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

[slothpomba]

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

I totally agree, i hate that argument

[EvangelionZeta]

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

[Akirus]

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

In essence, it's not that the drunkards' votes affect themselves, but the entirety of the state that bothers people, if you don't mind me continuing your example.

[Yitzi_K]

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

Your analogy is incorrect, as drunkards truly are incapable of rational decisions, whereas the not-so-smart (side point: smartness is relative. However smart you are (or think you are, in the case of most people) there will always be a smarter person than you, unless you are the absoloute smartest of all mankind. This being the case, why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions?) members of our society are far from incapable of making rational decisions.

[EvangelionZeta]

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

Your analogy is incorrect, as drunkards truly are incapable of rational decisions, whereas the not-so-smart (side point: smartness is relative. However smart you are (or think you are, in the case of most people) there will always be a smarter person than you, unless you are the absoloute smartest of all mankind. This being the case, why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions?) members of our society are far from incapable of making rational decisions.

There are people who vote based on who they think "looks like a better leader" as a result of compulsary voting - is that rational decision-making?  And I don't think being brainwashed by A Current Affair or adveritisng (etc.) is much of a step up from that, to be honest.

Also, at your point about "why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions", I'd like to point out that Plato for one would agree that that's probably the best choice (or some sort of system akin to that, wherein the smartest person is also advised by a council of other smart people...).

[Akirus]

Starting to smell some double standards in here.

[iffets12345]

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

We do not have a superiority complex.
Today Tonight is an analogy.
If the brickie knows his politics, fair game.
We never surmised that certain groups were dumb. It is just the issue matter of some people who aren't aware, who haven't done their rese
arch.
And I am not even demoting the average Australian.
The average australian is perfectly capable. I am talking about the minority that exists in every country.

I am sick of the numerous suppositions that I mean that "people shouldn't be allowed to vote". dispelling compulsory voting and BANNING people is DIFFERENT. I am simply saying, DON'T FORCE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNSURE. I WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE.
I am not some freaking vote-intelligence Nazi.
Not going to discuss anymore before accusations of anymore "arrogance" emerge.

[Yitzi_K]

We never surmised that certain groups were dumb. It is just the issue matter of some people who aren't aware, who haven't done their rese
arch.
And I am not even demoting the average Australian.
The average australian is perfectly capable. I am talking about the minority that exists in every country.

given the nature and intelligence (or lack thereof) of the average citizen,

Exactement.

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing a massive contradiction between those posts?

You clearly ARE 'demoting' the average Australian.

Again:

Look at the mining thing. Whilst many like Mao have logical arguments against it, most just see the advertisement, tap into the typical "government out to get us" mentality and think "BAD RUDD BAD RUDD"

According to you MOST people will not make a rational informed decision. Clearly you think YOU will. I see evidence of a superiority complex.

I'm not even getting into the issue of who should or shouldn't have to/choose to vote. I'm just saying that people here seem to think for whatever reason they are more qualified to choose the government than the average person.

[Glockmeister]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

Your analogy is incorrect, as drunkards truly are incapable of rational decisions, whereas the not-so-smart (side point: smartness is relative. However smart you are (or think you are, in the case of most people) there will always be a smarter person than you, unless you are the absoloute smartest of all mankind. This being the case, why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions?) members of our society are far from incapable of making rational decisions.

There are people who vote based on who they think "looks like a better leader" as a result of compulsary voting - is that rational decision-making?  And I don't think being brainwashed by A Current Affair or adveritisng (etc.) is much of a step up from that, to be honest.

Also, at your point about "why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions", I'd like to point out that Plato for one would agree that that's probably the best choice (or some sort of system akin to that, wherein the smartest person is also advised by a council of other smart people...).

The problem with your example is that your example is too simplistic. What if, 10 people do research and 5 people come to one conclusion based on their reading and 5 other people come to a conclusion that is opposite to what the first group concluded.

Plato was born many millennia ago. It doesn't make him right. That's an argument from authority, and you should know that's logically fallacious. Dictatorships are dangerous because you simply don't know who really is a good decision.

To your point, is it's not rational decision-making. But you need to think about these questions.

- How many people are 'manipulated' by mass media?
- To what degree are they manipulated, if at all?
- And at what point do we say, they are too 'stupid' to vote?

I will tell you now, that it's almost impossible to really argue these three points and come to a conclusion that everyone can agree on, because to an extent, a lot of people may regard one views as irrational, but that another group by regard it as rational. Think about he Resources Super-Profits Tax for example

[EvangelionZeta]

We never surmised that certain groups were dumb. It is just the issue matter of some people who aren't aware, who haven't done their rese
arch.
And I am not even demoting the average Australian.
The average australian is perfectly capable. I am talking about the minority that exists in every country.

given the nature and intelligence (or lack thereof) of the average citizen,

Exactement.

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing a massive contradiction between those posts?

You clearly ARE 'demoting' the average Australian.

Again:

Look at the mining thing. Whilst many like Mao have logical arguments against it, most just see the advertisement, tap into the typical "government out to get us" mentality and think "BAD RUDD BAD RUDD"

According to you MOST people will not make a rational informed decision. Clearly you think YOU will. I see evidence of a superiority complex.

I'm not even getting into the issue of who should or shouldn't have to/choose to vote. I'm just saying that people here seem to think for whatever reason they are more qualified to choose the government than the average person.

