Compulsary Voting

[Adron]

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.

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.

[CrAz3D]

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.

[Adron]

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.

[dxoigmn]

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

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.)

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.

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.

[Kp]

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

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.

[Mephisto]

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. 

[iago]

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. 

[MyndFyre]

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.

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).