The Debate Thread: Voting

So prohibition bombed, I will not be dissuaded! (At least shadow discovered the amazing that is Reefer Madness.) Alas, we have done some to start that were a bit more emotive, but perhaps this will be less passionate in terms of rule by emotions instead of logical reasoning. (Like, for example, Jae's stance on youth-elder love after what I did to him when he was younger.)

Anyway, we have some Aussies here, who despite their criminal past decided everyone should be forced to vote. So now everyone in their country votes, and paradise has resulted and nobody would ever think to not vote as that is the most important factor in society: casting one ballot.

And while Aussieland is a paradise because the masses are all knowing and wise, some of the rest of us continue to let people NOT vote. Indeed, the author of this post may not have cast a ballot in the most important election in world history (the election of President Barack Hussein Obama, PBUH) and is entirely unlikely to cast a ballot in the current election, and only did so in a prior election because he was driving others to the polls and wanted to mock them for taking more than two minutes to fill out a ballot. But we digress.

And so, here we are. You've read these threads before (or haven't, hell if I know) and this is where benji posits questions, lets you answer then picks at your points until everyone stops reading the thread, but then puttincomputers bumps it to say something insane or Paul23 blames the corporations. (What you really need to look out for, btw, is GAY ISLAMIC CORPORATIONS! You go to sleep one night, next thing you know there's a gay mosque corporation next door.)

I'll even number them for people this time around.
1. Should voting be compulsory? What should be the penalties for not voting?
2. Let's assume voting is not required, like in the U.S. Is the claim "you didn't vote, you don't have a say" valid?
3. If you want to vote for none of the candidates, should you pick the "lesser of the evils"?
4. Assuming you consider voting irrelevant to the outcome, if you vote, or don't vote, should you be held responsible for the result?
5. Assuming you think it is not, if you vote for a candidate should you be held responsible for all they do?
6. Presume there is an outcome not in doubt in an election, is there reason to vote?
7. How do you know your vote counted?
8. Is a vote support for a failed system, or is a non-vote support?
9. President Bill Clinton was elected with about 42% of the voting populace, but only 55% of eligible voters voted. Is someone who receives less than a quarter of the eligible population someone with a mandate?
10. Building on 6, if you vote for a candidate, say Obama, for his stance on "torture" are you a mandate for his entire agenda, say health care, even if you oppose him on everything else and consider "torture" the most important?
11. If you do not vote are you rejecting the offerings or are you consenting to the offerings?
12. What do you think about the secret ballot? Would a non-secret ballot change your positions on voting? Even if such a system proved that you voted as you did?
13. Lastly, just for some fun since the earlier questions threw it up there and I'm actually interested in this as an academic point, what is your cut-off for supporting a candidate? Can one position kill your support for a candidate? Do you take in the overall picture even if there are negatives? Do you consider whether they can win, or whether they agree with you more?

Lastly, as a point to our American (AKA TRUE HUMANS) readers, whatever the highest point on your ballot this year (especially if it is for Governor), please consider voting third party. Any of them really. Your vote actually matters if you vote third party in this regard as it helps determine their future ballot status. Voting for R or D at the highest level will not make a difference in the outcome. But you can potentially be the one vote over, or the group of votes over, that ensure the Libertarian/Green/Constitution/etc. Party will appear on the next ballot without needing to expend the unfair cost to acquire signatures. (As always, please consult your state's election laws to determine where to make this third party vote as sometimes it is other positions.)

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I was wrong, there's two more questions.
14. Should people be required to take some kind of test before being allowed to vote? Maybe once every other or every three elections, or something. It'd ask factual questions regarding government.
15. Should people who pay more in taxes be allowed more votes? If someone pays fifty times what someone else does in taxes should they be equal? Or should the former guy get at least an extra vote, or five votes? Maybe even fifty votes?

I think that's enough for now. Shoot your horrific opinions all over my face.

All. Over. My. Face.

1. Of course not. If it were compulsory, people would be voting for all the wrong reasons, and even more things like this would happen.
2. Not really. With the two party system, you hardly have a say anyway.
3. If its a particularly close election, then yes. I really wanted John Kerry to win in 2004 despite him being a total piece of shit.
4. No, though you can't complain about the result.
5. No. The two party system is turrible, and you can never really know what to expect from a candidate.
6. No, other than to say you did. (So no)
7. You look at the final tallies, then imagine whoever you voted for with one less vote.
8. A vote for a D or R is supporting a failed system. Not voting is neutrality. Voting for a third-party candidate is an anti-support.
9. Yes, though ideally a majority rule would have more power than a minority rule.
10. I suppose it is. Just a "sacrifice" I guess.
11. Consenting. Rejecting would be a third party vote.
12. Ballots aren't secret?
13. It depends. If its a legitimately close race (a few years ago the Gubernatorial race here was decided by like 100 votes)
Based on my other answers, its safe to say I'm planning on voting third party, if I decide to register
14. No. I think it would open doors to discriminate against the poor, blacks, etc. like they used to.
15. No.

Sounds like I've almost corrupted your politics as much as I've corrupted your view of basketball. (Please check back later on in the thread for future corruption based on a few of your responses.)

Also, if Alvin Greene was on my ballot I would expend the resources to cast a ballot just for him. Same as Basil Marceaux.com and it's why I voted for Steve Dougan in 2004.

12. Ballots aren't secret?

My question is asking how or would you change if ballots were not secret. Say, you could go onto a website and confirm your vote was counted but anyone else could also see how you voted. Would you think differently while voting? Would you fear repercussions of people knowing how you voted? So on.

13. It depends.

I know it does, that's why I was asking if anyone actually has a cut off point where they have to back out. It's similar to the 10th question but from a different angle. Where do you back down? Does the potential of the person winning change where you back down? Does the issue change it?

Think of a hypothetical candidate, who is saying a ton of stuff you agree with totally, then he takes one or two positions that are completely against you. If you don't care, it doesn't change your view. But if they are more important than anything, are you done with them? Consider the Obama/"torture" hypothetical posited before, I know plenty of people who knew Obama was big-government/"spread the wealth around" which they opposed with their life, but they thought Obama would end "torture" instead of saying U.S. citizens could be killed, so they voted for him instead of standard third-party or say McCain if they supported everything else of McCain's. I'm just asking in general where the point is, when do you dump a candidate? EDIT: Or a party for our members with other systems.

