GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:Is voting compulsory in every election, whatever level?

Federal and state yes. Local is variable.

At what age does it become mandatory?

Eighteen to the best of my knowledge. It may become optional beyond a certain elderly age(like 75) not certain about that though. The Government has a habit of couching it in language like "eligible to vote" "your opportunity" "your chance" and so on - to present a front of choice and lack of coercion. That's how it seems to me anyway.

How long has it been compulsory?

More here.

Didn't think Wiki would have an article on it. Thanks.

Broken, I grew up in Panama in the 70s, and back then, voting was mandatory. They got rid of that at some point, as it isn't needed. Most people here (close to 90%) wouldn't miss it for the world, and don't care if they have to stand in line for hours to do so.

Shahrazad wrote:Broken, I grew up in Panama in the 70s, and back then, voting was mandatory. They got rid of that at some point, as it isn't needed. Most people here (close to 90%) wouldn't miss it for the world, and don't care if they have to stand in line for hours to do so.

Interesting. I can't think of anything comparable in the US. I found this chart for US Presidential turnout since 1948.

Shahrazad wrote:Broken, I grew up in Panama in the 70s, and back then, voting was mandatory. They got rid of that at some point, as it isn't needed. Most people here (close to 90%) wouldn't miss it for the world, and don't care if they have to stand in line for hours to do so.

Other countries seem to be so different about this.

In the US, there is a large section of the population that just does not care about politics. If forced to vote, they would choose someone at random, or whoever their friends (or pastors, or Oprah) said to vote for, or whoever had the nicest hair, or whoever promised them the largest tax rebate. Certainly nothing would be gained by making these people vote.

There is also large section of the population that mostly cares about imposing its moral values on the rest of the country (anti abortion, anti gay rights, against teaching evolution, etc.) and will vote for whoever panders to that.

The big, underlying problem, though, is that a large part of the population just does not know how to reason logically. They don't understand any issue in any depth, and can only follow an argument to the extent that it is a sport analogy. These people are very easily lied to; they prefer a simple explanation to a true one. (This is probably 50-85% of the population.)

The result: people like Sarah Palin being taken seriously as candidates for major political offices.

.



-Shahrazad-
Uncle Brokie, I grew up in Panama in the 70s, and back then, voting was mandatory. They got rid of that at some point, as it isn't needed. Most people here (close to 90%) wouldn't miss it for the world, and don't care if they have to stand in line for hours to do so.

-The Hodge-
Other countries seem to be so different about this.

-tomas-
If they're a member-state of the United Nations .. it doesn't matter.




-The Hodge-
In the US, there is a large section of the population that just does not care about politics. If forced to vote, they would choose someone at random, or whoever their friends (or pastors, or Oprah) said to vote for, or whoever had the nicest hair, or whoever promised them the largest tax rebate. Certainly nothing would be gained by making these people vote.


-tomas-
Hey, coin flips rule!




-The Hodge-
There is also large section of the population that mostly cares about imposing its moral values on the rest of the country (anti abortion, anti gay rights, against teaching evolution, etc.) and will vote for whoever panders to that.

-The Hodge-
I'm anti-abortion.

Please explain what you feel are "gay rights"?

I like my kids to hear all theories involving evolution .. except for Mikiel's version :-/




-The Hodge-
The big, underlying problem, though, is that a large part of the population just does not know how to reason logically. They don't understand any issue in any depth, and can only follow an argument to the extent that it is a sport analogy. These people are very easily lied to; they prefer a simple explanation to a true one. (This is probably 50-85% of the population.)

-tomas-
It isn't that they are easily lied to, they are simply wanting to get on with their lives. When a country has a system set up where there are two major parties (rightwing/far-rightwing) not much will change.

Fifty nations states are about done - NAFTA takes full effect when the currencies are unified in 2010, if not before.

