Login/Sign Up




Should public elections in the USA require a quorum at the polls to be valid?
Politics

docday
Sep 20, 2007
2 votes
6 debaters
2


+ Add Argument

0
No. Non-voters don't matter.


lqtm
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Is this is very poorly worded, or is it just me?

 
donmega
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Non voters do matter, but, compelling people to vote is not freedom.

 
lqtm
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: docday Show

I thought it might be. It's late :P

 
donmega
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: docday Show

And then what, the incumbent stays in office until a quorum is reached? Great idea... BTW, anyone know off hand the percentage of eligible Americans vs those actually registered to vote vs the number that voted in the 2004 presidential election? The numbers are surprising, and sad.

 
supremebeing
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I don’t know about whether or not there should be a quorum, but it won’t be long until there are tasers…

 
+ Add Argument

2
Yes. Non-voters DO matter.


docday
Sep 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lqtm Show

Just you.

 
docday
Sep 20, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Compulsion hasn't been suggested. Quite the opposite. We consider here the possibility that an election turnout of less than a quorum of citizens might properly be considered no election at all. Thus invalid.

We're not talking "presently constitutional" here. We're simply considering whether it is fair to compel everyone to accept a choice that so few bless even with their presence.


 
docday
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Nope, that hasn't been suggested either. Quite the opposite. Let the office go empty. If so few care, why expend any resources? Businesses with few customers are known to work in this way.


 
dirtpatch
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

I agree.
and i hate dumbsh*ts who complain about bush then in the same breath say " i didnt even vote"
the idiocy is mind boggling.

 
gogopoet
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There are two seperate issues presented for debate, whether or not there should be a quorum rule and whether or not non-votes matter. Since the first issue would not exist if non-votes were irrelevant, I think it safe to disregard that issue.

If a quorum were required and not enough people voted there are several possible outcomes:

A Offices would become vacant, creating chaos. While most of us don't LIKE politicians, they are a necessary evil. We NEED our coroners, police chiefs, sherrifs, tax assessors circuit clerks, judges, etc. In this scenario an unfilled elections office could theoretically end elections.

B Presiding officers would continue in office thus eliminating the established term limits imposed to prevent officers from becoming powerful enough to take over. That doesn't sound like a good idea either.

C A new slate of candidates would be fielded for a follow-up election at enormous expense to everyone. The question is whether or not the expense would be worth it.

D A designated body of representatives would appoint a replacement. That offers no better quarantee that the people would be represented than electing people without a quorum does, so why add the extra expense?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong