Social 30-1
We did a class discussion today where everyone was given two Post It notes to write out their answers to two of the following questions:
- Should the voting age be lowered?
- Should voting be mandatory?
- Should everyone over the age of 18 be allowed to vote?
- Is the first past the post system democratic?
Next, I split you into four groups to summarize some of the viewpoints in the classroom, and then we had a whole class discussion about the issues related to these questions. I think that it was a really great discussion period. I would like to extend the classroom discussion to here on the blog. Here is your homework assignment: I would like you to post your answer to any one (or two or three) of the discussion questions that we did in class. I'd like you to also include the initials of your first and last name after your post (for example, "K.G. in Social 30-1"). I'd also like you to comment on someone else's post. This is for double homework check marks. You must post and respond to someone else's post before Thursday of next week . Please be civil in your posting. Please remember that your American-Canadian Political Systems Comparison Charts are due on Thursday, May 13.
Social 20-1
I finished off the "Nations, Nation-States and Internationalism" PowerPoint presentation today. I will send a copy of it to you this weekend. I also gave you your essay question sheet today. Remember, you are writing your Unit 2 Essay on Monday in Room 241. If you missed class today, you NEED this essay question sheet. Please send me an e-mail and I'll send you the essay question sheet (in your e-mail tell me if you're in my Period 3 or Period 4 class). Here's the study guide for the Unit 2 Final Exam (which is on Wednesday, May 12th).
32 comments:
No, voting should not be mandatory. To combat voter apathy - which, is essentially what mandatory voting aims to do - we must look for an alternative solution that tackles the fundamental causes of such apathy rather than trying to apply a band-aid solution to the problem. In my opinion, the problem stems from the time frame prior to youth entering the age bracket of 18-24. Youth are not being given enough opportunity to participate on a political level on issues that affect society. Sure, in our education systems, we are being given the opportunity to learn about Canadian democracy, but not really any opportunity to participate. And no, voting is not the only way to participate politically as a youth: although harder to get our voices heard, it can be done. Furthermore, the media is also not doing a good enough job disseminating vital information that can aid youth into becoming more politically aware of their government and it's actions. Instead, mainstream media and even supposed legitimate news sources saturate the airwaves with soundbytes that simply aim to attract mindless viewers that need to be fed their news, rather than being fed facts, and then interpreting it for themselves. Before going on a tangent and being continually cynical though, there are ventures that aim to provide youth with the opportunity to engage themselves politically, which, will ultimately help them become responsible citizens that want to have a voice in our government when they come of age. An example would be this website: www.apathyisboring.com . Education and promoted participation are only two key factors that play a part in battling apathy though, since the media and conventional apathetic habits are hard obstacles to overcome: but mandatory voting is certainly not a step in the right direction. It's not that people don't care about what goes on in our government, it's that people haven't been given a chance to care.
- C. L.
I agree with Chester that making mandatory voting will not be a permanent fix for the solution, but simply, a "band-aid solution.I think he makes some very good points about edcating youth to back up his argument.
I would also say that mandatory voting increases the amount of uneducated or uninformed votes cast. Certain individuals refrain from voting for many different reasons. Some individuals feel that they are too busy to become informed about issues and as a result will not cast a vote. Other individuals simply do not care about the politcal process. Sure making voting mandatory will increase voter turnout, but it won't force people to become informed about the issue and cast an educated vote. I feel that those individuals who cannot be bothered to get involved in politics won't change their minds just because the government is forcing them to vote. Mandatory voting will cause individuals to vote out of neccessity and this will increase the percentage of uniformed voters. Personally, I feel that if an invidual is not going to bother to read and become educated about the issues I would rather they stay home. To me, the percentage of informed voters is more important than voter turnout.
B. Lunn
I agree with both comments above. It appears that those who do not contribute to the collective vote do not care greatly about politics to begin with. Either that or they are not educated enough about the system and/or the political parties running. I believe that if voting became mandatory, it would result in a situation much like that of the Australian system, mentioned in class last week. Many people would not be putting much care into their votes as they are only attending the polls to avoid being fined or punished. Voting should be granted as a right to all of legal age, but only practiced by those who truly care about their country's government and who really want to voice their opinion and contribute to the support of their chosen political party.
