Would you support compulsary voting (and a national or state voting holiday) to get people to the ballot box?

They would only be required to have their ballot punched, not forced to make any choices.  A ballot would only count where entries were made, empty ballots would count nothing, and ballots with some answers and not others would only count on those issues filled out.

As pointed out in other threads, the only people setting agenda (supposedly) are those that vote.  With such high apathy, government is not necessarily doing the will of the people.  At least by forcing them to turn in a ballot a few people might take an interest in what's written on it.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13210.msg133560#msg133560 date=1131734595]
Would you support compulsary voting (and a national or state voting holiday) to get people to the ballot box?

They would only be required to have their ballot punched, not forced to make any choices.  A ballot would only count where entries were made, empty ballots would count nothing, and ballots with some answers and not others would only count on those issues filled out.

As pointed out in other threads, the only people setting agenda (supposedly) are those that vote.  With such high apathy, government is not necessarily doing the will of the people.  At least by forcing them to turn in a ballot a few people might take an interest in what's written on it.
[/quote]

I think I would support this, if it were coupled with significant extra security measures at the ballot box. As it is, in the state of Wisconsin, you don't even need to present a photo ID to vote -- your name just has to be on the voter registration rolls. You give your name, and if it's there, you get to vote. There is nothing stopping someone from looking through a phone book and finding someone's name and address then voting for them.

It's ludicrous. State Republicans have tried to bring about legislation requiring photo IDs at least at the polls but the Democratic governor has vetoed it every time, saying it would 'disenfranchise' voters who did not have photo IDs.

If you don't have a driver's license, passport, or school ID card a state-issued photo ID is available for something like $10. I'm absolutely positive that countless interest groups would subsidize this cost for people who could not afford it.

By forcing them to vote they may learn more, or they wont vote & itll cause bigger buearacracy to get them to vote

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13210.msg133564#msg133564 date=1131734943]
I think I would support this, if it were coupled with significant extra security measures at the ballot box. As it is, in the state of Wisconsin, you don't even need to present a photo ID to vote -- your name just has to be on the voter registration rolls. You give your name, and if it's there, you get to vote. There is nothing stopping someone from looking through a phone book and finding someone's name and address then voting for them.

It's ludicrous. State Republicans have tried to bring about legislation requiring photo IDs at least at the polls but the Democratic governor has vetoed it every time, saying it would 'disenfranchise' voters who did not have photo IDs.

If you don't have a driver's license, passport, or school ID card a state-issued photo ID is available for something like $10. I'm absolutely positive that countless interest groups would subsidize this cost for people who could not afford it.
[/quote]

I don't like be treated like a criminal or thought of as a criminal. If I say who I say I am at the polling place, then that is who I am. You don't need to check my id unless you think I'm doing something wrong. Besides, it is not too hard to forge ids either.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13210.msg133568#msg133568 date=1131735674]
By forcing them to vote they may learn more, or they wont vote & itll cause bigger buearacracy to get them to vote
[/quote]

How does forcing them to vote make them learn more. Logically, that does not follow.

They might pay attention a bit more to the ads being run. 

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13210.msg133560#msg133560 date=1131734595]
Would you support compulsary voting (and a national or state voting holiday) to get people to the ballot box?

They would only be required to have their ballot punched, not forced to make any choices.  A ballot would only count where entries were made, empty ballots would count nothing, and ballots with some answers and not others would only count on those issues filled out.

As pointed out in other threads, the only people setting agenda (supposedly) are those that vote.  With such high apathy, government is not necessarily doing the will of the people.  At least by forcing them to turn in a ballot a few people might take an interest in what's written on it.
[/quote]

I would support this 100%

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13210.msg133575#msg133575 date=1131736711]
They might pay attention a bit more to the ads being run. 
[/quote]

Oh, so listening to propoghanda (that is all those ads are) will teach you more. Interesting. I seriously hope you do not vote based on the ads on television.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133573#msg133573 date=1131736570]
[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13210.msg133564#msg133564 date=1131734943]
I think I would support this, if it were coupled with significant extra security measures at the ballot box. As it is, in the state of Wisconsin, you don't even need to present a photo ID to vote -- your name just has to be on the voter registration rolls. You give your name, and if it's there, you get to vote. There is nothing stopping someone from looking through a phone book and finding someone's name and address then voting for them.

It's ludicrous. State Republicans have tried to bring about legislation requiring photo IDs at least at the polls but the Democratic governor has vetoed it every time, saying it would 'disenfranchise' voters who did not have photo IDs.

If you don't have a driver's license, passport, or school ID card a state-issued photo ID is available for something like $10. I'm absolutely positive that countless interest groups would subsidize this cost for people who could not afford it.
[/quote]

I don't like be treated like a criminal or thought of as a criminal. If I say who I say I am at the polling place, then that is who I am. You don't need to check my id unless you think I'm doing something wrong. Besides, it is not too hard to forge ids either.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13210.msg133568#msg133568 date=1131735674]
By forcing them to vote they may learn more, or they wont vote & itll cause bigger buearacracy to get them to vote
[/quote]

How does forcing them to vote make them learn more. Logically, that does not follow.
[/quote]

Good thinking! We will have more dead people that had passed away a long time ago voting in Florida. The democrats love old people so much where they force them to vote for them so when the die they still continue to vote for them.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133573#msg133573 date=1131736570]
I don't like be treated like a criminal or thought of as a criminal. If I say who I say I am at the polling place, then that is who I am. You don't need to check my id unless you think I'm doing something wrong. Besides, it is not too hard to forge ids either.
[/quote]

Well, let's say I show up before you, give your name, and vote. Now what should happen when you come in?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13210.msg133585#msg133585 date=1131737753]
Well, let's say I show up before you, give your name, and vote. Now what should happen when you come in?
[/quote]

I should be given a provisional ballot (like I was a few days ago), be able to vote, and it noted that voter fraud may have occured. Then the matter will be investigated.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133593#msg133593 date=1131738510]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13210.msg133585#msg133585 date=1131737753]
Well, let's say I show up before you, give your name, and vote. Now what should happen when you come in?
[/quote]

I should be given a provisional ballot (like I was a few days ago), be able to vote, and it noted that voter fraud may have occured. Then the matter will be investigated.
[/quote]

Just because you refuse to show your I.D. you will cost the government money with this investigation. Good liberal thinking!

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133593#msg133593 date=1131738510]
I should be given a provisional ballot (like I was a few days ago), be able to vote, and it noted that voter fraud may have occured. Then the matter will be investigated.
[/quote]

And how could the matter be investigated? Should pictures be taken of all who vote, together with notes of what names they claimed?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13210.msg133600#msg133600 date=1131738802]
And how could the matter be investigated? Should pictures be taken of all who vote, together with notes of what names they claimed?
[/quote]

That's not for me to solve ;) I don't even know how they solved my provisional ballot (I was sent an absentee ballot but never filled it out. I went to the polling place and they said I was sent one so they only let me vote provisionally until they could verify I did not vote twice. How that worked? I dunno.) A solution could be physically going to the residence and asking but I'm sure there are problems with that as well. It's a tricky issue that a lot of security people are thinking about. There is no golden solution but I think voting should be as accessible as possible to anyone who is qualified to vote.

I think you'd end up with a lot more ignorant voters. 

I think we should go to the opposite solution.  Anybody who blindly votes for a particular party, just because they always have, shouldn't be allowed to vote.  You should have to defend your votes instead of just saying "republicans because I always vote republicans" :-)

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133606#msg133606 date=1131739292]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13210.msg133600#msg133600 date=1131738802]
And how could the matter be investigated? Should pictures be taken of all who vote, together with notes of what names they claimed?
[/quote]

That's not for me to solve ;) I don't even know how they solved my provisional ballot (I was sent an absentee ballot but never filled it out. I went to the polling place and they said I was sent one so they only let me vote provisionally until they could verify I did not vote twice. How that worked? I dunno.)
[/quote]I'd think it'd be easy to verify that you didn't vote twice, any second grader can count to two.  2 ballots w/your name, hmm, you voted twice, hmm.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13210.msg133636#msg133636 date=1131747754]
I'd think it'd be easy to verify that you didn't vote twice, any second grader can count to two.  2 ballots w/your name, hmm, you voted twice, hmm.
[/quote]

The problem here is that a vote can be sabotaged by a group of people who decide to go around and casting votes in other people's names, if casting votes in other people's names is too easy.

