will vote at random, thus doing nothing more than adding uniform noise to the result. Mathematically, as long as the distribution of random votes is uniform, forcing the apathetic to vote has no effect one way or the other on the outcome.

Yet, there's a feel to the mandatory vote regulation that rings of "a responsibility of citizenship" standard to me.

toward a sympathy for thought. They get tired of doing the right thing for the wrong reason and start talking to people who care about politics. They eventually go down a democratic path that their own 'choice' would not have taken them on.

I'm for such a law, and have been for a long time now. But I don't want us carting people off to prison for not voting, EVEN if they fail to pay the fine for not voting. At that point it becomes no longer worth it. We have too many people in jail as it is.

Each year that they don't vote, their fine increases. I'm not positively sure how they pay, but I hear it's through their taxation.

I would just want it to spiral into 1) you don't vote, 2) you are fined, 3) you neglect the fine, 4) you are jailed on a warrant for not paying the fine.

If that scenario was made impossible, I would favor such a law.

The political art as practiced in our country largely consists in reducing the number of people who cast votes, either over-all or in specific demographics. This is the real aim of most disparaging advertisements and commentary, to convince people not to bother to come out, because the whole business is foul and all in it vile. It is also the deep aim of obstructionist tactics, to convince people nothing can be done anyway, so why bother.

Requiring all to vote makes these tactics pointless, and would require parties and candidates to actually make appeals to the people to vote for them.

The fine in Australia for not voting is modest, but the less people have, the less they could afford any fine, so this would have the effect of greatly increasing participation by poor people and the young.

Worth noting: this would not be the first major reform measure we took from God's own country down under --- in a college political science textbook from the twenties, the present form of secret ballot is referred to as 'the Australian ballot'....

(aside) And had never heard "the Australian ballot" reference.

While the fine is modest, it does have it's effect. I think it does increase the level of discourse and political knowledge, realizing that participation is mandatory. In other words, more people are informed.

In addition, there are those that will file a "donkey vote". They invalidate their own ballot bu voting for multiple candidates or none. The law requires participation, not a valid vote. In a nation where the population is so small, participation is important. Without electoral college system, every single vote is important and counts.

Two days, Fri. & Sat. or even three days, Thurs.- Sat. This would give people better opportunities to schedule a voting time.

to get to the polls.

It's simple and people won't be at a loss because they would still get paid for the holiday. Cause you could end up spending hours at the voting station waiting line.

many days to fill out and return the ballot, election day is the deadline, not the day one must do the deed.....
Such regulations are made on the State level, and thus are easier to change that national laws....something to consider.

Of course, I am highly suspicious of the intelligence of many people. I believe that all the apathetic people who would be forced to vote will be swayed by the worst shit that can be thrown instead of the best argument for a candidate.

If someone does not want to educate themselves on issues and candidates, and could care less about the process, I figure at least they can do no harm if they just stay home. But then again, I am beginning to wonder if there should be a simple test before you can vote---which is the opposite direction of mandated voting.

I get your other points. And, "swayed by the worst shit that can be thrown instead of the best argument for a candidate" seems to be a given among some of the electorate as is it is, already...

has to do with something that happened in the primary last year in my county...and I have been debating this in my head ever since. We had a Republican who voted, and was given the wrong ballot. He got the Democrat ballot. He went all the way through the voting process and finished it, not even realizing that the candidates listed were not the ones he should have seen. Then later he was asked if he voted for candidate X and said that this person was not on the ballot....only then did he figure it out. Sorry, but people who are that uninformed making decisions that will affect me scare the hell out of me.

And as to the "worst shit", yes, it does seem to be the way it is now. But I believe it would be even worse if people were forced to vote---that would be all that they would know about candidates/parties/issues. If people are not interested, they are not interested.

None of it is good.

Otherwise I find it morally offensive and intolerable.

Maybe some Australian DUers will clarify how it works there.

If you're changing your name for the purpose of screwing with the election system, then that's election fraud. Simple enough.

But the system only works if "none of the above" can actually WIN the election. If they win, don't fill the office until someone is elected - see if you need them or not, or be able to force the parties to provide better candidates.

How about a $50 refundable income tax rebate for those who vote in general elections? That's not feasible, either.

So, how can we motivate people to get off their butts on election day and go to the polls? That's the eternal question, I think.

Edit to add: Publicly funded campaigns, limited to a six-week period, with no privately-funded advertising or PAC money allowed. Each candidate can spend $N on the campaign, funded by the government of the jurisdiction the office represents.

to express themselves in a civic fashion continue to be allowed to do so.

I think it's up to us to encourage people to GOTV.

From: http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

More information on Compulsory voting in Australia: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm

We have talked about this. She said because you know you have to vote even if you are not into politics you will look stuff up.

She said its a very low percentage that writes a stupid name instead of a real one. By the way that is legal, they force you to vote but you can write mikey mouse if you want to.

When you have 95% of the people voting you know who is chosen is who the people want.

