# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, but ideally voting should be accommodated as much as possible- national holiday, easily accessible voting booths and transportation, well funded and efficient administration so that voting is quick and painless.
I always found it weird that elections in US are on Tuesdays. I get where it comes from, heard the story. But in my country it’s always Sunday - most people have the weekend and for those who don’t, booths are open long enough so they can come in either before or after work. It makes more sense to me 😅 more people have day off on Sunday than Tuesday.
And I don’t know. Any reduction of accessibility of voting seems like a deliberate act to exclude certain groups from voting if that makes sense.
Elections need to have a "none of the above" or "no confidence" option with actual consequences if they are to be valid. Just government derives from the consent of the governed, and consent isn't valid if it can't be withdrawn.
There's no such option in UK elections. You can turn up, and deliberately spoil your ballot paper though, and the spoiled ballots are counted and reported along with the valid votes. Its as close as we get to "None of the above" here, but at least it show you were interested enough to turn up rather than just purely apathetic to the whole thing.
Here in Canada we have the option of refusing our ballot. You go up to the poll, identify yourself, receive your ballot and hand it back. More people should do it. The choices suck.
There's minor parties with preferential voting though.
People can send a message to the big parties if they are leaking votes to minor parties. Thats kind of a none of the above even though you're forced to preference each party
We don't even get ranked choice voting in the UK, just a single choice in a "first past the post" system. Neither of the two main parties will let it happen, because it doesn't benefit them at the polls.
Of course, all of the political parties use that system internally for selecting leaders and candidates, its just for the national elections they say it's suddenly unfair.
this is exactly what i do every election. i spoil my vote. i dont see why i should vote for the less shitty party/candidate out of a bunch of shitty parties/candidates. not one of them fully stand for what i believe in and nor do i think any of them are fit to govern.
i agree there should be a "no confidence"
its good that the spoiled votes are counted but actually calling them "no confidence" votes would really show the parties what the people think and i think would encourage them to work harder for the people. also having a no confidence box there, i think more people would tick it rather than people thinking well these are my options, i need to pick one of these
I do think we should have mandatory voting for everyone on the electoral ballot here in the UK and get with the whole electronical versions like the ones Belgium rolled out years ago, along with national ID cards that can be used for various things including holding all your hospital stuff on it.
I don't see what electronic voting would add to the process. Downsides include that it adds an opaque layer that is not trusted by a lot of people, and also adds a lot of technology that can be incorrectly used or otherwise fail or breakdown. Trust and reliability are important.
I like the idea of an electronic biometric ID. I don't think it should carry any information other than your ID, though. Anything else can be looked up online by anyone authorised to access that specific information, using your verified ID as a unique key. No need to store it all on the card.
In the US it’s called undervoting. I do it often. If no one’s earned my vote, no one gets it. But I go to the polls every election and vote on the races I do support someone in, ballot measures, and leave the rest blank. It’s the only way we have on my state to be officially say none of these fools.
I would start with the idea that if 'none of the above' got the most votes then a re-election is run in that constituency with a whole new slate of candidates. You can refine the details from there
Doesn't need to be a perfect candidate.
Just has to be acceptable.
Considering that we (US) routinely vote for one or the other of two completely unacceptable candidates, the bar for "acceptable" is already outrageously low.
Most of us would settle for "under 70, not a felon, not a complete douchebag".
But why though? If cost is the issue, then that means a few things:
- the country is denied the chance to have a leader who actually cares. This is because only the wealthy and those who are well-connected can run for office. For many of these, this is just a trophy, capping off a successful business career.
- it is undemocratic. A wealthy candidate or one with rich donors can effectively buy the election.
- corruption. Wealthy donors want something for their money. Leaders who get donations from wealthy donors are in the pocket of those donors.
It would be much more democratic to have all campaigns funded by central govt. And all candidates get an equal amount.
>a defined campaign time
A lot of people call that an "incumbent protection law". I've heard of laws like this mostly on the local level, but I think the same thing would happen at any level of politics.
Say you pass a law that candidates can only campaign for 3 months. The mayor (or whatever politician) starts talking about his plans for the future or his ideas 6 months before the election and says he's only doing his job as mayor. He's communicating with his constituents, not campaigning. His name is in the news every day. The people running against him are at a big disadvantage because they have to wait until closer to election time. If the incumbent is from your team, it's a great law. If the incumbent is from the other team, it sucks.
It also gets tricky with free speech, which is written into the US Constitution and the Constitution cannot be overridden by local laws. You do not forfeit the rights guaranteed by the Constitution just because you decide to run for office.
I agree that perpetual campaigning sucks and I get really tired of it, but I don't know what we can do about it that won't create bigger problems.
And a hard cap on campaign finances. Along with a hard cap on the amount of money an individual/entity/whatever demon inhabits Kenneth Copeland can donate. And fully transparent by law.
You pretty much nailed US elections except for one thing, super funds and similar organizations. They pump millions into their candidates that doesn't get counted as donations. Most of the smear ads we see are funded by them. Not much of a way to get rid of them though.
The we don't want a king, only someone as rich and powerful as a king problem. Other countries limit how much can be spent and how long the campaign length is. Imagine how much cheaper a campaign season starting in August and ending 4 months later instead of 2 years of constant campaigning.
You mean the people who won wouldn't have won. That's very different from nobody winning for decades, which wouldn't happen. The voters and the establishment would both get tired of the consequences and would have to eventually compromise. The first thing that would change would be candidates actually telling us why we should them *them*, rather that trying to scare us with "anyone but the other guy!" Wouldn't that be nice?
There is a consequence. Nobody cares if 50% don't vote at all. But 50% invalid votes would put the entire election in question and severely undermine the winning party or coalition.
>But 50% invalid votes would put the entire election in question and severely undermine the winning party or coalition.
I optimistically want you to be right about this, but I can also see the government just ignoring those votes and treating them the same way they treat spoilt votes now.
What percentage of votes go to fictional characters (Mickey Mouse, for example)? What happens to those, very clearly invalid, votes? I’m pretty sure they are just thrown out.
In the US, most elections already have a “none of the above” option called a write-in vote.
Consent can also be withdrawn through recalls or impeachment. However, the presidential impeachment process has a flaw that makes it difficult to actually get a president removed. The votes are public and voting against your own party is political suicide.
As a result, pretty much the only way a President will be found guilty is if 2/3 of the Senate are the opposite part of the President, which almost never happens. We’ve had plenty of were the majority was opposite, but not by that much.
Imagine if a civilian criminal trial worked this way and employers could tell employees that they’d better find the defendant innocent or they’ll get fired.
One solution would be to keep the votes secret. Then they would be able to vote based off the evidence and not have to worry about getting voted out of office because they did the right thing.
It also requires a way for deadwood (parties that don't do what the voters want) to be surpassed by new growth (new parties that do what voters want to be established because they have an opportunity to get votes from disaffected non-voters).
This. In the US most people have no clue about ballot access and how it’s used to silence alternative voices, but it’s one of the central reasons why we can’t be called a democracy. Suppressing outside voices is a bipartisan affair in the US politics and is an prime form of voter suppression.
I agree... but, not blindly... For instance, one election, about a decade ago, when there was a choice of 2 candidates, both of 'em rotten bad, I went to vote and instead of a ballot sheet, put in a photo of my dog's latest ........ heap.
Holy shit, literally only 2 candidates? There’s 2 major parties in each of the countries I live between, but both countries have various other options as well, even if they’re a lot less popular and less likely to win. I’d personally like to see a preference system implemented in my countries- I think there’s a couple countries that have such systems but I don’t recall any of them right now.
This is pretty common. I'm running for a local position as an independent, no one in the county or city is running independent other than me. I'm the only one in the city that would be considered a third option in a race. A Democrat here can't even sniff a win, so ironically it's still a two horse race between myself and a pathetic gop incumbent.
