Voting in Elections. Should it be Mandatory, Optional, Restricted, or none at all?

[Com Fox]

US Election thread starting to look derailed with this topic and I think this topic is interesting to talk about.

Personally in the camp of Optional Voting. Voting is an important right but mandatory stops it from being a right and more an obligation forced on everyone and should be open to the individual choice if they want their voice heard or they don't care/too cynical to vote and I think it damages more than it benefits being more vulnerable to political misinformation to sway more votes than it otherwise should. Especially in countries with preferential voting systems which are designed so you can't waste a vote.

 

[Joey D]

Mandatory voting would never work in America, nor should it. Our First Amendment protects the right not to vote since not voting would be protected speech. I choose not to vote in several races because I either don't care, don't know enough about the candidates, or think they're all equally terrible. This typically happens in local elections for me since our local government is full of idiots, and it's just the good old boys club anyway.

Voting a certain way in America also opens you up to a whole slew of, for a lack of a better word, spam. I voted Republican in a few races because I liked the person and thought they would do a good job. Now, to this day, I get like 5-6 pieces of mail from Trump begging for money just because somewhere in my public record it says I voted for a Republican 8 years ago when I lived in Michigan before. Some people don't want that information out there.

But I'd rather not have uninformed idiots voting if they choose not to vote than be mandated to vote and select someone like Kanye West because they think it's funny.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't see the point of a mandatory vote. Making the vote mandatory doesn't make people care nor does it make them informed on what's happening. I chose not to vote when I was first eligible because I didn't know enough to make a meaningful decision.

 

[Duke]

Voting should definitely be optional. As Joey mentions, not voting is a protected First Amendment right.

Also, making it optional self-weeds out all the people who don't care and weren't likely to make an informed choice anyway. It's kind of like a charter school in the US: even without performance criteria for admission, they are usually better academically because there is a small application process required to get into one. They are technically "free" public schools, but they are not the default. So typically, only families that care about education make the effort to apply.

I think the barrier to voting should be as low as possible. I have no problem with mail-in ballots.

Pretty much the only restriction should be US citizenship. Like passports, we could make voter registration a function handled at the US post office in addition to the DMV where it is typically handled now. In this day and age it could be something you can do at almost any county-level government office, with each place acting as an interface with a state-level voter database. Even the local public library could do it - libraries are reinventing themselves as a go-to resource for all kinds of different things.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Mandatory with a 'none of the above' option.

Admittedly, as with any other suggestions of reforming an electoral system, on it's own it probably wouldn't change much - it would need to be part of bigger reforms and they'll be specific to any country in question. For me it's more about the principle, it's a civic duty, and frankly of all the other civic duties we have it's probably the least painful and the least inconvenient.

The UK's election this month saw a turnout of less than 60%, combine that with our stupid First Past the Post system, and it means the government was only elected by 15.8% of the country - that is not a strong mandate whatever way you look at it, but they'll still get to be the government - Brexit still happened despite only being the will of 37.5% of the people. The government gets to act irrespective of voter apathy so it should be ensured that it's representative of as much of the population as possible.

I'd advocate for greater political education in almost any scenario, mandatory voting or not, and I would hope that it would go some way to combatting apathy or misinformation in the long term, but let's face it, morons exist and they're already voting, passively disenfranchising them isn't the solution.

 

[Exorcet]

The government gets to act irrespective of voter apathy so it should be ensured that it's representative of as much of the population as possible.

I wonder how representative it is if people vote without concern though. 100% voter turnout with uninformed votes doesn't sound like an improvement. Even with a none of the above option, it's hard to tell if people choose that because they don't like the candidates or because they don't care and have to pick something.

I'd advocate for greater political education in almost any scenario, mandatory voting or not, and I would hope that it would go some way to combatting apathy or misinformation in the long term, but let's face it, morons exist and they're already voting, passively disenfranchising them isn't the solution.