The hard part for politicians is the leader can call a vote anytime and it's in 30 days so not much time to tell people about you..

The good part is you don't have to see it on tv all the time like us and no money involved, no wonder they can afford healthcare...

That's not necessarily true in a multi-candidate winner take all system.

For example, suppose that 60% of the population favor X and that there are 3 candidates running.

Candidates A and B support X and Candidate C opposes X. A & B could split the vote getting 30% each leaving
C with 40% and a victory.

In an example from the real-world note that many people argue that Ralph Nader 'cost Gore the election'.

The spoiler effect is unnecessary and undesirable except to the 1%, who can use it to push the whole spectrum to the right and keep people from voting it back.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party-preferred_vote

In my experience, most ballots list many offices and issues. I suppose if one is neither for nor against any of the proposed laws, and if one has no interest in local politics, in election of judges, mayors, then one candidate might matter more?

Hand counted and overseen. I'd rather have that than forced voting.

Weyrich, possibly the founder of American conservatism, said this: "Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome -- good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8GBAsFwPglw&v=8GBAsFwPglw&gl=US

In order to maintain the status quo, it's necessary to suppress the vote.

Don't mistake the U.S. for an actual democracy - we're only pretending.

In some States, the vote is encouraged not suppressed. In 2010, when much of the nation stayed home or elected right wingers, we here in Oregon had our largest midterm turn out since the 80's, and we elected Democrats up and down.
I often wonder why other States do not do the same thing. Washington did. Others should as well. It can not get done nationally, it is State stuff.

States run by Republicans routinely suppress the vote and/or use machines that can be tampered with. (Remember, the owners of Diebold promised to deliver Ohio to the Republicans in 2004 - and did so.)

In 2000 the Supreme Court ended democratic elections by using Florida's voter suppression efforts to stop the vote and install an unelected corporate puppet in the WH.

The 2000 and 2004 outcomes called for Democrats and other citizens to take to the streets in order to protect democracy - instead our Democratic "leaders" did nothing and neither did the people.

Forced capacity building of voters leads to greater democratic capacity building of the nation. The civic 'training' of attention to politics leads to voters' greater concern for the fairness of the actual voting process, overall; for instance, that an objective third party should run paper trail voting, or that elections should solely be publicly financed, with a short campaign window of, say three months, or that it should have a two-day voting holiday.

There's nothing as inauthentic as the election process we have right now.

First, we need to make voting more accessible to the American public. Holding it on the first Tuesday of November isn't entirely convenient, especially with weather issues, work, school, and life in general. I would not be opposed to starting voting the Saturday before and have polls open through the weekend (yes, even Sunday - gasp!) and ultimately have them close Tuesday night like what we normally have here. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that's not financially feasible, as it would be pretty costly to keep polls open for that prolonged period of time. But who knows.

Another option would be a universal system like Oregon, where you mail in your votes. However, looking at the numbers from '08, Oregon's voter turnout, while higher than the national average, wasn't dramatically better than most states and Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin all had similar, or better total turnout than Oregon.

Still, 67% was about six points higher than the national average, so, it probably does help increase turnout - though, from what I can tell, only marginally.

The other option would be to make the first Tuesday in November a holiday, thus making it far more easier for people who work to vote - at least, if they get that holiday off (government employees, certain businesses). Not everyone would be free, of course, but a good portion of the population would instantly have more time to vote.

All these should be looked at before making voting mandatory.

(aside) Not clear on how the 1st Tuesday came to be the election date.

And I'd support a 3 day voting window - Thur, Fri, Sat, if there was adequate staffing for that. Most poll workers are volunteers.

Not to mention we don't really need a 3 day voting window because you can vote through paper ballot for months on end. I think the three day thing is a waste of money and resources.

strong environmental policies, and abolished the death penalty.

Yes. Everybody should be required to vote.

In our history people have fought and died for the will and right to vote. Americans in general for representation or to have some sort of voting say in regards to England. Then later on the Afro-Americans and Women fought for rights and representation. For that alone I feel that voting is a privilege. It is a privilege and a duty bestowed upon us by our ancestors who fought and died so we can have a better life.

You don't shit on that. You must vote.

But then again...I have two things holding me back. People who don't vote sincerely. Yes they are far and few, but many of those who don't vote sincerely, don't really vote. I wouldn't want people who don't care about the issues obligated to vote. If they don't care about the issues, they don't care about this nation and therefore their livelihood.

Secondly, and the main reason. Freedom. We died for that as well. Freedom of choice. Although great writers have stated that is a natural right...those same writers have stated that some people's were meant to be enslaved (fuck you John Locke and Thomas Jefferson--as a Black American (which means I'm of slave defense Jefferson is not my hero)). In any event...in our history people fought for freedom and that includes the freedom to choose. As such, I think it has to be the choice of the person. And normally this secondary issue tops everything for me...hence the reason I guilt trip people into voting but give them the issues so they can make a decent choice.

As a side note...I have been advocating this for years: Why isn't voting day made into a national public holiday? Life would be so much easier.