the state and national level, gets everyone's vote. In fact, most elections are won by the candidate that gets more votes than anyone else.
However, this usually turns out to be considerably fewer than a majority of the people the candidate actually represents.
This happens because, as a general rule, only about half the citizens eligible to vote actually get around to voting. Despite efforts by officials to allow early voting and absentee voting, most of the no-shows can be attributed to voter apathy, laziness, or ignorance of the issues Making voting mandatory would, over time, diminish the effect of these bad excuses and ensure us all of a more representative government. To make the voting process easier, provide a greater window, say ten days, for voting, and the inconvenience is reduced to nearly nothing. Provide a box on the ballot labeled "No acceptable candidate" in order to avoid forcing someone to vote for the lesser of two-or three or four-evils. The winner, of course, would be what we have now, the top vote getter from among those receiving votes. Over time, however, people would tire of selecting the default, and would make themselves better acquainted with the candidates and their issues.
Some would argue against this proposal on the grounds that forcing everyone to the polls would not work. Well, filing income tax is
mandatory, and nearly everyone complies. Further, I would point to the many instances around the globe where mandatory voting is established and working. When I hear a politician making a broad statement about wanting everyone's vote, I feel a little sick to my stomach. Generally about half the eligible citizens vote, and as far as I'm concerned, that's far too high. The proportion of uninformed and ill-informed votes in most elections has to be staggering.
Case in point: look at the quality of ads employed by the candidates. They are rife with distortions, catchy jingles, and lofty-sounding but
empty rhetoric. In short, what people end up voting for is the best campaigner, not the most able senator, representative, or president.
I feel that it is not in our best interest to have politicians trying to appeal to everyone, and that is what would happen even more than now with mandatory voting. Messages would become even more "watered down" and vague. I don't want elected officials owing a lot of service to those who don't care about the system in the first place.
Let's quiz people on the essential principles of government before they are allowed to register. Thomas Jefferson said that democracy depends on an informed public, and I agree. Let's make every vote an informed vote, and then we'll have a truly representative government. On which issue do the authors most disagree?
1. the importance of voting
2. the value of high voter turnout
3. the appeal of politicians to the voters
4. the inconvenience of the voting process
1 answer
The authors most disagree on 2. the value of high voter turnout.
The first perspective suggests that mandatory voting would enhance representative democracy by increasing voter turnout and diminishing voter apathy. In contrast, the second perspective argues that a high proportion of uninformed votes, which could result from mandatory voting, is problematic and that it is not in the best interest of democracy to compel participation from those who are not engaged or informed about the issues.
