7 ms·

Voting should be the single required act to trigger your Universal Basic Income for the year.

by adocracy 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago
and what if there are no candidates you feel good about voting for?
- ranko 10y ago
  Spoil your ballot.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  Write in. Also, places like Australia that have compulsory voting do not check that you have marked the ballot in any fashion, only signed in, taken a ballot, and put it in the box.
- runin2k1 10y ago
  Maybe you'll feel good about voting on one of the other 30 races or ballot initiatives that might influence generations to come? There's no law against leaving an entry blank.... until one is introduced and you don't care enough to vote against it.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    your dickish tone is uncalled for.
    - runin2k1 10y ago
      Well I hope you'll consider voting on it when someone proposes a law to make being a dick on the internet illegal.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        are you serious? leave me alone. stop trolling.
- hebleb 10y ago
  Write in Batman for all I care. There are still elections other than the presidential race that will arguably affect you more on a day-to-day basis.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for any of them.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    that's where I'm at too and was the point I was trying to make with my post. We should be able to vote No Confidence.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No Confidence is a term of art for a vote against the government in power (usually, specifically in the content of a parliamentary system, in a vote by parliament, though arguably a public recall vote of the head of government in a non-parliamentary system is a fairly direct analog, and any vote against an incumbent in any system is a loose analog, as are mechanisms that aren't formally votes of No Confidence of removal-of-existing-incumbents-by-legislative action.) You (or your MP or other legislative representative) can usually do some or all of these things in most systems that are recognized as democracies. What you seem to want is something different, the option to vote for No Representative in a regular election and cause the office to be vacant when the next term would start (whether this actually leaves the office vacant or triggers the usual succession mechanism that would apply if it had been filled and then became vacant through death, resignation, etc. is unclear.) This, I can't see a coherent argument for.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        yes, understood that No Confidence has historically referred to a parliamentary procedure. I think the term is appropriate here as well but might be problematic because of its historical usage. Avoiding confusion or conflation is a good thing, so maybe a different term should be used for this situation. I think your suggestion of No Representation is a decent one. I'm not suggesting that that should result in an unfilled office though. My view is that if No Representation actually wins (takes the plurality of the vote), it should trigger a special election where new candidates must be nominated and a new popular vote must be held.
- toast0 10y ago
  Write something obscene as a write-in candidate? Return a blank ballot? Draw a pretty picture on the ballot and return that?
- adocracy 10y ago
  you show up, take your ballot which registers a receipt, and abstain on that particular office/issue. but at least showing up to register your abstention IS your vote.
nxzero 10y ago
Think you should look into countries that already require citizens to vote.
plandis 10y ago
It's a good thing then that the elderly (primary recipients of social security) vote in high numbers. Now, if only the government did anything to the benefit of younger people (or really anything at all, seriously, look at what has been passed in this session) perhaps young people could be bothered to leave work (which will in a lot of cases cause illegal employer push back) and vote.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > perhaps young people could be bothered to leave work (which will in a lot of cases cause illegal employer push back) and vote. If you're going to make an argument about widespread illegal activity, please provide some evidence of that. While there are isolated cases of this happening, there is scant evidence that this is widespread ('a lot of cases'). Remember that, in most states, it's not that you're allowed to take leave whenever you want in order to vote. It's that employers must ensure that you have sufficient time during polling hours to vote (ie, if your shift starts at 9AM, and polls open at 6AM, they have satisfied this requirement). If you do not have sufficient time outside working hours to vote, employers may not punish you for taking time to vote. (Note that this time may be paid or unpaid leave, depending on the state and nature of employment). The reason young people don't vote is not because of insufficient time off. (If it were, youth voting rates in states like Oregon and Washington, which allow by-mail voting, would be dramatically higher than they currently are. As it is, they're higher than other states, but demographically-adjusted nowhere near what you would expect if insufficient time off were the primary driver of low youth turnout).
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  There are now more Millenials who can vote than the 65+ cohort. What exactly should the government be doing for them to entice them to vote other than what they're already doing (providing a stable society, infrastructure, etc)? It is entirely your own fault if you don't spend time educating yourself on the issues and don't vote for a candidate who is congruent with your beliefs. If you don't find a candidate to your liking, run yourself. Much harder than posting pics to Instagram or swiping left or right, but them the breaks of democracy.
vanattab 10y ago
Compulsory voting is a terrible idea. The government should not force me to officially endorse a politician or take part in an election if I don'the think it's fair. (I don'the think elections in the us are currently rigged but I would be naive to think it's not a possibility in the future.
- drewrv 10y ago
  Then write someone in.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  I feel that voting should be mandatory, but a "no opinion" option should be provided for everything. "none of the above" is a valid choice, and it would help politicians get a better picture for what the general population wants (instead of the current situation of "compared to X i want Y")
  - hansjorg 10y ago
    I would rather go to jail than participate in that kind of lunacy.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      Why would you rather go to jail than participate in mandatory voting with an explicit "None" option?
      - serf 10y ago
        I can't answer for the other person, but here's my reasoning. abstinence from a vote is a form of social protest. Voter turnout is fairly decent sign of voter confidence in the power of their vote to make a lasting change. If you establish a form of mandatory voting, the state loses the feedback loop of 'non-voters' to establish voter confidence and also exerts another pressure on the citizenry; further hurting the citizens' feeling of self-control. Basically, 'None' option or not, you're just taking another choice away from the voter. Many tend not to remember this, but there are plenty of registered voters who don't show up or ever vote. This isn't necessarily a failure of voting advocates to get them in the booths, it may very well be an intentional protest on the part of the voter.
witty_username 10y ago
But then it isn't universal basic income. Plus, this seems quite overkill. Just pay people X$ per vote.
- adocracy 10y ago
  Sure it is - but it's universal to citizens participating in that society. if you're outside the system, YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, including UBI. Doesn't mean you have to pick one candidate - you can abstain, as long as you show up to record your abstention.