I also believe that the voting age should not be lowered because the government has a hard enough time as it is, to encourage today's youth to vote. At this modern day and age, our nation has a quite low voting turnout, especially compared to past years. (the October 2008 elections only had a 58% voting turnout) I believe that if the voting age were lowered, so would be the voting turnout percentage. As well, many people under the age of 18 are simply not educated enough to contribute to the election and voice their opinions. Many young people just feel as though it does not concern them, or that they do not see the point because their single vote will not change anything in the polls. Another reason why many young people are not involved or passionate about politics as that they don't really personally care too much about it.
S.B.
I agree with S.B. I know that many people, even thosd that are of the legal voting age who are not passionate about politics, and that still are not able to make informed decisions toward their vote. I do think this is a problem because the less people are educated, the less improvement to society because of a government that should or should not be in power, all because people are not informed.
I do think the past the post system could be seen as not democratic because then not everyones view is necessarily being seen as they have little chance of winning enough votes to have much, if at all any voice. Although, that brings us back to one of the cons of a representative democracy is majority tyranny.
K.S.
I don't believe that the "first past the post" method of voting is genuinely democratic. In this method, the winning candidates are often not even voted for by over half of the population. By simply gaining the minimum number of required votes to win, the candidate is merely "getting by" instead of being fully supported by the population. A true democracy includes a winning majority. Let's say 30% of the voters result in a candidate being first past the post. What happens to the opinions of the other 70% of the voters? This method could never truly be described as a legitimate democracy when taking the statistics into account.
D.A.
I also agree with D.A. in that the, "first past the post" method of voting is not legitimately democratic. I believe that countries like France, Egypt, and Iran, are more democratic with their Second ballot voting systems. In such a system, candidates that receive the most votes are then put forth in a second vote, where voters then vote once again for a favored candidate. In this system, the majority will no longer be a small percentage like in the "first past the post" system, because voters who voted for a candidate that did not make the second ballot will use their votes elsewhere. Ultimately though, some people may argue that people who are forced to vote for someone else because their candidate didn't make it, are thus voting for the wrong reasons. I think that even though this may be true, it is the most efficient and fair system of dealing with the issue of having a small minority government being represented as a majority under a 'first past the post' system.
C.L.
I do not think voting should be mandatory because that forces people to vote who do not really want to. By doing so, those who do not care about the electoins can be spoiling the ballots and altering the results. By making voting mandatory, those who truly care and want to participate in voting may not be givin a fair representation due to the large number of people participating who do not care about the results.
-L.M.
Everyone over the age of 18 should be given the right to vote because restricting voter elegibility would not truly be representing the will of the people. If some people are given more privileges or freedom than others, the guidelines of a truly democratic system would be distorted. Furthermore, by giving every citizen an opportunity to contribute a voice in the government through voting, the needs and wants of the may be addressed better.
V.C.
I agree with L.M.'s viewpoint and also believe that voting should not be mandatory. Forcing those who do not wish to partake in elections to vote may contaminate election results as some people do not vote in their true interests. Consequently, the true will of the people would not be accurately represented.
V.C.
I agree with V.C. because it is important for a truly democratic result to represent the will of the people. If some people are exempt or denied the right to vote, it is the government's way of saying the opinions of those citizens in the country don't matter as much as those who are eligible to vote. Democracy is a winning majority, and if people are eliminated from contributing to this majority result, the general will is not genuinely being addressed.
D.A.
I agree with Braden's comment on mandatory voting. His comment about uneducated individuals not casting a vote is a valid one.
Forcing people to vote will not create a more accurate result. People choose to vote for a number of different reasons, and likewise, they also refrain from voting for a number of reasons. If someone is uneducated in political issues, their vote will not be valuable in reflecting the will of the people, especially if they are just voting because they have to - not because they care, or have a genuine interest in government
I do not think that the first past the post system truly embodies the values of democracy. A key characteristic of a democratic society is the will of the majority; with the first past the post system, it is more likely than not that the winner will not have actually obtained the majority of the votes. Because of this, the winner of the election only represents a smaller portion of the country, and the majority of the people will have actually voted against them. Therefore, I do not find that the first past the post system best represents the will of the people, and therefore is not the best portrayal of democracy.
I agree with L.M. in that voting should not be mandatory as the people who do not really care about the election can ruin the process and outcome for those who are knowledgeable and genuinely interested in politics and the election.
S.L.
I agree with Natalie and her view on mandatory viewing. A greater turnout does not necessary mean the majority has correctly voiced their opinions.
Many do not consider voting in their self-intrests and this must be respected. Those who vote randomly do not help the democratic process, they are in turn helping in reducing the voices of those who are genuinely intested in politics.
