Right to vote freely in a democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Should some people not have a right to vote their mind because it would affect some people's rights?

Such as conservatives on issues where they've been accused of "hate speech"?

Should people be punished for nonviolently opposing what they see as wrong?

Hmm, I voted no, mainly because I think we have to hope that in modern democracies, that a free society would not wittingly vote tyranny back into government (if not then we are all screwed anyway!). Even for those who have been imprisoned for committing unlawful acts under current law, might (although somewhat unlikely perhaps) find that in having the right to vote/free speech, that they can help change societies viewpoint on current legislations that are in some way unjust.

Many people seem to have a very simplistic, black & white, good & evil viewpoint of what is morally right and wrong; seemingly not appreciating that it has been largely down evolution (or trial and error) that we are lucky enough to live in relatively stable societies, that have in turn helped to ethically educate us.

Last edited by Bightme on 12 Sep 2007, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

oops sry, double post

Should there be much discrimination against political views? I would argue not, it would negate part of the nature of the democracy and thus be harmful. Should certain positions be negated constitutionally? Yes, of course, just as we protect free speech, we can protect many many other issues. Technically, in order to secure liberty we should be willing to reduce some democracy for our ends, the constitution can be a part of this, as well we might act to change the power of certain individuals to impact the process by removing votes from some and giving to others based upon a perception of capability. The larger issue there is that there is difficulty determining knowledge without enforcing bias, but methods could likely be thought of. I am not opposed to preventing people from voting, but it should not be consciously done in a political manner.

The vast majority of people shouldn't
have the right to vote. Only those able
to be informed should.

Compulsory voting once you have turned 18 is the only way to go. If it were one vote one value it would be even better, but unfortunately not every country has this. Having the so-called right not to vote creates apathy, and is misrepresenting the will of the electorate, because only having those that feel like it voting ensures that only their candidate gets elected. If everyone voted, then the full electorate would have a voice, and the result would be different. the main reason Bush got elected was that people felt apathetic about voting, and therefore decided not to. Then they blame the rest of the electorate while they sat on their arses and did nothing.

I would disagree. Compulsory voting is a horrible idea because voting is correlated with knowledge of policy, forcing bad voters to choose would inject the democratic system with bad ideas. The right not to vote allows for apathy but does not misrepresent the will of the electorate because not voting is still a democratic choice, it is the same thing as being the guy in a group of people who doesn't care what movie is being watched. This apathy on movies could be caused for differing reasons but it is a choice just the same. I haven't seen much evidence on the decisions or values of non-voters so I wouldn't know who they would choose if forced to make a choice, even then, the hypothetical political results of a single election is hardly a counter-weight to the fact that there seems to be no reason for policy to get better by including those who are typically worse at understanding it.

as much as i'd love to say no restrictions...i know it'd open it to people who might want to restrict me....so in that extent, i'd say restrict it to where no later restrictions can be put in place....if that makes sense.

Put it this way; a union stop-work meeting is held, and the union has about 5000 members. Not all of those members turn up, but a vote is called for. 60% of the members at the meeting decide that they shouldn't stop work, where if the whole 5000 had attended the numbers could have been different. The ones that didn't turn up may have expected a motion to go out, but because they didn't vote, they couldn't influence the result. Same thing applies to government; a truly representative vote is one where the WHOLE ELECTORATE has their say, and not casting a vote is just a pissweak form of passing the buck, as far as I'm concerned

The additional people might change the total vote, but changing the vote does not mean improving it, in order to claim that additional voters are an improvement we have to show that they have less bias or more knowledge than the people who are already voting. The additional voters do not seem to promise less bias or more knowledge, instead they seem likely to be on average of a worse quality than the currently voting group as education and voting tend to correlate and education and less biased positions on the workings of the world also tend to correlate, which means that in the interest of the common good, it does not seem that more voters will usually bring better outcomes. Complete representation is not the goal, the goal is good governance, in the US this can be directly seen from the government put in place by the founding fathers and how anti-democratic it was, because of this instead of measuring the number of voters, we should measure the capability of the voters we do have. Also, in my mind because there is no obligation to vote there is no buck passing involved in not voting.

Do you seriously think that anyone really knows about what or who they are voting for come election day? Most people either follow what their family does, or they are swinging voters (which means they jump from one to the other depending upon who sounds better), or they just donkey-vote to get it over and done with. The thing is, everybody still has a say regardless of who they mark off, and knowledge of policies in the end really means squat. Why should people be disenfranchised because they don't know what's happening, and they aren't informed? If that was the case, why bother to hold an election in the first place, because your candidate would get in unopposed every time. Changing numbers by allowing everyone the say makes it more representational of the whole electorate, and the outcome as a whole is far better one than just a few bothering to turn up. What if everyone decided to exercise their so called right not to vote? It would be a f*cking disaster for one, for the reasons I've already mentioned. I've heard Americans complaining about their leaders going back to when I was a kid, and these same people said they either didn't vote for them or didn't vote at all. If they voted and their candidate lost, then at least they had a vote, and can complain. The others, because they were too apathetic to care, don't have the right to complain, because they sat on their bums and did nothing.
Maybe if some of the 'freedoms' that the Americans seem to cherish so much were removed, and they were forced to take responsibility for their actions, then things might improve. And if you aren't willing to take responsibility, don't complain because you didn't get your way.

I do a lot of research over who I vote for.

Loss of certain liberties for security, in order to protect the most important liberties: freedom to live, and freedom to live without fear.

Yes, some people do a lot about what they are voting, a lot don't know what they are doing though and if anything I want to reduce and restrict the power of the latter while giving more power to the former. People should be disenfranchised if they don't try to make themselves a legitimate part of the process, learning about the political processes, workings of the system, etc, is crucial to that end. Bad voting is simply a pollution of the political system, it should not be encouraged at all.

The purpose of the election is not to enfranchise people(we might want to get them to buy into the legitimacy of the system though) but rather to have an open process that allows for debate, puts a check on the power of elected figures, and allows for some change. Not everybody will ever decide to exercise the right not to vote, at the very least the people with political power would vote for themselves and if voting were that anemic then people would likely vote if only because their votes counted more.

Meh, Americans complain about a lot of things, just because people complain doesn't mean that any action must be taken, if these people really care then they can vote, if they don't really care then they still have the free speech right to complain. Trust me, I believe in responsibility, but I don't think that voting is a responsibility for everyone.

Let me put forward my premises like this:
A) People who would not choose to vote tend to make bad voting choices
B) The purpose of an election is to get the best candidate into office
C) Bad voting conflicts with the goal of elections
D) Therefore, our aim should not be to enfranchise those who are bad at voting and possibly even discourage them

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 13 Sep 2007, 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is no such thing as a life without fear, I think that the optimal balance of liberty and security goes way in the direction of liberty as criminals and terrorists come and go but government oppression is forever. Not only that but I am not sure that most government action requiring loss of liberty to ensure security really makes one more secure anyway.

a wise man once said:
"i strongly disagree with your opinion, but i will fight to my death for your right to express it"

that pretty much sums up my opinion on this topic