Education and ease of access to voting I agree with, along with better voting systems that allow voters to better specify the outcome under a number of situations, like score voting or voting against specific policies of a party/individual while still being able to vote for that group.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The ability not to vote is as important as the ability to vote, IMO. Sham democracies love to point to high turnout to legitimize their hold on power

 

[Liquid]

Obligatory voting won't make people care more. None of the above absolutely should be an option on every ballot though.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I wonder how representative it is if people vote without concern though. 100% voter turnout with uninformed votes doesn't sound like an improvement.

A level of knowledge or insight isn't guaranteed in optional voting systems, whatever motivates somebody to vote doesn't ensure that they basing that vote on sensible, relevant information. A classic example of this was the EU 'Brexit' referendum when Google searches for 'what is the EU' spiked in the UK after the vote.

For me, Mandatory voting is about having the most representative mandate possible, uninformed or apathetic voters are a separate issue requiring a different solution.

I would hope that in compelling people to vote some will either find themselves becoming more politically engaged naturally, or at least recognising the responsibility and putting a little bit of effort in. And if certain demographics are more likely not to engage then that demographic isn't getting the same representation as those that are likely to engage.

Even with a none of the above option, it's hard to tell if people choose that because they don't like the candidates or because they don't care and have to pick something.

I wouldn't be against additional options. NOTA demonstrates a desire to engage, but a lack of a suitable candidate. An additional option could be 'abstain', relevant for those that don't want to vote at all... perhaps even 'Protest' to indicate an objection to the system in some fashion - an official spoilt ballot.

 

[Daniel]

I voted 'Mandatory' but I'm still on the fence on whether it should be enforceable to the individual (I scrolled through the pros and cons on the Wikipedia page, sorta understand both sides and don't feel too strongly on the issue so long as mandatory voting always had a NOTA/abstain option).

One potential benefit that might result in making it mandatory but not enforceable for the individual is that you could legislation to easier block attempts at voter suppression e.g.:

• Make it easier to register to vote.
• Ensure enough polling boots across the area when voting takes places.
• Codifying alternative ways to vote such as early or absentee voting.

Though I suspect you could just enact similar legislation around "everyone who is eligible should have easy access to voting".

Pretty much the only restriction should be US citizenship.

I know this is gonna derail the thread, but I think there are definitely occasions where it makes sense for non-citizens to be able to vote.

Take two people for example:

• Me, a US citizen who hasn't lived in California (let alone hasn't lived in the US) for well over 20 years.
• And Alex, a fictional person I made up who lives in California and is a LPR/Green Card holder.

Assuming Ballotpedia is correct, I'll be eligible to have a say in the following decisions:

• 10 ballot measures, including codifying same-sex marriage, increasing the state minimum wage to $18 per hour and whether or not $10 billion in bonds will be issued to modernise education facilities across the state,
• A senate & house seat,
• President and VP,
• And a few other smaller local races.

In my view I feel like Alex should have more of a say than me on all of those decisions, especially if they pay taxes and have children lawfully attending their local schools. I understand that "just become a US citizen" would be a potential solution but it seems that can be a lengthy process and requires a wait period of at least 5 years after having gotten the green card.

 

[FPV MIC]

Optional, because in Australia I have to vote, but being disabled it's very difficult to vote even though there's a polling booth less than 100 metres from my house.

This is what gets me every time. I apply to be on the postal vote permanent register for every election and every time I'm denied because of the polling station less than 100 metres from my house. There's a bloody creek in between the two places, so in reality it's more like a 4km round trip by wheelchair because there's not even anywhere I can park my car at the polling booth.

So instead I have to go and get an application from the post office, bring it home and fill it in, then go and post it. Another round trip of about 4km's... all with no suitable disabled parking.

STICK VOTING WHERE IT FITS... except on the odd occasion when there's some meaningful difference between the two major parties lies that I feel I should have my vote count.

 

[Daz555]

I'd like it mandatory to register and actually show up to vote. People who don't want to partake can either spoil their ballot or have a "I'm only here because I have to be" or "non of the above" boxes to tick.

Optional, because in Australia I have to vote, but being disabled it's very difficult to vote even though there's a polling booth less than 100 metres from my house.

This is what gets me every time. I apply to be on the postal vote permanent register for every election and every time I'm denied because of the polling station less than 100 metres from my house. There's a bloody creek in between the two places, so in reality it's more like a 4km round trip by wheelchair because there's not even anywhere I can park my car at the polling booth.

