Do monks vote?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dugu,

I can't remember us passing that law... I can't remember it ever being any different.

Metta,
Retro.

[PeterB]

Greetings Peter,

So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

If you're registered to vote and you don't, you cop a small fine.

Metta,
Retro.

Well that would just have me reaching for the woad and refusing to register. Which I would regret. I have voted in every election since I reached the minimum age. But compulsion would force me to be contrary...

[DNS]

In the U.S. only about 50% of those registered actually vote. And only about 50% of those who are eligible to register actually do so (18 years old or greater).

That makes the turnout roughly 25%. And that is for presidential and national elections! For state and local elections, the turnout is much lower. (The 2008 election of Obama I think was an exception and the turnout was a little higher.)

In regard to monks voting, I think it is an individual preference and there is no specific Vinaya rule against it. I think it could be a skillful means for choosing someone who exemplifies compassion, kindness, fairness, and equanimity.

For example, if there were two candidates running for president and one openly called for bombing another country on flimsy evidence at best and the other candidate was opposed, then voting for the anti-war candidate could help promote the Buddhist compassionate ideals. In most cases, the choice is not that clear, but when it is, why not exercise some choice and try to bring some good to the politics.

[adamposey]

Greetings Peter,

So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

If you're registered to vote and you don't, you cop a small fine.

Metta,
Retro.

That's insane. I can't believe Australians would pass such a law.

Compulsory voting should be required for any supposed Democracy. Low-turnout in American elections has resulted in a race to see who can cheerlead sections of the american people better. Compulsory voting means "turnout" is never a problem and that a real debate can be had where REAL politics can be discussed, rather than simply cheerleading to get the best turnout for your party.

[adamposey]

In the U.S. only about 50% of those registered actually vote. And only about 50% of those who are eligible to register actually do so (18 years old or greater).

That makes the turnout roughly 25%. And that is for presidential and national elections! For state and local elections, the turnout is much lower. (The 2008 election of Obama I think was an exception and the turnout was a little higher.)

In regard to monks voting, I think it is an individual preference and there is no specific Vinaya rule against it. I think it could be a skillful means for choosing someone who exemplifies compassion, kindness, fairness, and equanimity.

For example, if there were two candidates running for president and one openly called for bombing another country on flimsy evidence at best and the other candidate was opposed, then voting for the anti-war candidate could help promote the Buddhist compassionate ideals. In most cases, the choice is not that clear, but when it is, why not exercise some choice and try to bring some good to the politics.

Nah, turnout was pretty steady on the whole. The makeup of the turnout was high-ish (in the upper 20s I believe) but nothing approaching the massive turnout that the Nixon election gained. The problem is that while the turnout was high among minorities and youth, another part of the electorate was just kind of fizzled out. That is, the more republican parts of the electorate certainly weren't feeling the energy to get out and vote.