| |||||||||||||
Citizen LinusCitizen LinusPosted Sep 14, 2010 14:59 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: Citizen Linus by fb Parent article: Citizen Linus
If you wish to have high turn out rates in elections you should make use of compulsory voting That's a bad idea. Forcing people to vote doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the decision. People should have the right to choose not to vote if they don't want to. Why make them go through the whole exercise just to spoil their ballot?
(Log in to post comments)
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 14, 2010 15:56 UTC (Tue) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
> That's a bad idea. Forcing people to vote doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the decision. People should have the right to choose not to vote if they don't want to. Why make them go through the whole exercise just to spoil their ballot?
Because it stimulates people to think about and to take part in political issues, and because it makes voter suppression a lot harder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression.
A person that -for any reason- choses not to vote can just go there and cast a "blank/null" vote.
There are plenty of good reasons for it,
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 14, 2010 16:29 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Because it stimulates people to think about and to take part in political issues How do you know that? Maybe people just vote randomly to avoid the penalties. it makes voter suppression a lot harder Is voter suppression a real problem in the US? (It isn't in Canada, and I don't think it is nowadays in the US.) There are plenty of good reasons for it, The Wikipedia article gives plenty of reasons. I don't think they're all good reasons, though. Many of them are just assertions without any data to back them up.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 14, 2010 19:48 UTC (Tue) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138) [Link] How do you know that? Maybe people just vote randomly to avoid the penalties.Well, as the parent poster suggested, blank/null ballots remove the point of random voting in avoidance of penalties, and they still do provide meaningful input.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 15, 2010 16:18 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] A blank ballot in a compulsory system provides the same input as a non-vote in a non-compulsory system, so there is no gain.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 16, 2010 14:34 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
On Brazil's electronic vote machines (voting is compulsory here, and almost all of it on these machines), there is even an explicit (and quite big, though all the buttons on these machines are big) "blank vote" button. You can also cast a null/invalid vote, but it is a bit more hidden; simply type any number which does not match a party or candidate (like "99" or "00") and it will be accepted as a null/invalid vote.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 16, 2010 18:24 UTC (Thu) by Velmont (guest, #46433) [Link]
Huh? Why would you ever want to do a null vote instead of a blank vote? I can't really see the difference here.
Anyway, I think mandatory voting is quite cool. And I hope lots would actually vote blank then, that would be a REAL kick in the ass of the politicians and the system.
Our system in Norway is quite good and democratic, although it's not good enough, it's too strategic (although not as much as some other countries *cough*UK *cough*US).
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 16, 2010 20:33 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
> Why would you ever want to do a null vote instead of a blank vote?
No idea (other than the number of keypress "beeps" from the machine is then the same as a valid vote). I hear from time to time rumors that it makes a difference when counting the votes, but never saw any reliable information about whether its true or which difference it makes.
I think it was made that way because back when you had paper ballots you could either leave it blank or invalidate it (marking multiple candidates, for instance), and they wanted to keep the same possibilities on the electronic voting machines.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 14, 2010 23:06 UTC (Tue) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]
The unbalanced enforcement of drug laws can be seen as a voter suppression strategy in the US, since convicts lose their right to vote (unless they get it reinstated by a judge after they have served their sentence). There are other examples. "Motor voter" in California got a lot of criticism from the right before it was enacted.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 14, 2010 23:13 UTC (Tue) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
If you look at all the countries with compulsory voting, the informal vote is quite low.
This year in Australia the informal vote was 1%, probably the highest ever, and that was because of an orchestrated campaign to vote informal, and because the two main parties were both shit.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 15, 2010 11:03 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] OK, but I still don't see any evidence that compulsory voting improves outcomes. I looked at the list of countries on Wikipedia that enforce compulsory voting, and by any measure I can think of (freedom index, human development, economic indexes, etc.) they don't seem to be better off than countries that don't enforce compulsory voting.
Citizen Linus Posted Sep 16, 2010 18:26 UTC (Thu) by Velmont (guest, #46433) [Link]
Too bad. I would've thought the non-votes were much higher. OK, then it may be bad.
|
|||||||||||||