So instead I have to go and get an application from the post office, bring it home and fill it in, then go and post it. Another round trip of about 4km's... all with no suitable disabled parking.

STICK VOTING WHERE IT FITS... except on the odd occasion when there's some meaningful difference between the two major parties lies that I feel I should have my vote count.

Given you have compulsory voting the Gov really needs to be making it a lot easier for people to vote! That's bloody awful.

 

[Meythia]

Optional, because in Australia I have to vote, but being disabled it's very difficult to vote even though there's a polling booth less than 100 metres from my house.

If you would have been registered permanent postal voter correctly, would it change your mind?
If so, dont you think your selection shouldnt be based on "what is my situation" but "what should be my situation"?
If voting IS mandatory and there IS an option to vote by other means then polling centers, then it is the states upper duty to make sure it is as easy and with the least amount of financial burden to the voter as possible.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Optional, because in Australia I have to vote, but being disabled it's very difficult to vote even though there's a polling booth less than 100 metres from my house.

This is what gets me every time. I apply to be on the postal vote permanent register for every election and every time I'm denied because of the polling station less than 100 metres from my house. There's a bloody creek in between the two places, so in reality it's more like a 4km round trip by wheelchair because there's not even anywhere I can park my car at the polling booth.

So instead I have to go and get an application from the post office, bring it home and fill it in, then go and post it. Another round trip of about 4km's... all with no suitable disabled parking.

STICK VOTING WHERE IT FITS... except on the odd occasion when there's some meaningful difference between the two major parties lies that I feel I should have my vote count.

I don't want to sound insensitive to the inconvenience, but that's not an issue of mandatory voting. Polling stations should be as accessible as possible and I can't imagine there's a good reason not to automatically offer registered disabled people a postal vote - and I'd also hope that being disabled and not having a postal vote is included in the exemptions from penalty. Ultimately it's going to be a pain in the ass for you whether its mandatory or optional.

I'd absolutely take this up with your local electoral commission office regards provision at your local polling station, and then escalate it to the AEC anyway on the basis that lack of suitable venues is probably passively disenfranchising disabled people across the country and that needs to be address by the mail-in/postal system. You could also take up the lack of disabled parking at local services with all your local/regional candidates and perhaps base who you want to (or don't want to) vote for based on their response or action.

Your needs aren't being met, by the people who are hoping to get your vote - It's a great example of the need for civic engagement.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Optional.

Making it mandatory to vote would mean everybody is forced to come out to express themselves, and I don’t think it’d be a good idea anywhere. Even if there are sufficient options for you to express your apathy, the chances are people are not really likely to use it, in major part because I feel that a sizeable proportion of the voting population is informed enough to not want to waste their vote away by casting for a ‘nothing’ option but not informed enough to be absolutely sure that the choice they’re voting for is absolutely the one they’re sticking with. As for the idea that people may be actually bothered to do more research into the issues being presented if they’re forced to vote, my cynical side doubts so, but also I believe that mandatory voting means that elections would, more often, boil down to whoever has used the campaigning funds more efficiently, not whoever offers the best choice. You often see people courting on the streets for their preferred candidate/stance (volunteering, even), but hardly see anyone courting for anybody to abstain, or not vote. That’s because the ones who care about the issue probably had their minds made up already, and the ones who don’t, well, are simply not bothered. By forcing the latter to vote, it may cause those people to tip the scales and vote against the wishes of those who are impacted by it the most.

 

[kpcart]

A nations vote in an election should only be certified if at least 50% of eligible voters vote. It shouldn't be mandatory, but for there to be a political party with a winning mandate, at least half of the population should have voted, and the winning party should have a majority of votes... not like stupid USA, where Trump lost to Hillary, but their ridiculous electoral college lets politicians change voting maps to help their party win without a popular vote win. I can see that happening again this year, no way Trump can reclaim the extra 3 million votes he lost to Hillary, or the 7 million he lost to Biden, but if he can regain maybe 2-3 million, lose by 4 million to Kamala, he has a strong chance of winning the election due to the electoral college... and that doesnt sit right, very weird system.

