In light of the relatively small voter turn-outs in our country’s most recent elections, the subject has come up of a policy of mandatory electoral voting. Certain democratic governments elsewhere already have similar policies in place, requiring their citizens to vote upon election day. But, various problems take root when considering implementing such a law here across our fifty-states. The first of which are our choices on the ballot.
For presidential elections in our nation especially, the choices are assuredly limited. Our elections are dominated by two parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. One party gravitates towards the far left whereas the other stays put on the right. While some candidates will take a more progressive stance for their running platform, there is not much middle ground covered by the candidates. More and more Americans are registering as independents. This shows that more and more of us are thinking not as left or right wing voters, but are stuck somewhere in the middle. Americans are no longer looking for a hard-up conservative or liberal candidate, but rather are seeking a happy medium. Therefore it is no wonder why more Americans don’t go to vote. I believe this shows a problem, not with our citizen voters, but with the electoral party system that we have had now for more than the past century.
Also a concern with this type of policy, is the issue of enforcement. How will this hypothetical mandate be enforced? Marginally, at best. The best outcome that we can expect with said enforcement is that a slightly higher percentage of voters would participate, at least for the first time around. Getting Americans used to such a policy, will take a considerable amount of time. And what of the repercussions for not voting? Will there be sanctions? fines? Will people have their voters’ licenses suspended? Or will there be a more serious punishment for the millions of people that stay home on election day? Enforcement in this situation would be such a reach.
Lastly and most importantly, is the issue of our freedom. We should take a look at the ethics of such a policy and what it says for our freedom. Our nations’ constitution and our government system strive towards allotting the utmost freedom to the individual citizen. I believe this freedom would be undermined if voting became mandatory. Voting should be a right that we have, not a requirement. And every American should have the right not to vote if he or she wishes. This right can be used just as effectively as voting, as it can send a message of dissatisfaction with what our candidates have to offer.
Over all, I believe a mandatory voting policy is not something that should be considered for our country’s elections. This policy would strip us of our right of choice, to vote or not to vote. We should continue with our current policy and strive to improve diversity among the candidates and within the White House.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I need to learn how to make breaks and indentations in my paragraphs. Does anybody know how to do so?
Turn off the rich text, and you can just use use block form.
to your sentence break things, you can use < p > (without the spaces)
or when making your posts, enable the rich-text thing, then you can just type and hit enter for line breaks.
As to your content, I would disagree in this point:
The republican party are still to the right of the democrats, but are sliding left in order to try to capture the moderates (ignoring the conservative base under the impression that they'd never vote anything but Republican.)
Look at the main frontrunner, Rudy. He's a pro-choice, pro gun control, pro- open border, pro-amnesty, person who is against trying to control illegal immigration. (He also favors 'Sanctuary Cities"). he, as mayor, appointed judges so liberal that the liberal democrats in his city noted that they were pretty liberal.
Only his speech since running for president has been conservative-ish. His actions wholly are not.
Most people in the USA are hopelessly not paying attention to our government. I am extremely thankful to them for not voting because I don't see how our choice of government will be improved when these people vote. I pay close attention and their failure to vote makes my vote count for more.
Jimmy Carter was elected primarily because people liked his huge smile. It looks like Mike Huckabee is gaining popularity for much the same reason. He is very charismatic and that is about his only claim to fame. Is that any way to chose a leader?
When America was founded, the voting franchise was deliberately limited to people with property (property owners = tax payers). Only taxpayers got a say in government. As the voting franchise has expanded, the quality of our government has gone down hill. I think the voting franchise should be earned and that only people who have demonstrated some responsibility in our society (like paying taxes or serving in the military) should be allowed to vote.
Every year there is a huge effort to turnout homeless and illiterate people to vote. These are the kind that don't have the mental wherewithall to figure out a butterfly ballot. Why would anybody think that a government selected by people who can't take care of their own lives is going to be a better government than one selected if these people didn't vote.
I don't know about 'earning' the right to vote, as it is clearly granted to all citizens as the electorate sees fit, but as the States get to determine the rules for the electorate, it is possible that one state could mandate voting and another not mandate it.
I would wholly oppose a federal mandate to require voting, but would have no legal problem with a state suggesting it (especially since such a bill would require the people to vote on the issue, rather than just be voted on by the state government)
Which part of the Constitution are you referring to?
I agree with you that it is a state's rights issue and the states have the right to determine who gets to be part of the electorate. The states rights to make this definition are constrained by the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments that guarantee that race, sex and age respectively will not be used to limit who is allowed to vote in a state.
But the State still has broad latitude to say who has the right to vote. They could say anybody who pays property taxes or anybody who passes a certain exam or anybody who meets 5 out of 10 things on a list of criteria. I'm pretty sure for example that several states have prohibitions against the insane from voting.
We agree, though I think the legality of what a state could do is quite different from the reality of what they would be allowed by the people to do.
And, by the same measure that they could band certain people from voting, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to require people to vote.
However, any such measure to require people to vote would likely need to be by ammendment of a state constitution, which generally requires the people in the state to vote on it.
But, yes, you are very correct that the federal government (thus far) only has the power to pick out certain criteria the states CANNOT use when determining who can vote.
This idea sounds a little too exclusionary to me. Howabout rather we up the prerequisites or criteria for obtaining a voters license. But it shouldn't be based on porperty ownership or property taxes or even FICA.
I posted the comment twice by accident.
How about a civics test for a voter's license?
Here is the new test that immigrants are being required to pass in order to become naturalized citizens. It is ridiculously easy for anybody who is paying attention and probably hard for those who aren't.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm
I'd be happy to extend the voting franchise to any citizen who could get an 85% on that test.