As an aside, we were at some friends house last night, we watched Saturday Night Live. George Soros, Nancy Pelosi etc., were spoofed. George Soros was talking about how the dollar was going to be devalued by the end of the year .. the show is very much political propaganda (half truths) designed to influence the up-and-coming future elite.




-The Hodge-
The result: people like Sarah Palin being taken seriously as candidates for major political offices.

-tomas-
If the puppet-master strings were cut and Governor Palin let to be herself, her 110-120 IQ would shine. By the way, she is the only one with executive experience. Her own business, city council, mayor, governor.

One thing, Hodge, why do you not understand (believe) that a -governor- is a major political office?

Finally, her sister is married to a North Dakota boy, and lives in North Dakota.

Hodges, you've lived in Big City Life for too long, you're missing the big picture. Until you pull away from the painting and look at it from afar, you'll never know how the other half lives.

If hogtied and forced to vote for one of the four - McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden, I'd vote for Palin/Solway, hands down.

Barring an October Surprise, the man born in Kenya will win.


.

DHodges wrote:

The big, underlying problem, though, is that a large part of the population just does not know how to reason logically. They don't understand any issue in any depth, and can only follow an argument to the extent that it is a sport analogy. These people are very easily lied to; they prefer a simple explanation to a true one. (This is probably 50-85% of the population.)

You guys are famous for ignorance and stupidity. What other country would vote for a jerk like George Bush, twice?


Tomas,

As an aside, we were at some friends house last night, we watched Saturday Night Live.

This is a coincidence. I was so bored last night that I turned the TV on (I hardly ever do) and watched SNL. I enjoyed Bill Clinton's explanation of the economy and other stuff he said. He made me realize that the same thing that happened to them (the gringos) is going to happen to us (Panama). We are in the middle of a huge construction boom, and everything is based on speculation.

-

You guys are famous for ignorance and stupidity. What other country would vote for a jerk like George Bush, twice?

Shah: The US didn't vote for Bush the first time, remember? Al Gore got the popular vote.



.

Broken, almost as many people voted for Bush as voted for Gore. And yes, I believe he can be blamed on the general population.

Tomas wrote:I'm anti-abortion.

I'm pro-abortion. I am strongly anti-baby.

Please explain what you feel are "gay rights"?

Just to not have the fact that they are gay held against them, really. Equality before the law.

It isn't that they are easily lied to, they are simply wanting to get on with their lives.

That's probably true of some, not all. But is it all that different? They just don't care that much.

When a country has a system set up where there are two major parties (rightwing/far-rightwing) not much will change.

Maybe the time is right for a new major party? The Republicans seem to have kind of worn themselves out.

Fifty nations states are about done - NAFTA takes full effect when the currencies are unified in 2010, if not before.

I will bet you 100 Ameros that doesn't happen.

One thing, Hodge, why do you not understand (believe) that a -governor- is a major political office?

Yeah, I had originally written major federal office and then changed it. Being governor is pretty big. Still, Palin's pretty hard to take seriously.

Hodges, you've lived in Big City Life for too long, you're missing the big picture. Until you pull away from the painting and look at it from afar, you'll never know how the other half lives.

I've been working on that - getting out of the city. But what do you think I am missing?

Barring an October Surprise, the man born in Kenya will win.

Yeah, looks that way.

brokenhead wrote:

You guys are famous for ignorance and stupidity. What other country would vote for a jerk like George Bush, twice?

Shah: The US didn't vote for Bush the first time, remember? Al Gore got the popular vote.

I guess it would be paranoid and conspiracy-theory-ish to mention Jeb Bush in this context.

Dhodges,

I'm pro-abortion. I am strongly anti-baby.

What do you have against babies?

-

Jason wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:To me voting is like picking who you want to get fucked in the ass by.

Don't forget: it's also picking someone who you want to do the same to everyone else.

Indeed.

Jason wrote:(I don't like the association of anal sex with inherent negativity.)