You're both straw-manning and inferring things that aren't actually there.  Apart from what I'll assume is possibly just a loose interpretation of "nature and intelligence", Iffets has specifically mentioned that the problem is that people are UNINFORMED or IGNORANT, not that they are necessarily stupid.  Furthermore, nothing Iffets has said so far makes me think she's harbouring some sort of inner-elitism about this whole thing - she cited MAO as someone with a rational opinion, not herself, for one.

The only one around who seems to have the sort of superiority complex you're complaining about is (self-admittedly) Akirus.  Furthermore, it's off-topic - can we just go back to discussing the point in making democratic voting compulsary?

[Glockmeister]

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

We do not have a superiority complex.
Today Tonight is an analogy.
If the brickie knows his politics, fair game.
We never surmised that certain groups were dumb. It is just the issue matter of some people who aren't aware, who haven't done their rese
arch.
And I am not even demoting the average Australian.
The average australian is perfectly capable. I am talking about the minority that exists in every country.

I am sick of the numerous suppositions that I mean that "people shouldn't be allowed to vote". dispelling compulsory voting and BANNING people is DIFFERENT. I am simply saying, DON'T FORCE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNSURE. I WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE.
I am not some freaking vote-intelligence Nazi.
Not going to discuss anymore before accusations of anymore "arrogance" emerge.

See above. How would you measure ignorance in a way that is valid?

[EvangelionZeta]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

Your analogy is incorrect, as drunkards truly are incapable of rational decisions, whereas the not-so-smart (side point: smartness is relative. However smart you are (or think you are, in the case of most people) there will always be a smarter person than you, unless you are the absoloute smartest of all mankind. This being the case, why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions?) members of our society are far from incapable of making rational decisions.

There are people who vote based on who they think "looks like a better leader" as a result of compulsary voting - is that rational decision-making?  And I don't think being brainwashed by A Current Affair or adveritisng (etc.) is much of a step up from that, to be honest.

Also, at your point about "why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions", I'd like to point out that Plato for one would agree that that's probably the best choice (or some sort of system akin to that, wherein the smartest person is also advised by a council of other smart people...).

The problem with your example is that your example is too simplistic. What if, 10 people do research and 5 people come to one conclusion based on their reading and 5 other people come to a conclusion that is opposite to what the first group concluded.

Plato was born many millennia ago. It doesn't make him right. That's an argument from authority, and you should know that's logically fallacious. Dictatorships are dangerous because you simply don't know who really is a good decision.

To your point, is it's not rational decision-making. But you need to think about these questions.

- How many people are 'manipulated' by mass media?
- To what degree are they manipulated, if at all?
- And at what point do we say, they are too 'stupid' to vote?

I will tell you now, that it's almost impossible to really argue these three points and come to a conclusion that everyone can agree on, because to an extent, a lot of people may regard one views as irrational, but that another group by regard it as rational. Think about he Resources Super-Profits Tax for example

Fair points - I get you big time on the "it's almost impossible to really argue these three points" thing.  Agree to disagree then?

[Cthulhu]

Voting isn't compulsory. Showing up and having your name ticked off is.

[Glockmeister]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

Really "dumbed down" example, but hypothetically there is a tribe of 5 people who only want to drink alcohol all day, and 5 people who are trying to make sure that the tribe continues to survive.  The tribe decides they will make a decision on whether or not to cross a dangerous bridge into a place where there might be more food.  The 5 alcies have no idea what the process actually involves - they just know there's food, a bridge, and that there might be the chance that they'll die on the bridge.  Meanwhile, the 5 others have done research, and find that there's a 80% chance the bridge will collapse, and that there's a potentially better food source that will have a better chance of survival, but which will harder (but safer) to find.  Do we let the 5 alcoholics in on the decision making process too, even though they have no idea what's going on, or do we just give the 5 "smart" ones the opportunity to rationalise a popular, educated decision which will be more likely to lead them to a better outcome?

Your analogy is incorrect, as drunkards truly are incapable of rational decisions, whereas the not-so-smart (side point: smartness is relative. However smart you are (or think you are, in the case of most people) there will always be a smarter person than you, unless you are the absoloute smartest of all mankind. This being the case, why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions?) members of our society are far from incapable of making rational decisions.

There are people who vote based on who they think "looks like a better leader" as a result of compulsary voting - is that rational decision-making?  And I don't think being brainwashed by A Current Affair or adveritisng (etc.) is much of a step up from that, to be honest.

Also, at your point about "why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions", I'd like to point out that Plato for one would agree that that's probably the best choice (or some sort of system akin to that, wherein the smartest person is also advised by a council of other smart people...).

The problem with your example is that your example is too simplistic. What if, 10 people do research and 5 people come to one conclusion based on their reading and 5 other people come to a conclusion that is opposite to what the first group concluded.

Plato was born many millennia ago. It doesn't make him right. That's an argument from authority, and you should know that's logically fallacious. Dictatorships are dangerous because you simply don't know who really is a good decision.

To your point, is it's not rational decision-making. But you need to think about these questions.

- How many people are 'manipulated' by mass media?
- To what degree are they manipulated, if at all?
- And at what point do we say, they are too 'stupid' to vote?

I will tell you now, that it's almost impossible to really argue these three points and come to a conclusion that everyone can agree on, because to an extent, a lot of people may regard one views as irrational, but that another group by regard it as rational. Think about he Resources Super-Profits Tax for example

Fair points - I get you big time on the "it's almost impossible to really argue these three points" thing.  Agree to disagree then?

Possibly,

I'm just trying to pull across that whilst, yes, I know that the mass media does have a strong influence over people, you really can't use that as a barometer to measure one's worthiness to vote because there's too many shades of grey.

[stonecold]

Voting isn't compulsory. Showing up and having your name ticked off is.