UK General Election- May 6th

[Kuciwalker]

Imran, your logic is completely circular.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it is, but I don't care (a deeper answer would involve metaphysics and discussions of equal dignity and all that... that would take too long).

I think the point of democracy is to get the opinion of the people. That requires them to state an opinion.

[BlackCat]

What do you say Imran - are you more democratic than cuba or do you also claim that all your votes shall be for you ?

[Kuciwalker]

Of course it is, but I don't care (a deeper answer would involve metaphysics and discussions of equal dignity and all that... that would take too long).

I think the point of democracy is to get the opinion of the people. That requires them to state an opinion.

You're being a dufus. Democracy is good because it leads to good ends (or better ends than the alternatives). That doesn't mean that compulsory voting leads to better ends than voluntary voting.

[ricketyclik]

Being an Australian who is required to turn up at the polling booth and have my name crossed off on election day (and who was nearly fined once for not - I had the flu, and they believed me when I told them so) I have to say I support compulsory voting.

One important thing about non-compulsory voting is that people who think the status quo is OK are forced to turn up and say so. It also really does have the effect of engaging people more - almost everyone has an opinion on which party they want in Australia. I suspect this is because we all vote.

A key thing that studies have shown about voluntary voting is that it is the people who are disenfranchised by the current system of government who are least likely to vote. On the whole that disadvantages the left-leaning parties, so you'll generally find it is people on the right who most strongly oppose compulsory voting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're being a dufus. Democracy is good because it leads to good ends (or better ends than the alternatives). That doesn't mean that compulsory voting leads to better ends than voluntary voting.

It's not necessarily good ends, but rather the belief that every person has equal dignity and therefore should have their voice heard in the governance of the society.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not necessarily good ends, but rather the belief that every person has equal dignity and therefore should have their voice heard in the governance of the society.

This is inane. If every person has equal dignity then they are perfectly entitled to not speak up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather hear their voices, even if their voice is we don't want to vote for anyone. Have them state their choice (and have a 'no choice' option).

I think its inane to be ok with wide swaths of people not voting.

[OzzyKP]

Democracy is rule by the people. Anything that increases voices is a good thing, regardless of their general interest.

Imran is with me on the voting age. Thanks for your support.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you help me on mandatory voting, I'll help you on 16 year old voting age

[OzzyKP]

You're being a dufus. Democracy is good because it leads to good ends (or better ends than the alternatives). That doesn't mean that compulsory voting leads to better ends than voluntary voting.

No, you are wrong here. Democracy isn't about ends, it is about means.

First of all there is no such thing as "good ends". If there were an objective truth and objective best possible outcome to politics then why vote at all? We'd just have whoever figures out this ideal end to implement it. Or gather together the 100 smartest people in the world/country to study the issue and implement the optimal plan. Voting and democracy would be pointless.

The trouble is there is no such thing as a "good end". Everyone has a different idea of what a "good end" looks like. There is no objective truth when it comes to how a society should operate.

So if everyone has a different idea of what a "good end" is then the only fair thing to do is allow everyone an opportunity to participate in making that decision. And yes, there will be lots and lots of stupid, ignorant, uninformed, and fear-driven voters out there. But without the existence of any objective standard, then honestly, their guess is as good as ours.

Further more, if a brilliant intellectual comes to the same basic policy decision as a dumb, illiterate redneck (i.e. both decide to vote for the same candidate) can we say one vote is better than the other?

I still don't agree with compulsory voting, for matters of principle, but I do think that democracy is best when more people vote and support any changes to encourage the most people to vote as possible.

[OzzyKP]

If you help me on mandatory voting, I'll help you on 16 year old voting age

I'll help you demonstrate that Kuci is wrong, and support what I perceive to be your general view of democracy. I hope that works.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd rather hear their voices, even if their voice is we don't want to vote for anyone. Have them state their choice (and have a 'no choice' option).

This has nothing to do with "equal dignity"!

Jesus Christ, Imran, you are completely incapable of crafting a coherent argument for this. It's absurd. You're not usually a moron.

[Kuciwalker]

No, you are wrong here. Democracy isn't about ends, it is about means.

This isn't even a coherent claim. Democracy isn't "about" anything, it's a particular mechanism for choosing state officials.

First of all there is no such thing as "good ends".

Of course there are. This claim is so bizarre as to cast doubt on your basic reasoning ability.

If there were an objective truth and objective best possible outcome to politics then why vote at all? We'd just have whoever figures out this ideal end to implement it.

1) It's not necessarily objective.
2) Even if something is objective, that doesn't mean we have a reliable way of discovering it - alternately, our most reliable way of discovering it is through voting.

The trouble is there is no such thing as a "good end". Everyone has a different idea of what a "good end" looks like.

That's not especially true. Most people agree about most ends (better for people to have more stuff, better for people to not get sick/die).

So if everyone has a different idea of what a "good end" is then the only fair thing to do is allow everyone an opportunity to participate in making that decision.

Even if we accept this - which we shouldn't, fairness is not a logically coherent idea - why is it "unfair" to permit people not to vote? How is it "fair" to force them to go vote when they're just going to mark down "no preference" when they could have abstained just by not going in the first place?

I still don't agree with compulsory voting, for matters of principle, but I do think that democracy is best when more people vote and support any changes to encourage the most people to vote as possible.

Democracy is best served when it provides elected officials with the strongest incentives towards good outcomes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This has nothing to do with "equal dignity"!

Of course it does. Every one's opinion should be considered because no one's should be considered more important than someone else's, which means everyone should have to share their opinion by vote.

I think you devalue the equal dignity of human beings when you don't care when certain individuals don't share their opinions in the forum.

Democracy isn't "about" anything, it's a particular mechanism for choosing state officials.

How silly. Democracy, since its modern beginnings (and I'm claiming the Enlightenment and the American Revolution for this) has been steeped in moral underpinnings. It has always been "about" something and not simply another form of government.