Posts: 4484
Threads: 185
Joined: October 12, 2012
Reputation:
44
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 12:20 am
Firstly, it's a voter's right to vote whether they're "well informed" or not. I used the phrase "informed" simply to mean that the voter cast the vote they wanted.
Secondly, the numbers don't lie. In the last federal election, 5.9% of the vote in the lower house was informal, but 3% of the vote (in that same election).
The argument that disinterested voters will cast "deliberately stupid votes" presupposes malicious intent. Surely anyone who has malicious intent at election time would surely go about casting their "deliberately stupid" vote regardless of whether it was compulsory or optional.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 1:13 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2015 at 1:14 am by IATIA.)
(March 27, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: How can they determine if votes are sincere or not? How can they determine if votes are well-informed or not? I am not for mandatory voting, period. However, if there were, these "uninformed votes" would be no worse than people that now just walk in and draw a straight line through the party of their choice with no idea of who, what, where, when or why, as long as it is their party and that was probably an "uninformed' decision based solely on the parents party.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 596
Threads: 3
Joined: January 21, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 8:19 am
(March 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Dystopia Wrote: If the system is so corrupt that voting is completely useless (like some are saying) then why not start a revolution, overthrow the current regime and implement a new system? 
I'm too busy watching Coronation Street and the football, plus I can't afford the time off from my wage slave job.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 1:04 pm
(March 27, 2015 at 12:14 am)Aractus Wrote: No Cato, it's not "paternalism". Your philosophy is called laissez-faire, it's been discredited. When the poorest in society are made more wealthy, the wealthy do benefit.
So you think that seat belt laws should be repealed, because they place an undue burden of obedience upon the community?
You may as well say you don't believe in paying taxes next.
Impressive. You didn't just move the goal posts, you uprooted them and moved them to another pitch.
First though, mandating everyone vote because you/the state knows what's best for people is textbook paternalism. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact.
Accusing me of espousing a laissez-faire philosophy is misplaced, particularly since I was fairly specific in stating when the state had a compelling interest and obligation to limit liberties. Your use of laissez-faire, typically a term used as a descriptor of economic philosophy, and invoking taxation triggers a sharp shift in the conversation to a very specific function of state.
Taxation is a necessary reality for any society that pools resources to provide services, including the functioning of government enterprise. This goes for any form of government; Soviet style communism, liberal representative democracy, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc. Taxation in and of itself is not a liberty concern. Anybody claiming 'no taxation' for the sake of liberty is ignorant.
That said, taxation can become a liberty concern if it so onerous that it interferes with someone's ability to provide for themselves.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 1:48 pm
And for those 'not in the know', the Boston tea party was not about taxation, but taxation without representation.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Mandatory voting
March 28, 2015 at 3:22 pm
(March 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Quote:So you support a society where a fellow citizen or the state can arbitrarily and without reasonable cause or justification deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
- Why are those truths sacred and undeniable? And why are they even truths? Who appointed it?
- No one is created equal - We are all different and with different privileges. It's a terrible myth to say all men are created equal
- Your rights are not inalienable and inherent, that's another myth - Your rights only exist when the state allows you to exercise them, and even if you think that in liberal countries it's not like that there's a handful of States where society might disagree with you
- Life? The US has the death penalty. Tell me about it.
- Liberty? You only have it when it's convenient. Apparently since members are saying voting is so useless you don't have that much liberty
- Pursuit of happiness is a goal and prerogative, but not a right, you don't have a right to be happy and the main reason is that happiness means different things for everyone.
And no, I don't support such society, I'm just saying it's the quote is inaccurate and unrealistic. You may fancy about the classic liberalism principles that all men have liberty and are created equal but in practice it's not how it happens - Not to mention that America has lived according to liberalism it's whole lifespan and has never known another system so it's not reliable to ask America what freedom means.
I have always had two arms. Am I not a reliable source for determining what it is like to have two arms? Your last sentence seems to imply this and comes off as nonsensical.
I may not get to each point you raised, but have a couple of observations.
1. You misrepresent the meaning of some of the principles you challenge, such as 'all are created equal'. This means that people should be equal before the law and are entitled to the same rights as other individuals. This was never intended to be an egalitarian dream that all individuals were to be born into equal circumstances or that there wouldn't be natural differences in physical and cognitive abilities. What you propose is a myth, but not what is being suggested.
2. You seem to lose sight of the fact that the principles are ideals to be aspired to. Pointing out instances where the ideal isn't fully realized does not invalidate the ideal, it only highlights where improvements need to be made. The death penalty is heinous and should be discontinued where practiced; however, you pointing to the death penalty in an attempt to invalidate the right to life is amateurish. The death penalty is only applied to a very specific crime; aggravated murder. You try to make it sound like its application is capricious and arbitrary. Those that commit aggravated murder lose their right to life because of their demonstrated threat to the lives of others. I would prefer permanent incarceration, but none of this invalidates the principle of the right to life.
The pursuit of happiness is not a right to be happy as you claim. Again, you are confused about the meaning.
Claiming that we only have the rights that the state allows us is part and parcel to my objection of mandatory voting laws and why even the smallest erosion of liberty and departure from the ideal strikes a nerve with me. I don't accept the ideal that I am beholden to the whims of the state.
|