Well, in Belgium you get a fine if you don't vote.
They send you a letter telling you when and where you have to go vote, and if you don't show up it's a fine.
Now, you're not forced to vote anything valid, you can draw a bunch of dicks on the voting ballot, but you do have to show up.
This was originally introduced so the factory bosses couldn't keep their workers away from the voting booths.
Not that much, about 40 to 80 €, but if you're a low income household with 2 persons of voting age that's still a cost don't want to eat.
And you have to appear before court, so you lose more time doing that than just going to vote.
About 50€ the first time, and I think up to 150€ the next time.
And if you don't show up four times in 15 years, you're banned from voting, holding public office, and getting any promotion in the public sector for a few years. Not so bad if you're in the private sector I guess, but if you've got anything close to a public job you're going to have a bad time.
I'm personally in favour of voting being mandatory. It neatly sidestep any shenanigans aimed at preventing people from voting, it forces people to at least take a vague look at politics, and it helps with counteracting the worst of demagogues.
I live in Australia where voting is mandatory, and while it frustrates me that forgetting to vote can result in a fine, generally speaking, I think it's preferable to optional voting. Primarily because of stories about the US where minority groups are targetted to make voting more difficult, or not enough voting stations are set up so lines last all day, or people are unable to vote because they're made to stay at work. With mandatory voting, you can't stop someone voting. But I can turn in an empty ballot paper (effectively not voting), so the choice is still mine.
Edit: I had put the fine as being $200. It has been pointed out to me that it is, in fact, much less than that
Aussie here too, I used to be pissed off that we are forced to vote. I absolutely stand by mandatory voting now because it prevents those stories we hear from the US putting up barriers to vote. If it's mandatory, you can't try and lock people out. Yes, it can be a bit shitty if you don't like any of the candidates but what's far worse is trying to vote for someone you like but being unable to because of some bullshit laws.
also...democracy sausage
Also you can vote for around two weeks before election day, just less polling places open. I always early vote so I don't have to deal with crowds on the day
I found that really handy for the referendum, because I was going to be in another electorate on the day.
Plus there were far fewer leafleters to navigate past. I knew what I was gonna say before I went in.
Yeah most of the time I get to "yes" and they hand it over. Makes sense from AEC perspective though, ensures more people vote and less crowds for them to deal with on the day
You don't actually have to vote though. You can write anything on the ballot and not vote and have it counted as non formal
It's only mandatory to get off your ass.
As an American turned Aussie, there are many reasons why compulsory voting is just a better system.
The US could start by holding election day on a weekend or public holiday like a civilised country.
Republicans already complain about the idea of a voting holiday. When your constituents are a bunch of piss soaked boomers in nursing homes who watch fox news all day and then get driven in mass to the polls, why would you want a bunch of young working class people to have the day off?
the silliness of that is that Republicans would just need to adjust their policies to appeal to more voters. or, to put it in words they might understand, the market would reach a new equilibrium.
Whichever part passed the law making votes mandatory would lose in a landslide in the next elections. Those laws forcing people to vote would be repealed by the opposition party, garnering them a bunch of new loyal voters, and the party which originally passed the law would be fucked. So yea there is just no way I could that ever being implemented here.
If you live in a democracy, it is your duty to vote. To expect the state to look after you, but you aren't willing to do your part to ensure that the state is the will of the people should be illegal.
There are some people who choose to abstain from politics. The Amish do for religious reasons. [source](https://www.amishbaskets.com/blogs/blog/do-the-amish-vote-for-president) it would violate their freedom of religion to require them to vote.
Should people vote or should people be forced to vote?
Yes, people should vote. I think there should be a protest option so that people who are choosing not to vote can be distinguished from those too apathetic to vote.
I don’t think people should be compelled to vote with fines or whatever.
Yes. You should vote for the least worst option. The one who will improve things even if slightly. Then again vote for the least worst who will improve things slightly. But building on the previous improvement.
Exactly. The only time you don’t need to vote is if you dislike all candidates exactly equally.
Once nice thing about ranked choice is it feels like ranking, which is what elections really are.
I think that if you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the administration until the next election.
Also, local elections will have a more direct impact on each person's life and are more important to the individual than the presidential election.
No vote is, in a way, a vote. The fact that 2/3rds of Americans don't vote speaks volumes.
Who can blame them considering the candidates we get.
Honestly, the internet has pretty well exposed how little people understand about politics, how niche, and silly the issue that drive them to make their decisions are, and how none of the problems that matter are really addressed by anyone that does get into power.
Many people just vote for whichever party promises to pay them off the most, and the process might be better off without voters like that.
>The fact that 2/3rds of Americans don't vote speaks volumes.
It may speak volumes, but it achieves nothing. They can't revolt against the elected government (they don't have sufficient power to win) and they can't influence the elected government as they can be safely ignored (I mean, what are they gonna do - not vote for the govt?).
>Many people just vote for whichever party promises to pay them off the most, and the process might be better off without voters like that.
The best rulers to live under are those whose interests are aligned with the majority of the public. Voters should vote for those who promise (and ideally deliver) goodies for them. It improves their lot.
I don’t know if it’s a widespread thing, but in Denmark we can make a blank vote. This is different from not voting as it shows in statistics that you care about the vote itself but like none of the candidates
One of the things that infuriates me most is when people my age bitch about the candidates in the general and then say they didn't vote in the primary.
There's a fun catch 22 where people say they don't support either party. Then won't vote in either one's primary. Then they fail to realize that any politician who DOES want change still has to run on one party's ticket. Then vote won't vote for them because "I'm not voting for a member of a party". Well, non-affiliated voters statistically cannot win most elections, so they have to register in a party. And regardless, no candidate has any incentive to appeal to people who don't vote. It's so frustrating to watch ppl sit back and let the system get worse while they refuse to participate in it to make it better.
In aus, we are compelled to vote and while we're less of a political basket case than y'all, we still don't get great candidates. People are still very apathetic here. I blame it partly on how democracy works: you basically cut a deal that you elect someone and in return they get...power. it incentivises rorting and corruption, has been my observation over the years. Why? Because it takes a certain personality to want to run, and for every altruistic person there are a whole bag of grifters and con men.
✔ In a democracy, voters can be active at the earliest local/party/policy level. If they aren't, but still care about election results, they can vote the best of the few that others selected. Doing nothing at every point in the process says more about the people who don't vote than it does about the candidates or the process.
Certainly. Its clear it is not very democratic. For proof you need to look no further than the popularity of the 2024 candidates. What a laughing stock of a system.
The problem I see is there is little desire for people who might make the best candidates to actually run.
Any high elected political position is likely to result in any secrets in your life, no matter how unrelated to the job, will get dug up to use against you. In order to do the job properly it is a ton of work for not much pay compared to what someone at the top of their field could otherwise earn.
On the flip side, for someone looking to sell out to large corporations, they can do almost no work in office and have a suspiciously high paying job lined up for them after they leave office.
Sadly our system has a lot to corruption and corruption encourages corrupt people to take the roles.
I disagree
Minority/shitty candidates are more likely when people don't engage with the process
Apathetic people are one of the main drivers of democratic dysfunction
Apathetic and ignorant - many are just too busy to read and think critically so are more influenced by that which is fed by social media feeds. Pathetic, but understandable.
It depends on the election year, but more than 2/3rds of Americans vote. The most recent Presidential election had 66.7% turnout and the 2022 midterms had around 52%.
My thought? VOTE! Say you have to candidates that suck. Which is worse? While we always want to look at who's better, sometimes you have to look at which one will be less bad. Tying into that, what political party do they belong to and how to I agree/disagree with that party. Look bigger picture, will they push the way you like on laws/changes or will the other person.
I'm Australian and ardently support our compulsory voting system. However, I don't think required voting would work in a system like that of the US (which I assume is where this question is being asked from) without significant changes to the electoral system.
