Which is more democratic...

[Drooper]

On the back of the thread whether to vote or not, I wanted to pose this question to anyone who's interested.

Which is more democratic, compulsory or elective voting?

If voting is optional a president, say, is elected on the back of a minority of people. e.g. GW gets 50% of about 50% of eligible voters, or 25% support. But, at least people get the choice to abstain, which is democratic.

If voting is compulsory (.eg. Australia) a Government is elected with virtual 100% voter turnout, making it a better reflection of overall preferences from the elctorate. However, there is something deicdedly undemocratic about being prosecuted for failing to vote.

[Tony]

Elective voting.

People have the right not to give a ****.

[Drooper]

But you can deliberately spoil your ballot. Or just leave it blank, or just not take a ballot paper at all.

[Tony]

So what, you are still being forced to vote under the threat of prosecution.

Like I said, you should have the freedom not to care.

[Smalso]

by Tony:People have the right not to give a ****.

Yep.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Smalso
by Tony:

Yep.

No you don't. Just as you are obliged to drive on the right side of the road, or pay your taxes, you have an obligation to your democracy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No you don't. Just as you are obliged to drive on the right side of the road, or pay your taxes, you have an obligation to your democracy.

First of all, I dont live in a democracy.

Secondly, are you saying that you would force people to care?

[Smalso]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No you don't. Just as you are obliged to drive on the right side of the road, or pay your taxes, you have an obligation to your democracy.

Sorry, but I just don't get the comparison. I don't understand why I should be compelled by law to go to the polls and cast a vote for someone who is running unopposed.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Tony
So what, you are still being forced to vote under the threat of prosecution.

Like I said, you should have the freedom not to care.
Freedom != democracy.

Whether you're free not to vote, or not free not to vote is largely irrelevant to the question here:
In a nation where voting is compulsory, most people will head to the booths and voice their opinion, as well they should. Some motivated by political ideology, some by tradition, some by fear of persecution. The ones who do not, have failed to make their opinion clear: Do they object to the system, or are they apathetic?
In a nation where voting is optional, many people will head to the booths and voice their opinion, as well they should. Some motivated by political ideology, and some by tradition. The ones who do not, have failed to make their opinion clear: Do they object to the system, or are they apathetic?

In both systems democracy is, in a sense maintained in that the people choose their leaders.
Imagine a country where spitting on the street is punished by public whipping, drinking alcohol carries the death penalty, noone has the right to privacy or even property, and everyone votes in the biannual election. This is a democracy.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

First of all, I dont live in a democracy.Yes, you do. You live in something called "representative democracy" -- not to be confused with direct democracy, which is probably what you are thinking of. "US republic is not a democracy" is a myth.

For the record, I am undecided on the issue of compulsory voting. It's a truly nasty problem. You can't and shouldn't legislate civic spirit, but a democracy, in order to function, needs its members to participate...

[Tony]

The US is a democratic Republic.

[karl]

The bottom line is that you can't force people to have an informed opinion about things that don't interest them. If you have 100% voter turnout and 51% vote for George W. Bush, but half of them do it because they like his haircut, then what's the point?

Even without compulsory voting, there are a lot of people who by rights ought to put in a blank ballot, but still pick a candidate out of a desire to uphold the democratic tradition. Paradoxically, they feel it's better to decide by for example flipping a coin than to deliberately cast a non-vote. Making people required by law to vote only hides the fundamental problem of democracy behind pleasant statistics. It doesn't solve anything.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No you don't. Just as you are obliged to drive on the right side of the road, or pay your taxes, you have an obligation to your democracy.

You are only required to drive on the right side of the road if you choose to drive. I think voting is and should be like that also. Mandatory voting would make sure the uninformed make the decisions. Since there is no way to mandate that people stay informed, we should not mandate they act as if they were. If a person thinks he is well enough informed to vote, then he ought to do so, but if he does not feel so informed or simply does not care, what good does it do to force him?

[corplinx]

Democracy is mob rule. Mob rule is bad. Referendums are bad.


I think voting should not only be voluntary but restrictive. I think we should require some form of civil or military service for the privelege of voting.

It reminds me of punch cards. In one of the "questionable" parts of Florida 2000, people are sent voting info in the mail with instructions on punching out chads and making sure they are completely punched. In the voting area there are instructions on the walls. Finally, in the booth it says to completely remove the chad. What do you have? People arguing that an incompletely punched chad is a vote and suckers in the press reporting it without even challenging it.

