How to Ensure This Never Happens Again

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

12 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Yes there is a difference between a blank ballot, or a ballot with a check next to "I choose not to vote" and a ballot where candidates and initiatives are voted on.  

That's a nice argument and all but completely irrelevant. The correct answer is, no, there's no difference. A requirement to vote is a requirement regardless of what one checks. One doesn't, and shouldn't, have to send anything at all because compulsory voting is anti-American. If one wants to protest by not participating in elections or just not do it for whatever other reason, there's no justification for forcing them to.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[spookyturtle 9,466]

11 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Yes there is a difference between a blank ballot, or a ballot with a check next to "I choose not to vote" and a ballot where candidates and initiatives are voted on.  

So you are forced to vote that you don’t want to vote. Makes sense. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

32 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Get rid of the state with the highest GDP that gives welfare to other states... Sounds like a great idea. 

It does, doesn’t it? Glad to see you onboard. 👍

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

2 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

So you are forced to vote that you don’t want to vote. Makes sense. 

The election system is forced to ensure that every eligible voter has been given the opportunity to vote. It is easy to find flaws in any new idea I am sure, the point is to give everyone a voice.

[Boiler 46,086]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The election system is forced to ensure that every eligible voter has been given the opportunity to vote. It is easy to find flaws in any new idea I am sure, the point is to give everyone a voice.

Not new.

 

Many Progressive Societies already do it.

[laylalex 7,300]

Of all the proposals, I am least comfortable with coercing people to vote. Even if the "penalty" for not voting is missing out on a tax credit as opposed to a fine. Sometimes yes, following your morals means sitting out an election, but what is the point of forcing someone to cast a ballot that says "I refuse to take part"? It is, to my eyes, an empty gesture. However I do think that the article raises some more practical reforms -- gerrymandering is a poison that has led us in part to being such a divided nation. A cold, hard, practical look needs to be taken at what a fair and equitable solution would be to the practice.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Not new.

 

Many Progressive Societies already do it.

Progressive societies have a number of ideas that are not new, but controversial or unknown in the US

 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

5 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The election system is forced to ensure that every eligible voter has been given the opportunity to vote. It is easy to find flaws in any new idea I am sure, the point is to give everyone a voice.

Everyone has a voice now, it’s up to each individual to chose to exercise their right to vote. 

[yuna628 9,712]

21 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Yes there is a difference between a blank ballot, or a ballot with a check next to "I choose not to vote" and a ballot where candidates and initiatives are voted on.  

The only difference is it's called wasting paper for no reason. I will staunchly defend the right of anyone to choose to not vote. Forced democracy is not one at all. It's akin to forced patriotism. Nor should anyone ever be bribed to vote, as that is essentially buying a vote - something I thought we could all agree on is a big no no.

 

Should we make voters or potential voters more informed and should the process be easier or ensure that people are not disenfranchised? Sure. But a person has the right to not vote just as a person does have the right to vote. It's a freedom of choice. Some ballots in states already give a person that does want to vote but doesn't want to vote on every issue or is not familiar with a candidate or even feels like not writing anything in, simply leave the ballot blank and select the areas where they want to vote. But they still have to want to.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

Of all the proposals, I am least comfortable with coercing people to vote. Even if the "penalty" for not voting is missing out on a tax credit as opposed to a fine. Sometimes yes, following your morals means sitting out an election, but what is the point of forcing someone to cast a ballot that says "I refuse to take part"? It is, to my eyes, an empty gesture. However I do think that the article raises some more practical reforms -- gerrymandering is a poison that has led us in part to being such a divided nation. A cold, hard, practical look needs to be taken at what a fair and equitable solution would be to the practice.

The point of ensuring everyone returns a ballot, voting or not, is to insure the roles are accurate, the access is unfettered and that the system works for everyone equally.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The point of ensuring everyone returns a ballot, voting or not, is to insure the roles are accurate, the access is unfettered and that the system works for everyone equally.

I understand that, but there are other ways to get to that point that don't require people casting a meaningless ballot. We need to focus on what's broken here -- equal and easier access to voting -- as opposed to restrictions on the freedom to dissent. It is ridiculous that I am able to walk into a polling place weeks before the election and just drop off a ballot, get my sticker and a cheery "thanks for voting!" without waiting a minute to do so, when others are forced to wait in lines for hours in other states. If I'd wanted to mail it, there would have been zero issue with that either. Let's work on making it easier to get those who want to vote actually voting with the fewest hurdles. 

 

I'm a happy leftie but I still don't want my gubmint telling me I have to participate in democracy!  

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Everyone has a voice now, it’s up to each individual to chose to exercise their right to vote. 

Yes, on paper that is the theory.

 

In reality you have long poll lines, undue burden on some groups like working mother's and caregivers, political shenanigans in voter role purges, hours and placement of polls that provide unfair access to some groups. 

The idea is to measure the effectiveness in government ensuring that every voter gets a ballot and that ever opportunity us provided to cast that ballot. 

 

 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

Yes, on paper that is the theory.

 

In reality you have long poll lines, undue burden on some groups like working mother's and caregivers, political shenanigans in voter role purges, hours and placement of polls that provide unfair access to some groups. 

The idea is to measure the effectiveness in government ensuring that every voter gets a ballot and that ever opportunity us provided to cast that ballot. 

 

 

We have absentee ballots available here in MA, not sure what other states policies are. Poles here are open for at least 12 hours on voting days. It does take a bit of initiative and effort to vote but certainly not difficult or insurmountable. The average Joe probably spends more time waiting in the drive thru line at McDonalds. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Just now, laylalex said:

I understand that, but there are other ways to get to that point that don't require people casting a meaningless ballot. We need to focus on what's broken here -- equal and easier access to voting -- as opposed to restrictions on the freedom to dissent. It is ridiculous that I am able to walk into a polling place weeks before the election and just drop off a ballot, get my sticker and a cheery "thanks for voting!" without waiting a minute to do so, when others are forced to wait in lines for hours in other states. If I'd wanted to mail it, there would have been zero issue with that either. Let's work on making it easier to get those who want to vote actually voting with the fewest hurdles. 

 

I'm a happy leftie but I still don't want my gubmint telling me I have to participate in democracy!  

The ballot is not meaningless, it is a measure of the fairness and effectiveness of the election system.  When the government is forced to measure whether everyone voted, issues like geographic barriers, mobility barriers, voter role purges that have definitely targeted specific groups, poll taxes that crop up from time to time: those would be in the cross hairs.

 

We seem to survive filing our taxes everyear. 

 

I am not even married to this idea, I just haven't seen a good argument against it here, except maybe the waste of paper argument.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

We have absentee ballots available here in MA, not sure what other states policies are. Poles here are open for at least 12 hours on voting days. It does take a bit of initiative and effort to vote but certainly not difficult or insurmountable. The average Joe probably spends more time waiting in the drive thru line at McDonalds. 

So I agree most states and counties do their best. There are specific data points where groups have been impacted by poor government planning or even intentionally targeting certain demographics. How do I control for that?