compulsory voting

[A.C.a.B 23]

Searching for some more thought on the subject for a paper. Writing against the idea of course.

Mainly due to the fact by implementing compulsory voting is in anti-democratic by taking a citizens right to oppose and abstain from supporting the system.

Also can't see how bringing every citizen to the polling stations would enhance anything as for one to make a critical decision one must first critically think in political thought. Which I found most people, obviously not all, tend to abstain from political thought due to its boredom; ignorance tends to be much easier.

I'm against voting in general as the change I (I think most of us here) want will not come through an election, but the uprising of the collective masses led by a political party (not determined by an election) to serve as the vanguard of the movement. Not by some elected charismatic schmo that will only lead the world a stray.


thoughts appreciated.

[Blake's Baby]

Why are you opposed?

Complaining that compulsory voting is 'anti-democratic' doesn't get you anywhere. So what? Democracy sucks. Communism is 'anti-democratic' - if it weren't, people would have voted for it by now.

It's almost completely irrelevant. If the ballot doesn't mean anything, then your attendence or non-attendence is only a matter of convenience (and obviously that is a reason to oppose it, because it is less convenient to take 20 minutes, or 2 hours or whatever out of your day to stand in line and do something pointless). But as long as you don't have to do it too often you could just, put up with it. Capitalism has far worse to offer than mildly inconveniencing you a couple of times a year.

[LOLseph Stalin]

One major problem I see with compulsory voting is that people would make uneducated votes. Sure, as communists we see all bourgeois votes as uneducated, but obviously not everybody is a communist; I'd rather have people actually knowing what is going on when they vote rather than just checking off the first party on the list.

[Blake's Baby]

If votes are meaningless why does it matter if voters are uneducated? And, who made you the arbiter of whether other people were voting 'properly' and in a sufficiently educated manner?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Democracy sucks. Communism is 'anti-democratic' - if it weren't, people would have voted for it by now.

Do you mean the capitalist voting system or genuine democracy?

[LOLseph Stalin]

If votes are meaningless why does it matter if voters are uneducated? And, who made you the arbiter of whether other people were voting 'properly' and in a sufficiently educated manner?

When I say uneducated votes I don't mean people voting against what I would consider to be more correct, but people simply voting without having done any research whatsoever. It happens here all the time and could be one of the causes of Stephen Harper and the Tories getting re-elected. However, less than 50% of the country voted then too.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean the capitalist voting system or genuine democracy?

I'm talking about the capitalist voting system, which is what this thread is about.

I'm not sure what you think 'genuine democracy' is but whatever it is, it isn't what's being discussed here, as far as I know.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm talking about the capitalist voting system, which is what this thread is about.

I'm not sure what you think 'genuine democracy' is but whatever it is, it isn't what's being discussed here, as far as I know.

By genuine democracy I mean democracy and not just a system that is undemocratic but called democratic (what we have now). Plus, you mentioned democracy, "Democracy sucks. Communism is 'anti-democratic' - if it weren't, people would have voted for it by now." So I was just curious what you were against, democracy or nominal democracy (what we have now), because as far as I know, communists are supposed to use democracy to advance communism. Thank you for clarifying.

[Blake's Baby]

By genuine democracy I mean democracy and not just a system that is undemocratic but called democratic (what we have now). Plus, you mentioned democracy, "Democracy sucks. Communism is 'anti-democratic' - if it weren't, people would have voted for it by now." So I was just curious what you were against, democracy or nominal democracy (what we have now), because as far as I know, communists are supposed to use democracy to advance communism. Thank you for clarifying.

I don't understand, do you mean 'genuine democracy' or the bourgeoise voting system?

The DotP is not 'democratic', though communist society will be. Democracy is 'rule by the people'. In capitalism it's impossible (because we have rule by money, ie plutocracy) and in the DotP it will be inadvisable (why should the workers be ruled by other classes at all?) and only after the abolition of property and classes will 'democracy' be possible.

Or, do you just mean voting as a decision making process?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't understand, do you mean 'genuine democracy' or the bourgeoise voting system?

The DotP is not 'democratic', though communist society will be. Democracy is 'rule by the people'. In capitalism it's impossible (because we have rule by money, ie plutocracy) and in the DotP it will be inadvisable (why should the workers be ruled by other classes at all?) and only after the abolition of property and classes will 'democracy' be possible.

Or, do you just mean voting as a decision making process?

You said communism is anti-democratic (and later said it is democratic). Democracy is rule by the people. I didn't know if, at first, you meant communism is against the nominal democratic system we have now or against actual democracy.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You said communism is anti-democratic (and later said it is democratic). Democracy is rule by the people. I didn't know if, at first, you meant communism is against the nominal democratic system we have now or against actual democracy.

Democracy is rule by people. To establish communism you establish the rule of one class, and this is inherently anti-democratic in this sense.

[A.C.a.B 23]

Im aware that capitalism has far off worse things to offer...

Its not a matter of putting up with it, rather the parties seeking my vote are all right wing parties where in that sense why pick the less of two evils.

[Rafiq]

The reason bordigists (forgive me if I am mislabeling you) and others (like myself) identify as anti democratic is because democracy is ideological. Of course we support democracy in the sense of aristotle, i.e. Mass mobs of workers, proletarian dictatorship and whatever. But in today's (or in the past) context, to identify with "democracy" is to identify with bourgeois ideology. I have disagreements with bordigist organizational strategy, but their criticism of democracy allows us to recognize that the fact that the proletariat is a majority in most countries is mere chance. That "popular will" is meaningless and is a weapon which can be used, not a universal ethical code from which we are forced to abide by on any level, like Liberalists are. The concept of the people is liberalist, a mass body of people is all that is recognized legally, everyone enjoys equal political rights. But this superstructural phenomena is merely a veil from which capitalist relations are sustained, because if the bourgeoisie retains social hegemony, which supposes their state apparatus retains ideological hegemony, of course the "will" of "the people" will be in it's favor. Only by breaking the legalist constraints of the bourgeois state can "democracy" carry any meaningful substance. But it is not a communist principle, like emancipation, class dictatorship, collective terror (as in, striking fear through mass social movement).

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Fourth Internationalist]

but their criticism of democracy allows us to recognize that the fact that the proletariat is a majority in most countries is mere chance.

How is that mere chance in a capitalist country? The majority of people are proletarians because the way capitalism works, and when the majority is in charge, shouldn't that be considered democracy?

[Blake's Baby]

You said communism is anti-democratic (and later said it is democratic). Democracy is rule by the people. I didn't know if, at first, you meant communism is against the nominal democratic system we have now or against actual democracy.

I said communist society will be democratic.

'Communism' as in the real movement which abolishes the present state of things, is not 'democratic'. It has nothing to do with 'rule by the people' it is the movement of a class, which by definition cannot be 'the people' - class = A set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality - so if 'the people' is a set then a class of people is a sub-set or category of 'the people' which is differentiated from other sub-sets, other 'classes'. Ergo 'the working class' and 'the people' are not synonyms, and class power is not 'democratic'.

'Communist society', the society of the future which will exist after classes have ceased to exist, will be 'democratic' in that everyone (really, 'the people' not a sub-set or category of the peeople) will take part in the adminstration of society.

Is that clearer?

[kashkin]

One possible benefit about compulsory voting is that it can give people an excuse to explicitly (try to) talk politics (as opposed to simply how bad the world is). However the downside is that most people will simply about the two big parties, which doesn't say much about how left-wing a person is, and maybe go on to talk about how cool the Greens or Sex Party are (which they aren't).

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is that clearer?

Yes it is. Thank you for clarifying.

[goalkeeper]

It would reduce voting to a minor duty like paying your bills, council tax, and filling out a census.

[Art Vandelay]

While some of these answers have been solid, I don't really think they are going to help my comrade write his paper. This topic wasn't chosen, but given to him and its either a for or against stance. As someone who doesn't vote, I think he's taking the right side in the argument.

Compulsory voting is paradoxically anti-democratic; it takes away one's right to dissent from liberal representative democracy. Voting tends to lend support to the system (even if the voter is an anti-capitalist, the higher the voter turn out, the more apparent support for the system in the eyes of the public). Having 50% of people not show up to vote, is a much bigger statement, in my opinion, then having 50% vote for a certain party. It also undoubtedly restricts the freedom of citizens (I realize that as communists these aren't necessarily the issues we focus on, but that's not the point of his question).

Voting is a right, not a duty; this is something which needs to be understood. A citizen has the ability, however not the obligation, to exercise their rights. Forcing certain religious groups, like the Jehovah's Witness's for example, infringes on their right to practice their religion.

[Tenka]

While some of these answers have been solid, I don't really think they are going to help my comrade write his paper. This topic wasn't chosen, but given to him and its either a for or against stance. As someone who doesn't vote, I think he's taking the right side in the argument.

Compulsory voting is paradoxically anti-democratic; it takes away one's right to dissent from liberal representative democracy. Voting tends to lend support to the system (even if the voter is an anti-capitalist, the higher the voter turn out, the more apparent support for the system in the eyes of the public). Having 50% of people not show up to vote, is a much bigger statement, in my opinion, then having 50% vote for a certain party. It also undoubtedly restricts the freedom of citizens (I realize that as communists these aren't necessarily the issues we focus on, but that's not the point of his question).

Voting is a right, not a duty; this is something which needs to be understood. A citizen has the ability, however not the obligation, to exercise their rights. Forcing certain religious groups, like the Jehovah's Witness's for example, infringes on their right to practice their religion.

That was a really bad example, considering how the state has to force them against their religion to not kill their children by denying blood transfusions.

