Discussion » Questions » Politics » Should there be a law that fines people for not voting?
Nanoose

Should there be a law that fines people for not voting?

Yesterday I heard that in Australia if you don't vote in a political election you are giving a $100 fine. I guess the logic behind the law is it's ever body's duty to vote and you can't have a fair democratic society if every body doesn't participate. I kind of like the idea but I also don't like being told what I have to do. Cheers!

Posted - May 11, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6477
    I am like you in that I can't decide if it's a good idea or an infringement of our personal freedoms... 

    I think it should be the will of the people when someone is voted.. and if most don't vote then it's not the will of the people... so in that respect they should be made to vote....

    But at the same time.. what good will that do if people really don't want or like who they are being asked to vote for?? 

    I'm in that position now.. we have to vote soon.. .and I was going to vote for one thing... despise another.. but then i heard somethng I really don't like about the first politician.. so now I dont know what to vote.. I can vote my usual... a party who would never get in in a million years.. but that worries me too.. as i know its a pointless vote .. not strategic...
      May 11, 2017 9:40 AM MDT
    0

  • No!  Absolutely not.  Voting is a choice.  To fine those who do not participate is coercion.  Coercion has no place in a democracy.
      May 11, 2017 9:56 AM MDT
    3

  • 3463
    No one should be forced to vote. It should always be a personal choice.
      May 11, 2017 10:28 AM MDT
    4

  • 13277
    Number 873 on the list of reasons that I'm glad I live in the USA and not a place like Australia. I decide whether to vote and for whom. Nobody has the right to judge and/or penalize me for my choice.
      May 11, 2017 10:44 AM MDT
    2

  • 22891
    not really, i didnt vote cause i didnt want either of them, i think i have a right to do that
      May 11, 2017 10:54 AM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    You have that right---but it's only workable if it was possible to not have a president.

    Next time why not consider your responsibility to choose the better of the two candidates.

    Keep exercising your right not to vote and you may find the person elected just might eliminate those "rights" of yours.
      May 11, 2017 1:36 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    No, it's always workable. Nobody should ever be coerced into voting against his/her will. That's what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means.
      May 11, 2017 4:15 PM MDT
    1

  • 16792
    Stops anybody from buying an election like Trump just did. Electors can't be discouraged or dissuaded from voting, polling booths can't be "stacked". If you REALLY don't like any of the candidates, it's also acceptable to vote informally -submit a  blank ballot.
    Personally I'm in favour of compulsory voting - there may not be anybody you want to vote for, but there will invariably be somebody you want to vote AGAINST. So you vote backwards, from worst to least bad (it's a preferential system too).
      May 11, 2017 11:02 AM MDT
    1

  • 1233
    Trump spent far less than Hillary. The establishment tried to buy the election and they failed.
      May 11, 2017 11:13 AM MDT
    1

  • 16792
    WAH HA HA HA HA! That's arguably the funniest thing you've ever said, I'm rolling on the floor. Trump got his votes out, most of Hillary's supporters thought she was a slaam dunk and didn't bother to turn out, she STILL got the popular vote but the College being gerrymandered to hell got his Royal Orangeness in anyway. 
    Murdoch is in Trump's pocket and the Russians screwed the pooch in his favour as well - Comey just got fired for being about to prove it, as did Yates. Its 1973 all over again - how did that work out for the incumbent?
      May 11, 2017 11:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 11110
    I'm curios about how the law stops people from buying an election and how it prevents stacking votes. Also wondering if since the law was put in effect have the majority of people started taking more interest in who is running and what they stand for - I was thinking they might figure that since they have to vote they should be informed. Also wondering if after an election are people generally happy with the results because they know since everybody voted the better man or woman won. Cheers!
      May 11, 2017 4:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    Absolutely not. The right to abstain is what makes a vote meaningful. Without it the winner is just least hated. They can't really claim a mandate.

    A proportion of the population are completely empty headed. Forcing them to vote when they have no interest in or understanding of politics will cause them to mindlessly vote for the most charismatic candidate.

    Banning abstention would tend to favour centrist candidates. This would severely undermine society. The centre sucks. I hate the left but at least they believe in something. The centre is just Orwellian double think. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 12, 2017 7:17 AM MDT
      May 11, 2017 11:06 AM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    LOL mindlessly voting for the most charismatic candidate... was that what happened in America then :P  Only I think those who voted for him were rather deluded about his charisma too :P 


      May 11, 2017 11:26 AM MDT
    0

  • 1233
    Obviously charisma is a subjective thing. The point is that mindless people care more about whether they like the candidate than the substance of what the candidate stands for.

    I'll vote for someone I dislike on a person level because I like what they stand for. I'll vote against someone I like on a personal level because they're clueless.

    I happen to like Trump. I find his irreverent style real and refreshing. I like him partly because the leftists hate him. He is a massive "F*** you!" to all the leftist control freaks out there who get triggered by anyone who dares to rebel against their disgusting codes of political correctness. Though none of that influences whether I support him or not. I'd support him anyway. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at May 11, 2017 11:57 AM MDT
      May 11, 2017 11:53 AM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    You and I are like two peas in a pod. Well apart from the fact I despise Trump :P  
      May 11, 2017 2:39 PM MDT
    1

  • I don't know the justification for doing it in Australia, but it doesn't seem like it would work here. 
      May 11, 2017 11:15 AM MDT
    2

  • 13395
    In Canada you can make your vote by "elect not to vote" which means you do not like any of the candidates -or for whatever reason. 
      May 11, 2017 12:48 PM MDT
    2

  • 3191
    Had we had that option...I bet it would have received the most votes last November!
      May 12, 2017 7:40 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    We just saw what happened when a large number of uneducated people vote in a presidential election---Why give them any additional incentive to vote?
      May 11, 2017 1:11 PM MDT
    3

  • 2327
    So that's your guess on what the logic is behind it. My guess is that they just want to make more money. A lot of people don't vote. They want all of those hundreds, baby. 
      May 11, 2017 9:16 PM MDT
    0

  • 17599
    Of course not!  Not in a free country.
      May 12, 2017 7:04 AM MDT
    0

  • 11006
    We already have enough uninformed voters, we don't need any more.
      May 12, 2017 7:18 AM MDT
    2