Should The Us Put Into Law Mandatory Voting On All Government Elections

The question asks:"Do you think voting should be mandatory? Why or why not?"No, voting should not be mandatory. That is a mistake of freaking EPIC proportions.And why should we make it mandatory, when the turn-out is 100% every election.But, but, but you say…. Only xx% turned out to vote in the last election…That is correct, only xx% turned out to cast a ballot. The remaining 100%-xx% cast the "I DON'T CARE" ballot.They voted that they don't care enough or aren't informed enough to mark a ballot.I used to think more like you, and then a strange thing happened.In Oregon a law was passed that required a 50% turn-out, & 50%+1 vote, for school bond measures to pass. I thought that was a great idea, why should measures be able to pass if people don't vote on them.AND THEN I read the article in the local paper where several folks were gloating [my words] over the measure receiving 70%+ yes votes but falling short of the 50% turn-out rate. The gloat was because they didn't vote knowing that by NOT voting they were making it that much harder for the measure to pass.I read that and changed my mind on the whole issue. Now, if you do not vote you are still voting; just in a different way than most think about.Let's not forget why we got rid of the double majority requirement - BlueOregon

So an agent of the government is going to come to your house to collect your vote, or to call you to the polling station, or maybe to corral you to the polls and stand behind you to make sure you check a box? Is this what you envision an ideal free society to be?So, no, the US Federal Government shouldn’t do that. It’s just about the worst idea imaginable for a government of free people.As the level of government farthest from the people from whom it derives its explicitly constitutionally-limited power—people who are sovereign free men and women living in a supposedly free society—it has no right to force people to vote. Were its officials to attempt to enforce such a law, enforcement could only ultimately be accomplished by violence or threat of violence. And that violence or threat of violence would further delegitimize the Federal Government and invite all kinds of legitimate criticism and ridicule of its ill-considered mandatory voting law.

Is making voting mandatory by law democratic, or the opposite of it?In any democracy, the object is to get an engaged voting population. While this has been sorely lacking in most U.S. elections (and I suspect a few worldwide ones, too), the fact remains that forcing all eligible citizens to vote would tend to be counterproductive, thus undemocratic.There are a lot of things in the US, and other democratic countries that are undemocratic, such as seat belt laws, jury duty or housing association rules. Most people understand this, and they accept them. But, usually, being forced to make important decisions when one doesn’t want to is something most people won’t accept.What would happen in this case is that most people would comply with the law, but only to the minimum degree they could get away with. As it stands, only a percentage of the current voluntary voters actually do any research into the candidates or issues before them, but in all cases, the voters generally have an idea that what they are doing is important.People who aren’t engaged, but forced to participate are going are more likely to go in, pick a few names or make a random choice on an issue, without really understanding the consequences.While most off year elections may garner as little as 10 percent turnout (maybe less in some places), at least the outcome of these elections is what the majority those voters want. Those who don’t vote have no right to complain when the process doesn’t produce something in their favor. I’d prefer losing to a group of energized and educated voters than win with a bunch who don’t even know, or care for, what they voted for.What would be a better idea is already being used in a number of states, that of online voting. The object is to make voting more convenient (not less so, as with voter id laws). The SCOTUS also needs to reverse “Citizens United”, which allows way too much special interest money into the system. People feel as if big money wins out all the time (which it generally does), and that the typical voter is merely going through the motions. Prohibit gerrymandering, where a majority is relegated to a minority simply with geographical boundaries. None of these will get 100 percent participation, but it will bring many more educated voters into the process.

I lived in Ecuador for ten years, and voting IS mandatory. Every legal adult must vote, and must go to the city where they are registered. All Ecuadorians have a cedula that lists their home city. It is possible to change that city if one has moved, but many forget, so on the Saturday before an election, always on Sunday, there is a wild clamor to get on any plane, bus, or car in order to get to that city in time.On election day, every citizen must vote. There may be seven or eight presidential candidates, but everyone must vote. After voting, the cedula is marked or punched as proof that the citizen voted in the election.Without an updated cedula, there are penalties. Since I was not a citizen, I only had a censo and was not allowed to vote, and I do not have a definitive list of the penalties, so I am relying on what I learned from my friends. If you did not vote, you cannot get a loan from a bank, you cannot get a driver’s license, and you do not qualify for government aid in several programs. I’m sure there are many more privileges, but the bottom line is, nearly everywhere one goes in Ecuador, he/she must produce a marked and updated cedula before they can receive services.However, Ecuador does not require you to vote for any candidate. There is a line that says “voto nulo,” “I vote for no one.” As long as you vote, it is acceptable to do that.I’m sure that there are other democracies that have this law. I think Peru does, but cannot be sure. But just wanted to let you know that your question was not hypothetical. At least one nation requires voting, and has penalties for those who don’t.In the United States, we retain, not only the right to vote, but the right not to.

, absolutely not. A vote in a free nation is a privilege and a right by law that allows the electorate to have a say in how their nation is run (in theory anyway, in practice it often achieves a different result). I have always felt very strongly that part of the electorates responsibility in this matter is to ensure they understand the importance of their vote and educate themselves on the issues so that they can make an intelligent choice.Unfortunately, many of the electorate simply squander their vote, marking a ballot not based on a candidates ability to lead a nation into prosperity, but rather on their own selfish interests or the latest sound bite they caught from a talking head on the 6:00 o'clock news.Frankly why would you force anyone to play in a game they have no interest in? Would you expect to build a winning sports team if you had to force the players to participate even though they would rather be anywhere else and had no concept of the rules of the game or the outcome that was in everyone's best interest.