Optional, because in Australia I have to vote, but being disabled it's very difficult to vote even though there's a polling booth less than 100 metres from my house.

This is what gets me every time. I apply to be on the postal vote permanent register for every election and every time I'm denied because of the polling station less than 100 metres from my house. There's a bloody creek in between the two places, so in reality it's more like a 4km round trip by wheelchair because there's not even anywhere I can park my car at the polling booth.

So instead I have to go and get an application from the post office, bring it home and fill it in, then go and post it. Another round trip of about 4km's... all with no suitable disabled parking.

STICK VOTING WHERE IT FITS... except on the odd occasion when there's some meaningful difference between the two major parties lies that I feel I should have my vote count.

I am sorry to hear your plight, but in reality you dont have to vote in Australia.. you only have to if you register to vote - and only in federal elections, and even then you dont have to vote.. the worst that happens to you in Australia is a $20 fine in the mail which you can throw in the bin as they dont follow it up.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A nations vote in an election should only be certified if at least 50% of eligible voters vote. It shouldn't be mandatory, but for there to be a political party with a winning mandate, at least half of the population should have voted, and the winning party should have a majority of votes...

In practice most countries with free and fair elections get more than 50% turnout anyway, that wouldn't change much. As for the winning party having the majority of votes, I assume you mean a relative majority.. which ultimately all leads to a government formed by a party most people didn't vote for. If you stipulate a qualified or absolute majority, you might not get a government at all.

Making it mandatory to vote would mean everybody is forced to come out to express themselves, and I don’t think it’d be a good idea anywhere. Even if there are sufficient options for you to express your apathy, the chances are people are not really likely to use it, in major part because I feel that a sizeable proportion of the voting population is informed enough to not want to waste their vote away by casting for a ‘nothing’ option but not informed enough to be absolutely sure that the choice they’re voting for is absolutely the one they’re sticking with. As for the idea that people may be actually bothered to do more research into the issues being presented if they’re forced to vote, my cynical side doubts so, but also I believe that mandatory voting means that elections would, more often, boil down to whoever has used the campaigning funds more efficiently, not whoever offers the best choice. You often see people courting on the streets for their preferred candidate/stance (volunteering, even), but hardly see anyone courting for anybody to abstain, or not vote. That’s because the ones who care about the issue probably had their minds made up already, and the ones who don’t, well, are simply not bothered. By forcing the latter to vote, it may cause those people to tip the scales and vote against the wishes of those who are impacted by it the most.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Optional voting does not mean a vote is any more informed than a mandatory one - taking the time to vote when it's optional is a reflection of strength of motivation, NOT quality of opinion. It's absolutely the case that the politicians flat out lie, and some people will go out and vote based on that lie.

Having groups of people you're happy with not voting, is to not far off being happy with voter suppression.

 

[FPV MIC]

If you would have been registered permanent postal voter correctly, would it change your mind?
If so, dont you think your selection shouldnt be based on "what is my situation" but "what should be my situation"?
If voting IS mandatory and there IS an option to vote by other means then polling centers, then it is the states upper duty to make sure it is as easy and with the least amount of financial burden to the voter as possible.

No, I still think it should be optional, because why should I have to take time out of my day for something I don't particularly care about, and given our two major parties both lie about their policies why should I care.

There's more than likely thousands of reasons why people can't attend other than why it's hard for me too.

I don't want to sound insensitive to the inconvenience, but that's not an issue of mandatory voting.

It is for all those times when I don't care to vote.

Polling stations should be as accessible as possible and I can't imagine there's a good reason not to automatically offer registered disabled people a postal vote - and I'd also hope that being disabled and not having a postal vote is included in the exemptions from penalty. Ultimately it's going to be a pain in the ass for you whether its mandatory or optional.

I'd absolutely take this up with your local electoral commission office regards provision at your local polling station, and then escalate it to the AEC anyway on the basis that lack of suitable venues is probably passively disenfranchising disabled people across the country and that needs to be address by the mail-in/postal system. You could also take up the lack of disabled parking at local services with all your local/regional candidates and perhaps base who you want to (or don't want to) vote for based on their response or action.