Voting should be the single required act to trigger your Universal Basic Income for the year.

metaphorm 10y ago

and what if there are no candidates you feel good about voting for?

ranko 10y ago
Spoil your ballot.
koenigdavidmj 10y ago
Write in. Also, places like Australia that have compulsory voting do not check that you have marked the ballot in any fashion, only signed in, taken a ballot, and put it in the box.
runin2k1 10y ago
Maybe you'll feel good about voting on one of the other 30 races or ballot initiatives that might influence generations to come? There's no law against leaving an entry blank.... until one is introduced and you don't care enough to vote against it.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  your dickish tone is uncalled for.
  - runin2k1 10y ago
    Well I hope you'll consider voting on it when someone proposes a law to make being a dick on the internet illegal.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      are you serious? leave me alone. stop trolling.
hebleb 10y ago
Write in Batman for all I care. There are still elections other than the presidential race that will arguably affect you more on a day-to-day basis.
nxzero 10y ago
Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for any of them.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  that's where I'm at too and was the point I was trying to make with my post. We should be able to vote No Confidence.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No Confidence is a term of art for a vote against the government in power (usually, specifically in the content of a parliamentary system, in a vote by parliament, though arguably a public recall vote of the head of government in a non-parliamentary system is a fairly direct analog, and any vote against an incumbent in any system is a loose analog, as are mechanisms that aren't formally votes of No Confidence of removal-of-existing-incumbents-by-legislative action.) You (or your MP or other legislative representative) can usually do some or all of these things in most systems that are recognized as democracies. What you seem to want is something different, the option to vote for No Representative in a regular election and cause the office to be vacant when the next term would start (whether this actually leaves the office vacant or triggers the usual succession mechanism that would apply if it had been filled and then became vacant through death, resignation, etc. is unclear.) This, I can't see a coherent argument for.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      yes, understood that No Confidence has historically referred to a parliamentary procedure. I think the term is appropriate here as well but might be problematic because of its historical usage. Avoiding confusion or conflation is a good thing, so maybe a different term should be used for this situation. I think your suggestion of No Representation is a decent one. I'm not suggesting that that should result in an unfilled office though. My view is that if No Representation actually wins (takes the plurality of the vote), it should trigger a special election where new candidates must be nominated and a new popular vote must be held.
toast0 10y ago
Write something obscene as a write-in candidate? Return a blank ballot? Draw a pretty picture on the ballot and return that?
adocracy 10y ago
you show up, take your ballot which registers a receipt, and abstain on that particular office/issue. but at least showing up to register your abstention IS your vote.

