I just become totally convinced in the necessity of compulsory voting in the US. It is a fantastic idea.
10 Comments
Ari Allyn-Feuer said:
You forgot the explanatory essaylet. It's customary when following such declarations.
Is this just a sign you're busy, or are you getting the east-coast terseness thing? Does the reasoning behind this idea relate to the lunatic preacher you're going to see?
By the way, I've officially applied to U. Chicago. Everything's done and filed.
Ari.
john said:
How are you going to force people to vote -- and if you do, how are you going to know if they even think about what they are voting for?
adamjanderson said:
You enforce it with fines. Voting becomes similar to jury duty. Votes that are meaningless should be random and have a null outcome. The net effect is to increase the popular mandate of politicians, solve the campaign finance problem to a large extent, and reduce the role of special interest groups. More theoretically, political disenfranchisement could be reduced, and perhaps economic equality could be improved. Australia, Brazil, and several other nations have such systems. The more you think about it, the better it sounds.
adamjanderson said:
Also, I am conjecturing that people who currently do not vote would not just vote randomly. I justify this claim by noting that forcing someone to make a decision typically also forces them to justify it on some level. This is supported by the fact that rational abstention is typically due to the cost of voting and the low expected payoff, not complete disinterest in politics.
Quark said:
Sure, it'd be interesting, but I have a few objections. First of all, I think that with the freedom to vote comes the freedom to not vote. If someone specifically wants to refrain from voting, in a sign of protest, apathy, or whatever, I believe that falls under freedom of expression. Basically, voting is a way of expressing ourselves, and we shouldn't infringe on those rights.
And it wouldn't solve campaign finance issues, either. Candidates would still spend tons of money trying to convince everyone to vote for them, not the opponent, just to a broader audience. So would special interest groups. Money can still buy votes, even if there are more of them.
A better system would be a more immediate reward for voting. Like requiring that employees give time off for voting, providing transportation to polling booths, prepaid postage on absentee ballots (or all ballots in Oregon... pissed me off that I had to put a stamp on it), or maybe even providing a positive financial incentive to vote... just not a negative incentive not to do so. Or maybe just free donuts. Whatever works.
Kiva said:
Man Colin, I was also pretty pissed that I had to put a stamp on my ballot. I guess it's techniqually still free because if you drop off your ballot, you don't have to pay for postage, but still. Lame. Also, in regards to rewarding people for voting instead of punishing them for not (because we all know that positive reinforcement has proven to work better, no matter what you want to do Adam), in Arizona this year (I think) everyone who votes is entered into a lottery for 1 million dollars. Which really isn't a ton of money to the state, but I'd be interested to see if it increases turnout. I voted a couple days ago. It was quite exciting.
adamjanderson said:
I completely disagree about the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. It would require a ridiculous amount of money to increase voter turnout to the 95% or so that we see in places like Australia. Furthermore, there is absolute no reason that if a person could not submit an invalid ballot if they had legitimate reasons for not voting. My claim is simply that the vast majority of people abstain for reasons other than these abstract moral arguments. They abstain for reasons like cost and lack of information.
It improves the special interest problem because politians no longer have to cater specifically to groups that are more likely to vote (i.e. seniors). They respond to the entire population. It eliminates politicians' misrepresentation of the American political spectrum.
Quark said:
Yeah, I guess if you allow people to just put in blank ballots, then it'd probably be okay. But that still doesn't address the issue of inconvenience. For many people, especially the lower-income brackets, voting is difficult, as they either don't get time off from work, don't have decent transportation, or many other reasons. If we were to establish manditory voting, we'd have to make plenty of other adjustments to the system (but I don't think that's really a point of contention, anyways, so it hardly matters).
Ari Allyn-Feuer said:
OK, first of all, Colin and Kiva need to shut up and stop bitching about a postage stamp. It's incredibly insensitive to gripe about 39 cents when speaking to an audience some of whom can't vote. OK? That was a very traumatic thing to deal with, and minimizing my pain by taking time out of your life to comment on the postage is ridiculous. And making me comment on it and thus dwell on it is even worse. See how bad you are?
