CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I originally was VERY opposed to the idea. I do like it, especially for large countries, because it then forces the government to make voting accessible. That is with proximity, convenience, voter ID, etc. It ensures everyone has a fair chance to cast their vote.
You can still spoil the ballot. You could even wipe your ass with it, but you gotta show up.
If the government is going to make sure that your voice can be heard, I think it is a reasonable request to have you show up.
You gotta show up for Jury Duty as a "civli requirement". why not voting?
I definitely think it should be mandatory - people can still show their disaproval by voting blanks.
I think it is ironic if people have to be forced by the state to participate in a system which is supposed to be democratic.
If improvements could be made to the lives of disenfranchised voters simply by voting, then don't you expect that they would be doing it already? To simply force people to vote ignores the root of the problem and tries the suppress the symptom. People have nothing to gain by not voting, so the only real explanation is that many of them feel they have nothing to gain by voting either.
I don't see how it ignores the root of the problem. On the contrary, if voting is mandatory, it is far less likely that populations will be marginalized. It is a huge problem in the US. Sure there are other things that might be able to be done. I do not think it is a fair argument to say, because it does not deal with the core issue, it therefore should not be done. Perhaps addressing the core issue iasa combination of multiple factors.
I don't see how it ignores the root of the problem.
It ignores the root of the problem because these people are not participating for reasons which need to be analysed and understood before an intelligent decision can be made about how to solve the problem. You are proposing that we turn a blind eye to these reasons in favour of using force, and that is a proposition which relies on the extremely dangerous assumption that the system is perfect, but these people are flawed and need to be forced to participate in it. It is considerably more probable that the system is flawed, and these people are not participating because it is not benefiting them.
The point of the system is to serve the people, but it seems like in modernity most have been convinced that it works the other way around: that people are here to serve the system, and that if you don't want to participate there is de facto something wrong with you and you need to be assimilated by the Borg.
With all due respect I did say that combating voter apathy would be a combination of factors. I never said turn a blind eye. I said the opposite.
Making voting mandatory is not an assumption that voting is perfect. It is a way to ensure you are getting the information you need from the public. We do it for census, we do it for taxes, we do it for jury duty. We can't we do it for voting.
I also said you can spoil your ballot, (wipe your ass with it would spoil it)
One of the main reasons for the French Revolution, and the establishment of the Russian parliament, was the margenizlsed citizens did not feel they had a voice. Ensuring the government provides the resources to get the opinion of the people (a vote) is a start. Making it mandatory forces the resources be made available.
Voter apathy is studied extensively and the reasons vary based on the country and the political system. This is not about assimilation by any means.
I agree, I mean if you look at countries witn 70-80+ voter outcome, they don't force their voters to show up.
I think one common factor between some of the countries I can think of (nordic countries primarily) is that they have a parliamentarian system - which is far more simple to understand than for example the US legal system.
I think the simplicity gives everyone a chance to understand. Because if you don't understand your governmental system, it's easy to not care about it.
Absolutely no goddamned way. I have never voted in my life. The political system is a joke. Two candidates, both chosen and funded by private wealth. That isn't choice. That's the opposite of choice dressed up to look like choice.
I see the political system as being nothing more than a guardian against change. Everything stays the same and the people who are really in charge (which certainly isn't the government) get to pretend you've got this really special democratic system which is fair, just and revolutionary.
There are many other political systems, and not just the two party system
That's exactly my point. Have you ever been given an opportunity to choose anything else? Or are you simply expected to accept what is there already?
What power does these days is not to outright restrict your decisions, but rather to restrict the parameters of those decisions. You can have a choice, but only if we choose what the options are, so to speak.
I have lived in 4 different countries, and am a citizen in two. I have voted in two different countries. I am not a US citizen, so I have never had the pleasure of being faced with a two party system.
While on the one side you not wanting to participate appears counter intuitive, on the other side I get how it is not your fight to solve.
I have lived in 4 different countries, and am a citizen in two. I have voted in two different countries. I am not a US citizen, so I have never had the pleasure of being faced with a two party system.
Yeah, I don't have any experience with the US either, but I'm British, and it's a very similar system over here. Most developed states I think run a two party system, if not in name then at least in practice.
While on the one side you not wanting to participate appears counter intuitive, on the other side I get how it is not your fight to solve.
