20 Ideas The We Need To Steal From The Rest Of The World

[Ana the Ist]

Would it be that bad?

I'm against it.

It legitimizes a system which may be entirely illegitimate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It legitimizes a system which may be entirely illegitimate.

Precisely.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

In a U.S. presidential election, if you do not live in a swing state your participation is symbolic at best. If you live in Texas you already know that the Republican is going to win. If you live in New York or Massachusetts you already know that the Democrat is going to win. If you are a Democrat voting in Texas or a Republican voting in New York or Massachusetts your vote is probably symbolic at the most. The only practical outcome from the latter participation would be things like the winner winning the Electoral vote but losing the popular vote; parties and campaigns having data from the polls to incorporate into future strategy; etc., but I doubt that even half of a percent of participants in an election vote with such things in mind.

And if you live in the Pacific time zone the election could already be decided and reported by the media before the polls in your state have closed.

If you live in a swing state like Ohio or Colorado you are at least voting in a place that is contested. But even then most people do not believe that their vote influences practical outcomes such as what laws are made, what Supreme Court decisions are made, etc.

That barely scratches the surface of the good, rational reasons why nobody should be surprised that voter turnout is low in the U.S.

 

[SteveB28]

In a U.S. presidential election, if you do not live in a swing state your participation is symbolic at best. If you live in Texas you already know that the Republican is going to win. If you live in New York or Massachusetts you already know that the Democrat is going to win. If you are a Democrat voting in Texas or a Republican voting in New York or Massachusetts your vote is probably symbolic at the most. The only practical outcome from the latter participation would be things like the winner winning the Electoral vote but losing the popular vote; parties and campaigns having data from the polls to incorporate into future strategy; etc., but I doubt that even half of a percent of participants in an election vote with such things in mind.

And if you live in the Pacific time zone the election could already be decided and reported by the media before the polls in your state have closed.

If you live in a swing state like Ohio or Colorado you are at least voting in a place that is contested. But even then most people do not believe that their vote influences practical outcomes such as what laws are made, what Supreme Court decisions are made, etc.

That barely scratches the surface of the good, rational reasons why nobody should be surprised that voter turnout is low in the U.S.

And yet (correct me if I'm wrong please), do we not see quite often the case whereby citizens of 'blue' and 'red' states elect differing parties to office in their state vs federal elections?

 

[SteveB28]

Okay, but that is still coercive.



You "take your responsibilities seriously"... when compelled to do so. How deep is that sense of responsibility when it doesn't happen when people are free to vote or not?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Could I not turn that argument around? Might not the citizens of your country take their responsibilities more seriously if your nation decided that elections of their representatives are so important that it should be compulsory for all citizens?

You've neglected the point I made in making my claim. The vast majority of our voters (>95%) submit valid ballot papers in our elections. If we really objected to the compulsory nature of our process, surely there would be a much higher proportion of informal votes? Surely there would be a significant number who would prefer to pay the $50 fine?

Edit: it's only $20 for first offence - increases to $50 after that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Could I not turn that argument around? Might not the citizens of your country take their responsibilities more seriously if your nation decided that elections of their representatives are so important that it should be compulsory for all citizens?

If it takes compulsion to act in a responsible fashion, there can't be that much responsibility. That is the "responsibility" of children, not adults.

You've neglected the point I made in making my claim. The vast majority of our voters (>95%) submit valid ballot papers in our elections. If we really objected to the compulsory nature of our process, surely there would be a much higher proportion of informal votes?

I really don't care if you object or not. That doesn't make the compulsion okay.

Surely there would be a significant number who would prefer to pay the $50 fine?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. It just means that it isn't worth it to many people to protest (or just to stay home) when that costs $50.

In any case, compulsory voting is a mockery of democracy and free societies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Compulsory voting sounds aweful, what about people that live in semi remote areas and dont have the means to get to a poling place for something that is statisticly insignificant. What about people that are busy doing important things and know that the odds of their vote mattering is so vanishingly small as to not matter but if they spend an hour engaged in what is equivalent to the power ball they will get behind on their work.

