DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

I think not. People don't pay enough attention now, just think what would happen if that part of the population that flat doesn't care started voting. >.<

Further, I'd like to know how this would be enforced/what the penalty would be for failing to vote…

Once it becomes law that you would have to vote, we would then be living in a dictatorship similar to the now defunct USSR . . .

So whose idiotic idea was this!

How does requiring people to vote insure the "right" candidate winning? What stops most people who don't normally vote from just throwing away their vote on whomever they like rather than whoever is "right". And what if there is no "right" candidate….. Are we to assume that because Pres Obama is unpopular that McCain was the "right" choice? Who crazy Sarah be the "right" choice in 2012?
I think your definition of right, and your prediction of what would actually happen are extremely limited.

"Forcing" people to vote through legislation opens the way for a whole slew of voting problems….
1) People who don't truly give a damn will just vote for whomever their friends are voting for….
2) Candidates can easily make promises that uninformed and unmotivated conscripted voters will just vote for in order to simply fulfill their "duty".
3) Votes could probably be sold…. i.e. lobbyists, political staffers, and even candidates themselves might be able to easily sway uncaring voters into voting for them for a little extra cash.
As soon as you force people to vote it's no longer a right, it's a chore. I vote because I am proud to be part of the process, not because the National Guard will hunt me down if I fail to show up at my local voting station….

Maybe they should try making election day a holiday so we get off of work to vote. Sounds like a much more reasonable step to increasing voter turn out.

I'm in agreement with points one and two as problems (although both exist already without a requirement), but what's wrong with point 3?

Wouldn't it make sense for disinterested voters to incentivize their votes by receiving something in exchange? As unsavory as that sounds, if there's grease in the politics, it may as well get down in the gears.

I agree completely that a requirement to vote is useless. But these complaints are not convincing because they already seem to exist in the absence of requirements. Votes are sold (at the legislative level rather than blatantly at the individual level), most people and voters are disinterested, and most people who are "interested" tend to focus that attention on silly campaign promises and messages delivered during election seasons and not on the activity of elected officials or candidates prior to that which might be more suggestive of their behavior in office.

Very few people are attentive voters familiar with the complex issues of the day or the views of politicians on them. Go ask people (voters even) which major political party or its candidates are "pro-life". They do not know. There are many such issues like this which are more significant to actual decisions being made through the political process.

The primary reason not to require people to do so is therefore less that we might have a dysfunctional democratic process but that voting is a practice which should carry a level of civic duty without feeling like an obligation.

We don't need another holiday, and you don't need to get off work to vote.. You can fill out your ballot at home, and mail it in.. If you want to vote, you'll vote. Period.

This is an interesting discussion. While it appears that the consensus is that it would be a bad idea to *force* people to vote, there is a small kernel of truth in what TheJared (the first commenter) is saying. All too often (especially in primaries) the "crazy fanatics" are the only people who vote, which means that we're left with a decision made by those same crazy fanatics. Hypothetically, if everyone were required to vote, you'd get a lot more normal people voting, and a much more reasonable outcome. Not that it is a good idea to force people to vote.

Maybe instead of forcing people to vote, we should require that anyone who decides that they *want* to vote go through some sort of course to teach them about the issues and what the candidates support.

In the end, forcing people to learn about the issues is probably just as unrealistic as forcing them to vote. My point is, though, that what is needed is more *educated* voters, not just simply *more* voters.

This assumes that there is a body of "normal" people who are not voting.

The typical body of people not voting are one or more of the following
1) uninformed electorate
2) poor/minorities
3) younger (usually under 30 crowd won't turn out much)
4) disinterested/disenfranchised (ie, might want to vote but don't see any viable positive interest in any candidates or issues)
5) can't vote for various legal reasons (citizenship status, felony record, not registered locally from moving, age requirements)

The people voting are, sadly, representing the informed electorate, on average. The misinformed or crazy fanatics tend to cancel each other out over time. Your point is correct, we do need more "educated" voters. But I think you're overestimating the number of such people who for some reason do not vote. "Educated" voters (people with college degrees) tend to vote in much higher percentages than those who are less educated or less informed.

Absolutely not stupid people and misguided liberals should not be allowed to vote. That is how we got an America hating communist who was born in kenya elected president.

Hey this is kind of of off topic but I was wondering if
blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML.
I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!