Adam, are you voting in Illinois or Oregon?
I'll comment on the main thrust of the idea later. I'm tired right now.
You forgot the explanatory essaylet. It's customary when following such declarations.
Is this just a sign you're busy, or are you getting the east-coast terseness thing? Does the reasoning behind this idea relate to the lunatic preacher you're going to see?
By the way, I've officially applied to U. Chicago. Everything's done and filed.
Ari.
How are you going to force people to vote -- and if you do, how are you going to know if they even think about what they are voting for?
You enforce it with fines. Voting becomes similar to jury duty. Votes that are meaningless should be random and have a null outcome. The net effect is to increase the popular mandate of politicians, solve the campaign finance problem to a large extent, and reduce the role of special interest groups. More theoretically, political disenfranchisement could be reduced, and perhaps economic equality could be improved. Australia, Brazil, and several other nations have such systems. The more you think about it, the better it sounds.
Also, I am conjecturing that people who currently do not vote would not just vote randomly. I justify this claim by noting that forcing someone to make a decision typically also forces them to justify it on some level. This is supported by the fact that rational abstention is typically due to the cost of voting and the low expected payoff, not complete disinterest in politics.
Sure, it'd be interesting, but I have a few objections. First of all, I think that with the freedom to vote comes the freedom to not vote. If someone specifically wants to refrain from voting, in a sign of protest, apathy, or whatever, I believe that falls under freedom of expression. Basically, voting is a way of expressing ourselves, and we shouldn't infringe on those rights.
And it wouldn't solve campaign finance issues, either. Candidates would still spend tons of money trying to convince everyone to vote for them, not the opponent, just to a broader audience. So would special interest groups. Money can still buy votes, even if there are more of them.
A better system would be a more immediate reward for voting. Like requiring that employees give time off for voting, providing transportation to polling booths, prepaid postage on absentee ballots (or all ballots in Oregon... pissed me off that I had to put a stamp on it), or maybe even providing a positive financial incentive to vote... just not a negative incentive not to do so. Or maybe just free donuts. Whatever works.
Man Colin, I was also pretty pissed that I had to put a stamp on my ballot. I guess it's techniqually still free because if you drop off your ballot, you don't have to pay for postage, but still. Lame. Also, in regards to rewarding people for voting instead of punishing them for not (because we all know that positive reinforcement has proven to work better, no matter what you want to do Adam), in Arizona this year (I think) everyone who votes is entered into a lottery for 1 million dollars. Which really isn't a ton of money to the state, but I'd be interested to see if it increases turnout. I voted a couple days ago. It was quite exciting.
I completely disagree about the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. It would require a ridiculous amount of money to increase voter turnout to the 95% or so that we see in places like Australia. Furthermore, there is absolute no reason that if a person could not submit an invalid ballot if they had legitimate reasons for not voting. My claim is simply that the vast majority of people abstain for reasons other than these abstract moral arguments. They abstain for reasons like cost and lack of information.
It improves the special interest problem because politians no longer have to cater specifically to groups that are more likely to vote (i.e. seniors). They respond to the entire population. It eliminates politicians' misrepresentation of the American political spectrum.
Yeah, I guess if you allow people to just put in blank ballots, then it'd probably be okay. But that still doesn't address the issue of inconvenience. For many people, especially the lower-income brackets, voting is difficult, as they either don't get time off from work, don't have decent transportation, or many other reasons. If we were to establish manditory voting, we'd have to make plenty of other adjustments to the system (but I don't think that's really a point of contention, anyways, so it hardly matters).
OK, first of all, Colin and Kiva need to shut up and stop bitching about a postage stamp. It's incredibly insensitive to gripe about 39 cents when speaking to an audience some of whom can't vote. OK? That was a very traumatic thing to deal with, and minimizing my pain by taking time out of your life to comment on the postage is ridiculous. And making me comment on it and thus dwell on it is even worse. See how bad you are?
Adam, are you voting in Illinois or Oregon?
I'll comment on the main thrust of the idea later. I'm tired right now.
Ari.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108832/
An somewhat interesting article on the piece.