The vast majority of men would not like a penis thrust into their anus, so it seems effective enough for me to make such a comparison. Do you enjoy anal sex? If so maybe I can come up with a better comparison for you to understand my point a little better.

Jason wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Non-participation is the only way to successfully eliminate a coercive entity.

Well that seems a very idealistic view.

Do you see this as a bad thing?

Jason wrote:So you don't vote Nick? Voting is compulsory in Australia, you can be fined and even do jail time for not voting. I've been fined for it, but decided to pay up and avoid further potential trouble. The irony is that paying the fines might arguably do more to support the government than actually voting!

No I do not. I had my name removed from the list of registered voters earlier this year.

Broken,

Thanks for the link.

I looked up the statistics, and found out what the voter turnout was in Panama for the 1999 and 2004 elections: 76% and 77%, respectively. Lower than I thought, but still higher than USA by quite a bit.

Every citizen 18 or older is automatically registered to vote. Not all citizens are "political", but apathy is not common even among the non-political citizens. We all seem to care what happens to Panama, and feel that the election results will affect us tremendously. Is it not like that in your neck of the woods?

-

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:(I don't like the association of anal sex with inherent negativity.)

The vast majority of men would not like a penis thrust into their anus, so it seems effective enough for me to make such a comparison. Do you enjoy anal sex? If so maybe I can come up with a better comparison for you to understand my point a little better.

I don't think that potentially demonizing anal sex by using such a comparison is a good idea. Same with using words like "homo" "gay" "faggot" to refer to things in derogatory ways. I'm guilty of using these words in this fashion myself though. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but word choices like these may subtly reflect, project and support underlying values that I don't agree with. On the other hand, one word or term can have multiple meanings and may be divorced entirely from the values it can appear to imply, at least in the original user's mind.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Non-participation is the only way to successfully eliminate a coercive entity.

Well that seems a very idealistic view.

Do you see this as a bad thing?

I really meant that it might be idealistic in a way that makes it unrealistic. I suppose that would be bad if you expected the idea to work in reality.

Shahrazad wrote:Every citizen 18 or older is automatically registered to vote.

In the US, you have to register to vote. Even with the Internet, this is no automatic process. When you go to register, you first have to find out how. There are periodic drives to actively register people, but normally you would have to request a form by phone, then complete the form and mail it in. When you register, you register with a political party or as an independent. Registering with a party enables you to vote in that party's primary elections. Several months ago, I switched my affiliation to independent. I did this in person by visiting the courthouse in the county in which I reside. Weeks later, I received a notice that they had made a clerical error. I then stopped by in person again to address the error. Weeks went by, and I did not receive my voter ID card. So I went to the courthouse for a third time to fix that problem. A few days later, I received not one but two voter ID cards.

So right there, you have merely one person's story of the maddeningly inefficient bureaucracy involved in simply registering to vote.

Not all citizens are "political", but apathy is not common even among the non-political citizens. We all seem to care what happens to Panama, and feel that the election results will affect us tremendously. Is it not like that in your neck of the woods?

People watch too much TV in the US. They believe polls and pundits. The average American has in his or her innermost heart the absolute conviction that his or her vote cannot possibly change the outcome of the election. There is a fundamental disenfranchisement from the political system for anyone not actively involved in local politics.

There is no excuse for this, but there are several possible reasons. One is the basic mental disconnect between being an individual and being a part of any statistic. I think some people do not want to have their voices counted. They do not want to be "measured." They do not want to be held accountable in any way for a system which they believe they are forced to endure whether they agree with it or not. It's like Dave said - voting implies consent to being governed.

Another very possible reason could be the lottery-fatigue syndrome. Sooner or later, a person who plays the lottery all the time and never wins a thing is going to stop playing it. That is, until the lottery folks concoct a flashy new game. Likewise, you see occasional spikes in the voter turnout statistics.

Lastly, there is good, old-fashioned American fat-ass laziness. Why vote when other people will do it for you?

