Voting Styles

I'd like to talk about 2 alternating voting styles.  I'm not talking about political parties or the like.  I'm talking about the 2 styles that are voluntary voting and required voting.

Voluntary voting is what we practice in the United States.  A person decides to register and then also has to decide they want to vote in particular election.  Small local off season elections get very little turn out.  Couple it with a national election for president and you get a wider, better turn out.  However, better turn out can be only 30% of the registered voters and the number of registered voters among those that are eligible can be as low as 30% in some places.  This is compounded with a bunch of people in the country illegally that can throw the numbers off as well and don't forget those that are ineligible since they are convicted felons.


The other system is Compulsory Voting.  This method is practiced in Brasil for one and other parts of the world.  They require everyone up until a certain age to vote.  Those that are older have the option I believe at age 65 or the like.  This includes all the illiterate persons as well.   Since they are requiring all sectors and regions of the population to vote they have developed a fairly accurate and speedy system for vote tabulation.  A Sunday vote has a declared victory in just days not weeks like occurred in the United States 2000 presidential election.

So which is better?  You'll see that certain things have had to be put in place for the elections in Brasil to have them work better.  One is the need to put a picture next to each candidate.  This resolves the issue with the illiterate people.  However, that also means who ever put more propaganda out with a candidates picture could likely win.  Also there is some standardization required in the voting devices.  Unlike the United States, you have to  have a consistent, quick and accurate method to tally the vote.
However, the compulsory system also means you have tons of uninformed, possibly "bribed" persons voting(more on this later).  So is it better to have a small but informed electorate voting or open it up for everyone include a bunch of people that have no clue on the candidates position, track record, or the like?


The reality is some where in the middle would be best.
It has been said that some candidates "bride" people to vote for them in elections in Brasil.  How?  They go around to poor uninformed neighborhoods and hand out food or other stuff and in the end pay for a vote.  Who knows if this really works but, I'll bet it would sure help sway a person in the end.  I can't say this is wide spread or even common.  But I'll bet it has happened.

Don't we have the same thing here?  Imagine a senator up for reelection.  He helped to get some pork barrel legislation through that brought $100 in federal funding to his small state. Now he may threaten that due to a lose of seniority etc that fund will not be present in the future.  Similar thing different arena.

Both system of voting also have a ton of propaganda.  TV ads, mailers and the like.  Sometimes for local elections you have almost nothing on a candidate.  Even the title of the persons occupation can be misleading.  It's ever so hard to become an informed voter.  So maybe having a ton of other uninformed voters in the pool might help.


Final verdict.  Like a quick vote tally with accuracy that does not usually have to have a recount.  Like the fact that a larger portion of the population participates in the process, including making things more accessable to the disadvantaged.

Don't like the "bribe" element that exists in elections.  The inability at times to be an "informed" voter, and the inability to identify the candidates and what you might really be getting.


So as we head into the election season be glad for what you have.  It could be worse.

Buaidh - NO- Bas