs: Local Man Discovers Jesus In His Morning Pancake

SBS: Cancer Breakthrough Reached
Today Tonight: Underpants 'curing' cellulite

You can see where im going with this right, the only news i watch is SBS World News & I read the age from time to time.

THANK YOU!

I stopped watching today tonight when it said that:

Neopets encouraged gambling.

[saaaaaam]

It's so easy to just put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote. Or give everyone your first preference so it doesn't count anyway. Personally, I'm thinking of adding a candidate at the bottom.

I've always thought it was be nice to have voluntary voting from the ages of 16 - 21. I know a lot of 16 year olds who are interested in voting, and many more people over the age of 18 who just don't care.

[iffets12345]

In a compulsory voting system, what influences elections most are swing voters. Many are those people are the informed opinion. Informed enough that they are willing to hold their vote (because they don't hold an ideology, or aren't lifetime voters of a particular party) until election day (although this bunch might also have the people not interested in politics). This is why parties pander to these folk.

In a non-compulsory voting system, those who aren't sure come election day don't vote (unless there has been a major political controversy or crisis). Hence you get these more extremist people into power though apathy.

If they are so...informed then they would know that they need to make a decision and vote. If they're not sure, they shouldn't vote. That is my point. There will be reasonable out there who will vote and ensure non-extremism.

[TrueLight]

some articles against compulsory voting which make some good points

Be Patriotic: Don’t Vote
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo59.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/03/00013//
quote from the above link i like
"You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear."



and this too
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hensley1.html
By Philip Hensley, Jr.
"I walked away without voting, and it felt great. I realized a couple of things. First, voting isn’t a duty or a responsibility. And even if it was, your vote really doesn’t matter. The question isn’t why don’t more people vote; the real question is why so many people vote in the first place. If you were sick on election day and couldn’t make it to the polls and vote, would anything have changed? No. The same candidate that won would have won, and the same candidate that lost would have lost. Elections are won and lost by big groups of swing voters who usually have a vested financial or political interest in the outcome of the election. In fact, you probably have a better chance of being elected president yourself than being the one vote that decides the election. Why waste days, weeks, months or even years of my life deciding between Obama versus McCain? My vote isn’t going to change anything. And voting isn’t the best way to have your voice heard. The best way to influence the political process is to become wealthy and buy off a few congressmen to see things your way.

Every four years we hear the same crap from the two major party candidates. But the reality is if McCain wins, government is going to get bigger and more powerful. If Obama wins, government is going to get bigger and more powerful. "Conservative" radio hosts are going crazy over Obama’s "redistribution of wealth" comments, and showing concern for Obama’s supposed disrespect for the Constitution. So what if Obama wants to redistribute wealth. Republicans have been doing it for decades, just to different groups. Republicans aren’t really opposed to redistribution of wealth, they just want it redistributed to people that vote for Republicans. Look at all the wealth that has been redistributed to senior citizens, car manufacturers, and wall street banks over the past eight years, six of which happened under a Republican President that had a Republican-controlled Congress. Where were all the defenders of the Constitution hiding then?"

[iffets12345]

It's so easy to just put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote. Or give everyone your first preference so it doesn't count anyway. Personally, I'm thinking of adding a candidate at the bottom.

I've always thought it was be nice to have voluntary voting from the ages of 16 - 21. I know a lot of 16 year olds who are interested in voting, and many more people over the age of 18 who just don't care.

Exactly
Look at your own year 12 cohort and tell me if you have faith in the decisions of EVERY SINGLE person in that cohort, that you trust those people can make an educated decision.

[vexx]

it shouldn't be compulsory..
i don't want to vote because i am so ignorant about politics (i have no interest.. yet) so my vote shouldn't have to count.. i'd probably just vote for something like greens anyway so it doesn't influence the big parties >_>

[littlebecc]

There's both sides to the argument i suppose.
However, i disagree with people who say it shouldn't be compulsory.
We are lucky to be in a country where we are ALLOWED to vote. Make the most of it. If you don't know who to choose, do some research. Make a decision.
If we are granted something we might as well make the most of the opportunity.

[TrueLight]

yes but we would also be allowed to vote if its made voluntary

[Mao]

We are lucky to be in a country where we are ALLOWED to vote. Make the most of it. If you don't know who to choose, do some research. Make a decision.

A large proportion of the population is incapable of doing that. They make ill-informed decisions because of media bias, misunderstanding and general ignorance. Thus, Kevin Rudd and our budget deficit [but hey, we all got our economic stimulus, work choices and laptop?]

[littlebecc]

That is also true Mao. You make good points, however, i still believe it should be compulsory. Maybe if they didn't know who to vote for, they could ask there parents? I dunno, something ANYTHING
lolololol

[littlebecc]

their** parents.whoops.
To be honest, i guess i was blind enough to realise KRudd wasn't doing too well. I'm in America now and found out via email that Gillard is new prime minister. I was really shocked. I thought Rudd was doing fine, besides the whole mining thing. Eh

[Eriny]

As long as its a secret ballot, voting can't be compulsory. In Australia it's only compulsory that you show up on the day, you can then do whatever you like to your ballot, you don't have to vote for anyone.

I personally believe that any citizen affected by government policy should be entitled to vote - including young people and prisoners.