D.D
I do not think that voting should be mandatory because it may lead to inaccurate results even though it will increase the voter turnout. By forcing people to vote, people who don't care about politics may randomly vote without putting much thought to it. This is because they perceive it as a tedious "duty" rather than something they are actually passionate about.
I agree with L.M. that by making voting mndatory, people who actually care about politics are not given a fair representation because the results may not represent the will of the people.
A.L.
S.A.
I agree with the first comment made by C.L. mandatory voting will not solve the issue but may cause inadequate results, and our generation needs to be further educated.
I do not think that voting should be mandatory. Voting is the method of making decisions for large groups according to the needs of the majority. Not everyone is mature enough or cares enough to become involved in the type of government heading their country. If people are forced to the vote the people like this wont take the time to make a decision that will benefit them and their country. The whole idea of the majority vote can be lost when random choices are made. The public needs to be educated and candidates need to campaign towards the younger generation in order to gain support. Personally I see voting as a right rather than a duty and not in all cases will a person agree with candidates running for office, forcing them can restrict their rights and freedoms. Its not about getting everyone to vote but the result at the end.
I agree with L.M. I dont think that voting should be mandatory because it reduces the opinion of those who are knowledged and interested in the voting process and making it equal to those who are uneducated and voting due to force.
I believe that the voting age should not be lowered. 18 is a sufficient age for voting, as students graduate high school and as adults are ready to take on more responsiblities. I think that if the voting age lowered, the younger population would not be educated enough to make a smart decision. The voting turnout may in turn lower even more. I also think that the younger population may not bother to vote because they do not think that issues affect them.
L.L
I agree with L.M. on the subject of mandatory voting contributing more issues to the political decision making process.
With people being forced to vote, it is certain that some citizens will spoil ballots, and others will make decisions without having any education or knowledge about who they are voting for. This will cause unfair results and taint the entire process, causing the people who want their voices to be heard to be lost amonst those who could not care less about who they are voting for, and are only doing it in fear of fines and punishment by the government. Those who do not want to vote have their reasons and should be allowed to make that decision, and those who want their voices to be heard should be able to vote freely without being forced into anything.
I disagree with A.R.
I feel that voting should be made mandatory because when people know that they are required to vote they will become actively involved in the process and take steps to educate themselves in order to help promote the welfare of their country.
I personally disagree with the method of a one stage "first past the post system". I do think that it is a viable way to determine who the top two candidates are for a certain riding. If it is left at that though, it often will leave the majority of voters upset because they may have chosen perhaps the third place finisher, but would have preferred the second place finisher to the first place finisher. In order to take people's second choices into account I believe a second vote should be taken after the top two candidates have been chosen. This would ensure a fair compromise and would truly determine the majority winner.
O.W.
i agree with CL that voting should not be mandatory and other means should be taken to increase voter turn out. By enforcing laws to make people go vote can alter the results of an electoin for the worst because people are participating who do not really care. I think it is a good idea that other means of increasing voter turn out should be taken such as educating citizens and providing them with helpful informatoin to make them want to take part in the election process
LM
i agree with CL that voting should not be mandatory and other means should be taken to increase voter turn out. By enforcing laws to make people go vote can alter the results of an electoin for the worst because people are participating who do not really care. I think it is a good idea that other means of increasing voter turn out should be taken such as educating citizens and providing them with helpful informatoin to make them want to take part in the election process
LM
Enforcing a law in which voting becomes mandatory will distort the will of the people. If society has citizens unwilling to vote their votes will not truly reflect their ideas because they are just voting for the sake of it. This is a problem because to those citizens who value a government to represent them effectively, may lose value to their vote. When choosing a government the will of the people and betterment of society should be kept in mind.
A.H.
Yes first past the post is still democratic. People still get to vote for who they want to represent them in Parliment. I admit that it is not the fairest democratic system of electing people but it still holds the democratic ideal of the people choosing who they want as a representative.
I agree with VC that everyone over 18 should be allowed to vote, regardless of mental well being. It is more democratic because restricting those people from their right to vote removes their voices in the government system. A better repesentation of the peoples ideas and concernse are presented to the government if all people over 18 are allowed to vote.
GH
I agree with S.B. that the voting age should not be lowered. A majority of youth under the age of 18 lack the knowledge and maturity it takes to accurately vote. It is true that the age group 18-24 has the least amount of voters and by decreasing the voter age this will decrease the range of youth voters. Voters should have a good amount of knowledge and when it comes to choosing their government those under 18 will be unable to vote on issues that directly affect them.
