Home › Forums › Archives › Community Center › The BigBlueBall Lounge › Should Voting In USA be Compulsory?
- This topic has 12 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 10 months ago by
gossipingrae.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2004 at 12:57 pm #14500
Qwerty
MemberA question to the US members, should voting be compulsory in the USA?
November 2, 2004 at 1:23 pm #103701Charles
MemberAbsolutely not. If it was, there would be numerous uninformed and taken-advantage-of votes. Voting is a right. Should everyone be forced to own a gun? No, it’s a right, not a mandate.
November 2, 2004 at 3:42 pm #103702Oreo
MemberCOMPLETELY AGREED CHARLES!! I typed in caps because it is SO true. This big push to get people out to vote is a bit frightening. SOME of them are uninformed (they’ve talked about people on both sides bribing people with things, such as “coke” for drug addicts so they vote for a particular candidate and perhaps fill out false ballots.) Voting IS a right, and MANY people have chosen NOT to vote in this election because they don’t have any other choices but Bush or Kerry and they think both candidates are crap.
November 2, 2004 at 10:17 pm #103709Crazy Penguin
MemberPersonally I think everyone should vote, if they don’t see a difference between either candidate, or don’t really care, spoil the ballot paper, but everyone should have to make a choice. Havihng a large proportion fo teh population not vote merely renders the result of the ballot , in my view, undemocratic
I’d like the voting system to be modernised so it works over the internet so may people would find it easier to vote, having to spend hours queuing up to vote strikes me as ridiculous.
It really annoys me the fact that in democratic countries people don’t use the privelege of voting, while elsewhere in the world people would die to have the chance to vote for there leader.
November 2, 2004 at 10:21 pm #103703David
ParticipantQuote:quote:Originally posted by Crazy PenguinI’d like the voting system to be modernised so it works over the internet so may people would find it easier to vote, having to spend hours queuing up to vote strikes me as ridiculous.
Too risky, someone could “hack” in and change the election.
November 2, 2004 at 10:39 pm #103704Tigerblade
ParticipantQuote:quote:Originally posted by Crazy PenguinPersonally I think everyone should vote, if they don’t see a difference between either candidate, or don’t really care, spoil the ballot paper, but everyone should have to make a choice. Havihng a large proportion fo teh population not vote merely renders the result of the ballot , in my view, undemocratic
yes, everyone should vote, but if they’re too lazy or too ignorant to be informed about the candidates, about the issues, and about the state of the country as a whole, then its probably best that they dont vote. also, the people that choose not to vote are agreeing by default to whichever candidate the rest of the country picks. yeah, its a right to vote, so go use it. the idea is that you can have a say in who governs you, so if you choose to ignore that and waive your right, then you just get to deal with the consequences. no complaining.
November 2, 2004 at 10:50 pm #103707RabidKitten
ParticipantAgreed, fellahs. My brother just got done talking with his girlfriend and she voted for a certain candidate just because her parents are that party and because her teacher said “Bin Ladin wants Kerry in so they pull the troops out of Iraq” Which I wouldn’t doubt is -completely- false, and even if it isn’t, who cares. You dont vote for someone just to spite another, or because you parents said so, or vote blindingly into some party just because “Oh I’m that party”. No. What if (unlikely) someone was a republican, but the candidate decided that they wanted to completely clean out all the non-white americans, or seal the country off like china all those years ago, or decided to do something rash and unnessisary to some other countries…would people vote blindly then? That’s what I don’t understand, people voting blindly into “their party” just because it’s “Their party”. Who cares, take the time to know the facts then vote, regardless of party. If you still agree with the candidate of your party, then great for you, but at least make the effort.
It all comes down to being responsible in my opinion, and making the effort to make a smart, educated, not half-azzed decision…but of course there are always going to be those “duh, I’ll do what people tell me to” people who don’t want to make the effort…and -those- are the people who tick me off to no end, at least the people who don’t vote know they’re morons, these people haven’t a clue.
November 2, 2004 at 10:53 pm #103699Jeff Hester
KeymasterSadly, there are people who are apathetic about the process. Some have thought about it, and feel disenfranchised or powerless; as though their vote won’t really make a difference. But far more are just clueless. They don’t know about the candidates or what they stand for.
Idealistically, everyone should care enough to be informed and vote their conscience, but realistically, many people never will. Those who chose not to vote should not be required to vote. You cannot mandate that someone cares, and doing so can only result in distorted results.
The best solution is to educate people, letting them know that their vote can make a difference and informing them on the issues. Programs like Rock the Vote have helped do this for young voters, and there are similar programs to reach minorities, single moms, elderly, and people from practically every walk of life. That, coupled with good old-fashioned peer pressure (“Have you voted yet?”) is the most effective solution.
And for what it’s worth, I just got back from voting. My entire family went to the polls together. They had five touch-screen voting booths, and we filled them all. There wasn’t even a line!
November 3, 2004 at 12:25 am #103705Tigerblade
Participantmaybe some of you have heard this, maybe not, but I thought this shows just how apathetic people can be….
Quote:quote:If history holds, the result portends a victory for John Kerry on Tuesday because the result of the Redskins’ final home game before the presidential election has always accurately predicted the White House winner. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted….“Oh, yeah, he’s going to win. It’s guaranteed,” said Packers safety Darren Sharper, a Kerry supporter. “I don’t have to vote now. Don’t even have to go to the polls. Saved me a trip on Tuesday.”
yeah… wow.
November 3, 2004 at 12:32 am #103708colin
MemberI have heard about people voting for Kerry just because “He is not Bush”. That is the dumbest reason I have ever heard. You vote for someone because you think they will be a good leader, not just to spite the other candadite. I am not old enough to vote, but when I am(next election) I am definitley going to vote, and be informed when I vote.
November 3, 2004 at 12:50 am #103700Jeff Hester
KeymasterQuote:quote:Originally posted by Tigerblademaybe some of you have heard this, maybe not, but I thought this shows just how apathetic people can be….
Quote:quote:If history holds, the result portends a victory for John Kerry on Tuesday because the result of the Redskins’ final home game before the presidential election has always accurately predicted the White House winner. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted….“Oh, yeah, he’s going to win. It’s guaranteed,” said Packers safety Darren Sharper, a Kerry supporter. “I don’t have to vote now. Don’t even have to go to the polls. Saved me a trip on Tuesday.”
yeah… wow.
Actually, there’s some statistical truth to that:
Quote:quote:The streak began in 1933, when the Boston Braves were renamed the Redskins. Since then, beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s re-election in 1936, the trend has held, including a 2000 Redskins loss to the Tennessee Titans that predicted George W. Bush’s win over Al Gore.😉
November 3, 2004 at 3:53 am #103706Tigerblade
Participantyeah, I know its statistically true, I was referring more to the quote by Sharper…. i’m not gonna promote one candidate over another, but the fact that someone decides they dont even have to go vote because of that…. that’s just stupid. these are the people that we’re probably better off not having vote.
November 4, 2004 at 3:52 am #103710gossipingrae
Memberone friend of mine chose to not vote, and when I asked her why, she said, “i don’t know enough about the candidates to make a good decision.” helloooo, where has she been the past 4 months? I swear, I hope she complains about this government, so then I can say to her, “you should have voted.” (speak of the devil, she just signed online lol)
its a good thing that our country didn’t force her to vote, or else the outcome might have been different, when added with the others forced to vote.
for those of you who supported kerry…i am proud of you (for voting)…at least you TRIED to change this country…you, however, can complain all you want. but, I don’t see why you would want to. lol
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.