Your needs aren't being met, by the people who are hoping to get your vote - It's a great example of the need for civic engagement.

It's not a lack of disabled parking, it's the lack of suitable disabled parking, and that's pretty much the case everywhere... and I'm not someone that's out to change things.

As far as politicians and politics goes, don't bother me and I won't bother you in return.

I am sorry to hear your plight, but in reality you dont have to vote in Australia.. you only have to if you register to vote - and only in federal elections, and even then you dont have to vote.. the worst that happens to you in Australia is a $20 fine in the mail which you can throw in the bin as they dont follow it up.

Yeah, not being registered worked for me for 30+ years... until I was disabled . I'm not sure what gave me away but something did and they've been on my case ever since.

 

[AEKara38]

I don't vote because I chose not to. I should not be forced to disrupt my daily routine to put an X on a piece of paper if I chose not to. If the party I would have voted for don't get in then that's entirely my fault and I will suffer the consequences until the next time I chose not to vote.
My choice of local party has won convincingly for the past 50 years so my vote means very little.
If I vote in a General Election my vote doesn't count towards the party I want in power, it goes to my local MP, so Boris and the Clowns have reeked havoc for the past 14 years despite me not voting. My local party got the seat but were not in the majority.
I did make an exception and went to vote on Brexit with a friend of mine. He was pro and I was against so that was a waste of time.

 

[Imari]

Mandatory voting would never work in America, nor should it. Our First Amendment protects the right not to vote since not voting would be protected speech.

Right. Not voting is speech, which means that whether you vote or don't you're speaking in an election. Since you have no non-speech options there, you could almost say that speaking was mandatory.

Voting may not technically be mandatory, but influencing the election is and really that's the whole point of voting in the first place. "Optional voting" is semantics - there is no opt-out of participation in the election if you're eligible to vote. Whatever you do has impact.

You can make the mechanics of turning up to a place and voting optional, but you can't make being part of the process optional any more than you can make living in the country you reside in optional. You're there whether you like it or not.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

reads the title Wait... how does an election with no voting even work?

 

[DK]

reads the title Wait... how does an election with no voting even work?

 

[AerodyManiac]

Optional.

Making it mandatory to vote would mean everybody is forced to come out to express themselves, and I don’t think it’d be a good idea anywhere. Even if there are sufficient options for you to express your apathy, the chances are people are not really likely to use it, in major part because I feel that a sizeable proportion of the voting population is informed enough to not want to waste their vote away by casting for a ‘nothing’ option but not informed enough to be absolutely sure that the choice they’re voting for is absolutely the one they’re sticking with. As for the idea that people may be actually bothered to do more research into the issues being presented if they’re forced to vote, my cynical side doubts so, but also I believe that mandatory voting means that elections would, more often, boil down to whoever has used the campaigning funds more efficiently, not whoever offers the best choice. You often see people courting on the streets for their preferred candidate/stance (volunteering, even), but hardly see anyone courting for anybody to abstain, or not vote. That’s because the ones who care about the issue probably had their minds made up already, and the ones who don’t, well, are simply not bothered. By forcing the latter to vote, it may cause those people to tip the scales and vote against the wishes of those who are impacted by it the most.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Optional voting does not mean a vote is any more informed than a mandatory one - taking the time to vote when it's optional is a reflection of strength of motivation, NOT quality of opinion. It's absolutely the case that the politicians flat out lie, and some people will go out and vote based on that lie.

Having groups of people you're happy with not voting, is to not far off being happy with voter suppression.

So, I’ve thought a bit about what MatskiMonk replied with, and I looked back on what I said. Tried to rebut, but I can’t really find any evidence to support what I say from my local context, but I can find stuff lending credence to what he says, so I just wanna walk back on what I said above.

