5 ms·

I always believed that not voting is also a vote, but you are fined in Australia if you do not show up and cast your ballot. The only way to say 'none of the a

by nikcub 16y ago

I always believed that not voting is also a vote, but you are fined in Australia if you do not show up and cast your ballot. The only way to say 'none of the above' is by filing an informal vote. This is a de-facto way of saying that you don't like any of the options, and at least in Australia this informal vote is tracked and parties take notice of it. In the USA if you vote to not vote, Washington bundles you in with everybody else and assumes that you have no interest. The ideal solution would be a) Voting is mandatory, but with a formal 'none of the above' option b) Voting is not mandatory, but representation is allocated based on what portion of total people voted for you, not allocated based on the portion of the total vote. (ie. if in one state all 25M people voted, they should get 5 representatives in congress, while if in another state of 50M people only 5M votes, they should only get 1 seat in congress) With a quota based system based on proportion of population congress/parliament would then be a true representation. It is the only way to reflect the will of the entire population, meaning that those who choose to stay at home can no longer be ignored.

mbreese 16y ago
Option B would be pretty interesting, and might provide a decent incentive for people to vote. However, if people aren't likely to vote anyway, why would they care how much representation they have in Congress? We effectively do have a "none of the above" option: don't select anyone and still cast the ballot. However, it would be better if there was an explicit "No vote" option. The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.
- paradoja 16y ago
  «The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.» An alternative, as it's done in Spain, is to give everyone the right to leave their jobs in order to vote. To alleviate things for businesses, all elections happen on Sundays.
  - mzl 16y ago
    Another alternative is to have advance voting. In the recent elections in Sweden about one third of the votes cast were cast in advance, IIRC.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      In Washington and Oregon (soon California) this is done by mail.
  - kgermino 16y ago
    In Illinois at least employers are required to allow employees to take two paid hours off at the beginning or end of their shift to vote. Also there's "no excuse" absentee vote by mail and early voting available throughout the state.
- ugh 16y ago
  Why don’t you vote on Sundays like I don’t know how many other nations in the World? It doesn’t make any sense.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    It's written in the Constitution as to when voting should occur. Remember, this was written for the late 18th century, so doing anything on Sundays was generally frowned upon. Plus, changing something like this would be far more difficult than just giving everyone the day off. However, in this country there is a constant struggle between trying to let more people vote versus trying to restrict voting. Hence why a lot of people are up in arms about potential voter fraud. The traditional wisdom is that more voters helps one party, fewer helps another. With this as a factor, you can see how it would be very difficult to change the day of voting to make it more convenient for people.
    - ugh 16y ago
      It’s not in the Constitution as far as I can see. Election day seems to be determined by an ordinary law.
      - mbreese 16y ago
        And this is why I'm glad that we don't have to pass a test to vote. I'd fail that question. I blame my third grade social studies teacher. :). The date is set by an act of Congress from 1845. http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif I think my other arguments still stand though...
  - spacemanaki 16y ago
    Because we need enough time to travel to town overnight via horse. We vote in November because the harvest is over. I believe this is correct, I've heard it several places, but here is one citation: http://www.whytuesday.org/answer/ http://www.whytuesday.org/answer/
  - pierrefar 16y ago
- philwelch 16y ago
  Nevada has an explicit "none of the above" on the ballot.
- mast 16y ago
  The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated. That just sounds like a lazy excuse to me. I don't know how long it takes to vote in the US, but where I live in Canada, we just finished our municiple elections. It was one of the longest ballots I can remember, yet the entire process, including walking from my house to the polling station and back, took about 20 minutes after work. I have to say, I just don't understand this voter apathy or this sentiment that if none of the candidates are any good then don't vote. I really do think it is your duty as a citizen.
  - Retric 16y ago
    I have spent 4-5 hours on more than one occasion.
    - mast 16y ago
      You're kidding. Why does it take so long?
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        I'm not mzl, but there are all kinds of reasons why it might be a long project: waiting for public transit (especially if there's more than one connection), waiting in line at the poll (if turnout is much higher than expected), etc.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
        I've spent an hour and a half before, mainly due to excessive turnout and lack of voting booths. 2 of the 6 machines the precinct received did not verify when turned on. They're an electronic booth with paper printout (yes,what the vote hackers wanted to begin with). However the paper did not agree with the electronic tally, hence machine invalidated. And they got 4x the turnout they were expecting. Now, usually, it's 20 min in line and 3 min for the vote itself.
      - 16y ago
dools 16y ago
There is no reason to abstain in Australia because we have a preference system. In the States, when Nader ran against Gore it divided the Democrat vote and Bush won. The same thing doesn't happen in Australia so if you vote for a minor party because you really believe in their policies, although they may still preference a major party that you don't wholly agree with they still get funding based on the number of votes received and if they actually win a seat in parliament (as Adam Bandt did in his recent historic win in the federal seat of Melbourne for the Greens) then those "minor" parties start to have a "major" influence. All in all I think the preference system and mandatory voting makes for a far healthier democracy.
- lusis 16y ago
  I have to call BS. This argument that third parties split the vote is nonsense. Me voting for a third-party candidate is does not imply that I would have voted for any other candidate had they not been on the ballot. Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position. It's like the BSA argument that people who steal software (yes it's stealing) would have normally bought the software. No, they wouldn't have.
  - rcthompson 16y ago
    But if a third party happens to appeal to a similar demographic to one of the main parties (in this case, the Democrats, and the Gore campaign in particular), then it will split the vote. If you don't believe it, then the Bush campaign (Republicans) sure did, since they worked hard to promote the Green party and get them on as many ballots as they could.
  - nollidge 16y ago
    > Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position. Really? If there were three candidates, one who was 95% in agreement with you, one who was 85%, and one who was 30%, and the 95% dropped out of the race, you would just NOT vote for the 85%?
    - 16y ago
tallanvor 16y ago
I think your idea (part b, anyway) is based on the idea that people vote for parties, but that's not the way it works. True, some states allow you to vote a straight party ticket rather than having to vote for each office individually, but not all of them. In the US each elected official, whether they were a Democrat nominee, a Republican nominee, or a member of one of the other parties chooses who they will caucus with. That's why people like Arlen Specter can change parties freely. And allocating seats based on the percentage of people who voted in each state ignores those who don't have the right to vote - whether they're children, foreigners, or people in other categories. Once someone is elected, they're supposed to serve their entire constituency, not just those who voted for them. And finally, the US (and no country that I can think of, really) is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. The many elect a few to govern, and those elected to govern are supposed to do what is right - and what is right is not always what the majority wants.
wnoise 16y ago
Option (b) would mean that voting for party A can instead reinforce the power of party B.

by nikcub 16y ago

mbreese 16y ago

Option B would be pretty interesting, and might provide a decent incentive for people to vote. However, if people aren't likely to vote anyway, why would they care how much representation they have in Congress? We effectively do have a "none of the above" option: don't select anyone and still cast the ballot. However, it would be better if there was an explicit "No vote" option. The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.

paradoja 16y ago
«The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.» An alternative, as it's done in Spain, is to give everyone the right to leave their jobs in order to vote. To alleviate things for businesses, all elections happen on Sundays.
- mzl 16y ago
  Another alternative is to have advance voting. In the recent elections in Sweden about one third of the votes cast were cast in advance, IIRC.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    In Washington and Oregon (soon California) this is done by mail.
- kgermino 16y ago
  In Illinois at least employers are required to allow employees to take two paid hours off at the beginning or end of their shift to vote. Also there's "no excuse" absentee vote by mail and early voting available throughout the state.
ugh 16y ago
Why don’t you vote on Sundays like I don’t know how many other nations in the World? It doesn’t make any sense.
- mbreese 16y ago
  It's written in the Constitution as to when voting should occur. Remember, this was written for the late 18th century, so doing anything on Sundays was generally frowned upon. Plus, changing something like this would be far more difficult than just giving everyone the day off. However, in this country there is a constant struggle between trying to let more people vote versus trying to restrict voting. Hence why a lot of people are up in arms about potential voter fraud. The traditional wisdom is that more voters helps one party, fewer helps another. With this as a factor, you can see how it would be very difficult to change the day of voting to make it more convenient for people.
  - ugh 16y ago
    It’s not in the Constitution as far as I can see. Election day seems to be determined by an ordinary law.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      And this is why I'm glad that we don't have to pass a test to vote. I'd fail that question. I blame my third grade social studies teacher. :). The date is set by an act of Congress from 1845. http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif I think my other arguments still stand though...
- spacemanaki 16y ago
  Because we need enough time to travel to town overnight via horse. We vote in November because the harvest is over. I believe this is correct, I've heard it several places, but here is one citation: http://www.whytuesday.org/answer/ http://www.whytuesday.org/answer/
- pierrefar 16y ago
philwelch 16y ago
Nevada has an explicit "none of the above" on the ballot.
mast 16y ago
The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated. That just sounds like a lazy excuse to me. I don't know how long it takes to vote in the US, but where I live in Canada, we just finished our municiple elections. It was one of the longest ballots I can remember, yet the entire process, including walking from my house to the polling station and back, took about 20 minutes after work. I have to say, I just don't understand this voter apathy or this sentiment that if none of the candidates are any good then don't vote. I really do think it is your duty as a citizen.
- Retric 16y ago
  I have spent 4-5 hours on more than one occasion.
  - mast 16y ago
    You're kidding. Why does it take so long?
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      I'm not mzl, but there are all kinds of reasons why it might be a long project: waiting for public transit (especially if there's more than one connection), waiting in line at the poll (if turnout is much higher than expected), etc.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
      I've spent an hour and a half before, mainly due to excessive turnout and lack of voting booths. 2 of the 6 machines the precinct received did not verify when turned on. They're an electronic booth with paper printout (yes,what the vote hackers wanted to begin with). However the paper did not agree with the electronic tally, hence machine invalidated. And they got 4x the turnout they were expecting. Now, usually, it's 20 min in line and 3 min for the vote itself.
    - 16y ago

dools 16y ago

There is no reason to abstain in Australia because we have a preference system. In the States, when Nader ran against Gore it divided the Democrat vote and Bush won. The same thing doesn't happen in Australia so if you vote for a minor party because you really believe in their policies, although they may still preference a major party that you don't wholly agree with they still get funding based on the number of votes received and if they actually win a seat in parliament (as Adam Bandt did in his recent historic win in the federal seat of Melbourne for the Greens) then those "minor" parties start to have a "major" influence. All in all I think the preference system and mandatory voting makes for a far healthier democracy.

lusis 16y ago
I have to call BS. This argument that third parties split the vote is nonsense. Me voting for a third-party candidate is does not imply that I would have voted for any other candidate had they not been on the ballot. Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position. It's like the BSA argument that people who steal software (yes it's stealing) would have normally bought the software. No, they wouldn't have.
- rcthompson 16y ago
  But if a third party happens to appeal to a similar demographic to one of the main parties (in this case, the Democrats, and the Gore campaign in particular), then it will split the vote. If you don't believe it, then the Bush campaign (Republicans) sure did, since they worked hard to promote the Green party and get them on as many ballots as they could.
- nollidge 16y ago
  > Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position. Really? If there were three candidates, one who was 95% in agreement with you, one who was 85%, and one who was 30%, and the 95% dropped out of the race, you would just NOT vote for the 85%?
  - 16y ago

tallanvor 16y ago

I think your idea (part b, anyway) is based on the idea that people vote for parties, but that's not the way it works. True, some states allow you to vote a straight party ticket rather than having to vote for each office individually, but not all of them. In the US each elected official, whether they were a Democrat nominee, a Republican nominee, or a member of one of the other parties chooses who they will caucus with. That's why people like Arlen Specter can change parties freely. And allocating seats based on the percentage of people who voted in each state ignores those who don't have the right to vote - whether they're children, foreigners, or people in other categories. Once someone is elected, they're supposed to serve their entire constituency, not just those who voted for them. And finally, the US (and no country that I can think of, really) is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. The many elect a few to govern, and those elected to govern are supposed to do what is right - and what is right is not always what the majority wants.

wnoise 16y ago

Option (b) would mean that voting for party A can instead reinforce the power of party B.