Broken,

So right there, you have merely one person's story of the maddeningly inefficient bureaucracy involved in simply registering to vote.

Amazing. A developing country like mine beats your developed country in voting organization / efficiency. Of course, your country beats mine in all other organizational issues (try getting a simple letter mailed here), so don't think I'm bragging.

The average American has in his or her innermost heart the absolute conviction that his or her vote cannot possibly change the outcome of the election.

This is probably the most common reason.

There is no excuse for this, but there are several possible reasons. One is the basic mental disconnect between being an individual and being a part of any statistic. I think some people do not want to have their voices counted. They do not want to be "measured." They do not want to be held accountable in any way for a system which they believe they are forced to endure whether they agree with it or not. It's like Dave said - voting implies consent to being governed.

I hear you, and of course, refusing to act is an action in itself.

Another very possible reason could be the lottery-fatigue syndrome. Sooner or later, a person who plays the lottery all the time and never wins a thing is going to stop playing it.

This may also be a very valid one. In Panama, where voter turnout is high, people go on playing the lottery every week for as long as they live. They are all convinced that some day they will win. So much so, that they fail to plan for the future (read, getting a good job) in case they don't win.

Lastly, there is good, old-fashioned American fat-ass laziness. Why vote when other people will do it for you?

How mediocre. When you want a job to be done well, you have to do it yourself. Trust nobody.

Good analysis, by the way. Thanks.

Uncle Brokie,

I forgot to say that part of our "success" in getting people to the ballots is that we really make it easy for them. Even though everybody is registered at the time their birth is recorded, we still want people to "verify" where they are assigned to vote, in case they forgot where they vote, or they changed their location and don't remember they did, or any other reason. This can be done through a short, automated phone call or the internet. Plus, the government hires a bunch of people a few months before the elections to go to the malls and all other places that are full of people to provide this census "verification" service. By the time elections come, almost everybody knows in what site they will be voting.

But Shahrazad, in Panama the in-coming political party tosses bon-bons directly to certain factions of the society, like on a Mardi Gras float in New Orleans, and when the new administration comes in, all the functionaries in the whole techno-bureaucratic system are replaced. Every election term the whole government, down to minor bureaucrats and workers, get turned out on its ear, and a whole new batch of greenhorns comes rolling in, having to learn the ropes all over again.

What that means is that the population has a direct stake in an almost perverse way in who gets elected, and everyone has something on the line, something to win and lose. While this is true in a general sense in US (and other) elections, and the incoming elected official can 'ear-mark' funds and projects for his constituency, there are limits to the process, and only so far that a politician can go. Politics in Panama is a sanctified process of buying votes---literally---so it is no wonder that people get involved in the process.

Alex,

But Shahrazad, in Panama the in-coming political party tosses bon-bons directly to certain factions of the society, like on a Mardi Gras float in New Orleans, and when the new administration comes in, all the functionaries in the whole techno-bureaucratic system are replaced. Every election term the whole government, down to minor bureaucrats and workers, get turned out on its ear, and a whole new batch of greenhorns comes rolling in, having to learn the ropes all over again.

But this is starting to change. Ever heard of the administrative career? They will not be able to touch us. It will be so cool.

What that means is that the population has a direct stake in an almost perverse way in who gets elected, and everyone has something on the line, something to win and lose.

Yes. Our whole life is on the line.

Politics in Panama is a sanctified process of buying votes---literally---so it is no wonder that people get involved in the process.

I'll put it differently: the functionaries (does that word exist? I'm following your lead here) are the political jackpot of the elections. Our government payroll is huge.

You didn't mention something very important. The ones who really control government are those that donate money for the Presidential campaigns. They are the ones who buy political favors. Do you think that a single vote will really buy you a full-time job? As huge as the payroll is, the Prez cannot give a job to everybody that voted for him. But the contributors -- he owes himself to them, and he has to pay.