I go back and forth on compulsory voting. On one hand I think it's worthwhile because (generalisation warning) people don't tend to do things unless they're required to do so. Outside a contingent of people who would vote out of genuine interest in/understanding of politics and those who feel bound by the concept of civic duty, I believe people would elect not to go to the trouble.

At the same time, I think people should have the right to abstain from voting if they can't bring themselves to vote for any candidate or have no interest in the process. Admittedly you can just donkey vote or hand in a blank ballot and just get your name marked off, but to a certain extent you're still jumping through hoops just to refuse voting for anyone. One might suggest that anyone who's forced to vote and really doesn't want to is just going to waste their time and everyone else's and probably won't make an "informed decision"...as much as any of us can, trying to guess the lesser of two evils. The fine here in Australia for not voting is something like $20, so it doesn't really break the bank if you want to make a point and tell the system where to go and what to do to itself. I suppose in principle, I'm against compulsory voting but in practice I think it has merit; I see why it's done.

Having said that, is there any validity to the claim of "You didn't vote, you don't have a say" or "You didn't vote, so you can't complain about who got in"? I'd say yes, to an extent. That's not to say you can't dislike or criticise what a politician/government does after being elected, but it strikes me as a little strange to get angry immediately after an election that you chose not to vote in. To me that's kind of like being offered a drink, replying that you would but don't care what, then getting outraged at the beverage you've been handed; it's claiming not to care but then suddenly backpedaling suggesting you actually do have a strong preference (even if it's what you don't want rather than what you do) in which case you should have spoken up.

I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, especially with Australia's preferential voting system. Your vote is going to end up with one of the major parties anyway, might as well cast your vote for whichever one you dislike least (at least for the House of Representatives, minor parties and independents have a better chance in the senate).

As far as bothering to vote in an election where the outcome is not in doubt...well, if everyone thinks that way then the result may well be in doubt. As always, a fine example can be found in a classic Simpsons episode, where Bart appears to have the class election won but then none of his friends nor Bart himself bother to vote, allowing Martin to win by a margin of two votes to zero.

Sounds like I've almost corrupted your politics as much as I've corrupted your view of basketball. (Please check back later on in the thread for future corruption based on a few of your responses.)

That's very true. Pretty much everyone in Seattle (including my parents) are hardcore progressives, so you don't really see any other sides of things without really seeking them out.

12. Ballots aren't secret?

My question is asking how or would you change if ballots were not secret. Say, you could go onto a website and confirm your vote was counted but anyone else could also see how you voted. Would you think differently while voting? Would you fear repercussions of people knowing how you voted? So on.

I see. That would obviously be an awful idea (can't wait to see puttincomputers argue in favor of it), but while I personally doubt I would change my votes (I enjoy being outspoken almost as much as I enjoy using parentheses), I'm sure many people would. There's a major stigma here against conservatives, and I wouldn't be surprised if a closet GOP living in this bubble (or a progressive in puttincomputers's community) would change their votes to avoid people excluding them, giving them dirty looks, even them keying their cars, etc.

13. It depends.

I know it does, that's why I was asking if anyone actually has a cut off point where they have to back out. It's similar to the 10th question but from a different angle. Where do you back down? Does the potential of the person winning change where you back down? Does the issue change it?

Think of a hypothetical candidate, who is saying a ton of stuff you agree with totally, then he takes one or two positions that are completely against you. If you don't care, it doesn't change your view. But if they are more important than anything, are you done with them? Consider the Obama/"torture" hypothetical posited before, I know plenty of people who knew Obama was big-government/"spread the wealth around" which they opposed with their life, but they thought Obama would end "torture" instead of saying U.S. citizens could be killed, so they voted for him instead of standard third-party or say McCain if they supported everything else of McCain's. I'm just asking in general where the point is, when do you dump a candidate? EDIT: Or a party for our members with other systems.

Well, there are a myriad of issues (gay marriage and other examples I can't think of at 2:40 AM) that I care about which have no real impact on my life. If in some bizarre world, I had a girlfriend I had just knocked up, but couldn't get an abortion until second term (just after the election), I would drop my support for a candidate if he vowed to ban all abortion the minute he's sworn in (and he's somehow allowed to). Bad example, but the point is that I'll drop a candidate if he supports a position that would negatively alter my life in a considerable way, unless he has no chance, and its to support the independent candidate cause.

1. Should voting be compulsory? What should be the penalties for not voting?

No, and I find the idea of punishment for not voting to be coercive and offensive.

2. Let's assume voting is not required, like in the U.S. Is the claim "you didn't vote, you don't have a say" valid?

You mean using not having a say as justification for not voting? I think that depends on the system in place. It might hold water in the US, but not so much in places with, say, proportional representation.

3. If you want to vote for none of the candidates, should you pick the "lesser of the evils"?

I suppose that depends on just how evil one of those evils is relative to the other. If I have a choice between voting for Hitler or Brian Mulroney, I'll take Mulroney every time, despite how big a douche that guy is. Extreme example, I know.

4. Assuming you consider voting irrelevant to the outcome, if you vote, or don't vote, should you be held responsible for the result?

5. Assuming you think it is not, if you vote for a candidate should you be held responsible for all they do?

No. You can't hold any individual accountable for a group decision. I think you need to be able to honestly and rationally justify your decision to yourself. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.

6. Presume there is an outcome not in doubt in an election, is there reason to vote?

Again, it depends on the system/circumstance. Your plea to your fellow American voters to cast a ballot for a 3rd party candidate is a good example. Also, in Canada every party that receives more than 10% of the popular vote, regardless of number of seats won, is allotted X amount (I forget the exact number) of dollars per vote.

7. How do you know your vote counted?

You mean, if they actually physically counted it? Cause you don't. But assuming they count all ballots, then, um, well...do I need to finish that thought?