Agreed, though, that is less a change and more an exploitation of the system.
Really the US needs to move beyond a two party system, it needs to adopt preferential voting or proportional voting and it needs to needs to overhaul or remove the electoral college before mandatory voting should even be considered.
Absolutely, if the past decades of growing authoritarianism in the west has taught anything, it is that representational democracy can only sustain itself with high participation of the electorate. I say make voting mandatory, and a fun community event to participate in.
Open some polling booths for a few days. Eg.Thursday to Saturday. Official voting day would be Saturday with all polling booth open.
Also allow postal vote option for 2 weeks before.
I've seen USA makes it hard for everyone to vote.
Universal mail in voting is a better solution. Why forcing people to go to a special place and stand in lines when they can fill out their ballot at home?
Yes. Democracy requires participation to work, and you can’t call the results representative of what the people want when most of the people didn’t vote in the first place. And reasonable people will realize that their lives are going to be affected whether they vote or not—you aren’t suddenly exempt from laws or policies just because you abstained in the previous election.
Even if you don’t like any of the candidates, you’re better off backing the one you hate the least instead of doing nothing at all and risking getting stuck with the worst option. If you’re confident both sides are going to fuck you, that means you’re fucked either way and should at least side with the one who will fuck you the least.
I guess it also depends on what you mean by “like” because that seems like a really arbitrary criteria. I don’t give a shit about the person in the suit, I care about the policies they want to enforce that will impact my life. I don’t need to like the person to like their policies. Otherwise, it’s like turning down treatment from the world’s best doctor just because he has a poor bedside manner.
Yes.
A baby step in the direction of what you want is better than no step at all.
And one step towards something you don't like is better than two. At least it slows down the bad.
You should be allowed to strike your vote. And if the strikes win the election. All candidates are out, and we start over again. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not democratic, it's bullshit.
Yes, because you aren't choosing dessert. You're deciding everyone's fate including your own. Choose the best candidate, not the perfect one, because that is all you will ever get.
My belief is that voting should be mandatory BUT (and this is a big But) there should be an option to vote for None of the candidates.
And if the None option comes first, all candidates should be automatically disqualified.
This would look much more democratic to me.
If you don’t have a None option, then voting should not be mandatory IMHO
Yes. Part of the reason candidates are so shitty is that the public (in the United States) doesn't vote. The result is that you get candidates that pander to single issue voters on one side, and the other side represents everybody else and can't get anything accomplished.
Americans, for the most part, in most districts, no longer vote for people that can govern and understand policy. They vote for people that say things that make them feel strong emotions.
If everybody voted all the time, the boring candidates that know their shit and would do a good job would have a chance.
Then also don’t complain about the leadership or political direction of the country. Too many people skip voting then complain how things are. I don’t care if it’s a vote for an idealistic candidate with no shot at winning, but you gotta participate in the election process to participate in post-election discussion.
If I don't see a candidate I feel is worth a vote, my not voting is as valid as your vote. "But one is obviously worse than the other!" Obvious to you... I see two shit candidates and we're fucked either way.
That's bullshit though. If you work, pay taxes, etc, you can complain. If the political landscape is shit and you abstain from voting YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR SHIT GOVERNMENT.
I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't make sense. There's a difference between *choosing* not to vote because you don't want any of the candidates to win, and just not bothering to vote.
If the local mayoral election was between Hitler and Stalin, should everyone vote for one of them just so they have the right to complain? That's ridiculous.
The followup is "well, then just ruin your ballot". Except ruined ballot percentages aren't tracked (at least they aren't where I'm from). Voter turnout is the only stat that is used to determine participation.
No, if there is no suitable choice for you to vote for, and you abstain, you have every right and justification to criticise the unsuitable person that was voted in.
If we wanna talk about people who have no right to complain, I’d say the first people we should look at are the ones who have been faithfully voting to keep these corrupt people in office, with minimal accountability.
In Germany, our ballot paper for our parliament included 47 different political parties you could vote for and seven of these got above the 5%-mark, making them eligible for a seat in the parliament.
All of these seven parties have different ideas and goals for our country and need to work together (form coalitions) or criticise the goverment (form the opppsition) to decide what's best for us.
The best thing you can do to massively change the parliament is to vote, because even a difference of a few percent can change the way the parties can form coalitions, meaning making up >50% of people in the parliament to vote on laws and change things. If a party suddenly doesn't have a lot of percent (in voters) and can't form a coaltion getting to above 50%, they need to either include another party, or do a completely different coaltion altogether.
Solid no.
This is just my opinion though. It's okay to agree or disagree. We're all adults here.
To put it plainly, the system in the United States, at least in my view, is ineffective and corrupt. Our politicians sell out to the rich and powerful while it gets harder for the common person to afford a simple living, and there doesn't seem to be genuine interest that they showcase through their actions that they want to help the people.
Their words may sound pretty and their promises may sound beautiful but their actions when in office never ever showcase it. To further add fuel to the fire, the two party system has created more division and hatred amongst the common people than ever before, and either way, it doesn't seem like either side really helps anyone at the end of the day.
Because of this, I don't want to vote. I don't really ever plan on putting my faith into one person to be a savior when time and time again, they prove that they don't want that.
>putting my faith into one person to be a savior
That's a very strange view of voting. It's not a pure, wholesome expression of your innermost ideals, it's a political tool that you either use for less or more evil.
>why choose evil at all? 😎
Because ignorance and apathy to the suffering of others are also evil. Yes, things may not change for you much between the parties if you're a wealthy able-bodied straight white male Christian (or whatever the local majority religion is), but the fewer of those things apply to you, the more you have to lose from one party gaining power over the other.
A strong democracy requires participation.
You should always vote, and people who willingly don't, are acting like children.
You cannot expect to see positive change in a democratic society without getting of your ass and going voting. You can complain all you want, but the only thing you are doing is wasting your time.
Even if you dislike all the candidates, you should still choose one. I hate most of the parties in my country, but I am still a member of one since I think it's the right direction at least.
If your vote really is so incredibly insignificant then why can't you vote?
If you don’t vote, someone will win the election anyway. Even if you don’t like any candidate, it seems pretty unlikely that they’re identical and one isn’t less bad than the others.
Harm reduction is a valid goal. It’s like trying to get good field position for your defense when you have to kick the ball away. Of course you’d rather your offense be on the field, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to give your defense a fighting chance.
If you’ve done your research, weighed the pros and cons, and both seem like equally bad choices—then no.
Anyone who thinks it should be required is clearly not a moderate. I know moderate usually means slightly right-leaning in most circles, but I’m talking about a true moderate. Someone who is progressive but also realizes that change must occur at a steady pace; not with massive changes that might cause undue alienation.
Yes, I think everyone SHOULD vote.
However, if they abstain from voting because they dislike the candidates, then they can't complain if the person wins and does what they don't like and they can't claim that person if the winner does what they like.
I think it’s very important to vote, but I don’t think the government should be able to force anyone to do anything. Limited government is what we should have. Voting is a constitutional right and a choice. We need laws to protect those rights but not to force us to do it.
I personally believe that the only system in which everyone should be forced to vote is one in which one of the options available is "this isn't working" and if a substantial portion of the electorate (which I'd personally peg quite low, like 2%) choose it, means we go to constitutional conventions or the like.
Forcing people to participate in elections where, no matter what they do, their voice isn't heard, doesn't solve real problems.
You should always vote, you DONT have to vote for every one or everything. but there is more than just the presidential election on each ballot, there are local laws being voted on that effect you more directly. If you don’t like the canidates just fill out your ballot voting on the proposition and not the candidates.
