Originally Posted by Taunton

This is different because voting is your civic duty, and arguably your most important one. It's different from something like gay marriage for example, because nobody has to get married to anyone, however living in a democratic country implies that you must participate. Choosing not to is nothing but harmful to the society as a whole and in this case I believe the society comes before the individual. All that being said, the majority inherently decides what they believe is best for their society (at least that's how fundamental democracy works) and therefore the majority should rule.

Ultimately Andrew, this is coming down to a fundamental difference between us - you are more libertarian than I.

Agian for clarity's sake, I'm referring to mandatory voting for civic elections, not MSU elections. I would not favour mandatory voting at McMaster.

Ok, ignore any principles of individual liberty for a second. Wouldn't it be more harmful to society as a whole to force apathetic voters to make a choice? These are people who can't even take the time to vote without a law forcing them, what makes you think they would take the time to research the candidates and make an informed decision? I know proponents of mandatory voting like to say that it will cause people to be more engaged, and maybe for some people it will. But there isn't any evidence to suggest that this would be the case with most non-voters.

Also, isn't it possible that not casting a vote could be a form of them democratically voicing their opinion? Not just abstaining from voting because they don't like any of the candidates, but showing their lack of support for the entire system of representative democracy?

And what causes voting to be considered a civic duty?

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Hey Entropy! We(As in myself and the CRO) are already working on it! Here is the post where I refereed to it recently http://www.macinsiders.com/showpost.... &postcount=75

It was also part of my SRA update in December. I feel like a SRA member communication fail :(

p.s: Getting MUGSI for online voting is a baaad idea, no offense!

Heh, no worries. I just used MUGSI as an example because it was the one system I thought of that couldn't be abused. For one brief moment, I considered using forum polls before I thought of the legion of problems that went along with those. =p

I feel silly for not lurking more and seeing that post/thread though. =\

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Also, isn't it possible that not casting a vote could be a form of them democratically voicing their opinion? Not just abstaining from voting because they don't like any of the candidates, but showing their lack of support for the entire system of representative democracy?

AMEN! If someone doesn't see the system as legitimate, then forcing them to vote would be forcing them to participate in selecting a government they are actively seeking to change. Someone who believes in direct democracy or assembly proportional representation or (more extremely) enlightened despotism should not be forced to engage in a system they do not believe in.

THAT, of all things, is undemocratic.

Originally Posted by Taunton

This is different because voting is your civic duty, and arguably your most important one. It's different from something like gay marriage for example, because nobody has to get married to anyone, however living in a democratic country implies that you must participate. Choosing not to is nothing but harmful to the society as a whole and in this case I believe the society comes before the individual. All that being said, the majority inherently decides what they believe is best for their society (at least that's how fundamental democracy works) and therefore the majority should rule.

Ultimately Andrew, this is coming down to a fundamental difference between us - you are more libertarian than I.

Agian for clarity's sake, I'm referring to mandatory voting for civic elections, not MSU elections. I would not favour mandatory voting at McMaster.

So do you also think that we should be forced to serve a term in public office at some point in our lives, just because it is out right to run for office if we choose? It is, after all, listed in the same line of the charter of rights and freedoms as the right to vote. If one is a civic duty that you think should be forced on us, shouldn't the other be as well? Or are you supporting a subjective determination of what is a duty and what is a right?

I vote when I feel strongly enough about a party or a candidate to go lend my support. The last thing Im gonna do in any election - MSU, municipal, provincial, or federal - is make my way in to a voting a station to check a box labelled "abstain", which is absolutely no different than not voting in the first place. All is does is boost voter turnout numbers, but has no bearing whatsoever in the outcome.

(I find this to be fun by the way, I hope I don't seem too negative... I'm actually enjoying this)

I think the concerns that everyone has raised are leading to a more fundamental question - is voting actually a duty, or, what makes voting a duty (or not). If voting wasn't truly every citizen's duty, then compulsory voting wouldn't make sense.

I think voting is every citizen's duty simply because it allows for the proper maintenance of a functioning society. It's in everyone's best interest for society to function properly, is it not? Hypothetically, if everyone didn't vote, what would happen? Chaos probably... there would probably be a lot of negativity - fighting, bloodshed, etc. Now, I'm not saying that voting is designed to prevent chaos, but rather to prevent someone from gaining illegitimate power (which is still possible, but rather unlikely).

Reeves - no, holding office isn't every citizen's duty. Holding office comes with a lot of responsibility and life-changing potential (for good or bad). Voting on the other hand, doesn't. In fact, nobody is actually forced to vote because nobody can control what you do to your ballot.

I'm really tired right now, so I'll probably write more on this tomorrow.

The reason people don't vote is because they know that it doesn't matter which candidate wins since their life will be barely affected by the results, if at all. This is clearly the case for the MSU presidentials (oh yay, no more plastic bags and a green roof!), and even the case for the Canadian federal elections (I couldn't really tell you what each prime minister who has served through my life has done which has had a direct impact on my life.)

Nope, not at all. This is fun for me as well :p

So, if you're willing to let people spoil their ballots as a way to keep their vote from being counted, why would you force voting in the first place? Is there any difference between a spoiled ballot and a vote not cast in terms of intent? In fact, the only differences really is that forcing people to vote causes people uninterested in voting to waste their time going to a polling station, and it lets the current government bloat statistics of how many people voted, making it appear that more people support the process.

