Should people who don't vote lose that right?

Question

Part of being a good American means voting in elections. If someone doesn't vote three times in a row should they be barred from voting in all future elections?

Answer 1

I actually think you're on to something there. Unless you can provide a good documented reason (like you were in the hospital or you had a death in the family or something), I think that those who do not exercise their right to vote should have it removed from them.

Actually enforcing this correctly would probably be a nightmare, so it won't and probably shouldn't happen...but I do like the concept of use it or lose it.

Answer 2

No, I don't think so. It should be considered a 'civic responsibility' to vote, but I'm not sure that is being taught in schools anymore.
Just as we have the right to vote, we have the right not to. I think many people do not vote because they either feel that their vote won't count, or they don't feel the candidates are worth anything.
So if you look at it this way, then I think it all comes down to voter education. If people learned to research the issues and how the candidates voted or their positions on the issues, it might make the people who don't vote, feel more educated and able to cast a vote. Also, there is always the write-in for people who don't like who is running.

Answer 3

Not voting is a right also. One does not lose rights by exercising a right.

That being said, the problem with not voting is that it allows people on all sides to come up with theories about why people don't vote. A lot of 3rd party folks will insist that it is because the voters are fed up with the "major" parties, when it is just as logical that they are content with either party. Some places have a NOTA (None of the Above) option that people can vote to show they don't like any of the candidates on the ballot. Maybe there should be an option to vote for "any of the above" to show contentment?

I usually can't find a candidate whose positions I agree with enough to vote for her/him, so I write in the name of someone who isn't running but says the things I agree with.

http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal pregnancy termination technology, death penalty alternatives, nonlethal weapons.

Answer 4

No, because it is a political right of every citizen regardless if they vote or not, also it is a constitutional right that cannot be retrieved or ceased if a citizen don't vote or use that right!

Every citizen not only of United States of America but from all parts in the world have that right protected by every constitution of each country of the world!

One of the characteristics of democracy is to let the people of a country to decide the best way to use their votes and some people just don't vote because they seem that voting will not solve a problem of years or the same political issues without political will to solve them, but you cannot retrieve or cease or make them lose their right to vote, because it is legally protected!

Good Luck and hope this answer helps you to solve your doubt in the best way possible!

See ya!

Answer 5

No. Part of being a "good American" is making an informed decision on how you will vote or if you are going to vote.

Your assumption is faulty.

People should have the right to vote regardless of whether they choose to vote or not. Abstaining from voting may be a conscious choice.

Answer 6

People who don't vote probably wouldn't care about being barred. On the other hand, barring them accomplishes nothing (since they aren't voting anyway) and simply costs money to administer and enforce.

I challenge your assertion, however. Although it has become pseudoreligious dogma that it is a civic and moral imperative to vote, refusing to vote can be just as much a political expression, and can carry a louder message than voting. Especially in this era of a two-party system devoid of any meaningful agenda, fraud in polling, and lack of choice, refusing to vote may be the only proper alternative.

The greatest champions of the "Get Out And Vote" campaigns are not patriots, they are the people working the advertising campaigns that sell their clients. They know that the more uninvolved people they can get out and vote, the more effectively their campaign machinery works. In fact, their machinations are so effective that those of us who vote based on our research of the issues are drowned out by the mindless masses voting by television sound bites.

Answer 7

You already answered your own question. It is our right as an American to vote. That means we can if we want to and not if we don't want to. What if you hate all candidates for one reason or another? Should you have to vote for one anyway? Have the right doesn't mean forcing you to vote. It allows your opinion to be heard not forced down someones throat. If you decided to take this simple right way, then the Constitution has to be re-written which opens the door for future problems with little relevancy.

Answer 8

In many states, voters are removed from the rolls if they don't vote a certain number of times, and they have to re-register.

It would take a constitutional amendment to bar citizens from voting in all future elections.

You should think about whether punishing people is always the best solution.

Answer 9

I really see what you mean but no they should not lose their vote my biggest problem is not the ones who don't vote but the ones who do and have no idea about the issues or the candidates they are voting for. They just go by a popularity contest type vote or make it all about the party.

Answer 10

no. Besides, which elections are you talking about? Three electeions could easily go by without a presidential election. And most people who vote, vote in the presidential elections. No, I think we need campaign finance reform, so politicians are of the people, and not the corporations. Also, since Bush was appointed to the presidenct without the popular vote, some don;t have any faith in our elections.

Answer 11

If the chickens have to vote for their leader, and the choice is a fox that will eat them or a snake that will eat their eggs, which leader should they vote for?

If you honestly feel that no candidate among the choices you have should be president then isn't voting for one kind of un-principled?

Sometimes my vote is none of the above but they won't put that on the ballot.