Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Voter id laws in the united states
Essay introduction about mandatory voting
Essay introduction about mandatory voting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Voter id laws in the united states
VOTING
The right to vote is an individual liberty but a significant right at the core of democracy. Without political participation from society, government, public interests, security and the very core of society would be at stake. Weak social groups would lose their voices; failure to vote could bring political oppression and far greater infringements to personal freedom.
Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. “Protecting the integrity of our elections” is the rational Republicans give for the restrictive voter ID laws they have enacted on in Pennsylvania and many other places. If we truly cared about the truthfulness of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters.
Mandatory voting would prompt
…show more content…
midterm elections is particularly low. Required voting offers one possible, if radical, solution. Like any political institution, laws on it have multiple, if disputed, consequences. The average voter is incompetent at politics. The citizens who refrain are, on average, even more incompetent. Many people don't vote because they don't care enough or know enough of the politics to get involved, and there is no convincing evidence that mandatory voting increases voter knowledge. Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who don't. It is worth asking why we would want low information citizens voting in the first place. Just so they're "involved" even if they're trudging to the polls to avoid a fine? If we force everyone to vote, the electorate will become even more irrational and misinformed. The result will not only will the worse candidate on the ballot get a better shot at winning, but the candidates who make it on the ballot in the first place will be worse. The people who are forced to vote against their will to avoid a fine, are just going to vote for anyone just to fulfill their commitment and not be fined, is that what we want? Is this what American is coming to forcing people to go to the polls just to check a box just to avoid a
All in all, compulsory voting can seriously help out the United States of America. Although, forcing people to vote will make a lot more ignorant people vote for no reason, it will help get rid of those people by making them more intelligent in the world of politics, it will help rid fraudulent votes, and will help people realize that there are many more required things that are less important than voting. Compulsory voting will
Firstly, the idea of compulsory voting that involves every citizen having a civic duty, rather then a right to vote, which has been introduced in over 20 countries worldwide, a good example being Australia. In Australia, the system has been a success, producing an impressive turnout of 94% in the 2013 election, which therefore means that the Australian government will have a much higher level of legitimacy compared to the UK. However, critics of compulsory voting argue that such a system is undemocratic by itself as it does not provide a citizen with a choice on whether to vote or not, resulting in a serious debate around the issue. However, I must agree with the critics of the system, as the people voting because they have to, are likely to be less passionate and well informed about the person they have to
Should Canadians turn to compulsory voting for answers? Many democracies throughout the globe, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg, employ mandatory voting and report an average turnout rate of 90 percent ("Canadian Parliamentary Review - Article"). In light of this, establishing electoral participation as a civic duty seems pretty reasonable. Particularly considering the guaranteed increase in voter participation, it seems like the perfect solution. When examined father in-depth, however, one will discover the issue poses some
As an American citizen do you think the government should enforce compulsory voting? A country usually needs three things to have a successful compulsory voting system, a national voter registration database, rewards to encourage voters, and punishing non-voters. Should americans be required to vote? There are three reasons why Americans should be required to vote, first, so citizens have interests and political knowledge, second, to increase amount of younger voters and finally, requiring people to vote is the least a citizen can do.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
Over the recent year’s American voters have brought back a way of voting that was used during the country’s old age of existence, this rediscovered act is known as early voting. Early voting started in the early 1990s, though the outcome has not had such a high consistency over the years it is still recommended to help the Election Day process in the country. Since voter turnout is not entirely consistent due to the process being constantly shortened by state laws, the argument against early voting is that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, opponents believe it is ineffective. Although that is not the case, in his 2016 blog article, “A Brief History of Early Voting,” Michael McDonald inform readers on the brief history of early voting as he states how the rates of voters who has cast their ballots before election day has increased over the years, “from less than a tenth to about a third” (qtd. in McDonald) since the 1990s. This proves to show why the money being spent on this act is not simply being wasted. Although early voting has
There is a way that is already put in use to increase voter turnout in Australia is to make voting mandatory. People in Australia are forced to vote or they will be fined, or even jailed if they do not vote repeatedly. It is very effective in term of improving voter turnout; however, there is still some argument against it. One of them being people would only vote because they have to, so they are ignorantly voting for the candidates just to be done with it. I completely agree with this idea. The voter turnout can be really high, but it would be meaningless if the people just vote to escape from the punishments. Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter also suggested that, instead of punishing people do not vote, we should reward people who vote. It is the same with the mandatory voting. I think it will only be effective in increasing the voter turnout, but the results will not. People should vote voluntarily for the best and fair outcome. To have more people voting, I believe we should take a look at why people do not vote. We must assure people that if everybody thinks their vote does not count, then no one would vote. We should be able to change their attitude about their own votes. If people cannot vote because they are busy with work or schools, we should have a national day off on the election day. By doing so, much more people will be able to participate in voting. There should also be
The most critiqued argument is that mandating voting is just un-American. The con side argues that forcing people to vote violates our freedom of speech. But they don’t feel that the requirement to pay taxes and serve as a jure are unjust. This seems contradictory. The second argument is that requiring all citizens to vote would result in many uninformed and carelessly voters. They continue this argument by stating many people would cast “donkey votes” which are votes for a random candidate because they are required to vote by law. There are many arguments for and against compulsory voting but it comes down to what makes something
If everyone is voting, then we know the results are a representation of the population as a whole, and not of the only the small number of people who showed up to work. This allows democracy to function as it was intended and to “Protect the integrity of our elections” (Liu). Also, compulsory voting helps to give more representation to the moderate party affiliations. As as William Galston of the Brookings Institution states that ,” it would temper the polarization of our politics” (Liu). Today, the United States has two strongly supported parties; the Democratic party and the Republican party.
Many people argue if voting should be mandatory or not. Voting should not be mandatory. Making voting mandatory could cause a lot of problems with the outcome of the voting and how many voters actually have knowledge about the candidates. Some people think voting should be mandatory, so they can get everyone’s opinions in the vote. Making voting mandatory could affect the outcome of the elections in a negative way because it can go against the constitutional rights, and making people with no knowledge of the candidates could mess up the results.
Our votes play an important role in society even though some people believe that there votes does not value nothing. People vote for numerous reasons , they exercise their voting rights because of social
Comparatively, you may think that the voting would not have any effect on the government bun in the Declaration of Independence it says that no man should be ruled by someone they don't want. The Constitution allowed for flexibility so that the average citizen would not be jeopardized by the government and allowed things to change with time as needed for the benefit of all. This explains the reasons of why voting is a very useful
There has been much debate about the legalisation of compulsory voting throughout political history and more importantly its place in a democratic society. Compulsory voting at a Commonwealth level was recognised in Australia in 1924 under section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as stated: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election” (Australian Electoral Commission, 2011). Since the introduction of compulsory voting there has been both strong advocacy and opposition in terms of its legitimacy in society, which this essay will highlight through the concept of its consistency with representative democracy and its ability to ensure parties reflect the will of all people. On the contrary, opponents argue that it increases the number of safe seat electorates as well as forcing the ill informed to vote.