Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:13 PM   #51

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,414

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
to vote is not a duty in mature democracies
It is in some. Australia, for example, has compulsory voting.

Compulsory_voting Compulsory_voting
Naomasa298 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:29 PM   #52

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,461
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
It is in some. Australia, for example, has compulsory voting.

Compulsory voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also in Italy it has been theoretically a duty for decades [we had compulsory vote also here], but despite a high percentage of voters [above 85%] millions of electors didn't vote at all.

Justice Courts had to persecute them.

Since it was not only wrong, but also practically impossible, the parliament has changed the law.

BTW, which is the percentage of Australian electors who really vote? 100%? I don't think so, I imagine no more than 90-95% [like in Italy as soon as compulsory vote had introduced].

Which is the destiny of the hundreds of thousands of persons who don't vote?
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:46 PM   #53

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 3,183

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Also in Italy it has been theoretically a duty for decades [we had compulsory vote also here], but despite a high percentage of voters [above 85%] millions of electors didn't vote at all.

Justice Courts had to persecute them.

Since it was not only wrong, but also practically impossible, the parliament has changed the law.

BTW, which is the percentage of Australian electors who really vote? 100%? I don't think so, I imagine no more than 90-95% [like in Italy as soon as compulsory vote had introduced].

Which is the destiny of the hundreds of thousands of persons who don't vote?
The turnout in Australia is always around 95%, and I can say from personal experience that the authorites do prosecute those who do not turn up. A discussion of the pros and cons of compulsory voting: Compulsory voting in Australia - Australian Electoral Commission
Belgarion is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:47 PM   #54

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,404

I think you mean 'prosecute' not 'persecute'? But I was wondering that too... I think in Australia there's a fine of 25 dollars or something, but I don't know how they handle repeat offenders.

Edit - I think we both posted at the same time Belgarion ... how does Australia handle repeat offenders re; voting..?

Last edited by Sicknero; November 14th, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
Sicknero is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 04:44 PM   #55
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
The economic crisis in Europe has shown that the ordinary working people, the workers/laborers are getting angry at those who recieve money from the government due to unemployment, disability and old age.

In Britain, the vast majority of extreme law proposals (such as re-instating the death penalty) comes from the Lower House/House of Commoners, and are being rejected by the House of Lords.
I read about it some time ago, unfortunatly I don't have the article right now.

These two examples are my basis of questioning the Universal Suffrage.
Ordinary people have no insight in political decision making or the society as a whole.

In all places where the ordinary working people have taken the power, we have seen the extremes of dictatorship - Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, Cuba, China, I could go on and on.

Just look at the French Revolution of 1789.

They have caused mass-slaughter and chaos and after that, it caused brutal dictatorship, because the masses can't lead itself. It needs a leader.

That's why I suggest something in-between: Parliamentary Nobility. It should be elected only by the most influential members of society. Which includes the royal family (if there exists such a thing in the particular country) and various other people who have lots of experience in state & government. Other electors could be people who have such a good private economy that they don't really need to work to provide for themselves.

That would exclude more than 95 % of the entire population in a particular country from voting. Just to get it in place: I'd certainly lose my right to vote too, so I'm not trying to impose such a change just to get power.

Of course the people should be able to vote on issues not involving the economy, or to vote on priority on how to distribute a certain amount of money which the Noble Parliament has chosen. In both cases, universal suffrage should be in place, but not in regards on how to run the country as a whole.


HOWEVER I am willing to change my opinion on this subject IF you can present me with decent counter-arguments.
This would be a compelling argument if your assumption, the voting power of the "Ordinary people" and "ordinary working people" was the cause for the dictatorships you cite. What is the point in attempting to make a counterargument to a position which just assumes the existence of a problem to be solved without actually making any demonstration the problem exists?
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:29 PM   #56

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
... But I was wondering that too... I think in Australia there's a fine of 25 dollars or something, but I don't know how they handle repeat offenders. ...
I've always heard that as well. Is it true there is a $25 fine for not
voting?
tjadams is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:35 PM   #57

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 8,119

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petyo View Post
It should be restricted to the citizens with education.
My Maternal Grandfather had but 3 years of formal education, however, he was the most learned man that I have ever known. He was a brilliant mathematician, had incredible wisdom and died a wealthy man.

Should he have been barred from voting because he was lacking in formal education?
Wenge is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:56 PM   #58
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Electoral Offences
Updated: 18 May 2011
The major offences in force for the purposes of federal elections are contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ("the Act"), and from 24 May 2001, in the general offence provisions of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995. A few of the more important electoral offences and the penalties that apply are listed below, but this list is not by any means exhaustive...

Voting at federal elections has been compulsory since 1924 for all citizens on the Commonwealth electoral roll. Anyone who is unable to provide a valid and sufficient reason to the Divisional Returning Officer for failure to vote at a federal election and who does not wish to have the matter dealt with by a Magistrates Court may pay a penalty of $20 (section 245).

If an elector who has failed to vote refuses to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a Magistrates Court, where a fine of $50 plus costs may be ordered on conviction. Anyone who chooses not to pay the court-ordered fine will be dealt with by the Court accordingly, and this may involve community service orders, seizure of goods, or one or two days in jail. The penalty in such circumstances will be a decision for the local Magistrates Court and not the Australian Electoral Commission...
Source: Electoral Offences - Australian Electoral Commission
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:04 PM   #59

Rasta's Avatar
Spiritual Ronin
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Minnesnowta
Posts: 21,071

Quote:
Originally Posted by annelouise17 View Post
How about a drug test? No person on drugs can vote.
How about a religion test? No person on religion can vote.









I'm only kidding, I wouldn't support that.
Rasta is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 07:08 PM   #60

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
I see. Thanks and no way on planet earth would that measure work
in the US.
tjadams is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
limited, vote


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why was the right to vote limited for so long? philosopher European History 13 April 8th, 2011 02:24 AM
Freedom of limited information corrocamino Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 0 August 16th, 2010 06:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.