I’ve seen local legislative elections at my place being marred by people with an alternate agenda giving the older part of the electorate (who probably is cognitively abled enough to vote but isn’t financially well-off enough to refuse such ‘temptations’) tangible benefits in return for them voting for these people’s preferred candidate, and while these actions should never have been allowed in the first place, it just wouldn’t be possible to mitigate such behaviour at my location, so reducing the barrier to voting, or, in another sense, placing barriers on not voting for everybody could kinda encourage those people who probably have an idea who to vote for but just aren’t arsed enough to do so to vote more consistently, which I believe are aplenty.

But what about my second point in my last post? For referendums, I feel that those people tipping the scales would actually help protect the rights of the people realistically affected the most and advance social progress better. A simple illustration would be recognition of same-sex marriage, where religious organizations would often refuse to budge on stances that IMO don’t affect their constituents that much but is quite life-debilitating for the smaller LGBT+ community, even though there is majority support for legalization, according to some HK news source that I read lately. So yeah, mandatory voting can somewhat help protect the rights of these minorities, and I’m kinda in ‘The ends justify the means’ camp in this respect, I suppose.

With that said, I still don’t think that the same measure can be applied to all situations. Or that Hong Kong in its current state is better off by implementing mandatory voting. Definitely not.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Or that Hong Kong in its current state is better off by implementing mandatory voting. Definitely not.

How do HK's elections compare to the rest of China? Is it all pre-approved CCP candidates?

 

[Danoff]

I agree with most people in here, but with a caveat, which is that not all candidates are valid. Eligibility for office is not to be confused with democracy itself or the optional ability for people to vote. For example, the US currently has someone running for President (Trump) who is not eligible for the office. The US constitution clearly says that someone who has engaged in insurrection against the country is not not eligible for the office. I know our supreme court has declined to enforce this, but it doesn't change the principle. Under our laws, Trump is not eligible for office.

This does not mean that there is any voter suppression or lack of democracy. Trump does not need to be the republican candidate. People should be free to vote for a republican candidate, provided that the candidate is eligible for office.

I think some people incorrectly assume that because they can vote, whoever they vote for must be eligible.

 

[AerodyManiac]

How do HK's elections compare to the rest of China? Is it all pre-approved CCP candidates?

Pretty much. While I don’t pay much attention to the Chinese political elections, if any, to me it felt like HK’s elections can be participated in by its citizens, and that’s where the difference ends. HK’s parliamentary elections have a vetting committee that makes sure everybody that gets to the ballot paper will be loyal to the government and compliant with the national security regulations, and that committee is headed by police-turned government officials. The parliament’s composition also only allows everybody eligible to elect less than a quarter of the elected members, which contributes to a large part of why I’m saying that HK won’t be better off if it adopts mandatory voting, since it just bolsters the government’s narrative that everybody has a say in the elections.

As for referendums, there’s just no law in HK providing for that.

 

[kiseca]

I voted restricted, the only person so far to do so, though I agree with much of what has been said above and my motives for my choice reflect that.

I've read somewhere a throwaway sentence that said Aristotle was against allowing everyone to vote because many had little real knowledge what they were voting for and could be easily swayed by a single event, speech or rumour, but their vote could impact the lives of everyone thereafter.

Whether or not Aristotle ever actually said that doesn't matter. I agree with the principle, and this is the restriction I think should be applied. Voting should be restricted to those who have shown they have enough knowledge of the voting system, of the powers they would be providing the winning party / individual with, of the manifests / promises being made by all parties participating in that particular election. Voting should be restricted to those who have the knowledge and commitment to make a well informed decision.

This would mean that potential voters would need to apply for the right to vote in any particular election and prove they have a level of knowledge, which would probably need to be some kind of test or proof of participation / presence in debates.. I think the cost and logistics of this could make it impractical but hey, it's a forum, I'm not actualy redesigning a voting system here so consider this more a wishlist with desired outcomes being my most important consideration.

Anyway, back on track: Earning the right to be registered to vote would be the restriction. Anybody should be able to earn that right with only an investment of time. It should not cost a potential voter any money to apply. Anyone who will be governed by the winning party should be eligible to apply. Indeed, an age restriction would probably not be needed. If a 10 year old can pass the application and prove they can make an informed decision, good for them.