This is the problem with everyone and their mom being allowed to vote, is now no ones vote matters. So the politicians just do what ever they want. This is why the founders made land owning a pre-requisite, that way you had some skin in the game. OR whoever pays the most taxes, etc.

In the US, the popular/general election is not what decides Federal level elections anyway. So compulsory voting at the national level is rather pointless, to be honest.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Could I not turn that argument around? Might not the citizens of your country take their responsibilities more seriously if your nation decided that elections of their representatives are so important that it should be compulsory for all citizens?

As I said above...in the US, the national level elections are not decided by the general vote. So compulsory voting at a national level would be essentially pointless, since it would not even inherently change the outcome anyway - regardless of how effective it was at getting people to vote.

addendum: different states handle the issue differently. Some states distribute electoral votes to the state general winner, some go by district and divide them proportionately. Hence why swing states here are such a big deal during campaigns and elections for Pres and Vice Pres.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Distractify | 20 Ideas The US Needs To Steal From The Rest Of The World

I thought many of these were good, or at least interesting.

No Criminal Penalties For Drug Possession

In 2010 alone, the ‘war on drugs’ cost the federal Government $500 every second, or $15 billion total. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. While distribution is still illegal, those caught for personal possession and use are dealt with in a court made up of psychologists and social workers. Instead of locking kids away for a spliff, addicts are referred to clinics. Since these moves, drug addiction has dropped 50% and drug use in Portugal is among the lowest in Europe.

What I've been saying for decades.

IMO, the main reason the War On Drugs exists is because so many legislators are lawyers, and without drug related crimes, 1/2 of them would be out of work..

 

[Fenny the Fox]

To the topic though, I agree with a lot of these. Though the squats thing seems a bit...overly silly. And who wants to show up for work/class/whatever after working out for a ride?

 

[Paradoxum]

Free stuff for everybody, ex nihilo! Woo hoo!

That what most of them sound like. "Liberal" Democrats in the US must be wetting their pants.

I think I counted ~7 which were about free stuff. You might count more depending how you want to count expenditure, but I'm not sure that 'most' of them are about free stuff.

I don't think they are all crazy costs.

A few of the suggestions are good ideas (e.g., the speeding ticket lottery). However, compulsory voting is downright evil. No one should be compelled to express an opinion about who to support for public office when their opinion is that there is no one worth voting for or that they disapprove of voting altogether. I'm not talking about the results of the elections, but about the integrity of voters. And, no, write-in votes don't really solve the problem.

I don't have a strong opinion on this. It's isn't great that so few vote in a democracy though.

 

[SteveB28]

I'm a little surprised that the concept of a universal health insurance scheme didn't make the list. From what I see of a) the debate within the USA and b) the comparisons made with countries such as my own, I would have thought this to be one of the 20 more popular initiatives that Americans might like to 'steal'?

 

[JackofSpades]

It's isn't great that so few vote in a democracy though.

I think uneducated voting doesn't really serve democracy either, because it makes it all too easy for pretendous politicians to deceive voters. Which in turn means that people don't get what they voted for, which isn't the idea of democracy.

True measure of election success should be % of educated votes, not votes generally. By "educated" I mean for example that voter should at least know how his candidate has voted in the past while in parliament etc. That kind of information is usually available for person who is willing to do a bit of digging. Most voters don't seem to know even that.

I don't really see how blindly voting some celebrity-turned-politician because she/he has said one or two nice phrases publicly is going to serve democracy in long run anymore than not voting at all.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think uneducated voting doesn't really serve democracy either, because it makes it all too easy for pretendous politicians to deceive voters. Which in turn means that people don't get what they voted for, which isn't the idea of democracy.

True measure of election success should be % of educated votes, not votes generally. By "educated" I mean for example that voter should at least know how his candidate has voted in the past while in parliament etc. That kind of information is usually available for person who is willing to do a bit of digging. Most voters don't seem to know even that.

I don't really see how blindly voting some celebrity-turned-politician because she/he has said one or two nice phrases publicly is going to serve democracy in long run anymore than not voting at all.