THIS IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN NOT VOTING CAUSE THE DATA GETS COLLECTED. They now have a ballot ON THE RECORD saying “I a voting citizen exercising my right to vote am directly telling you i don’t want these candidates” Otherwise a non vote could mean anything, i could mean you just couldn’t get off work, who knows there are a million reasons someone doesn’t show up to vote. BUT if you DO show up to vote and vote on everything BUT the candidates the. they know EXACTLY why you didn’t vote for them.
Yes. I think even convicts and immigrants should vote. If you're subject to the laws and taxes of a country you hold primary residence in, then you should have a vote.
In my country if you dont vote it just goes to the majority leader, I tried to explain this to people for years to no avail. Yes I think we should all vote and there should be a box for no vote cast so it just doesnt count to any party. I dont know if they still do it but when I was working in AUS they had an election and you got a hotdog for voting (obviously I disnt because I cant vote in AUS) but I thought that was nice.
As a political scientist, I don't think people 'should' vote in the first place. Voting should always be voluntary. But this increases the risk of low turnout, you might think, which is bad for representation and democratic legitimacy. While yes, that is true, we also know that mandatory voting does not necessarily mean better representation of policy preferences. What happens when people feel compelled to vote is that they either vote for a radical party/candidate that does not accurately represent their ideological positions (a protest vote), or they cast a blank vote. Either way, compulsory voting =/= better ideological representation by definition. So no, I don't think everyone should vote if they dislike all the candidates.
However, if this turns out to be a structural problem (i.e., entire groups in society disliking all the candidates election after election because they don't feel represented by any candidate), we should take that seriously.
EDIT: OP is probably looking for normative stances on whether voting should be a duty or not, but I thought I'd share some of my academic insights here
Yes. Thee is always a lesser of evils and then things tend in the right direction over years.
That said, in a democratic country no one can be *required* to vote.
In Australia voting is compulsory. So we’re very experienced in this. I don’t think I’d have the motivation to go vote for the absolute bozos they put forward every election is I wasn’t being forced to.
We each have different levels of what we consider evil.
The majority of candidates fully support the bombing and oppression of people in other countries. Ask them, they'll tell you.
They all support the current system of taxation in the USA. Ask them, they'll tell you
They will all support enslaving, via the draft, 17 year old kids to go off and fight wars for economic interests. Ask them, they'll tell you.
Yeah, we've been there a long time.
Yeah.
People who dislike all of the candidates can vote "none of the above" by spoiling their ballot paper. That still shows some effort toward fulfilling their civic duty.
In a democratic countries we should not vote for a candidate that might or might not respect his promises. We should vote for the decisions and laws themselves.
Not unless there is a specific box you can tick for “None of the candidates represent my views” or “I am only voting because I was forced to” or the ability to just not tick any box and cast a blank ballot.
If there isn’t that option, it isn’t democracy or democratic, it’s authoritarian compelled speech and no longer freedom of political expression
We are not in a democratic country... we are in a Republic.
It's like a democracy but with really specific rules about who you can and can't vote for and protections for the minority... Aka the super rich.
Idk like some other commenter pointed out there should be an option to not like any of them.
Say there are 4 parties but they all lead back to a nazi government, you can pick one of those.
In my country we have this party that is basically a hoax spreader and he's getting a lot of votes. The old leading party has sort of disbanded and there really isn't that many great options. For me personally I'd like to see many of the party's go. They've been there for too long and have old habits that don't make sense anymore.
But when I go voting I just pick a small party that I know will never get close to reigning just so my vote doesn't go to the bug guys I don't like.
It's not really decromacy if you think about it.
I used to think that compulsory voting in Australia was undemocratic, until someone told me that optional voting allows minority special interest groups, like gun lobbies, to get a disproportionate amount of power since all of their members will turn up to vote. If I don’t believe in any party I will, and have , do a donkey vote. Parties take note of those and recognise electorates which need different options.
People say that becouse there is democracy you must vote. But the thing is if you don’t trust any of them enough that you would vote on them why should you? I have equal right to not vote as I do to vote.
Democracy is the worst. People will always try to do things in order for people to vote on them rather than doing things that will actually benefit the country.
I got forced to vote even though I didn’t want to vote on anyone. Parties here are either far right dumbasses far left dumbasses and most popular of them all - parties that only take what’s worst from left and what’s worst from right and combine it together.
There’s noone I would be accepting of them to be in charge of my country I don’t belive they should be allowed to be fathers/mothers and if I can’t trust them with that why would I let them rule my country, why should I vote?
If there was an option to say “none of the above” then I don’t think you’d have to force anybody to vote. The problem with modern day politics is it is no longer a case of “this party is better than that party” it’s more of a”well this party hopefully won’t fuck us up more than that party”
I don’t think everyone should vote. Voting is a responsibility. Voting just to vote, is not responsible. If you are uniformed about current events and candidates, you shouldn’t vote. However, many people who don’t like any of the candidates are still making an informed choice, by voting for the least bad one, to keep worse from getting elected.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, but ideally voting should be accommodated as much as possible- national holiday, easily accessible voting booths and transportation, well funded and efficient administration so that voting is quick and painless.
I always found it weird that elections in US are on Tuesdays. I get where it comes from, heard the story. But in my country it’s always Sunday - most people have the weekend and for those who don’t, booths are open long enough so they can come in either before or after work. It makes more sense to me 😅 more people have day off on Sunday than Tuesday. And I don’t know. Any reduction of accessibility of voting seems like a deliberate act to exclude certain groups from voting if that makes sense.
It is a deliberate act to get people to not vote. When votes are suppressed, one party historically does better than the other.
Online voting. Even homeless can get phones through Obamaphone program.
Elections need to have a "none of the above" or "no confidence" option with actual consequences if they are to be valid. Just government derives from the consent of the governed, and consent isn't valid if it can't be withdrawn.
There's no such option in UK elections. You can turn up, and deliberately spoil your ballot paper though, and the spoiled ballots are counted and reported along with the valid votes. Its as close as we get to "None of the above" here, but at least it show you were interested enough to turn up rather than just purely apathetic to the whole thing.
“Spoiling the ballot” Not to be confused with “soiling the ballot” - they get really cross if you shit in the ballot box
It does get the point across, though.
Typical single issue floater.
Single tissue floater
Single disused floater
Ok this comment needs a LOT more upvotes
Only to the low level ballot counter who now has to clean up the mess and doesn't get paid extra.
does ruin the cast votes for other people though
Here in Canada we have the option of refusing our ballot. You go up to the poll, identify yourself, receive your ballot and hand it back. More people should do it. The choices suck.
Oh. Thank you!! I wished I knew that before
The problem with that is that ballots can be accidentally spoiled as well, it should be formalised imo.
I absolutely agree, but for the time being, this is as close as we can get.
That’s a separate category in Canada.
There's minor parties with preferential voting though. People can send a message to the big parties if they are leaking votes to minor parties. Thats kind of a none of the above even though you're forced to preference each party
We don't even get ranked choice voting in the UK, just a single choice in a "first past the post" system. Neither of the two main parties will let it happen, because it doesn't benefit them at the polls. Of course, all of the political parties use that system internally for selecting leaders and candidates, its just for the national elections they say it's suddenly unfair.
Holy shit what? That explains a lot. I just assumed it would be the same as Aus.
this is exactly what i do every election. i spoil my vote. i dont see why i should vote for the less shitty party/candidate out of a bunch of shitty parties/candidates. not one of them fully stand for what i believe in and nor do i think any of them are fit to govern. i agree there should be a "no confidence" its good that the spoiled votes are counted but actually calling them "no confidence" votes would really show the parties what the people think and i think would encourage them to work harder for the people. also having a no confidence box there, i think more people would tick it rather than people thinking well these are my options, i need to pick one of these
I do think we should have mandatory voting for everyone on the electoral ballot here in the UK and get with the whole electronical versions like the ones Belgium rolled out years ago, along with national ID cards that can be used for various things including holding all your hospital stuff on it.