Because the application is based in part on the party manifestos, I also think there should be stronger laws holding the winning party to follow through on whatever they promise, with stronger penalties for failure than simply the threat of not getting re-elected for a second term.

Basically, I think the whole process would be better if it looked more like bids for a contract against a statement of work. Bidders put forward what changes they intend to make over the next 4 years and what changes they intend to initiate that will take longer than their period in power to mature. If they win, they are held accountable to deliver those changes. How, I don't know but I do feel there is not enough accountability for delivering false promises now.

There are a few changes I'd be hoping to see happen with these changes.

1) Reduction of fake news by reducing its impact. Make it harder to influence voters with some half baked Facebook post which ignores relevant facts but taps into the emotions of thousands of potential voters who don't look below the surface of what flashes up on their news wall.

2) Voting gets based more on changes we want to see to how government resources are spent and managed, less so

3) Parties get more interested in making promises they can keep than promises that get them in power now and they can worry about the fallout later.

4) More focus on getting stuff done once in power than on retaining power and winning the next election (something that I think restricts current governments from acting on long term problems that aren't going to pay off within their term in power. Who in 2015 was going to spend money on preparing for possible future pandemics, which would win them no votes, instead of spending that money on something that would help them win a second term? Same thing 5 years earlier for global warming, or fixing the roads, or fixing buildings with dodgy concrete before one of them actually collapsed? All known problems but because the time that the disaster would strike and how big it would be was not known, the value in preventing it could never be calculated until after the disaster happens, so how do you get credit for preventing it?)

When it becomes more important for the winning leader to actually do good for the country than to be charismatic, I'll think we're getting somewhere.

Charisma helps in getting people to follow you which makes it easier to do what you want, but the charisma is no help in doing the right thing.

Anyway that's my utopia. It will never happen and I'm sure if it did, it wouldn't work out the way I think it will anyway.

 

[Exorcet]

Whether or not Aristotle ever actually said that doesn't matter. I agree with the principle, and this is the restriction I think should be applied. Voting should be restricted to those who have shown they have enough knowledge of the voting system, of the powers they would be providing the winning party / individual with, of the manifests / promises being made by all parties participating in that particular election. Voting should be restricted to those who have the knowledge and commitment to make a well informed decision.

While I think it's a good thing for people to consider how prepared they are to vote, no one should be barred from voting if they're contributing to the government. No government should be entitled to a person's resources and it's critical that people have a means of opposing a government that they disagree with. A more corrupt government could also abuse the restrictions and expand them simply for the purpose of increasing power. I don't think it's a great idea.

 

[Danoff]

I voted restricted, the only person so far to do so, though I agree with much of what has been said above and my motives for my choice reflect that.

Depending on just how restricted, there is some support for this in US law even today.

I've read somewhere a throwaway sentence that said Aristotle was against allowing everyone to vote because many had little real knowledge what they were voting for and could be easily swayed by a single event, speech or rumour, but their vote could impact the lives of everyone thereafter.

This is actually the basis of the republic portion of the US. I think you need to take this sentiment in light of its environment. A direct democracy would have people voting to approve every budget, to pass every adjustment to the tax code, to approve every use of the military. Imagine a ballot going out before an aid package can be sent to Ukraine. This would be direct democracy, and it's clear that the public could not be expected to stay informed enough to vote well on these issues. This is why the public effectively hires representative to handle this research for them, and it's the reason the US is a democratic republic rather than a direct democracy.

Your argument is a little different. You don't even think people are informed enough to vote for a representative.

Anyway, back on track: Earning the right to be registered to vote would be the restriction. Anybody should be able to earn that right with only an investment of time. It should not cost a potential voter any money to apply. Anyone who will be governed by the winning party should be eligible to apply. Indeed, an age restriction would probably not be needed. If a 10 year old can pass the application and prove they can make an informed decision, good for them.

A system for this that is harder to abuse and more straightforward is to have a voting age, where everyone over the age is assumed to be informed enough to vote (especially in light of education laws). It's much harder to twist that into oppression than it is to twist a test into oppression. Compounding this, the US actually strips some people of their voting rights if they commit certain crimes. In my state, for example, if you're in prison for a felony, you cannot vote.