8. Is a vote support for a failed system, or is a non-vote support?

It depends, again. In Edmonton's (Alberta, Canada) previous municipal election, one of the candidates wanted to legalize marijuana (as if you can do that on a local level, especially in a redneck town like Edmonton), and cliamed to be able to mathematically prove the existence of God. I voted for that guy because I know we have a failing system, and I want to see it go down in a spectacular display of incompetence. If that guy wasn't on the ballot though, I wouldn't have voted, again because I don't want to support our failing system. It's all about motives.

9. President Bill Clinton was elected with about 42% of the voting populace, but only 55% of eligible voters voted. Is someone who receives less than a quarter of the eligible population someone with a mandate?

A clear mandate? No. But that's why things like Canada's minority government system are good ideas (at least in the same way communism is - in theory), though it is of course fraught with its own unique complications and pitfalls.

10. Building on 6, if you vote for a candidate, say Obama, for his stance on "torture" are you a mandate for his entire agenda, say health care, even if you oppose him on everything else and consider "torture" the most important?

I'm not even sure that really matters, especially in American politics. You're voting for a whole package of ideas, not just the ones you like best. If torture was the most important issue to you and you voted for candidate Z based on his stance on torture while being opposed to the rest of his platform, it seems pretty clear you feel more strongly about that issue than the sum of all the others.

11. If you do not vote are you rejecting the offerings or are you consenting to the offerings?

Again, not so sure it matters, but I will say that one's motives are paramount here. Maybe you like all the candidates so much that you don't even care who wins. Or maybe you think none of are fit to wipe your ass and would rather masturbate and play guitar than bother partaking in such a fucked up charade.

12. What do you think about the secret ballot? Would a non-secret ballot change your positions on voting? Even if such a system proved that you voted as you did?

I don't think it would change any of my positions. I'm not at all for such a system (non-secret, that is) due to potential personal ramifications from bigots/extremists/assholes.

13. Lastly, just for some fun since the earlier questions threw it up there and I'm actually interested in this as an academic point, what is your cut-off for supporting a candidate? Can one position kill your support for a candidate? Do you take in the overall picture even if there are negatives? Do you consider whether they can win, or whether they agree with you more?

For sure, one issue could kill a candidate for me. I'd never vote for someone who wanted tougher drug laws, for instance. Or someone who opposed gay marriage. Or someone who'd want to institute mandatory voting.

14. Should people be required to take some kind of test before being allowed to vote? Maybe once every other or every three elections, or something. It'd ask factual questions regarding government.

Much as I like the idea, no. It would be so easy to skew that test toward a favorable voting demographic.

15. Should people who pay more in taxes be allowed more votes? If someone pays fifty times what someone else does in taxes should they be equal? Or should the former guy get at least an extra vote, or five votes? Maybe even fifty votes?

Fifty votes? Sure, if he also wants to split his income up between himself and 49 others, I'd grant that. Otherwise, fuck no. Those who pay more taxes actually do have a significantly greater usage of tax-funded services like roads (rich people drive more cause they can afford to), water/sewage treatment (those pipes 20 KM outside of the city limits ain't cheap to build, neither is watering that half-acre lawn with auto-sprinklers), make greater demands on waste management facilities (generally consume more/conserve less), etc. Of course, this all depends on what services are funded with tax money in any given area. And taxes are just a fucked up thing anyway. I'm trying not to officialy pay them ever again, despite the fact that it's actually currently costing me money to do so.

Alright, no proof-read insomnia post. Let's see how retarded this looks to me tomorrow.

I've never voted and until we can elect who actually runs for Prime Minister here (as opposed to letting the parties choose the candidates, then we pick between those two people) I will not vote. It's a $100 fine but I never registered to an electoral roll so it doesn't matter to me, I haven't been fined.

The problem with compulsory voting is situations like the one we're in right now. Hung parliament with virtually no genuinely "good" candidate for PM. Just a nutcase and a backstabber to choose from. The amount of people I've heard say "I would've voted Liberal if Joe Hockey/Malcolm Turnbull/The Ghost Of Peter Costello was running instead of Tony Abbott" is crazy. If the public could have chosen its own candidate, then we'd be in a situation where people who are clearly more competent can run for prime minister and loonies like Abbott stay on the back-bench saying dumb things about women. As it stands right now the parties have all the people, the Labor party decided they didn't want Rudd in charge so they got rid of him. Liberals didn't want Turnbull in charge so they got rid of him etc. We have no say in any of this, so I don't want any say in who runs the country either. It's like getting a kid 10 presents, picking 2 of them regardless of what he actually wants and telling them he has no choice but to take one of those two, and must pretend the other 8 don't exist.

I'll probably go deeper into your responses as others, but for now I am just clarifying points:

You mean using not having a say as justification for not voting? I think that depends on the system in place. It might hold water in the US, but not so much in places with, say, proportional representation.

No, I mean, people in the U.S. often will say you didn't vote for Obama/McCain, so your opinion doesn't matter. I'm really simplifying the point, but the idea is that if you didn't cast a vote in the last election, especially for the major parties, you are not allowed to take a stance on a political issue.

I'm not even sure that really matters, especially in American politics. You're voting for a whole package of ideas, not just the ones you like best. If torture was the most important issue to you and you voted for candidate Z based on his stance on torture while being opposed to the rest of his platform, it seems pretty clear you feel more strongly about that issue than the sum of all the others.

I was again using an example to make a higher level point, I thought I might be unclear. But yes, I agree we treat it as a "package" but is that best? Just hypothetically, let's assume half of Obama's voters voted for him on "torture" or Iraq, etc. does that grant him a full mandate to change health care as he sees fit? I think it's a topic we too easily overlook and just accept.

I'm trying to approach a more theoretical point on these questions than a "real world" one. I think if we can establish the more "ideal" and work towards the "real" we can discuss a more exact topic.

Not that I don't love the things said so far, I'm just trying to setup some parameters before we get to the nitty gritty, everyone should feel free to go where they want.

