good idea/bad idea, necessary democratic reform or authoritarian imposition? are there better or worse ways to do it?

7 points

Feels authoritarian to me. I think everyone should vote! But I wouldn’t force people to. If you did, I suspect that a lot of votes that ordinarily wouldn’t have been cast would be spoiled anyway

permalink
report
reply

Being able to not choose is, to me, as valid as actually making a choice. So while I do think it could be beneficial, I also hate the idea of losing even just that little bit of freedom. I never like the removal of options.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

How would you feel about compulsory voting with an explicit option to decline both candidates?

It would certainly make the choice extremely deliberate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

In Canada we vote with a pencil on a piece of paper so I have spoiled my ballot in the past by not selecting a candidate and writing “NO” on the ballot

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I would suggest in the future that instead of spoiling your ballot you can decline your ballot instead. Spoiled ballots are considered rejected because it’s not clear if you meant to vote for someone but messed up versus not wanting to vote. Declined ballots are separately counted and will show political parties that there are eligible voters who went through the work to show up but intentionally did not want to support any candidates on the ballot.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ontario-votes-2022-declined-ballots-rise-1.6466308

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

You could still not choose. “I abstain” and “none of these” are valid votes. Submitting an empty ballot would satisfy the law while preserving the right not to choose.

That said, some have a religious prerogative to not vote, and should be eligible for an exemption.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That said, some have a religious prerogative to not vote, and should be eligible for an exemption.

this is, as i understand, the case in Australia—which i would consider the most compelling example of compulsory voting in practice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Even better, it makes your rejection explicit. Someone who doesn’t nake the effort to turn up to the polls isnt worth chasing their vote. Someone who turns up and says “Y’all shit” is a swing voter who can be swayed with the right policies. (Of course this all requires a healthy democracy without geremandering fuckery).

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Australia has compulsory voting with penalties for not voting. It ensures that people who don’t think they have a voice or that their vote doesn’t change anything actually are required to make their voice heard, even if they think that it doesn’t matter.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

We also have first past the post voting, so using said voice is never a waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

FPTP is the shitty undemocratic system America and the UK use.

We use Instant Runoff Voting, which is a type of preferential (also called “ranked choice”) system. Which, as you say, means you aren’t wasting your vote by voting third party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

My mistake, thanks for the correction!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Australia has a lot of really borderline fascist ideas. Not a great argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Some people in Australia absolutely have ideas like you describe, fortuitously the rest of us don’t have to vote for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What does one have to do with the other?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do you really want to force cousin cleatus to be involved in the leadership decisions for the country? There are entirely too many people out there with zero clue what the issues of the day even are much less to have an informed opinion on them outside what the nice person in the interwebs/TV told them is the answer.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

i find this a very unpersuasive argument in any context because—if you actually believe it—it’s essentially an argument for bringing back literacy/intelligence testing in voting. and i’m sure i don’t need to tell you about the long history of that being used to disenfranchise the “wrong” people for the crime of having a certain skintone or believing in equal rights for everyone; to say nothing of other ethical issues with the notion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You’re mixing two opposite issues there, the literacy tests you mention where in an effort to exclude people from voting.

In this this topic your asking if we should FORCE the uninformed and disinterested to vote.

These are anything but the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

the literacy tests you mention where in an effort to exclude people from voting.

yes, which was justified with the notion of there supposedly being people who were “too uneducated” or “not-literate enough” to make decisions for themselves and therefore deserve an equal right to vote—which is the same underlying sentiment of “Do you really want to force cousin cleatus to be involved in the leadership decisions for the country?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Mandatory voting, for people who have passed a morality test, and a competency test.

Nobody else is allowed to vote.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Oh, and a tax

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You really don’t want tests to prevent voting. They will be used entirely for voter supression.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah because there’s definitely no voter suppression going on already. Let’s make sure the dregs of society can share their dumbass opinions when things come to a general vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s a false equivalence. Building up society as a whole is better than trying to determine “the most relevant” voices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I suspect the people who would set this test would be the exact opposite of the people you want to set this test, in more than 50% of the seats.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

for people who have passed a morality test

i don’t see how this is even theoretically tenable considering what is “moral” is entirely subjective and largely nonfalsifiable

permalink
report
parent
reply

AskBeehaw

!askbeehaw@beehaw.org

Create post

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.


Subcommunity of Chat


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 68

    Monthly active users

  • 74

    Posts

  • 305

    Comments