I'm also not sure I agree with your explanation for why voting is a duty. Even if we grant that a functioning society is in everyone's best interests, everyone voting is certainly not required for a functioning society. Canada has just over 60% turn out right now for federal elections- and I'd say we're functioning relatively well. If everyone decided not to vote, I think we'd have a huge problem. And mandatory voting would help prevent that, yes. But if it ever came to the point where mandatory voting was the only thing that got people to vote, don't you think that would signal a bigger problem with the underlying system?

Originally Posted by Taunton

(I find this to be fun by the way, I hope I don't seem too negative... I'm actually enjoying this)

I think the concerns that everyone has raised are leading to a more fundamental question - is voting actually a duty, or, what makes voting a duty (or not). If voting wasn't truly every citizen's duty, then compulsory voting wouldn't make sense.

I think voting is every citizen's duty simply because it allows for the proper maintenance of a functioning society. It's in everyone's best interest for society to function properly, is it not? Hypothetically, if everyone didn't vote, what would happen? Chaos probably... there would probably be a lot of negativity - fighting, bloodshed, etc. Now, I'm not saying that voting is designed to prevent chaos, but rather to prevent someone from gaining illegitimate power (which is still possible, but rather unlikely).

Reeves - no, holding office isn't every citizen's duty. Holding office comes with a lot of responsibility and life-changing potential (for good or bad). Voting on the other hand, doesn't. In fact, nobody is actually forced to vote because nobody can control what you do to your ballot.

I'm really tired right now, so I'll probably write more on this tomorrow.

I agree, it's fun. It's good to be at odds with you again, instead of this sissy Getalong Gang sort of stuff :p Google Getalong Gang if you dont know what I mean. They were awesome. I had their caboose when I was a kid.

Anyway, back on topic...

I think the idea of voting as a civic "duty" is an opinion, nothing more. Governments state it continually, especially in the US, where democracy is the answer to every question (hyperbole). But we also hear it in schools, read it in newspapers, and overheard parents talk about it in our younger years. At least I did, and I can safely assume that many others share in one or more of these experiences.

The question then becomes whether it is a duty simply because some rather influential people say it is, or whether it truly is. I will agree that it is a civic responsibility, but I won't go so far as to say it's a duty. And to say that voting doesn't come with responsibility and "life changing potential" is pretty absurd. Hitler was elected leader of the nazi party by a party member vote, and that changed the lives of millions of people in almost every country of the world from the mid 30s til his death ten years later. An extreme example, yes, but one that shows it does have the potential you say it lacks.

As far as "Hypothetically, if everyone didn't vote, what would happen? Chaos probably... there would probably be a lot of negativity - fighting, bloodshed, etc.".... An interesting fact, from US voter turnout (since it's the easiest thing to find): from 1948 to 2008, the lowest voter turnout was Clintons re-election. Clinton is also the only recent president to not have any major armed conflicts. The Bushes had the middle east/Iraq wars, Reagan's administration bombed Libya and sold arms to Iran, Carter had the Soviet–Afghan War (which the US didn't actively participate in, but openly supported the mujahideen with weapons and funding), Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy had Vietnam, etc, etc. Put plainly, the lowest voter turnout provided the least amount of bloodshed. Maybe things would be different if it was 0% instead of 50%. Who knows. And maybe that was just blind luck. But a high voter turnout for Bush Jr's re-election would speak against that, with the continued "conflict" in Afghanistan.

I'm sure there's lots of evidence to the contrary as well. There's nothing that will or will not prove that voting does or does not prevent or limit chaos. And it's because there is nothing to prove that it doesn't, that I don't agree it's a duty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (not all of us were around and political back then :p), but wasn't Clinton known for the having the American military act as a world police force? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cl...foreign_events

In fact, I seem to recall Bush running on a campaign of non-intervention in 2000, because of the perception of how Clinton used the military (which is absolutely hilarious now that we know how that turned out).

And in Bowling for Columbine, isn't it pointed out that the most bombs dropped by the US military in a single day was while Clinton was in office? (Never thought I'd be citing a Michael Moore movie)

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Correct me if I'm wrong, (not all of us were around and political back then :p), but wasn't Clinton known for the having the American military act as a world police force? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cl...foreign_events

In fact, I seem to recall Bush running on a campaign of non-intervention in 2000, because of the perception of how Clinton used the military (which is absolutely hilarious now that we know how that turned out).

And in Bowling for Columbine, isn't it pointed out that the most bombs dropped by the US military in a single day was while Clinton was in office? (Never thought I'd be citing a Michael Moore movie)

You calling me old? :p

Im not saying clinton never engaged in anything. I said he wasn't involved in any major conflicts. He was the only US president in recent history that wasn't involved in a war or conflict, at least officially. The bombings in Iraq (which I assume are teh bombings you're referring to), were not while in a state of war, or a conflict with Iraq. Many speculated at the time that it was to deflect attention away from his possible impeachments, but more likely was his way of showing he was serious about allowing weapons inspectors into the country.

Mandatory voting isn't that feasible in my mind as it is only for MSU Presidential's...

Implementing an online voting system would GREATLY increase voter turnout for any MSU related election. They should really get on that.

Originally Posted by InMeteor

Mandatory voting isn't that feasible in my mind as it is only for MSU Presidential's...

Implementing an online voting system would GREATLY increase voter turnout for any MSU related election. They should really get on that.

http://www.macinsiders.com/showpost.... &postcount=75

Son I am dissapoint :|

You need to start lurking MacInsiders more count chunkula