It basically comes down to this: I'm not naive enough to play somebody else's game and think I can win at it. If I thought for a moment that the political system was genuinely democratic I would feel exactly the same way as you, but unfortunately I don't.
I am not sure I agree. But I accept it. BTW side note, what do you think of the Irish elections, and their process Their proportional system just handed them a WTF for their next government. At least votes counted. Thoughts?
I am not sure I agree. But I accept it. BTW side note, what do you think of the Irish elections, and their process Their proportional system just handed them a WTF for their next government. At least votes counted. Thoughts?
To be honest mate, I don't really know much about the Irish system. Never even been to Ireland. I think I'd like to go though. Seems like a beautiful country.
Once politicians become successful inside the current system, their priority becomes maintaining the system in which they are powerful. Hence, even when revolutionaries do manage to cut through (like Sanders for example), they usually are conspired against by other politicians who are frightened to death that their own status and power will be threatened by the new ideas.
Hence, even when revolutionaries do manage to cut through (like Sanders for example)
He can be bought off bro. And indeed has been. For years he trashed the mass migration as being allowed by corporate interests for cheap labor which drives down wages for the little guy. Now he's ready to wave in the cheap labor the corporate interests need, and coincidentally right about the time he has become a new millionaire.
Hey look, video of Bernie before he was bought off.
Absolutely no goddamned way. I have never voted in my life. The political system is a joke. Two candidates, both chosen and funded by private wealth. That isn't choice. That's the opposite of choice dressed up to look like choice.
And yet you slobbered over Corbyn for months like pavlov's dog...
And yet you slobbered over Corbyn for months like pavlov's dog.
Corbyn and Sanders both prove the point, dimwit. Corbyn has been under constant attack from all possible directions ever since he won the Labour leadership. He's faced two votes of no confidence from dissidents within his own party and won both of them. He's been under bombardment from the right wing establishment press for the last three years, and he was the victim of a right wing plot to smear him as an anti-Semite (their/your favourite tactic of all). Sanders was also betrayed by his own party, which panicked at the fact he was serious about helping fix the system, and decided they'd sooner give the nomination to a woman who gets paid thousands of dollars to speak at Goldman Sachs conferences.
They both support mass immigration/illegal immigration, which gives the corporate fat cats the cheap labor they desire. They aren't "Socialists". They aren't anything other than people who were once human but were bought off by the elites and special interests and sold you out.
Hey look. You can hear 2007 Bernie explain it to you instead of me.
No one believes a self interested, tyrannical fraud can pretend to be a Socialist more than you. Isn't that right Nom? You yourself said that all of these great "Socialist" leaders throughout history weren't really Socialists, but you wouldn't have known that at the time would you Nom? Please forgive my hesitation every time someone comes around saying they are a Socialist who wants to run things. People claiming to be Socialists don't exactly have a good track record.
They both support mass immigration/illegal immigration
What the literal fuck do your false claims about them supporting illegal immigration have to do with my argument about politics being corrupt? Jesus Christ, fuck off you insane little man. You literally cannot even look at a piece of information without trying to find a way to warp it into an attack against the left. You are literally mad. Nobody wants to read your ceaseless wave of shitposts you boring shill. Fuck off.
I’ve observed this kind of modern authoritarianism firsthand in Hungary. In my dispatch after visiting there, I warned of the same thing as Browning does here: The threat to the United States isn’t so much Trump alone as it is the breakdown in the practice of American democracy, and the Republican Party’s commitment to extreme tactics in pursuit of its policy goals in particular.
Donald Trump's disinformation campaign is gaining speed
And bastards like BrontosGhost are responsible. Did you know he's been banned from Facebook at least six times for using it as a tool to spread his vile Nazi propaganda?
Fuck the Republicans. They need to be stopped at all costs.
No one believes a self interested, tyrannical fraud
So why the hell are you here 24 hours a day shilling for a self-interested, tyrannical fraud you horrible little Nazi? My grandparents were literally killed by your backwards ideology and lies about the left. I hope you die horribly you filthy, dishonest little fascist pig.
Just take a look at how this Nazi responds to facts. He uses puppet accounts to mass downvote you to minus 35!! Just look at my score. That was his reaction to me comparing his fascist regime to the one which killed my grandparents in the 1940s!!!!
No one believes a self interested, tyrannical fraud
Ahahahaha! Wait, are you actually trying to convince people that Sanders -- not Trump -- is the "tyrannical fraud"? I don't even know whether that's amusing or just plain frightening.