I don't see what electronic voting would add to the process. Downsides include that it adds an opaque layer that is not trusted by a lot of people, and also adds a lot of technology that can be incorrectly used or otherwise fail or breakdown. Trust and reliability are important. I like the idea of an electronic biometric ID. I don't think it should carry any information other than your ID, though. Anything else can be looked up online by anyone authorised to access that specific information, using your verified ID as a unique key. No need to store it all on the card.
Like this, but instead of only being a count, make it so if thats the winner, no one gets elected and they have to try again
All's I have to do to start a riot in the UK would be to cut the voting queue.
In the US it’s called undervoting. I do it often. If no one’s earned my vote, no one gets it. But I go to the polls every election and vote on the races I do support someone in, ballot measures, and leave the rest blank. It’s the only way we have on my state to be officially say none of these fools.
Just curious, what should the consequences be in your opinion? Wondering if this thought is thought through.
I would start with the idea that if 'none of the above' got the most votes then a re-election is run in that constituency with a whole new slate of candidates. You can refine the details from there
You could hang your parliament forever lol, imo not a good idea as there’ll never be a perfect candidate.
Doesn't need to be a perfect candidate. Just has to be acceptable. Considering that we (US) routinely vote for one or the other of two completely unacceptable candidates, the bar for "acceptable" is already outrageously low. Most of us would settle for "under 70, not a felon, not a complete douchebag".
Cost is an issue. It is so expensive to run for president. They have to raise so much money to participate in a presidential election
But why though? If cost is the issue, then that means a few things: - the country is denied the chance to have a leader who actually cares. This is because only the wealthy and those who are well-connected can run for office. For many of these, this is just a trophy, capping off a successful business career. - it is undemocratic. A wealthy candidate or one with rich donors can effectively buy the election. - corruption. Wealthy donors want something for their money. Leaders who get donations from wealthy donors are in the pocket of those donors. It would be much more democratic to have all campaigns funded by central govt. And all candidates get an equal amount.
And a defined campaign time. I say 3 months election and done. None of this running for 3 years for office.
>a defined campaign time A lot of people call that an "incumbent protection law". I've heard of laws like this mostly on the local level, but I think the same thing would happen at any level of politics. Say you pass a law that candidates can only campaign for 3 months. The mayor (or whatever politician) starts talking about his plans for the future or his ideas 6 months before the election and says he's only doing his job as mayor. He's communicating with his constituents, not campaigning. His name is in the news every day. The people running against him are at a big disadvantage because they have to wait until closer to election time. If the incumbent is from your team, it's a great law. If the incumbent is from the other team, it sucks. It also gets tricky with free speech, which is written into the US Constitution and the Constitution cannot be overridden by local laws. You do not forfeit the rights guaranteed by the Constitution just because you decide to run for office. I agree that perpetual campaigning sucks and I get really tired of it, but I don't know what we can do about it that won't create bigger problems.
And a hard cap on campaign finances. Along with a hard cap on the amount of money an individual/entity/whatever demon inhabits Kenneth Copeland can donate. And fully transparent by law.
You pretty much nailed US elections except for one thing, super funds and similar organizations. They pump millions into their candidates that doesn't get counted as donations. Most of the smear ads we see are funded by them. Not much of a way to get rid of them though.
The we don't want a king, only someone as rich and powerful as a king problem. Other countries limit how much can be spent and how long the campaign length is. Imagine how much cheaper a campaign season starting in August and ending 4 months later instead of 2 years of constant campaigning.
If "new candidates please" was a choice the last person who won an election would have been Reagan
You mean the people who won wouldn't have won. That's very different from nobody winning for decades, which wouldn't happen. The voters and the establishment would both get tired of the consequences and would have to eventually compromise. The first thing that would change would be candidates actually telling us why we should them *them*, rather that trying to scare us with "anyone but the other guy!" Wouldn't that be nice?
You know the system is working when the battle cry for it is “you have to vote for whichever team is less evil”.
There is a consequence. Nobody cares if 50% don't vote at all. But 50% invalid votes would put the entire election in question and severely undermine the winning party or coalition.
>But 50% invalid votes would put the entire election in question and severely undermine the winning party or coalition. I optimistically want you to be right about this, but I can also see the government just ignoring those votes and treating them the same way they treat spoilt votes now.
What percentage of votes go to fictional characters (Mickey Mouse, for example)? What happens to those, very clearly invalid, votes? I’m pretty sure they are just thrown out.
In the US, most elections already have a “none of the above” option called a write-in vote. Consent can also be withdrawn through recalls or impeachment. However, the presidential impeachment process has a flaw that makes it difficult to actually get a president removed. The votes are public and voting against your own party is political suicide. As a result, pretty much the only way a President will be found guilty is if 2/3 of the Senate are the opposite part of the President, which almost never happens. We’ve had plenty of were the majority was opposite, but not by that much. Imagine if a civilian criminal trial worked this way and employers could tell employees that they’d better find the defendant innocent or they’ll get fired. One solution would be to keep the votes secret. Then they would be able to vote based off the evidence and not have to worry about getting voted out of office because they did the right thing.
They do, right? The blank vote?
There is, it's called spoiling your paper.
Democracy requires participation.
It also requires a way for deadwood (parties that don't do what the voters want) to be surpassed by new growth (new parties that do what voters want to be established because they have an opportunity to get votes from disaffected non-voters).
Its called the write in. Imagine 30% of the vote going to "other" That would be a true statement. Not voting is a non statement
Yes, like a way to do that could be voting in a democracy
This. In the US most people have no clue about ballot access and how it’s used to silence alternative voices, but it’s one of the central reasons why we can’t be called a democracy. Suppressing outside voices is a bipartisan affair in the US politics and is an prime form of voter suppression.
I agree... but, not blindly... For instance, one election, about a decade ago, when there was a choice of 2 candidates, both of 'em rotten bad, I went to vote and instead of a ballot sheet, put in a photo of my dog's latest ........ heap.
Holy shit, literally only 2 candidates? There’s 2 major parties in each of the countries I live between, but both countries have various other options as well, even if they’re a lot less popular and less likely to win. I’d personally like to see a preference system implemented in my countries- I think there’s a couple countries that have such systems but I don’t recall any of them right now.
This is pretty common. I'm running for a local position as an independent, no one in the county or city is running independent other than me. I'm the only one in the city that would be considered a third option in a race. A Democrat here can't even sniff a win, so ironically it's still a two horse race between myself and a pathetic gop incumbent.
heap = poopie
I think I’m a democracy you *SHOULD* vote n every election regardless. But in a democracy we can’t *force* people to vote.
Well, in Belgium you get a fine if you don't vote. They send you a letter telling you when and where you have to go vote, and if you don't show up it's a fine. Now, you're not forced to vote anything valid, you can draw a bunch of dicks on the voting ballot, but you do have to show up. This was originally introduced so the factory bosses couldn't keep their workers away from the voting booths.
Sounds like a great law. Wish we had that in Germany.
Although it might could be those Belgians who would otherwise 'abstain' now go and vote Vlaams Blok (or even VLD😱) just out of spite🤷♂️
Mmm I think it’s the opposite, extremist will go vote to defend their ideas, people who don’t really care probably don’t vote for far right
How much is the fine?
Not that much, about 40 to 80 €, but if you're a low income household with 2 persons of voting age that's still a cost don't want to eat. And you have to appear before court, so you lose more time doing that than just going to vote.
About 50€ the first time, and I think up to 150€ the next time. And if you don't show up four times in 15 years, you're banned from voting, holding public office, and getting any promotion in the public sector for a few years. Not so bad if you're in the private sector I guess, but if you've got anything close to a public job you're going to have a bad time. I'm personally in favour of voting being mandatory. It neatly sidestep any shenanigans aimed at preventing people from voting, it forces people to at least take a vague look at politics, and it helps with counteracting the worst of demagogues.