nxzero 10y ago

Think you should look into countries that already require citizens to vote.

plandis 10y ago

It's a good thing then that the elderly (primary recipients of social security) vote in high numbers. Now, if only the government did anything to the benefit of younger people (or really anything at all, seriously, look at what has been passed in this session) perhaps young people could be bothered to leave work (which will in a lot of cases cause illegal employer push back) and vote.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> perhaps young people could be bothered to leave work (which will in a lot of cases cause illegal employer push back) and vote. If you're going to make an argument about widespread illegal activity, please provide some evidence of that. While there are isolated cases of this happening, there is scant evidence that this is widespread ('a lot of cases'). Remember that, in most states, it's not that you're allowed to take leave whenever you want in order to vote. It's that employers must ensure that you have sufficient time during polling hours to vote (ie, if your shift starts at 9AM, and polls open at 6AM, they have satisfied this requirement). If you do not have sufficient time outside working hours to vote, employers may not punish you for taking time to vote. (Note that this time may be paid or unpaid leave, depending on the state and nature of employment). The reason young people don't vote is not because of insufficient time off. (If it were, youth voting rates in states like Oregon and Washington, which allow by-mail voting, would be dramatically higher than they currently are. As it is, they're higher than other states, but demographically-adjusted nowhere near what you would expect if insufficient time off were the primary driver of low youth turnout).
toomuchtodo 10y ago
There are now more Millenials who can vote than the 65+ cohort. What exactly should the government be doing for them to entice them to vote other than what they're already doing (providing a stable society, infrastructure, etc)? It is entirely your own fault if you don't spend time educating yourself on the issues and don't vote for a candidate who is congruent with your beliefs. If you don't find a candidate to your liking, run yourself. Much harder than posting pics to Instagram or swiping left or right, but them the breaks of democracy.

vanattab 10y ago

Compulsory voting is a terrible idea. The government should not force me to officially endorse a politician or take part in an election if I don'the think it's fair. (I don'the think elections in the us are currently rigged but I would be naive to think it's not a possibility in the future.

drewrv 10y ago
Then write someone in.
Klathmon 10y ago
I feel that voting should be mandatory, but a "no opinion" option should be provided for everything. "none of the above" is a valid choice, and it would help politicians get a better picture for what the general population wants (instead of the current situation of "compared to X i want Y")
- hansjorg 10y ago
  I would rather go to jail than participate in that kind of lunacy.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    Why would you rather go to jail than participate in mandatory voting with an explicit "None" option?
    - serf 10y ago
      I can't answer for the other person, but here's my reasoning. abstinence from a vote is a form of social protest. Voter turnout is fairly decent sign of voter confidence in the power of their vote to make a lasting change. If you establish a form of mandatory voting, the state loses the feedback loop of 'non-voters' to establish voter confidence and also exerts another pressure on the citizenry; further hurting the citizens' feeling of self-control. Basically, 'None' option or not, you're just taking another choice away from the voter. Many tend not to remember this, but there are plenty of registered voters who don't show up or ever vote. This isn't necessarily a failure of voting advocates to get them in the booths, it may very well be an intentional protest on the part of the voter.

witty_username 10y ago

But then it isn't universal basic income. Plus, this seems quite overkill. Just pay people X$ per vote.

adocracy 10y ago
Sure it is - but it's universal to citizens participating in that society. if you're outside the system, YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, including UBI. Doesn't mean you have to pick one candidate - you can abstain, as long as you show up to record your abstention.