And to the topic at hand: it only makes sense for voting to be compulsory if it's so simple that anyone could do it from anywhere, e.g., with their mobile phones (provided everyone be given one for this purpose).
It's not altogether practical, though, and would probably only be used as an excuse to persecute people who cannot or do not vote.

[Art Vandelay]

That was a really bad example, considering how the state has to force them against their religion to not kill their children by denying blood transfusions.

For a university paper that most people won't even be able to put together a coherent argument for, its doesn't really matter. The OP is a friend on mine in real life and he just needs some filler arguments for his paper.


And to the topic at hand: it only makes sense for voting to be compulsory if it's so simple that anyone could do it from anywhere, e.g., with their mobile phones (provided everyone be given one for this purpose).

Do you mean from the perspective of the state? Or is this your own personal opinion, because if it is the latter then I don't think its the stance any communist should really hold.


It's not altogether practical, though, and would probably only be used as an excuse to persecute people who cannot or do not vote.

That's exactly what it is, there is no jail time involved, its just a fine. Its nothing other then a cash grab by the state and an attempt to intimidate voters into passively supporting the system through the possibility of losing some of their already limited income.

[Tenka]

Do you mean from the perspective of the state? Or is this your own personal opinion, because if it is the latter then I don't think its the stance any communist should really hold.


Why not? It is not in any way legitimising bourgeois democracy. I thought it was stating the obvious: that if voting was going to be compulsory, it should be extremely easy. Not that I think it would be, or that it's anything other than another excuse to lock up the disadvantaged and dissident.

[Art Vandelay]

Why not? It is not in any way legitimising bourgeois democracy.

In all honesty I think that a state which feels the need to enforce compulsory voting, its actions if anything de-legitimize it; by making it clear that it feels the need to force people to support the current system.


I thought it was stating the obvious: that if voting was going to be compulsory, it should be extremely easy. Not that I think it would be, or that it's anything other than another excuse to lock up the disadvantaged and dissident.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying to be honest. I thought you were arguing that voting should be mandatory; not that if it is mandatory, it should be accessible.

[Art Vandelay]

The reason bordigists (forgive me if I am mislabeling you) and others (like myself) identify as anti democratic is because democracy is ideological. Of course we support democracy in the sense of aristotle, i.e. Mass mobs of workers, proletarian dictatorship and whatever. But in today's (or in the past) context, to identify with "democracy" is to identify with bourgeois ideology. I have disagreements with bordigist organizational strategy, but their criticism of democracy allows us to recognize that the fact that the proletariat is a majority in most countries is mere chance. That "popular will" is meaningless and is a weapon which can be used, not a universal ethical code from which we are forced to abide by on any level, like Liberalists are. The concept of the people is liberalist, a mass body of people is all that is recognized legally, everyone enjoys equal political rights. But this superstructural phenomena is merely a veil from which capitalist relations are sustained, because if the bourgeoisie retains social hegemony, which supposes their state apparatus retains ideological hegemony, of course the "will" of "the people" will be in it's favor. Only by breaking the legalist constraints of the bourgeois state can "democracy" carry any meaningful substance. But it is not a communist principle, like emancipation, class dictatorship, collective terror (as in, striking fear through mass social movement).

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I don't think this makes much sense to be honest, nor does it fall in with a proper Marxist analysis. The proletariat being a demographic majority is not mere chance but a natural by product of the development of the productive forces. As capital gets further and further concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, it pushes many of the petite-bourgeoisie out of business and thus proletarianizes them. As the productive forces further develop, the battles lines are further engraved and society because more and more composed of two camps whose interests are antagonistic, ie: that whole Marx bit about capitalism creating its own grave diggers. The rest of the post was spot on, however.

[Rafiq]

I don't think this makes much sense to be honest, nor does it fall in with a proper Marxist analysis. The proletariat being a demographic majority is not mere chance but a natural by product of the development of the productive forces. As capital gets further and further concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, it pushes many of the petite-bourgeoisie out of business and thus proletarianizes them. As the productive forces further develop, the battles lines are further engraved and society because more and more composed of two camps whose interests are antagonistic, ie: that whole Marx bit about capitalism creating its own grave diggers. The rest of the post was spot on, however.

You're misunderstanding me. Naturally, the proletariat is a demographic majority. This is not a matter of debate. My point was that, for Communists, support for a proletarian dictatorship is not sustained by the fact that they are a majority but a very real existing class interest, i.e. We do not support the revolutionary proletariat because of some kind of universalist liberal ethics ('it is in their right because they are a majority') but because 1). We are proletarians ourselves or 2). They are the only class capable of doing away with capitalist relations without complete disaster as a result (The bourgeoisie, or capital, may very well be doing away with capitalist relations via crises, but this leads to catastrophic barbarism, etc.). That is what I meant when I said it is only chance.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Do you mean the capitalist voting system or genuine democracy?

Have fun in imagination land.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Have fun in imagination land.

:confused: