The Instigator
SIVAPRASAD
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,267 times Debate No: 3206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

SIVAPRASAD

Pro

Democracy to thrive impose serious responsibility on the citizens to participate in the sacred duty of Voting to elect leaders,who govern them. In many leading democracies the percentage of eligible voter participation is declining with the result that the winning candidates get away with a minority of the total vote percentage. This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance. I feel that penal provisions for violation of this fundamental duty by citizens must be made punishable,though freedom is the essence of democracy. Freedom does not mean remaining passive spectator and being lethargic to go to the polling stations and vote. To protect his freedom, the voter has to pay a price by doing his duty of Voting for his choice candidate.
Tatarize

Con

Chill. Your vote is almost never going to matter. For example, I live in California and you know what change is going to happen if I don't vote? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Further, a lot of people don't care to learn about the candidates so they are going to pick random people, just to avoid the long arm of the law. There's a lot to be done to make more people vote.

* The time to vote should be increased, for at least a week, in many locations as well as mail in voting.

* Not requiring registration to vote prior to voting (citizenship should suffice)

However, as it stands, if corrupt folks were just tossed out on their ear and the government functioned like it should, there's be little need to care.

You want to force a person to do something they don't want to do upon penalty of law. The only thing you're going to do is force ignorant voters to the polls who don't understand the issue to vote fairly randomly.

"This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance." -- There's no data to suggest that the individuals likely voters would elect vs. all individuals are any worse. This connection is simply non-existent. The idea that if everybody votes we'll get better people running or winning is strictly speaking... false.

There are plenty of problems with government, not enough idiots voting isn't one of them.

If anybody made that a law, they'd be voted out of office by the millions facing prison suddenly forced to vote.
Debate Round No. 1
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

I agree that the electoral process needs reforms so that people get a chance to vote without bother we need participative democracies so that better governance emerges and the system truly reflects 'by the people, for the people and of the people'
I am worried about the citizens lack of interest in the voting and remaining in the sidelines and fume over the leaders who govern us.
What I want to emphasize is that many voters are not doing their sacred once in 4/5 years duty of voting and electing leaders.
In democracy we should realize the value of vote is the essence of my argument.
Penal provisions for Not Voting in my view are to remind the voters that they have a duty too to fulfill so that their democracy flourishes .
Countries are dragged into warlike situations by the leaders many a time and the worst sufferers are the citizens.
If the elected candidate gets less than the majority of the eligible votes, it is difficult to justify that he represents the will of the people.
Tatarize

Con

The long arm of the law is not a process reform. People need to want to vote, and currently there's nothing worth voting for. Converting over to a run off election could certainly help get more people involved and give a voice to those who previously did not have a voice. But, honestly, you don't fix a "lack of interest" with a gun to your temple.

Also, voting isn't a sacred duty. There's noting sacred about it. You go into the polling place and put a mark next to whoever the Democrat in the election is and leave. Nothing holy or even slightly difficult about it.

Democracy doesn't flourish with a boot to the throat. We would have roughly the same government today as we would have had if we forced people to vote. The choices aren't that great and for the most part voting doesn't change the outcome. For example, did you know that the voting rate is better in Cuba and in Saddam's Iraq than it is in the US, and they only had one party systems... and similar provisions to your rules.

We could do many thing to improve the voting and to make the voting count for more, we could elect better people and fix the system, we could do a better job at counting the votes cast, and keeping legal voters on the voter rolls... and we should. Forcing people to the polls does not make magical democracy fairies come around to fix all the problem. Random disinterested people vote when they need to vote, and don't when they don't.

Non-voting in elections is near the bottom of problems with government.
Debate Round No. 2
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

I think responsible voting makes a difference. If everybody thinks that it does not matter whether he votes or abstains from voting, the fabric of democracy weakens. Because we have freedom not to vote, we abstain. Expressing choice by participating in the voting strengthens democracy.
Governance by leaders elected by minority voters violates the spirit of democracy.
Tatarize

Con

YOU: "I think responsible voting makes a difference. If everybody thinks that it does not matter whether he votes or abstains from voting, the fabric of democracy weakens. Because we have freedom not to vote, we abstain. Expressing choice by participating in the voting strengthens democracy."

Do you realize how twisted this sounds? You advocate passing laws to make sure people vote because forcing people to vote will make for "responsible voting" because people choosing to vote or not vote "weakens the fabric of democracy" and yet "expressing choice by participating" strengthens democracy.

Let's see.

Responsible voting matters, so we must force disinterested people into voting.
Choosing not to vote weakens the fabric of democracy, so we must remove their choice.
Choosing to vote, strengthens democracy so we must force people to vote.

To top it all off, your vote typically doesn't matter. A few thousand votes in a small election might make a difference a in a larger election it won't. I live in California. When the presidential election comes around in November, my state will vote for the Democratic Nominee... it could be a Pringles can so long as it has a (D) next to the name. If I don't vote... this same thing happens. -- You honestly want to force disinterested people into voting, removing their choice, and choosing punishments for failure to comply in order to make them go to the polls and pull a random level and change a total of nothing?

I'm sorry, but this idea cannot be taken seriously. Further, in the United States at least, it isn't constitutional. You have a right to vote or not to vote. And while there are plenty of things to improve about the system forcing people to vote isn't anywhere on the list.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Solarman I agree with you on the whole qualifying to vote issue. But of course that would lead to an even higher decrease in votes. Well for this debate I voted con..I felt that pro was quite inconsistent with the democratic ideal. But good job to both debaters. Good round.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
I hear Hannity's man on the street , which highlights the incredible political stupidity of the general public

Most can name Cheney , Condi, or any of our elected representatives, but know who Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton are doing for lunch

I dont mind democrats voting like yourself or my friends who are reasonably informed

Its the illegals, morons, homeless, and those who are coerced to vote D that bother me

It just doesnt happen on the R side
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
You can email me I suppose. My username at yahoo.com would work.
Posted by DirkDiggler 8 years ago
DirkDiggler
Tatarize, am I able to send you a private message?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
That would never work on account of such tests being misapplied previously, to prevent black enfranchisement. Apparently recite the constitution is a little bit much to ask for a literary test... though even when a couple people did it they weren't allowed to vote.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
blah blah blah

THELWERD

(Sorry, I just wanted to be cool and type my username in all-caps at the end of my comment like Solarman does...)

:P

Tatarize got my vote.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
one should have to pass a basic test on the English language, the history of the united states, democracy, and certain other aspects in order for people to vote

Itll NEVER happen, but should

similar to the founding fathers specifying only PROPERTY OWNERS be able to vote

this is so marxists, who can vote themselves raises from the treasury, become 51%

SOLARMAN
Posted by byebyepats 8 years ago
byebyepats
if elections made a difference then they would make them illegal.
Posted by SIVAPRASAD 8 years ago
SIVAPRASAD
I agree that the electoral process needs reforms so that people get a chance to vote without bother.We need participative democracies so that better governance emerges and the system truly reflects 'by the people, for the people and of the people'
I am worried about the citizens lack of interest in the voting and remaining in the sidelines and fume over the leaders who govern us.
What I want to emphasize is that many voters are not doing their sacred once in 4/5 years duty of voting and electing leaders.
In democracy we should realize the value of vote is the essence of my argument.
Penal provisions for Not Voting in my view are to remind the voters that they have a duty too to fulfill so that their democracy flourishes .
Countries are dragged into warlike situations by the leaders many a time causing and the worst sufferers are the citizens.
If the elected candidate gets less than the majority of the eligible votes,it is difficult to justify that he represents the will of the people.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ylareina 8 years ago
Ylareina
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
SIVAPRASADTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03