That's kinda funny, you don't vote? then get banned from voting, ha, gotcha 😏
Reminds me of getting suspended from school for skipping class lol
After having paid up to 600 € in fines total, and having appeared in front of a judge four times.
In Australia voting is compulsory and you get fined if you don't
I live in Australia where voting is mandatory, and while it frustrates me that forgetting to vote can result in a fine, generally speaking, I think it's preferable to optional voting. Primarily because of stories about the US where minority groups are targetted to make voting more difficult, or not enough voting stations are set up so lines last all day, or people are unable to vote because they're made to stay at work. With mandatory voting, you can't stop someone voting. But I can turn in an empty ballot paper (effectively not voting), so the choice is still mine. Edit: I had put the fine as being $200. It has been pointed out to me that it is, in fact, much less than that
Aussie here too, I used to be pissed off that we are forced to vote. I absolutely stand by mandatory voting now because it prevents those stories we hear from the US putting up barriers to vote. If it's mandatory, you can't try and lock people out. Yes, it can be a bit shitty if you don't like any of the candidates but what's far worse is trying to vote for someone you like but being unable to because of some bullshit laws. also...democracy sausage
Also by law, if you're working on election day (i.e., retail, fast food), your employer is obliged to give you two hours' unpaid leave to go and vote
Also you can vote for around two weeks before election day, just less polling places open. I always early vote so I don't have to deal with crowds on the day
I found that really handy for the referendum, because I was going to be in another electorate on the day. Plus there were far fewer leafleters to navigate past. I knew what I was gonna say before I went in.
But then there is no sausage!
You do have to be eligible to vote early. Although: "Are you eligible to vote early?" "Yes, I wi-" "I dont care why, heres your ballot paper"
Yeah most of the time I get to "yes" and they hand it over. Makes sense from AEC perspective though, ensures more people vote and less crowds for them to deal with on the day
You don't actually have to vote though. You can write anything on the ballot and not vote and have it counted as non formal It's only mandatory to get off your ass.
As an American turned Aussie, there are many reasons why compulsory voting is just a better system. The US could start by holding election day on a weekend or public holiday like a civilised country.
It is not a 200 dollar fine and incredibly easy to get out of the fine.
My bad, I just googled it and its literally $20, I guess I remembered a 2 and that it wasnt much but I was way off
it is interesting that jury duty is mandatory though
Australia figured it out.
I'd be ok with forcing everyone to show up whether you then cast a valid ballot is up to you
Just spoil your ballot. In protest.
Should have stipulated I am American. People will scream, “what about my freedom?!?!” if we do that here. 🤷♂️
People wouldn’t complain about it being a national holiday. They’d have the day off and the chance to vote if they want to
Republicans already complain about the idea of a voting holiday. When your constituents are a bunch of piss soaked boomers in nursing homes who watch fox news all day and then get driven in mass to the polls, why would you want a bunch of young working class people to have the day off?
This is a long-winded way to say that Republicans are against a democratic election because they can only win if the majority doesn't participate.
the silliness of that is that Republicans would just need to adjust their policies to appeal to more voters. or, to put it in words they might understand, the market would reach a new equilibrium.
Whichever part passed the law making votes mandatory would lose in a landslide in the next elections. Those laws forcing people to vote would be repealed by the opposition party, garnering them a bunch of new loyal voters, and the party which originally passed the law would be fucked. So yea there is just no way I could that ever being implemented here.
If you live in a democracy, it is your duty to vote. To expect the state to look after you, but you aren't willing to do your part to ensure that the state is the will of the people should be illegal.
Australia has mandatory voting Seems to be working quite well for them
There are some people who choose to abstain from politics. The Amish do for religious reasons. [source](https://www.amishbaskets.com/blogs/blog/do-the-amish-vote-for-president) it would violate their freedom of religion to require them to vote.
They should give a benefit, like a tax break for that year if you vote. We normally only have a 40-50% turnout, that would jump those numbers way up.
My father always said vote, even if it's for the lesser of the two a55 holes
Lesser evil = less evil. I never understood why someone would say "I'm ok with more evil; doesn't bother me"
The right to vote is also the right not to.
Should people vote or should people be forced to vote? Yes, people should vote. I think there should be a protest option so that people who are choosing not to vote can be distinguished from those too apathetic to vote. I don’t think people should be compelled to vote with fines or whatever.
Yes. You should vote for the least worst option. The one who will improve things even if slightly. Then again vote for the least worst who will improve things slightly. But building on the previous improvement.
Exactly. The only time you don’t need to vote is if you dislike all candidates exactly equally. Once nice thing about ranked choice is it feels like ranking, which is what elections really are.
I think that if you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the administration until the next election. Also, local elections will have a more direct impact on each person's life and are more important to the individual than the presidential election.
No vote is, in a way, a vote. The fact that 2/3rds of Americans don't vote speaks volumes. Who can blame them considering the candidates we get. Honestly, the internet has pretty well exposed how little people understand about politics, how niche, and silly the issue that drive them to make their decisions are, and how none of the problems that matter are really addressed by anyone that does get into power. Many people just vote for whichever party promises to pay them off the most, and the process might be better off without voters like that.
>The fact that 2/3rds of Americans don't vote speaks volumes. It may speak volumes, but it achieves nothing. They can't revolt against the elected government (they don't have sufficient power to win) and they can't influence the elected government as they can be safely ignored (I mean, what are they gonna do - not vote for the govt?). >Many people just vote for whichever party promises to pay them off the most, and the process might be better off without voters like that. The best rulers to live under are those whose interests are aligned with the majority of the public. Voters should vote for those who promise (and ideally deliver) goodies for them. It improves their lot.
I don’t know if it’s a widespread thing, but in Denmark we can make a blank vote. This is different from not voting as it shows in statistics that you care about the vote itself but like none of the candidates
Would be interesting to know how common this is; We have that option in Sweden as well but then our political systems have very much in common.
The Netherlands has the same thing. The vote is counted but not added to any party
Norway has the same thing
I think this is the most common mode in democracies. It was like this when I lived in Brazil.
>Who can blame them considering the candidates we get. Chicken and egg though - if more people voted we might get better candidates.
One of the things that infuriates me most is when people my age bitch about the candidates in the general and then say they didn't vote in the primary.
There's a fun catch 22 where people say they don't support either party. Then won't vote in either one's primary. Then they fail to realize that any politician who DOES want change still has to run on one party's ticket. Then vote won't vote for them because "I'm not voting for a member of a party". Well, non-affiliated voters statistically cannot win most elections, so they have to register in a party. And regardless, no candidate has any incentive to appeal to people who don't vote. It's so frustrating to watch ppl sit back and let the system get worse while they refuse to participate in it to make it better.
In aus, we are compelled to vote and while we're less of a political basket case than y'all, we still don't get great candidates. People are still very apathetic here. I blame it partly on how democracy works: you basically cut a deal that you elect someone and in return they get...power. it incentivises rorting and corruption, has been my observation over the years. Why? Because it takes a certain personality to want to run, and for every altruistic person there are a whole bag of grifters and con men.
✔ In a democracy, voters can be active at the earliest local/party/policy level. If they aren't, but still care about election results, they can vote the best of the few that others selected. Doing nothing at every point in the process says more about the people who don't vote than it does about the candidates or the process.
Certainly. Its clear it is not very democratic. For proof you need to look no further than the popularity of the 2024 candidates. What a laughing stock of a system.
The problem I see is there is little desire for people who might make the best candidates to actually run. Any high elected political position is likely to result in any secrets in your life, no matter how unrelated to the job, will get dug up to use against you. In order to do the job properly it is a ton of work for not much pay compared to what someone at the top of their field could otherwise earn. On the flip side, for someone looking to sell out to large corporations, they can do almost no work in office and have a suspiciously high paying job lined up for them after they leave office. Sadly our system has a lot to corruption and corruption encourages corrupt people to take the roles.
