What pros/cons would there be in REQUIRING people to vote?

Question

Low voter turnout is a problem across America. So few people vote unless there is a major issue at stake, and even then, turnout rarely gets to 50%. So why not set up a system that requires registered voters to vote. Failure to vote would result in a monetary fine. Extend the election from one day, to five to give people ample time to get to their polling place. A major problem, right now, is that young people don't vote, and minorities are underrepresented at the polls. Required voting would result in better representation among all groups. For those that don't vote, the money would be another source of revenue for the government that could be put into education, health care, or some other system. So what are the pros or cons of such a system?

I don't have statistics, but getting more young people to vote is something discussed with every election. As for people not wanting to vote, this would give them a vested interest in wanting to. How can you not want to have a voice in the government you live under? As far as not liking any of the candidates, add an option of 'None of the above'. If that option is voted the majority, then all of those candidates are thrown out and others are nominated.

More people need to think outside the box. The 'sheep effect' already exists. The next step is not 'requiring people to vote for a certain person' because we still have a 'checks and balances' government. If you must protest by not voting, then file a blank ballot. Poor families would be hurt by fines, true, but those families can also have their voices heard by voting just like everyone else.

Answer 1

This really wouldn't takeplace, simply because of the existence of freedom of choice.

Answer 2

Voting is a right and a privilege. It would be wonderful if everyone would make a concerted effort to vote and vote intelligently. Just voting though does not do the job; a vote has to be cast with an understanding of what it means. Before a person votes they need to study the issue and the candidates then make their decision as to how to vote. Low voter turn out is a problem but it is best to have low turn outs than have people vote who do not understand the issues or candidates. Forcing people to vote would only create animosity and end up with vindictive votes. A lot of people have been turned off to voting due to the way some of our recent election results have ended. It makes no difference who you vote for if in the end the vote is going to be manipulated - we saw that three years ago (+/-) and probably four years before that. After the citizens uprising over the proposal to give amnesty to illegal aliens’ maybe we will see more voters turn out. We saw how an issue can stir the American spirit and how with enough citizen support we can sway political thought; American citizens by the thousands let our politicians know we do not want amnesty for illegal aliens and the bill was killed. Had citizens not stood up, made their opinion heard, and pushed their elected officials the amnesty bill might have passed; the American people stopped what a handful of special interest politicians were trying to push down our throats. That same kind of spirit may bring more intelligent voters to the polls in the future.

Answer 3

hi

The system you describe already exists in Australia (where I'm from), so maybe doing some research on the australian electoral system will quench some of your curiosities...

In the meantime... we get a voter turnout of around 98%, I think, but the number of valid votes cast would be a little less than that. I tend to think compulsory voting is the way to go, mostly because, as you say, minority voices are the ones that miss out when voting is optional. When it's compulsory, the government has to provide opportunities for everyone to vote, even people who are at work, or have childcare etc responsibilities...

People often comment in Australia that they would rather not have to vote, because, in the end, a lot of people aren't interested in politics and dont feel represented by any of the standing candidates, and that opinion shouldn't be criminalised. I tend to agree with the sentiment, but even with compulsory voting, we aren't forced to vote, all we are forced to do is go to the polling place, get our name crossed off, and drop a blank ballot paper in the box. Also, the fact that there are so many potential votes just waiting for a candidate to inspire them means that parties are (theoretically) more inclined to try to win the votes of those disenfranchised people.

hope that helps... like I said, check Australian websites for more info. The australian electoral commission site might be a good start: www.aec.gov.au

Answer 4

I have nothing but "cons" to talk about. I can't agree with you in any way.

First of all, I staunchly disagree with your oversimplified statements: "young people don't vote, and minorities are underrepresented at the polls." Both of these statements are sorely lacking in facts. They are just silly exaggerations.

Secondly, I shudder at the thought of taking a person who does not WANT to vote and forcing them to. That'd be like playing Russian Roulette. If you force a person who doesn't want to vote to vote anyway what is that person going to think about while they vote? What if those people think to themselves "Ah, to heck with this! I don't even want to be doing this, so I'll vote for the dumbest jackass who is on the ballot!"

Answer 5

This is America. The word is FREEDOM. Why do you want to force people to make a choice between a Bush and a Kerry? Besides, it would change nothing but the vote total. The same boneheads would get elected.

Answer 6

Because the next step after requiring a person to vote is making them vote for a particular candidate or face jail or a firing squad.

If people are not intersted in politics, we don't want them voting.

Answer 7

Con: It would effect the poorest and hardest working families. Fines would hurt families that work at minum or mulitiple jobs.

this one is a stretch....
It would infringe upon first amendment rights to protest the system by not voting.

Pros: Less people would register. Less voters. Less people would decide the out come easier to for one party rule and ologarchy.

wait i ment that as a con.

Answer 8

There isn't a pro side to this issue becuz it essentially robs a person of the freedom to make a choice...whether we agree with it or not. Some people may feel there isn't a legitimate candidate worthy of their vote so they may choose to abstain.

Answer 9

Con: millions of people irritated at being forced to vote when they didn't choose to simply marking candidates at random without even reading the names.

Answer 10

Election enables the people to select their leaders but politicians are only using this mode to validate their enthronement to power hiding behind the buying of votes.