DHodges wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

You guys are famous for ignorance and stupidity. What other country would vote for a jerk like George Bush, twice?

Shah: The US didn't vote for Bush the first time, remember? Al Gore got the popular vote.

I guess it would be paranoid and conspiracy-theory-ish to mention Jeb Bush in this context.

I'm still not convinced that Bush's re-election wasn't rigged with the untraceable electronic voting booths in Florida - his brother's state. Almost everyone I spoke with was voting for Kerry.

DHodges wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

You guys are famous for ignorance and stupidity. What other country would vote for a jerk like George Bush, twice?

Shah: The US didn't vote for Bush the first time, remember? Al Gore got the popular vote.

I guess it would be paranoid and conspiracy-theory-ish to mention Jeb Bush in this context.

Not really. I doubt Jeb called in any favors on behalf of Gore. And don't forget that many pundits predicted weeks before election day that it would come down to Florida, which was too close to call. Jeb had time to make promises and react to possible scenarios.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I think the Republican machinery in Florida was counting on the fact that most people are like me in that regard.

Shahrazad wrote:

I'm pro-abortion. I am strongly anti-baby.

What do you have against babies?

Having a baby is incredibly selfish and destructive to the environment - especially American babies, which will generally have a very large carbon footprint.

We will not run out of humans any time soon. There's billions of them. There is no need for more of them.

The main reason, it seems, that people have children is because of unresolved issues from their own childhood. There is some psychological need to be on the other side of the relationship, and perhaps do things differently, or just to be the top dog.

DHodges,

We will not run out of humans any time soon. There's billions of them. There is no need for more of them.

I'd rather you killed them before they were conceived, or at least before they have a brain. The sooner the better. Birth control pills are a lot better way to control population than abortion, and something is not quite right with women that use abortion as their only way to control birth.

DHodges wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:

I'm pro-abortion. I am strongly anti-baby.

What do you have against babies?

Having a baby is incredibly selfish and destructive to the environment - especially American babies, which will generally have a very large carbon footprint.

We will not run out of humans any time soon. There's billions of them. There is no need for more of them.

The main reason, it seems, that people have children is because of unresolved issues from their own childhood. There is some psychological need to be on the other side of the relationship, and perhaps do things differently, or just to be the top dog.

Hey, Mr. Actuary:

Aren't you forgetting something? The population is getting older and older.

Russia recently realized this and started to ban the adoption of its orphans by foreign parents. My brother happened to adopt one of the last ones to be permitted to go before the ban went into effect.

Go rent the movie Children of Men.

It seems to me not having children is selfish. People do not want the responsibility. People also do not want to sacrifice any material comforts for the sake of raising children and paying for their future well-being.

There is a productive place in the economy for young adults, which are going to become scarcer and scarcer. Society as it is set up requires replacement humans. The US is now below replacement level - we are definitely aging, as you of all people should know.

The "carbon footprint" idea is as absurd as it is simplistic. It is the selfish, wasteful behavior of the people that are already here that is to blame, not the number of infants which you are glad that are not being born. I guarantee that wealthy families - the anal retentive ones who tend to have fewer offspring because they want to keep all the material goods they have for themselves - cause the most harm to the environment. They are the ones with the biggest toys that waste the most resources. A CEO will strive to build more factories because they will enrich him and his wealthy cronies and stockholders, regardless of the environmental costs or of what the factories themselves are producing.

This is the cause of the "carbon footprint" everyone is so worried about.

If you are so concerned about leaving a smaller carbon footprint that you think the fewer children being born, the better, then for whom are you restricting the size of your footprint?

If you are educated and have sufficient material things, the least selfish thing you could do for society is produce children. Your children will more likely turn out to be educated and less likely become a drain on society, which will be increasingly strained by an aging population with replacement humans showing up in the lower socioeconomic strata, whether by birth or immigration.

Even China is reconsidering its 2-child rule as the population tends to live longer and the less productive elderly take up a greater percentage of society's resources.