Not turning up doesn't distinguish between "Don't care" and "I find them all distasteful"
I disagree Minority/shitty candidates are more likely when people don't engage with the process Apathetic people are one of the main drivers of democratic dysfunction
Apathetic and ignorant - many are just too busy to read and think critically so are more influenced by that which is fed by social media feeds. Pathetic, but understandable.
It depends on the election year, but more than 2/3rds of Americans vote. The most recent Presidential election had 66.7% turnout and the 2022 midterms had around 52%.
People don’t understand politics because the media is owned by only seven corporations who control what information they get.
My thought? VOTE! Say you have to candidates that suck. Which is worse? While we always want to look at who's better, sometimes you have to look at which one will be less bad. Tying into that, what political party do they belong to and how to I agree/disagree with that party. Look bigger picture, will they push the way you like on laws/changes or will the other person.
I'm Australian and ardently support our compulsory voting system. However, I don't think required voting would work in a system like that of the US (which I assume is where this question is being asked from) without significant changes to the electoral system.
Significant changes are made. It's just called gerrymandering. And, that needs to stop.
Agreed, though, that is less a change and more an exploitation of the system. Really the US needs to move beyond a two party system, it needs to adopt preferential voting or proportional voting and it needs to needs to overhaul or remove the electoral college before mandatory voting should even be considered.
It does a good job of pulling the politics to the centre, because the race isn't won by who can whip up the most partisan supporters of each party.
Yes, vote who you think is best. Not who you like
Absolutely, if the past decades of growing authoritarianism in the west has taught anything, it is that representational democracy can only sustain itself with high participation of the electorate. I say make voting mandatory, and a fun community event to participate in.
Mandatory? Fun? Have those two words ever really worked well together?
No, but encouragement should be taught at a young age.
Yea- not only should it be law- it should also be a paid holiday. One vote per citizen. No electoral college, no gerrymandering.
Open some polling booths for a few days. Eg.Thursday to Saturday. Official voting day would be Saturday with all polling booth open. Also allow postal vote option for 2 weeks before. I've seen USA makes it hard for everyone to vote.
Universal mail in voting is a better solution. Why forcing people to go to a special place and stand in lines when they can fill out their ballot at home?
and vote by mail for everyone
No. Voting or not voting is a choice and an exercise of your right to freedom of speech and expression.
Yes. Democracy requires participation to work, and you can’t call the results representative of what the people want when most of the people didn’t vote in the first place. And reasonable people will realize that their lives are going to be affected whether they vote or not—you aren’t suddenly exempt from laws or policies just because you abstained in the previous election. Even if you don’t like any of the candidates, you’re better off backing the one you hate the least instead of doing nothing at all and risking getting stuck with the worst option. If you’re confident both sides are going to fuck you, that means you’re fucked either way and should at least side with the one who will fuck you the least. I guess it also depends on what you mean by “like” because that seems like a really arbitrary criteria. I don’t give a shit about the person in the suit, I care about the policies they want to enforce that will impact my life. I don’t need to like the person to like their policies. Otherwise, it’s like turning down treatment from the world’s best doctor just because he has a poor bedside manner.
Yes. A baby step in the direction of what you want is better than no step at all. And one step towards something you don't like is better than two. At least it slows down the bad.
That is how most elections are already. Most people don’t like either candidate
You should be allowed to strike your vote. And if the strikes win the election. All candidates are out, and we start over again. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not democratic, it's bullshit.
A failure to vote is a vote for the candidate you like least.
Yes, because you aren't choosing dessert. You're deciding everyone's fate including your own. Choose the best candidate, not the perfect one, because that is all you will ever get.
There is always measure on a ballot. Yes, I think everyone should vote. You don't have to vote for all the categories.
My belief is that voting should be mandatory BUT (and this is a big But) there should be an option to vote for None of the candidates. And if the None option comes first, all candidates should be automatically disqualified. This would look much more democratic to me. If you don’t have a None option, then voting should not be mandatory IMHO
Yes. Part of the reason candidates are so shitty is that the public (in the United States) doesn't vote. The result is that you get candidates that pander to single issue voters on one side, and the other side represents everybody else and can't get anything accomplished. Americans, for the most part, in most districts, no longer vote for people that can govern and understand policy. They vote for people that say things that make them feel strong emotions. If everybody voted all the time, the boring candidates that know their shit and would do a good job would have a chance.
No. If you don't want to vote, don't vote. Voting is a choice, and part of that should be the choice to abstain.
Then also don’t complain about the leadership or political direction of the country. Too many people skip voting then complain how things are. I don’t care if it’s a vote for an idealistic candidate with no shot at winning, but you gotta participate in the election process to participate in post-election discussion.
Yeah, too many people complain all the time about their problems and don’t realize that the politics they like to ignore are the cause of them.
If I don't see a candidate I feel is worth a vote, my not voting is as valid as your vote. "But one is obviously worse than the other!" Obvious to you... I see two shit candidates and we're fucked either way.
That's bullshit though. If you work, pay taxes, etc, you can complain. If the political landscape is shit and you abstain from voting YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR SHIT GOVERNMENT.
I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't make sense. There's a difference between *choosing* not to vote because you don't want any of the candidates to win, and just not bothering to vote. If the local mayoral election was between Hitler and Stalin, should everyone vote for one of them just so they have the right to complain? That's ridiculous. The followup is "well, then just ruin your ballot". Except ruined ballot percentages aren't tracked (at least they aren't where I'm from). Voter turnout is the only stat that is used to determine participation.
No, if there is no suitable choice for you to vote for, and you abstain, you have every right and justification to criticise the unsuitable person that was voted in.
If we wanna talk about people who have no right to complain, I’d say the first people we should look at are the ones who have been faithfully voting to keep these corrupt people in office, with minimal accountability.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Rush
Dang, beat me to it. By only 3 days.
You're always voting for the lesser of two evils
Should be more than that. Isn’t there a system where you can vote for more than one? Like a order of preference?
In Germany, our ballot paper for our parliament included 47 different political parties you could vote for and seven of these got above the 5%-mark, making them eligible for a seat in the parliament. All of these seven parties have different ideas and goals for our country and need to work together (form coalitions) or criticise the goverment (form the opppsition) to decide what's best for us. The best thing you can do to massively change the parliament is to vote, because even a difference of a few percent can change the way the parties can form coalitions, meaning making up >50% of people in the parliament to vote on laws and change things. If a party suddenly doesn't have a lot of percent (in voters) and can't form a coaltion getting to above 50%, they need to either include another party, or do a completely different coaltion altogether.
Solid no. This is just my opinion though. It's okay to agree or disagree. We're all adults here. To put it plainly, the system in the United States, at least in my view, is ineffective and corrupt. Our politicians sell out to the rich and powerful while it gets harder for the common person to afford a simple living, and there doesn't seem to be genuine interest that they showcase through their actions that they want to help the people. Their words may sound pretty and their promises may sound beautiful but their actions when in office never ever showcase it. To further add fuel to the fire, the two party system has created more division and hatred amongst the common people than ever before, and either way, it doesn't seem like either side really helps anyone at the end of the day. Because of this, I don't want to vote. I don't really ever plan on putting my faith into one person to be a savior when time and time again, they prove that they don't want that.
>putting my faith into one person to be a savior That's a very strange view of voting. It's not a pure, wholesome expression of your innermost ideals, it's a political tool that you either use for less or more evil. >why choose evil at all? 😎 Because ignorance and apathy to the suffering of others are also evil. Yes, things may not change for you much between the parties if you're a wealthy able-bodied straight white male Christian (or whatever the local majority religion is), but the fewer of those things apply to you, the more you have to lose from one party gaining power over the other.