I don't know what my potential candidate has voted for. I vote for the party, not the individual.

 

[SteveB28]

I think uneducated voting doesn't really serve democracy either, because it makes it all too easy for pretendous politicians to deceive voters. Which in turn means that people don't get what they voted for, which isn't the idea of democracy.

True measure of election success should be % of educated votes, not votes generally. By "educated" I mean for example that voter should at least know how his candidate has voted in the past while in parliament etc. That kind of information is usually available for person who is willing to do a bit of digging. Most voters don't seem to know even that.

I don't really see how blindly voting some celebrity-turned-politician because she/he has said one or two nice phrases publicly is going to serve democracy in long run anymore than not voting at all.

You make a rather unfounded premise here: that those who currently don't vote are uneducated and, by extension, those who do vote currently are the educated ones. You have no basis upon which to make that claim.

 

[JackofSpades]

I don't know what my potential candidate has voted for. I vote for the party, not the individual.

That's one way to look at it. In that case it depends about party policy on how much freedom they allow their members to have in parliament voting. In here some parties are more strict on that than others, and in case of non-strict party, I would think it's very important to have that knowledge or you might end up voting for something you don't support.

Other example about importance of person would be presidential elections, but I guess UK doesn't have those.

 

[JackofSpades]

You make a rather unfounded premise here: that those who currently don't vote are uneducated and, by extension, those who do vote currently are the educated ones. You have no basis upon which to make that claim.

I didn't mean that. I meant that those peoples who vote without much knowledge about what they are de facto voting for, undermine democracy as much, or even more, than those who don't vote. Uneducated voting makes it possible that people get opposite results than what they wanted, which obviously undermines the fundamental "power to the people" - principle. Voting in itself doesn't make democracy work if it doesn't lead to desired outcome for voters.

For the record: I consider myself to be reasonably educated on how my countrys political system works, and I choose not to vote.

 

[True Scotsman]

Distractify | 20 Ideas The US Needs To Steal From The Rest Of The World

I thought many of these were good, or at least interesting.

A common theme that I see in many of these is that it is something that is given to everyone for free. But there is no free lunch. All of these things need to be paid for or produced by someone. For those who say wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone got this thing or that thing for free, I ask, at who's expense?

 

[JackofSpades]

A common theme that I see in many of these is that it is something that is given to everyone for free. But there is no free lunch. All of these things need to be paid for or produced by someone. For those who say wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone got this thing or that thing for free, I ask, at who's expense?

For curious detail, I noticed that majority of things on that list come from northern parts of Europe, and that is also the region with highest taxes in the world.

Not saying it's a bad thing tho, I generally like the region I'm living in but technically it's true. Those countries that have high standard social security, have to tax more to keep it up.

 

[stellalunaCW]

1) Giving 50% Tax Breaks During The Christmas Season - unsure
2) Free Maternity Box To All New Mothers - yes
3) Free Subway Rides In Return For Squats - with limits
4) Speeding Ticket Lottery - novel, but unsure
5) Reduced Prison Sentences For Readers - hmm...okay
6) No Criminal Penalties For Drug Possession - tentatively yes
7) Rainy Day National Oil Fund - Norway or Denmark? I don't understand this.
8) Income Based Criminal Fines - novel, but no one would ever go for this one
9) Pay-As-You-Go Garbage Collection - too complicated
10) Compulsory Voting - yes, for local elections
11) Anonymous Drug Analysis So You Know You're Getting The Good Stuff - meh
12) Free Museum Passes For All New Citizens - I don't hate this, but how about a sliding scale for everyone?
13) Free Rides From Government Vehicles - nah
14) Paid Maternity and Parental Leave - YES YES YES
15) Pay Kids To Attend School - I wouldn't have a problem with incentivizing learning in different ways
16) State Sponsored Sex For The Disabled - no
17) Citizen Run Social Media Accounts - ahahahaha...hahahaha...haha...NO
18) 1/3 Less Commercials - sure, but not going to happen
19) Treating Bikes Like Cars - yes
20) Mandatory Paid Sick Leave - yes