Just for example, I can contend with this entire post:

Fifty votes? Sure, if he also wants to split his income up between himself and 49 others, I'd grant that. Otherwise, fuck no. Those who pay more taxes actually do have a significantly greater usage of tax-funded services like roads (rich people drive more cause they can afford to), water/sewage treatment (those pipes 20 KM outside of the city limits ain't cheap to build, neither is watering that half-acre lawn with auto-sprinklers), make greater demands on waste management facilities (generally consume more/conserve less), etc. Of course, this all depends on what services are funded with tax money in any given area. And taxes are just a fucked up thing anyway. I'm trying not to officialy pay them ever again, despite the fact that it's actually currently costing me money to do so.

But I'll leave it alone because I'm currently looking to some entrant posts like Lamrock and Andrew's, and yours, before we start disputing the little parts. (I do think that you're trying to engage a higher level debate than I expected, it was more of a throwaway question, I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously since most consider it merely absurd, but you came back, I would love to debate it though. I think those who pay more should have more of a say, I don't think the rich do get more out of public roads, etc. as they can pay for them themselves absent taxes...if anything they are hedging their investments against the mob, thus we could forbade taxes and they would still supply charity to protect themselves, along with others pitching in out of self-interest)

You do have to allow my mild amusement on your tax notions considering prior arguments we had, three years ago or whatever. Next you'll say you're a minarchist and I'll have to figure out life.

I've never voted and until we can elect who actually runs for Prime Minister here (as opposed to letting the parties choose the candidates, then we pick between those two people) I will not vote. It's a $100 fine but I never registered to an electoral roll so it doesn't matter to me, I haven't been fined.

The problem with compulsory voting is situations like the one we're in right now. Hung parliament with virtually no genuinely "good" candidate for PM. Just a nutcase and a backstabber to choose from. The amount of people I've heard say "I would've voted Liberal if Joe Hockey/Malcolm Turnbull/The Ghost Of Peter Costello was running instead of Tony Abbott" is crazy. If the public could have chosen its own candidate, then we'd be in a situation where people who are clearly more competent can run for prime minister and loonies like Abbott stay on the back-bench saying dumb things about women. As it stands right now the parties have all the people, the Labor party decided they didn't want Rudd in charge so they got rid of him. Liberals didn't want Turnbull in charge so they got rid of him etc. We have no say in any of this, so I don't want any say in who runs the country either. It's like getting a kid 10 presents, picking 2 of them regardless of what he actually wants and telling them he has no choice but to take one of those two, and must pretend the other 8 don't exist.

I'm pretty sure every single word of this is racism. It even starts off assuming the people up for office aren't the most perfect and best educated people.

1. Should voting be compulsory?

No.

2. Let's assume voting is not required, like in the U.S. Is the claim "you didn't vote, you don't have a say" valid?

Depends why you didn't vote and what you're complaining about. Neither of the major parties here support gay marriage, so non-voters have a free pass to bitch about that since a vote would change nothing anyway, as an example. Not voting and then complaining about a party doing something they promised to do during the election campaign, not so much.

3. If you want to vote for none of the candidates, should you pick the "lesser of the evils"?

Depends what independent/minor party alternatives exist.

5. Assuming you think it is not, if you vote for a candidate should you be held responsible for all they do?

Not until we can prove that person is capable of precognition.

12. What do you think about the secret ballot? Would a non-secret ballot change your positions on voting? Even if such a system proved that you voted as you did?

I'd probably have to stick to not voting in that case. I'm one of few around here with a functioning brain.

Can one position kill your support for a candidate?

Absolutely, depending on what it is. If you agree with me on everything else but want to kill all mixed-race people, I'm not going to vote for you. Obviously it's rarely that extreme.

Having said that, is there any validity to the claim of "You didn't vote, you don't have a say" or "You didn't vote, so you can't complain about who got in"? I'd say yes, to an extent. That's not to say you can't dislike or criticise what a politician/government does after being elected, but it strikes me as a little strange to get angry immediately after an election that you chose not to vote in. To me that's kind of like being offered a drink, replying that you would but don't care what, then getting outraged at the beverage you've been handed; it's claiming not to care but then suddenly backpedaling suggesting you actually do have a strong preference (even if it's what you don't want rather than what you do) in which case you should have spoken up.

Even if a person didn't vote he still should have a say and complain as he wants as long as the government requires him to pay taxes and he dutifully pays his taxes.

No, I mean, people in the U.S. often will say you didn't vote for Obama/McCain, so your opinion doesn't matter. I'm really simplifying the point, but the idea is that if you didn't cast a vote in the last election, especially for the major parties, you are not allowed to take a stance on a political issue.

Yeah, fuck that shit. I didn't pay to see the Simpsons movie, but I'm still free to think it sucks. The mere notion of attempting to deny people an opinion/voice in the political arena is absurd, and certainly so if done solely on the grounds that one has chosen to operate outside of conventional means.

I was again using an example to make a higher level point, I thought I might be unclear. But yes, I agree we treat it as a "package" but is that best? Just hypothetically, let's assume half of Obama's voters voted for him on "torture" or Iraq, etc. does that grant him a full mandate to change health care as he sees fit? I think it's a topic we too easily overlook and just accept.

I'm trying to approach a more theoretical point on these questions than a "real world" one. I think if we can establish the more "ideal" and work towards the "real" we can discuss a more exact topic.

Yeah, ok, and I agree. It is something often overlooked, I would think. It's a tough problem to get around, though. Ideally, no single member of government, nor alliance of members, should be allowed to unilaterally impose any kind of mandate. Working with the torture hypothetical here, does even 50% of his supporters give him a mandate? Can we assume the other 50% were against his stance on torture, but backed the rest of his platform? Or do we not know how they feel? At what % can you say that a person has a clear mandate? I'm not so sure anyone ever really does, or should. There's obviously a practical limit - no one wants constant plebiscites - but discourse should be maintained on all issues of importance even after the elected party/official takes power.

Not that I don't love the things said so far, I'm just trying to setup some parameters before we get to the nitty gritty, everyone should feel free to go where they want.

I dig it.