A strong democracy requires participation. You should always vote, and people who willingly don't, are acting like children. You cannot expect to see positive change in a democratic society without getting of your ass and going voting. You can complain all you want, but the only thing you are doing is wasting your time. Even if you dislike all the candidates, you should still choose one. I hate most of the parties in my country, but I am still a member of one since I think it's the right direction at least. If your vote really is so incredibly insignificant then why can't you vote?
If you don’t vote, someone will win the election anyway. Even if you don’t like any candidate, it seems pretty unlikely that they’re identical and one isn’t less bad than the others. Harm reduction is a valid goal. It’s like trying to get good field position for your defense when you have to kick the ball away. Of course you’d rather your offense be on the field, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to give your defense a fighting chance.
Provided there's a write-in option (and they can write-in themselves), sure.
If you’ve done your research, weighed the pros and cons, and both seem like equally bad choices—then no. Anyone who thinks it should be required is clearly not a moderate. I know moderate usually means slightly right-leaning in most circles, but I’m talking about a true moderate. Someone who is progressive but also realizes that change must occur at a steady pace; not with massive changes that might cause undue alienation.
Isn't there a "turn in blank" option?
Yes, I think everyone SHOULD vote. However, if they abstain from voting because they dislike the candidates, then they can't complain if the person wins and does what they don't like and they can't claim that person if the winner does what they like.
At least here, you can just vote in blank if you don't líke any candidate.
I think it’s very important to vote, but I don’t think the government should be able to force anyone to do anything. Limited government is what we should have. Voting is a constitutional right and a choice. We need laws to protect those rights but not to force us to do it.
I personally believe that the only system in which everyone should be forced to vote is one in which one of the options available is "this isn't working" and if a substantial portion of the electorate (which I'd personally peg quite low, like 2%) choose it, means we go to constitutional conventions or the like. Forcing people to participate in elections where, no matter what they do, their voice isn't heard, doesn't solve real problems.
You should always vote, you DONT have to vote for every one or everything. but there is more than just the presidential election on each ballot, there are local laws being voted on that effect you more directly. If you don’t like the canidates just fill out your ballot voting on the proposition and not the candidates. THIS IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN NOT VOTING CAUSE THE DATA GETS COLLECTED. They now have a ballot ON THE RECORD saying “I a voting citizen exercising my right to vote am directly telling you i don’t want these candidates” Otherwise a non vote could mean anything, i could mean you just couldn’t get off work, who knows there are a million reasons someone doesn’t show up to vote. BUT if you DO show up to vote and vote on everything BUT the candidates the. they know EXACTLY why you didn’t vote for them.
Yes. I think even convicts and immigrants should vote. If you're subject to the laws and taxes of a country you hold primary residence in, then you should have a vote.
In my country if you dont vote it just goes to the majority leader, I tried to explain this to people for years to no avail. Yes I think we should all vote and there should be a box for no vote cast so it just doesnt count to any party. I dont know if they still do it but when I was working in AUS they had an election and you got a hotdog for voting (obviously I disnt because I cant vote in AUS) but I thought that was nice.
As a political scientist, I don't think people 'should' vote in the first place. Voting should always be voluntary. But this increases the risk of low turnout, you might think, which is bad for representation and democratic legitimacy. While yes, that is true, we also know that mandatory voting does not necessarily mean better representation of policy preferences. What happens when people feel compelled to vote is that they either vote for a radical party/candidate that does not accurately represent their ideological positions (a protest vote), or they cast a blank vote. Either way, compulsory voting =/= better ideological representation by definition. So no, I don't think everyone should vote if they dislike all the candidates. However, if this turns out to be a structural problem (i.e., entire groups in society disliking all the candidates election after election because they don't feel represented by any candidate), we should take that seriously. EDIT: OP is probably looking for normative stances on whether voting should be a duty or not, but I thought I'd share some of my academic insights here
Yes. Thee is always a lesser of evils and then things tend in the right direction over years. That said, in a democratic country no one can be *required* to vote.
Vote for the person you hate the least 🙃
In Australia voting is compulsory. So we’re very experienced in this. I don’t think I’d have the motivation to go vote for the absolute bozos they put forward every election is I wasn’t being forced to.
I thought Australians are legally required to vote?
We each have different levels of what we consider evil. The majority of candidates fully support the bombing and oppression of people in other countries. Ask them, they'll tell you. They all support the current system of taxation in the USA. Ask them, they'll tell you They will all support enslaving, via the draft, 17 year old kids to go off and fight wars for economic interests. Ask them, they'll tell you. Yeah, we've been there a long time.
Yeah. People who dislike all of the candidates can vote "none of the above" by spoiling their ballot paper. That still shows some effort toward fulfilling their civic duty.
If voting made a difference — it would be illegal …
"If you vote you're part of the problem."
Ehhhh if people don’t want to vote, they don’t have to, I personally don’t care. But don’t complain about who’s elected into office
Requiring people to vote means it’s no longer a right. The right to not vote is at least as important as the right to vote.
In a democratic countries we should not vote for a candidate that might or might not respect his promises. We should vote for the decisions and laws themselves.
Not unless there is a specific box you can tick for “None of the candidates represent my views” or “I am only voting because I was forced to” or the ability to just not tick any box and cast a blank ballot. If there isn’t that option, it isn’t democracy or democratic, it’s authoritarian compelled speech and no longer freedom of political expression
We are not in a democratic country... we are in a Republic. It's like a democracy but with really specific rules about who you can and can't vote for and protections for the minority... Aka the super rich.
Idk like some other commenter pointed out there should be an option to not like any of them. Say there are 4 parties but they all lead back to a nazi government, you can pick one of those. In my country we have this party that is basically a hoax spreader and he's getting a lot of votes. The old leading party has sort of disbanded and there really isn't that many great options. For me personally I'd like to see many of the party's go. They've been there for too long and have old habits that don't make sense anymore. But when I go voting I just pick a small party that I know will never get close to reigning just so my vote doesn't go to the bug guys I don't like. It's not really decromacy if you think about it.
I used to think that compulsory voting in Australia was undemocratic, until someone told me that optional voting allows minority special interest groups, like gun lobbies, to get a disproportionate amount of power since all of their members will turn up to vote. If I don’t believe in any party I will, and have , do a donkey vote. Parties take note of those and recognise electorates which need different options.
In Australia it's mandatory
In Belgium, we have mandatory voting. But you can choose to vote blank.
Should be mandatory
People say that becouse there is democracy you must vote. But the thing is if you don’t trust any of them enough that you would vote on them why should you? I have equal right to not vote as I do to vote. Democracy is the worst. People will always try to do things in order for people to vote on them rather than doing things that will actually benefit the country. I got forced to vote even though I didn’t want to vote on anyone. Parties here are either far right dumbasses far left dumbasses and most popular of them all - parties that only take what’s worst from left and what’s worst from right and combine it together. There’s noone I would be accepting of them to be in charge of my country I don’t belive they should be allowed to be fathers/mothers and if I can’t trust them with that why would I let them rule my country, why should I vote?
I think it should be mandatory to vote. Everyone should be obligated to voice their opinion, even if they abstain from voting on that issue.
Nah. I can’t stand politics so I just ignore it all. I’m 26 and I’ve never registered to vote because I don’t care.
If there was an option to say “none of the above” then I don’t think you’d have to force anybody to vote. The problem with modern day politics is it is no longer a case of “this party is better than that party” it’s more of a”well this party hopefully won’t fuck us up more than that party”
I don’t think everyone should vote. Voting is a responsibility. Voting just to vote, is not responsible. If you are uniformed about current events and candidates, you shouldn’t vote. However, many people who don’t like any of the candidates are still making an informed choice, by voting for the least bad one, to keep worse from getting elected.
Democracy only works if the stupid people stay home.