This is why voting should be discretionary and voluntary, because most people are morons. At least with discretionary voting, only the useful morons will vote.

[OdderMensch]

I like most of that idea. I wrote a paper once on why i thought we needed "universial sufferage" I said we didn't. The founders never planed for univerisal sufferage, just property owners. Get the government out of my hair, and i'll get out of its!

[Smalso]

It is interesting that the framers of the Constitution want democracy, but not in too large doses. The only federal office that was elected directly was the representative in the House; and exceptions to that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


First of all, I dont live in a democracy.

Secondly, are you saying that you would force people to care?

please don't give me that b**t about the US being a republic. It is a democracy, with rules to ensure that there are some bounds to the decisions that can be made without due consideration for mob rule, just like all the other democracies in the world. You are just taught in school that americas democracy is better, just like much of the other 'america is the best in the world' c**p.

freedom is just a social construct. many societies have come to the conclusion that it is better for their form of freedom if everyone is compelled to vote.

when you consider that people can still not vote when they cast their ballot, that only about 5% do not exercise that option, compared to about 50% in the states, then there is clearly something amiss.

strangely enough, it is the conservatives who run the line that voting should not be compulsory because this system tends to favour them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Democracy is mob rule. Mob rule is bad. Referendums are bad.



name one democracy in the world that has simple mob rule? as far as i can tell, the democracies all have constitutions and conventions to ensure an orderly system of regulation and law making. this idea that the US is the only democratic 'republic' in the world is total, inward looking fantasy.



I think voting should not only be voluntary but restrictive. I think we should require some form of civil or military service for the privelege of voting.



utter tripe.



It reminds me of punch cards. In one of the "questionable" parts of Florida 2000, people are sent voting info in the mail with instructions on punching out chads and making sure they are completely punched. In the voting area there are instructions on the walls. Finally, in the booth it says to completely remove the chad. What do you have? People arguing that an incompletely punched chad is a vote and suckers in the press reporting it without even challenging it.

This is why voting should be discretionary and voluntary, because most people are morons. At least with discretionary voting, only the useful morons will vote.

the machines that were used were old, obsolete and have been hurriedly scrapped. they were mostly used in the poorer areas, IIRC.

we have the equally ridiculous situation that people vote for dubya because he is a christian. if you are going to ban others from voting because you believe they aren't too bright, we should be banning christians from voting too.

[OdderMensch]

I'm going to sleep for a few hours, when I wake up I will exercise my right to asmeble and beat people up. But before I go.

We should figure out how many total people vote in an average election. Then we randomly select that many people from within the population and require THEM to vote.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


please don't give me that b**t about the US being a republic. It is a democracy, with rules to ensure that there are some bounds to the decisions that can be made without due consideration for mob rule, just like all the other democracies in the world. You are just taught in school that americas democracy is better, just like much of the other 'america is the best in the world' c**p.



You dont know what you're talking about. America is a republic. Show me constitutional evidence that says america is a democracy.


freedom is just a social construct. many societies have come to the conclusion that it is better for their form of freedom if everyone is compelled to vote.

Those societies are wrong. Living is a free soceity means being free to be apathetic.

when you consider that people can still not vote when they cast their ballot, that only about 5% do not exercise that option, compared to about 50% in the states, then there is clearly something amiss.

The only thing thats "amiss" is that people are exercising their freedom to chose not to vote. How dare they exercise thier constitutional rights.

strangely enough, it is the conservatives who run the line that voting should not be compulsory because this system tends to favour them.

Accually, libertarians are more inclined, than conservatives, to be against compulsory voting. Forcing people to vote, with the threat of prosecution, is an authoritarian idea.


You're australian right? Correct me if I am wrong. It's obvious that you think it works over there. But this would NEVER be considered in america, NEVER. Forcing people to vote is unconstitutional.

[Advocate]

Can't the US be both a republic and a democracy? As I understand it, republic refers to the form of the government (representatives) and democracy refers to how these representatives are chosen (election by the people). So the US is a democratic republic. As far as I know there are no democracies that are not also republics since a direct democracy would be cumbersome for a nation of millions. I would say that one of the most distinctive features of the US republic is that its president is elected separately from its legislature, unlike the parliamentary systems of Europe and elsewhere.

[Smalso]

I believe that the United States is classified as a republic because power is not inherited. I seem to remember someone explaining that that is the classical definition. Works for me.