A.H.
At the age of 18, we have to take on more adult responsibilities, and as a result, people over 18 should be allowed to vote. By then, most of us have jobs, might be paying taxes(school) and we are more independent. Therefore it is natural that at 18, we would be allowed to vote because suddenly, gevernment decisions affect us individually, and not just our parents.
i agree with L.L that voting age should not be lowered. Many youth under 18 do not think about politics and feel that they are largely unaffected by government decisions. Youth under 18 years of age might not be prepared to make an educated vote and would not be affected by many issues that affect them.
M.N
I believe that mandatory that voting would lead to the citizen to think of it as a task that must be fulfilled, like a routine that must be accomplished and then ignored and never thought of again. This system may lead to increased voter turnout for each electoral district, but the results would be inaccurate as the people just quickly vote and fulfill the task. Individuals who are not educated about politics and have no intention to play a role in these affairs may quickly randomly vote just to accomplish the task, thus leading to the inacurate results that may put a poor leader/political party in power which is not benefical to the state nor the individual himself. Mandatory voting would only lead to an increased voter turnout, not neccessarily a better democratic government.
I agree with A.L because forcing voters to go vote who does not have a "passion" about voting just casts random votes without much thought in the system.
I believe that mandatory that voting would lead to the citizen to think of it as a task that must be fulfilled, like a routine that must be accomplished and then ignored and never thought of again. This system may lead to increased voter turnout for each electoral district, but the results would be inaccurate as the people just quickly vote and fulfill the task. Individuals who are not educated about politics and have no intention to play a role in these affairs may quickly randomly vote just to accomplish the task, thus leading to the inacurate results that may put a poor leader/political party in power which is not benefical to the state nor the individual himself. Mandatory voting would only lead to an increased voter turnout, not neccessarily a better democratic government.
I agree with A.L because forcing voters to go vote who does not have a "passion" about voting just casts random votes without much thought in the system.
K.C
I believe that voting should not be mandatory because it would force people who feel that voting is not very important to vote against their desire. I for example would much rather sit at home and watch "The Big Bang Theory", then vote.
I also agree with A.L that voting should not be mandatory because it creates inaccurate results.
G.R
I dont think the voting age should be lowered because people are not educated enough in politacal matters. Also taking in consideration majurity and ability to uunderstand compicated matters like these, I personally would not want the voting age to be lowered.
D.D
I dont think that the voting age should be lowered at all. Taking into consideration ones education and knowledge about politics and also majurity it seems advisable that the age not be lowered. Also, people below the age of 18 are not intrested in politics at all and would never vote unless having been educated about such matters.
D.D
Voting should not be made mandatory. If this is done, then the those who normally don't vote would perhaps randomly vote or vote for the last ad about a politician they saw. There are people who choose not to vote because they believe that they do not understand politics enough to cast an informed vote. Forcving these people to vote will only skew the votes in such a way that would not truly represent the wants of the people. If an individual from this group feels that there is a problem with the current state of their country, they would obviously vote for someone who would promote change.
I agree with O.W. If a second vote were cast, then individuals that voted for a candidate that would obviously not win would turn to their next best option in representing their views. This would result in a majority of the population being moderately satisfied, rather than a a small minority being satisfied while the rest of the people may not be content.
G. Ho
I feel that the FPTP system restricts the democratic system. It restricts the fact that there may be a party with not even half of the populations vote, however none the less have the majority vote. The FPTP system could be further improved by having a second vote, such as in australia or even by ranking party candidates. This would allow a a better overall view of the people.
-J.L.
I agree with D.D. The voting age of 18 is even debatable as it is. i feel 18 would be the bare minumin in order to vote in order to take into account the small percentage of people doing their own thing (paying taxes, living on your own, all that jazz). Beside that small group, i dont believe that people under the age of 18, or even over the age of 18 for that matter, have enough exposure to indepedantly living to have a justified position on a political party. canadaian political parties do not target young age groups at all not only because they dont vote, but also becasue their policies do not really affect that group. it would be safe to argue that only young people/ students who have a passion for politics and have been brought up informed of what each different politcal party has to offer would have enough of a basis to give an educated vote. however for the most part people around the age of 18 just have too insuficient knowledge to give a quality input.
-J.L.
Post a Comment