But I'll leave it alone because I'm currently looking to some entrant posts like Lamrock and Andrew's, and yours, before we start disputing the little parts. (I do think that you're trying to engage a higher level debate than I expected, it was more of a throwaway question, I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously since most consider it merely absurd, but you came back, I would love to debate it though. I think those who pay more should have more of a say, I don't think the rich do get more out of public roads, etc. as they can pay for them themselves absent taxes...if anything they are hedging their investments against the mob, thus we could forbade taxes and they would still supply charity to protect themselves, along with others pitching in out of self-interest)

I totally wasn't trying to engage at a high level, just shooting from the hip, really. But I do find that notion of those who pay more getting more of a say to be really, really frightening. Money already gets a lot of power in this world (or is it the other way around?). I don't think it needs to be augmented.

You do have to allow my mild amusement on your tax notions considering prior arguments we had, three years ago or whatever. Next you'll say you're a minarchist and I'll have to figure out life.

Of course, though it's more the "international conflict" conflicts we had that stick out in my mind.

And that's pretty much exactly what I'll say, except the part about figuring out life. Oh, and I will note that my views overlap mostly on cultural grounds, not economic grounds, with minarchism. Ain't no honky old white dude goin' tell me how dress. I'll wear my pants as low as I motherfuckin want to.

Even if a person didn't vote he still should have a say and complain as he wants as long as the government requires him to pay taxes and he dutifully pays his taxes.

Granted, I'm not saying someone who doesn't vote can't be disappointed in the actions of the government or has to remain silent on political affairs until such time as they vote in an election. But complaining about the result of an election you could have voted in but didn't see fit to seems like suddenly caring after the fact.

Not voting and then complaining about a party doing something they promised to do during the election campaign, not so much.

So you are agreeing that people who don't vote don't get a say? I didn't vote because none of the candidates and parties were anywhere near liberal enough nor did I trust them enough to bother my time, President Obama promised to do a lot of shitty things, can I not critique the President despite my non-vote?

I'd probably have to stick to not voting in that case. I'm one of few around here with a functioning brain.

So your positions will only hold in anonymity? What do you think of the idea that an open ballot would hold down what could be done in the name of the anonymous?

I didn't pay to see the Simpsons movie, but I'm still free to think it sucks.

Because you'd be right!

At what % can you say that a person has a clear mandate? I'm not so sure anyone ever really does, or should.

I think at a 80-90% level you can effectively do so, the 2/3rd point has proven to be quite a serious hurdle in many respects, so it doesn't seem unpossible.

This all obviously assumes the populace isn't going to just ignore any limits of course.

But I do find that notion of those who pay more getting more of a say to be really, really frightening. Money already gets a lot of power in this world (or is it the other way around?). I don't think it needs to be augmented.

But are they not contributing more? If we had a society were people who made under a certain amount per year paid nothing, while those over a certain limit paid half or more. If the former outnumbered the former why would the majority not vote themselves the riches of the minority?

What if there was a limit, like say the five vote thing. We hear often how 1% control 90%, but even granting them five votes wouldn't necessarily empower their absolute rule.

Not contending there is great power in money but that seems more a problem of the system, where the financial elite can create a political elite through the power of the state. But there could be a possiblity where a progressive voting system with a vote limit could create a situation where the middle to middle-upper classes vote in a matter that checks both the interests of the highest class, and the desires of the lower class to loot the others. I think P.J. O'Rourke proposed a max five votes, where your Bill Gates gets five votes, but your local construction company guy is getting two or three votes, and in the end, those 1% would be overwhelmed in a way in which government would operate in the interests of moving up instead of in the interests of entrenching the powerful and the "leech" class. (I want to note I am not describing the entire poor, but that small segment which avoids legal employment or whatever it can do for government benefits, I consider it, like the high end rich to be 1-2% of the population that is taking advantage of the rest.)

In either case, it's more of a thought experiment than anything.

Of course, though it's more the "international conflict" conflicts we had that stick out in my mind.

I am not sure that we have entirely disagreed but it may have been an issue that I do vacilitate between purity and practicality. What I think most around here would be familiar with that violates my liberalism is Iraq, as I would not consider it to be any issue of need, but we were already invested and had betrayed the people of Iraq in the 1990s to the extent I believe that we had a moral obligation to remove Saddam, and a tactical one regarding his various deals that were enough to confirm my desire to end the conflict in Iraq. This never led to my support of the bungled occupation both there and in Afghanistan. And I did, and do to an extent, consider Islamism a force to fight (not necessarily literally) but have been gladened by events in Lebanon and Iran while imperfect have served to indicate local resistence to Islamism.

Our other disagreement I can recall was regarding global warming, now climate change, for which I do not deny the possibility. But I question the influence of man, especially question a so-called science which is not setup in a way to be falsifiable, has policy goals of questionable relation and shares so much rhetorical familiarity with the sins of the people->apolocalypse concept of religion.

Oh, and I will note that my views overlap mostly on cultural grounds, not economic grounds, with minarchism.

Which is where I find myself and so many others depart, I do not consider economic freedom to be any different from social/cultural freedom. I believe if you have zero economic freedom you live in equally horrible state as no-social freedom, possibly even worse. (As I at a level think you can have gay sex and smoke pot in your house and others can not know, but you will be found out if you start spreading money around.)

But perhaps both this and the former quote-reply deserves its own thread, if you want to bump that Political Compass one I think it could serve to discuss these things. This thread will probably die though which would make it fine to continue as well. (If you were to quote aspects of these posts in the PCTest thread as a response I think that would be fine.)

Ain't no honky old white dude goin' tell me how dress. I'll wear my pants as low as I motherfuckin want to.

So you want to destroy our society. You'll wear highwaters and like it!

Granted, I'm not saying someone who doesn't vote can't be disappointed in the actions of the government or has to remain silent on political affairs until such time as they vote in an election. But complaining about the result of an election you could have voted in but didn't see fit to seems like suddenly caring after the fact.

What if you supported none of the options? Are you precluded from still complaining how shitty the government is?

Somehow I missed your reply before.

Outside a contingent of people who would vote out of genuine interest in/understanding of politics and those who feel bound by the concept of civic duty, I believe people would elect not to go to the trouble.

But do you want those other people voting?

I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils

Hitler or Stalin, who are you choosing?

Your vote is going to end up with one of the major parties anyway, might as well cast your vote for whichever one you dislike least (at least for the House of Representatives, minor parties and independents have a better chance in the senate).

But what if you live in a situation where you can reject the two major parties and still not matter. What's the difference, other than ballot status which means nothing really, between casting a ballot for a third party and not voting?

In the end, a single vote will never matter, no?

As far as bothering to vote in an election where the outcome is not in doubt...well, if everyone thinks that way then the result may well be in doubt. As always, a fine example can be found in a classic Simpsons episode, where Bart appears to have the class election won but then none of his friends nor Bart himself bother to vote, allowing Martin to win by a margin of two votes to zero.

If everyone voted the way I would, I wouldn't need to vote.

If everyone votes the way I wouldn't, I wouldn't need to vote.

The majority of mennonites dont vote because we believe God will put whoever he wants into office. No matter if the winner is "good" or "bad". We believe that we should note vote because by voting you are saying that you think one person is a good guy while the other is evil when the exact opposite could be true. We pray for our leaders no matter who they are. Granted we will expose evil and corruption when we see and let folks know about it, however we have no idea if the other guy might be just as bad in the end. We also believe that because we do not pledge allegiance to any nation, for our nation is heaven, that we cannot stoop to vote for earthly man as a "savior".
Now compulsory voting is an affront to our faith we would consider it to be religious discrimination. However since the Bible tells us not to buck the system, unless we appeal unto the powers that be and they give us a waiver, we would vote at that point. However if the nation allows for write in candidates we would vote for ourselves. basically you would have around a million writeins. lol

does this make any sense to yal?

The majority of mennonites dont vote because we believe God will put whoever he wants into office.

God only helps those who help themselves.

No matter if the winner is "good" or "bad". We believe that we should note vote because by voting you are saying that you think one person is a good guy while the other is evil when the exact opposite could be true.

The intent of voting is not to choose one that is good and reject the one that is bad. Ideally, it's choosing the better candidate to be put in that position.

We also believe that because we do not pledge allegiance to any nation, for our nation is heaven, that we cannot stoop to vote for earthly man as a "savior".

Show us your papers. It's that kind of thinking that fucks up the process. You don't vote for a 'savior', you vote someone who's capable of doing the job. The candidate is not a savior.

Now compulsory voting is an affront to our faith we would consider it to be religious discrimination. However since the Bible tells us not to buck the system, unless we appeal unto the powers that be and they give us a waiver, we would vote at that point.

Damn straight. So if voting becomes compulsory, you damn freeloaders should vote. AFAIK, there's nothing in the Bible that says voting is a sin.

However if the nation allows for write in candidates we would vote for ourselves. basically you would have around a million writeins.

But you just said...

We also believe that because we do not pledge allegiance to any nation, for our nation is heaven, that we cannot stoop to vote for earthly man as a "savior".

So now you're telling us that you freeloaders are gods and saviors?!?! You fucked up.

does this make any sense to yal?

Considering the quoted statement before this, no you don't make sense.

So you are agreeing that people who don't vote don't get a say? I didn't vote because none of the candidates and parties were anywhere near liberal enough nor did I trust them enough to bother my time, President Obama promised to do a lot of shitty things, can I not critique the President despite my non-vote?

I guess I phrased it poorly. You have the right to complain about anything and everything that your voting could not have changed if you didn't vote due to laziness/disinterest, you have the right to complain about anything and everything if you didn't vote due to none of the options appealing to you.

What do you think of the idea that an open ballot would hold down what could be done in the name of the anonymous?

Eh?

God only helps those who help themselves.

not biblical

The intent of voting is not to choose one that is good and reject the one that is bad. Ideally, it's choosing the better candidate to be put in that position.

you are accurate with statement. However we do not know the heart nor the hidden intentions of said candidate.

Show us your papers. It's that kind of thinking that ***** up the process. You don't vote for a 'savior', you vote someone who's capable of doing the job. The candidate is not a savior.

dont worry, we follow the laws of the land make sure we are welcome in that nation before we migrate. When was the last time you saw a candidate run for office who did not say he would fix all of the problems he inherited?

So if voting becomes compulsory, you damn freeloaders should vote. AFAIK, there's nothing in the Bible that says voting is a sin.

Did you read the last part of the sentence?

So now you're telling us that you freeloaders are gods and saviors?!?!

Sorry, i should have been more clear there. you would have a million write ins, no mennonite would get more than one vote. thus a million mennonites would be write ins.

Now as to the charge of being freeloaders.
Some of the mennonites of German heritage who fled persecution from the catholics and lutherans were invited by the russian government to farm a very fertile area. However many of them became very rich and oppressed the poor, however not all of those mennonites were equal. the ones who saw what was going and also saw how the communist party was going to wipe people out started leaving in the late 1800s. Those who had their eyes on being rich and not on serving God stayed and were annihilated when the red army took over. Now these mennonites, who were of German heritage who fled persecution from the catholics and lutherans and then the red army, were penniless when they arrived in the united states, canada, mexico, and a south american nation, whose name escapes me at the moment. While they were penniless they did bring something over that helped win the cold war. Now most mennonites are anti-war, we believe that killing someone is wrong even if we get killed by a murderer, while recognizing the government has the biblical right and the obligation to protect its citizens.
What did these mennonites bring? Wheat! but not just any wheat! Red Wheat! It was that strain of wheat that caused the Great plains to become the Bread Basket of the World! So without Mennonites the USA might have been overrun by the USSR

Now I just mentioned how we believe the government has the right and obligation biblically to protect its citizens. This is the reason we do not vote for the president specifically. Since he controls the army, how can we as anti-war people vote for someone who could send us into battle?

Did you read the last part of the sentence?

I was reiterating the point that if you freeloaders were obliged to vote by the law, you should vote.

Now I just mentioned how we believe the government has the right and obligation biblically to protect its citizens. This is the reason we do not vote for the president specifically. Since he controls the army, how can we as anti-war people vote for someone who could send us into battle?

If someone invaded the country, isn't that considered being in the act of war? Since the government has an "obligation biblically to protect its citizens" it has the biblical right to conscript you freeloaders to defend the country. You going to back out in defending the country and leave it to others? Freeloader.

Did you read the last part of the sentence?

I was reiterating the point that if you freeloaders were obliged to vote by the law, you should vote.

Now I just mentioned how we believe the government has the right and obligation biblically to protect its citizens. This is the reason we do not vote for the president specifically. Since he controls the army, how can we as anti-war people vote for someone who could send us into battle?

If someone invaded the country, isn't that considered being in the act of war? Since the government has an "obligation biblically to protect its citizens" it has the biblical right to conscript you freeloaders to defend the country. You going to back out in defending the country and leave it to others? Freeloader.

prayer often does a lot more to stop wars than killing folks. we as christians are supposed to rejoice when we are persecuted. how do get persecuted if we kill the persecutor?

You are supposed to rejoice when you are persecuted because of your faith in God, not when you are persecuted for other reasons.

You would do nothing if your family are being raped over and over in front of your eyes then killed after, not because you are Christians but because you are enemy citizens?

Sorry to derail the topic of voting, since puttincomputers used his religion card again. I'll try to steer it back again if putt explains his crackpottery.

What if you supported none of the options? Are you precluded from still complaining how shitty the government is?

No, I'd say not. And like I said, I think even if you supported the other candidate but didn't vote you'd still be able to complain about what the government is doing, perhaps just not that they got in the first place because that's something that you (and other likeminded individuals who didn't vote) could have influenced.

I'm not saying people who don't vote should just shut up and not have any opinion on politics/what the government is doing. But if someone is upset that a certain candidate didn't get in immediately following an election they didn't vote in, then I feel it's fair to question why they didn't show their support when they had a chance. Guess it depends on how vehemently they claim to support a candidate though. If you support them and want to see them in office, why didn't you vote for them? Sure, it's just one vote, but if people are thinking like that in mass then that's a whole lot of votes for that candidate that won't be cast.

But do you want those other people voting?

Everyone's entitled to have their say so sure, let them vote. But I think people are entitled to their apathy as well, which is why I'm inclined to do away with compulsory voting.

Hitler or Stalin, who are you choosing?

Yeah, that's not much of a choice but I'd say generally speaking, the lesser of two evils is a phrase that can be used much more figuratively when talking about the candidates in any given election.

But what if you live in a situation where you can reject the two major parties and still not matter. What's the difference, other than ballot status which means nothing really, between casting a ballot for a third party and not voting?

Nothing, if that's the way the system works. And I wouldn't mind having that option, as well as the option to freely choose not to vote (as I said the fine in Australia's only like $20, but still). But I was speaking from the Australian perspective where voting for a third party candidate is going to mean that their votes will end up with one of the two major parties, if that third party candidate doesn't get in, due to the preferential system in place.

In the end, a single vote will never matter, no?

If everyone voted the way I would, I wouldn't need to vote.

If everyone votes the way I wouldn't, I wouldn't need to vote.

Possibly, but like I said if a lot of people take that view then suddenly we're not talking about one vote. Will it be enough to make a difference? In many cases probably not but with the way the electorates are devised in Australia and with some being marginal seats, it could happen. I'm guessing it wouldn't have the same impact in the States though.

does this make any sense to yal?

It might be the most sensible thing you've ever posted.

Your comment about a million voters made me look it up, and almost 400,000 people in the U.S. is pretty good. Combined with the Amish that's over half a million in the U.S. not bad for religions you'd think would face some pretty strong pressures from advancing technology and such to maintain their lifestyles. Especially for those sects that are allowed to do things like work at McDonalds or shop at Wal-Mart.

The intent of voting is not to choose one that is good and reject the one that is bad. Ideally, it's choosing the better candidate to be put in that position.

I think ideally it'd be voting only for the good. As I offered Andrew, Hitler or Stalin?

So if voting becomes compulsory, you damn freeloaders should vote.

Are they really freeloaders? In the U.S. at least we have so many religious exemptions 99.9% of the Amish aren't getting any benefits, and I assume the Mennonite number is going to not be far off. (Unless you think not having to comply with stupid regulations is "freeloading.")

Eh?

If people were rhetorically accountable for their vote, could they vote in racists, people who will steal from others, homophobes, etc. without the shield of having their opinion be hidden? This is one of the arguments the pro-Prop 8 people made in Cali, that a revealing of the signatures would create pressures against them so that they could no longer work to ban gay marriage.

So without Mennonites the USA might have been overrun by the USSR

I think that whole collapse of their system because that's all a collectivist system can do makes a lot of these fears look silly in retrospect. The great starving of the Ukraine was in a region that was traditionally not one that had any of these issues, the failed policies caused it. Had the Mennonites stayed in Russia I don't doubt they would have been killed and/or ruined same as the rest of the classic regional farmers.

You would do nothing if your family are being raped over and over in front of your eyes then killed after, not because you are Christians but because you are enemy citizens?

One could be a strict pacifist who sticks to their principles even in the most horrid of situations if they believe a violation of those principles to be the worst possible thing. Especially if they feel it will have ramifications for the next life or after life. This argument is one where puttin is not being insane like normal, strict to his beliefs but I don't see the normal logical failings.

One of the failings of Dukakis was that he wasn't anywhere near smart enough to explain this type of thing in a way that didn't seem cold. Especially when you're saying something that is so much of an outlier.

perhaps just not that they got in the first place because that's something that you (and other likeminded individuals who didn't vote) could have influenced.

Not if you aren't allowed to vote for an acceptable candidate.

But if someone is upset that a certain candidate didn't get in immediately following an election they didn't vote in, then I feel it's fair to question why they didn't show their support when they had a chance. Guess it depends on how vehemently they claim to support a candidate though. If you support them and want to see them in office, why didn't you vote for them? Sure, it's just one vote, but if people are thinking like that in mass then that's a whole lot of votes for that candidate that won't be cast.

I think you're missing the first part of my question. Using myself as an example, I supported none of the 2008 Presidential candidates. I leaned for two and a half in the Republican primaries but my state was denied validity in our primary so any vote was purely a "suggestion" and not binding like people in the other 48 states. I didn't want to see ANY of them in office, and picking the giant turd over the douche sandwich is not an enterprise I consider worth undertaking.

Consider this, if I was to pick between the two absolute shitty options in 2008, I would have always picked McCain. And I would be even more upset because I had consented in anyway to his terribleness.

But I was speaking from the Australian perspective where voting for a third party candidate is going to mean that their votes will end up with one of the two major parties, if that third party candidate doesn't get in, due to the preferential system in place.

We can talk about that specific situation, I think it's an even stupider than the first-past-the-post system. It presupposes that I could possibly want all of the parties in power. Let's say I'm a hardcore Green and think Labour is no better than the rest, why would I want to assist Labour in anyway? Especially since my minority party is going to be just as eliminated as the rest. A first-past-the-post system with a viable array of parties would allow you to take a seat with 26% of the vote or something. Preferential just re-entrenches the two-party system and in many ways makes it inherent to the system.

I do wonder if a system where we elect by districts we can properly have full representation especially as politics increasingly nationalizes. (Despite all evidence they should.) I mean you have one Aussie party getting 11% of the vote and one seat, and another getting 3% and 6 seats. It almost makes me think tricameral would be better than bicameral.

Using the U.S., you have the House, elected as districts as local representation. The Senate, representing the States. (And you'd need to repeal the terrible 17th and return it to the legislators.) Then a third body, which would be a national proportional vote.

Going back to that post-2010 election Aussie situation. The Greens would not have power in the first two bodies, but would have 11 votes (say if you gave a seat for each 1%) in the last to influence policy and potentially work to block or pass legislation.

Possibly, but like I said if a lot of people take that view then suddenly we're not talking about one vote.

Right, we're talking about the complete collapse of the authority for the government. Something that already exists when 50-80% of the people don't vote.

Will it be enough to make a difference? In many cases probably not but with the way the electorates are devised in Australia and with some being marginal seats, it could happen.

But that just leads back to how we would ever know under the current system. Any vote count is not real. It's just an accepted truth. If the margin is large enough we just forget it. If it's close we keep getting new totals until told to stop. I assure you this happens in Aussieland as much as it does in the U.S.

If anything we should go back to the days where the parties only campaign expense was on a bunch of liquor, everyone came out to the polls and got smashed, and then cast the prepared vote they were always going to cast anyway. At least that way we'd all get wasted as we do something stupid instead of doing it in the name of some kind of greater good.

Not if you aren't allowed to vote for an acceptable candidate.

True, that stance only works if one considers any of the candidates acceptable.

I think you're missing the first part of my question. Using myself as an example, I supported none of the 2008 Presidential candidates. I leaned for two and a half in the Republican primaries but my state was denied validity in our primary so any vote was purely a "suggestion" and not binding like people in the other 48 states. I didn't want to see ANY of them in office, and picking the giant turd over the douche sandwich is not an enterprise I consider worth undertaking.

Consider this, if I was to pick between the two absolute shitty options in 2008, I would have always picked McCain. And I would be even more upset because I had consented in anyway to his terribleness.

Fair enough. My knowledge of how everything works over there is limited beyond the fact you vote for the presidential candidates rather than a representative of their party as we do. Based on that alone though I think I'd prefer a system that's similar to the US.

We can talk about that specific situation, I think it's an even stupider than the first-past-the-post system. It presupposes that I could possibly want all of the parties in power. Let's say I'm a hardcore Green and think Labour is no better than the rest, why would I want to assist Labour in anyway? Especially since my minority party is going to be just as eliminated as the rest. A first-past-the-post system with a viable array of parties would allow you to take a seat with 26% of the vote or something. Preferential just re-entrenches the two-party system and in many ways makes it inherent to the system.

I do wonder if a system where we elect by districts we can properly have full representation especially as politics increasingly nationalizes. (Despite all evidence they should.) I mean you have one Aussie party getting 11% of the vote and one seat, and another getting 3% and 6 seats. It almost makes me think tricameral would be better than bicameral.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. The Westminster system might work alright in the UK because of the way their population is distributed (though they don't have compulsory voting as we do) but I don't think it's ideal for Australia because you could conceivably have a party receive a majority of the votes nation-wide but because of the way the electorates are divided up, not get enough seats to govern.

If anything we should go back to the days where the parties only campaign expense was on a bunch of liquor, everyone came out to the polls and got smashed, and then cast the prepared vote they were always going to cast anyway. At least that way we'd all get wasted as we do something stupid instead of doing it in the name of some kind of greater good.

Sounds good to me. Should mean fewer annoying campaign ads popping up everywhere as well.

I have made it a point to get pretty wasted on every major election day, even the off year ones that few pay attention to, and make sure everyone knows. They generally are not amused with me rejecting voting for vodka. I haven't voted since 2006, which I only did because I drove roommates down to our polls, I didn't really intend to vote but I did just because I was there and to prove I could vote within two minutes. (AND GOT THAI FOOD OM NOM NOM NOM NOM.) The surprise when I came out from the area in a minute or so was great when the other spent their time studying things. But I digress,

My knowledge of how everything works over there is limited beyond the fact you vote for the presidential candidates rather than a representative of their party as we do. Based on that alone though I think I'd prefer a system that's similar to the US.

We don't do that. We vote for electors who then vote to choose the President.

We do have the possibility of a non-party member being elected President. Ross Perot could have done this. But he done goof'd.

It should be said our President is nowhere near a PM. He's theoretically limited even though the Supreme Court has said otherwise and authorized a totalitarian state. They don't really care about the rule of law, so I'm not exactly sure why we care what they say.

I believe it is important for compulsory voting. This is my opinion - good government requires accountability to the electorate. The voters are one of the most important parts of the democracy process because they hold Government accountable. Another good thing about compulsory voting is that it forces everyone to at least get attention of the issues leading up to the election and it forces them to partake. Every vote does matter here because there are a lot of swinging voters, I think that what we have in Australia is one of the best systems in the world because bad governments actually get punished.