Yeah, I totally understand the need for voting security & agree that it should exist (I was just asked for my name & address? when I voteod).  I was just refering to dx mentioning how he didn't know how his district would be able to tell whether or not he voted twice.

A point here... Without compulsory voting, voting security does not work. To prevent someone from voting in your name, it depends on detecting your name appearing twice. If you don't vote, someone else might have, in your name.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13210.msg133636#msg133636 date=1131747754]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13210.msg133606#msg133606 date=1131739292]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13210.msg133600#msg133600 date=1131738802]
And how could the matter be investigated? Should pictures be taken of all who vote, together with notes of what names they claimed?
[/quote]

That's not for me to solve ;) I don't even know how they solved my provisional ballot (I was sent an absentee ballot but never filled it out. I went to the polling place and they said I was sent one so they only let me vote provisionally until they could verify I did not vote twice. How that worked? I dunno.)
[/quote]I'd think it'd be easy to verify that you didn't vote twice, any second grader can count to two.  2 ballots w/your name, hmm, you voted twice, hmm.
[/quote]

Yeah that's the obvious part. But what is the process like? I don't know how votings works (i.e. how they are counted, how are they reported, what the procedures are, etc), to me it is a big abstraction -- I just put my ballot in the box and hope my vote gets counted.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13210.msg133560#msg133560 date=1131734595]
Would you support compulsary voting (and a national or state voting holiday) to get people to the ballot box?[/quote]

No.  Voter apathy is definitely serious, but I'd be more concerned about apathetic voters (who come in and decide to cast a random vote since they've already shown up) than about apathetic non-voters (who by definition don't count in the totals).  If we're going to be making changes, I'd like to see some thought put into designing a setup whereby you must prove you understand what both sides are planning.  Of course, designing it so that we don't get a repeat of the South's literacy tests (where black people couldn't vote if they couldn't read Chinese, iirc) is a non-trivial hurdle in its own right.  Still, it's rather appealing to disenfranchise voters who don't even have a clue what either party claims to plan to do. :)

I agree with Kp with our current voting setup; perhaps some measures need to be taken to increase the voting population as Grok would want with Compulsary voting, but also to further educate apathetic voters into making informed voting decisions as Kp would be concerned about.

As obvious as it may be, perhaps it should be necessary for running candidates on the ballots to present positions on major issues and present a plan for their term to the voters on the ballots.  Another idea would be in order for people to have voting rights, to pass a test or take a voting educational classs once every 2 years for November Elections; then again though, it would probably infringe on Constitutional rights, but at least it would give some incentive for voters to be educated voters if they want voting rights.  :)

I think that if you want to help discourage voter apathy, the politicians should try something new: honesty.  They should say what they actually intend to do, and where they actually stand on the issues, not just what people want to hear. 

Maybe it's not the same where you live, but it's like that here.  It doesn't matter who I vote for, they're going to do the same thing as everybody else, and they aren't going to do what they said they would.  So why should I care who I vote for, if it's not going to make a difference?

I think that's one of the biggest problems. 

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13210.msg133560#msg133560 date=1131734595]
Would you support compulsary voting (and a national or state voting holiday) to get people to the ballot box?

They would only be required to have their ballot punched, not forced to make any choices.  A ballot would only count where entries were made, empty ballots would count nothing, and ballots with some answers and not others would only count on those issues filled out.

As pointed out in other threads, the only people setting agenda (supposedly) are those that vote.  With such high apathy, government is not necessarily doing the will of the people.  At least by forcing them to turn in a ballot a few people might take an interest in what's written on it.
[/quote]
Absolutely not.  For example, if the Republicans don't start acting conservative again soon, they're going to find it difficult to get me to go to the polling place next election.  Not voting is just as much a valid form of social protest as any other, and it is my right to not vote when I damn well please.  I'm sure as hell not going to support a lib's run for office (I suppose I'd vote for Joe Lieberman for President... but that's a way off).