THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

10.04.2004

Why Not?

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

-Plato

I have been thinking about this idea for awhile. I know most likely there has to be some point I am missing as to why this simply isn't a good idea, but here it is anyway.

Americans should be compelled to vote.

We are compelled to support our government both financially and defensively. Regardless of choice, we pay taxes and at the whim of our elected officials, we can be made to take up arms and kill those deamed our ememy.

Seems to me that making someone show up on election day and give their opinion (even if that opinion is that Mickey Mouse can do a better job of running the country than the guy who has the job today) isn't that much of an imposition.

Compelling a citizen to participate in his democracy is so vital to his sucessful representation he should be required to do it for his own good.
We have all sorts of laws on the books that require people to act in defense of their own well being (seatbelt laws for example).

I realize there are details to be dealt with (felons, mental capacity, etc.) but ask yourself: Are they really prohibitive to the concept itself. I don't think they are. The details can be worked out elsewhere.

It can be seen as sacrifice of freedom, to be compelled to vote. There is an arguement for that. However, considering we are a country who compells its citizens to pay for its government and die for it as well, mandatory voting seems a rather minor sacrifice of freewill.

But will it happen? No.

During my short time working in politics, I learned things from people who have been involved for years, and witnessed things myself, that have led me to the opinion that Republicans don't want everyone voting. A great deal of time and effort is spent discouraging large numbers of minority and lower income voters from reaching the polls. Not necessarily overt efforts to block them from the polls (although those do exist - see Florida November 2000) but psychological efforts to alienate and convince these voters they do not matter, their vote doesn't count, even that their vote may be criminal.

Republicans have traditionally (in most recent times) been very successful in discourgaing from voting, citizens who would most likely vote against them in large numbers. There IS a reason Democrats spend time and effort going door to door on election day, asking people to go vote, even offering them rides to the polls. Because it generally works in their favor!

I am sure someone is currently outraged that I would make such an accusation. So, don't take my word for it, take a Republican's:
Bob Herbert:
Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids | The Arizona Daily Star


But, my point here is that I think generally Conservatives will be against this concept and perhaps Liberals would not. To break it down further, I assume Libertarians will dispise the idea and Populists would embrace it. Prove me wrong or reinforce my assumptions, but let me know what you think.


1 comment:

seanlmccarthy said...

Plato's point remains valid today, and he certainly makes a better argument than Sean "P. Diddy" Combs about the importance of voting.
Although the apathetic masses often disenfranchise themselves by thinking that it doesn't matter whether they vote or not. And then there are those who feel they're making a protest vote by not voting -- as if the people in power care about that kind of protest as much as they would care if you did lodge a protest vote. Ralph Nader certainly gets the attention of both Republicans and Democrats. Just witness all the efforts made by non-Nader fans to help or hinder Nader's 2004 ballot access. So I guess I'm saying Nader would agree with Plato, too.
Just something to think about.
If you want to know more about what I'm thinking about, click on http://www.popularthinking.com
Or not.