First compulsory healthcare. Now compulsory voting?

[4consideration]

That wouldn't happen if the voters chose the "Non of the above" option.

I see no value in requiring a person to vote, and them voting for none of the above. To me it is a waste of time and resources. The same result is achieved by not forcing a person to do it in the first place.

 

[Aquitaine]

OK. I see your point. Although to be an actual winner of an election as a member of a third party (like Libertarian) would make it even more clear, IMO. That was what I was going for.

I don't expect what I'm about to say to happen, but I would prefer that campaign contributions were limited to people. My thought is that if you can't cast a vote, you can't contribute. That would remove all organizations from the possibility of contributing/buying influence. I think technology has made it possible to for politicians to get their message to people much cheaper than was possible in the past, and that these huge expenditures on campaigns are part of the corruption problem.

I agree with you about the difficulty for other parties being given fairer and more democractic access to the ballot. I also agree with your idea on removing large donors from the picture. Though I don't know the best way to bring it about, I reckon having a monetary donation limit (of say $50) per voter would help democratise the process.

It's possible for such people to exist.
But in Americastan, most of us want to get more free stuff by taxing the other guy.

Then that is the will of "most" Americans, and ergo it should be reflected in their votes.

 

[Aquitaine]

I see no value in requiring a person to vote, and them voting for none of the above. To me it is a waste of time and resources. The same result is achieved by not forcing a person to do it in the first place.

A vote of no confidence is different from no vote. It would be included in the total figures.
Imagine "Non of the above" itself being a party in the election: if 25 people vote Republican, 25 people vote Democrat and 50 people vote "Non of the above" then the results would be:
----------
50% "Non of the above",
-----
25% Republican,
-----
25% Democrat.

Instead of the 50 people not voting which would make it:
----------
50% Republican,
----------
50% Democrat.

 

[4consideration]

A vote of no confidence is different from no vote. It would be included in the total figures.
Imagine "Non of the above" itself being a party in the election: if 25 people vote Republican, 25 people vote Democrat and 50 people vote "Non of the above" then the results would be:
----------
50% "Non of the above",
-----
25% Republican,
-----
25% Democrat.

Instead of the 50 people not voting which would make it:
----------
50% Republican,
----------
50% Democrat.

What is the benefit of this in your opinion?

In both examples, there would be the need for a new election. I recognize the example provided was for ease of presentation and understanding, and almost no election would have that kind of exact result. But, still, what is the benefit you expect to be achieved from the first scenario over the second?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then that is the will of "most" Americans, and ergo it should be reflected in their votes.

For those who abdicate their responsibility, to legally force them to steer the country has its democratic aspect, but is it a good idea?
Nah.

 

[Aquitaine]

What is the benefit of this in your opinion?

In both examples, there would be the need for a new election. I recognize the example provided was for ease of presentation and understanding, and almost no election would have that kind of exact result. But, still, what is the benefit you expect to be achieved from the first scenario over the second?

Better clarification of political dissatisfaction from the electorate. Instead of "I didn't have time to vote/couldn't do it" it gets recorded as "I have no confidence in any of the stated parties".

I wonder if there could be some sort of action that has to be taken if "None of the Above" reaches a certain percentage, though I can't think of what said action would be: all listed parties have to disband and form new ones with new manifestos?

 

[Aquitaine]

For those who abdicate their responsibility, to legally force them to steer the country has its democratic aspect, but is it a good idea?
Nah.

So in this instance you'd prefer they didn't vote?

 

[Revoltingest]

So in this instance you'd prefer they didn't vote?

I prefer that they do what calls to them, whether that's voting or not.
But if someone wants to not vote, I'd prefer they not...only because
this is their preference. But I speculate we're better off if they don't.

 

[Underhill]

I would be happy if everyone who shows up at the polls gets a vote. Same day registration etc...

Forcing people to vote is silly, but if people want to vote, they should be given every opportunity with as little hassle as is humanely possible.

 

[Altfish]

What is the benefit of this in your opinion?

In both examples, there would be the need for a new election. I recognize the example provided was for ease of presentation and understanding, and almost no election would have that kind of exact result. But, still, what is the benefit you expect to be achieved from the first scenario over the second?

Stops the winning candidate from saying "We have a mandate to do...." when they only have (say) 28% of the vote.