Amazon.com Widgets

Should citizens who do not vote be charged with a fine?

Asked by: sArThAk882
  • Non voters should be charged

    This is because we the young ones choose the govt. For our country and non voters siting at one place should not judge for the right party to come up but should take efforts to vote and utilize the right given by the govt. In spite of enjoying the holiday given on that day.

  • It helps the political parties a lot

    The political parties need somebody to vote and appeal for them to be in the Parliament. If there is no fine, less people will vote and the political parties will not get the support they needed. Then it would be very hard to judge who is the most popular and the most suitable to lead the country.

  • Rights AND Duties

    As a member of a democracy (republic - whatever you wanna call it), I have a duty to engage in voting just like jury duty. Without such, we could have an impotent political system beholden to whoever has the most money and actually votes. Australia - a very familiar western democracy - does this.

  • Tyranny at its finest.

    Saying that if a person doesn't express their opinion they will be punished is a violation of the Bill of Rights. What if the person doesn't like ANYBODY on the ballot? What happens then? Will the person be forced to go out and vote for someone they don't want in a position of power?

    Tyranny at its worst. I don't think even Nazi Germany got THAT bad.

  • G g v

    Fndjdjcn fbc v vf f f f s g f f d r s d r f d f g f f g g g g g g g g g g g g jfdvfj fghffjb fbfbb fbfn fbfj b h h d h f c g v v v v

  • G g v

    Fndjdjcn fbc v vf f f f s g f f d r s d r f d f g f f g g g g g g g g g g g g jfdvfj fghffjb fbfbb fbfn fbfj b h h d h f c g v v v v

  • Expect to answer question

    If you force a fine on those who don't choice to vote since not voting is a right as well. Then that person might make a vote in the wrong terms. Like vote for someone because they hate the other because of their sex, race or whatever. It be too quick and haste.

    You want your voters to make smart educated votes.

  • Why force the inclusion of ignorant opinions?

    This would cause indifferent people who already don't care about any of the candidates to become involved. This would likely result in favor of candidates with good looks, charm, and branding who might not have sound political agendas. The people who care about the elections and know more about politics in general have more value. The votes of intellectual voters would be diluted by the dumb and the indifferent.

  • Too many problems with this

    Even if ideally people have a duty to vote to determine whether a policy is the right policy or not it is not sufficient to ask whether people have a moral duty. What will the practical consequences be? In Australia they have the problem of the "donkey vote", that's people who don't care who wins and so they vote for the first person.

    Ideally people have the duty to vote but even more importantly the duty to take the time and inform themselves. People who don't take the time and inform themselves are casting their votes for campaign advertisements and the media. People who don't even care who wins from that would just tick a random box, most likely the first one. This skews the results. Even if a majority of the people who actually care want candidate A candidate B may win if his name is first on the ballot.

    To try to enforce that people not only vote but are informed would require a police state to force voters to educational centers, and then the educational centers would be corrupted by politics and used to reelect the same people and then we'd have a dictatorship. Even more problematic is that to enforce that they even care we'd have to develop pharmaceuticals to stimulate the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex during these sessions, and that's mind control and would also be a very blunt and inconsistent instrument, making some people care and others would just become more angry about being forced to be 'educated'.

    Since we can't enforce that people be informed or even care without defeating the purpose then we shouldn't enforce that people vote, since people who don't care or who are uninformed voting is worse than them just not voting at all.

  • No one should be forced to vote

    If people are forced to vote they will pick straws to see who they should choose, use emotion rather than logic or be bribed with money--and when choosing who will become the most powerful man in the world none of these are good ideas. People who vote should be smart and informed on issues and use logic, facts and morals to vote for a president and not emotion or cards. The president of the us affects all 300million people who live here and billions of others in the world.

  • Sometimes there is just no good option.

    Sometimes a voter can have the opinion that there is just simply no good option of candidates. I think that, especially since the voter could be right about this opinion, the voter should be able to express this opinion by not voting.

    Another problem with requiring people to vote is that it allows a candidate to win the election even though the people do not actually care for this person as a representative.

    Posted by: NPd
  • These schema never work.

    They mess with the vote more than help. Look to Donkey Voting. Since I need more words - this is the definition. "A donkey vote occurs when an elector simply numbers the ballot paper from top to bottom (or bottom to top) without regard to the logic of the preference allocation.
    A donkey vote is counted as a valid vote because it contains a number “1” and has numbered every square in sequential order.

    Posted by: TBR

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.