Thank you for sharing your perspective, it helped me develop my own point of view. I found all of your points very compelling, and I especially appreciated the reminder at the end that Stoicism applies to winners as well. Our world would undoubtedly be a better place if everyone, including those who get the outcome they were hoping for, reacted with equanimity and wisdom.
In Australia we have compulsory voting. Meaning that all Australian citizens must vote in State and Federal elections as well as any referendums which occur very occasionally.
If you don't vote you get a fine of about $20 Australian, about $30 US.
This system is designed to eliminate extremists of left or right winning elections due to a low voter turnout. Especially relevant in a country like Australia which has a comparatively small population.
Of course there are ways of getting around the fine if you don't vote. You could spoil your ballot paper deliberately or submit a blank one. So I suppose all that is really required is that you "vote" in some way that merely requires you to have it recorded that you have submitted a ballot paper. Turn up at a polling station or post a ballot paper.
The system seems to work and most people do vote for one side or another. Some people don't agree with this system because they fell it is coercive.
What would the ancients think about this and what do you and others on this site think?
Would a compulsory voting system be useful in the US?
Iain, Italy too, and several other European countries, have similar measures. In Italy there is no fine, but the fact that you skipped voting goes on your records, and if it happens above a certain number of times you may not get hired for a government job.
I think such measures are effective in order to make people understand that voting is not just a right, it’s also a duty. As for coercion, they are no more coercive than having to serve on jury duty, or having to wear a seatbelt.
I like to reread books i think have good insights Right now i am rereading your book How to be Stoic i came across this quote i book marked. There rarely is such a thing as a sharp dichotomy in any but the more trivial matters. I think thats a relevant POV about the current election in America
Winston Churchill offered his “blood, toil, tears, and sweat". I take that to mean he did not retreat based on "not up to me" and drop his sword. The allies were not prepared to practice "equanity" "acquiescence" . This has been my problem with dichotomy and the virtue of courage. ...hmmmm
The dichotomy of control (not the best name for it, by the way) does not say that we should retreat in the face of an enemy. Nor that we should use the “not up to me” as an excuse for cowardice.
What it says is that there is a distinction between facts and value judgments, as well as between intentions and outcomes. And that we are well served by keeping such distinctions in mind. I think that’s right.
"there is no such thing as human objective judgment". I suppose then the discrimination is between those attempting to seek truth and those who're already certain ( & are thereby entitled to impose that certainty on others)?
Yes, the contrast is between those who are aware of human fallibility and try to do their best vs those who think they have already attained the truth. But the later are *not* entitled to impose their certainties on others. They only *think* they are entitled.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, it helped me develop my own point of view. I found all of your points very compelling, and I especially appreciated the reminder at the end that Stoicism applies to winners as well. Our world would undoubtedly be a better place if everyone, including those who get the outcome they were hoping for, reacted with equanimity and wisdom.
Eleonora, happy to be useful! Yes, the world would be much better if both winners and losers would behave with equanimity.
*feel*
In Australia we have compulsory voting. Meaning that all Australian citizens must vote in State and Federal elections as well as any referendums which occur very occasionally.
If you don't vote you get a fine of about $20 Australian, about $30 US.
This system is designed to eliminate extremists of left or right winning elections due to a low voter turnout. Especially relevant in a country like Australia which has a comparatively small population.
Of course there are ways of getting around the fine if you don't vote. You could spoil your ballot paper deliberately or submit a blank one. So I suppose all that is really required is that you "vote" in some way that merely requires you to have it recorded that you have submitted a ballot paper. Turn up at a polling station or post a ballot paper.
The system seems to work and most people do vote for one side or another. Some people don't agree with this system because they fell it is coercive.
What would the ancients think about this and what do you and others on this site think?
Would a compulsory voting system be useful in the US?
Iain, Italy too, and several other European countries, have similar measures. In Italy there is no fine, but the fact that you skipped voting goes on your records, and if it happens above a certain number of times you may not get hired for a government job.
I think such measures are effective in order to make people understand that voting is not just a right, it’s also a duty. As for coercion, they are no more coercive than having to serve on jury duty, or having to wear a seatbelt.
I like to reread books i think have good insights Right now i am rereading your book How to be Stoic i came across this quote i book marked. There rarely is such a thing as a sharp dichotomy in any but the more trivial matters. I think thats a relevant POV about the current election in America
Winston Churchill offered his “blood, toil, tears, and sweat". I take that to mean he did not retreat based on "not up to me" and drop his sword. The allies were not prepared to practice "equanity" "acquiescence" . This has been my problem with dichotomy and the virtue of courage. ...hmmmm
The dichotomy of control (not the best name for it, by the way) does not say that we should retreat in the face of an enemy. Nor that we should use the “not up to me” as an excuse for cowardice.
What it says is that there is a distinction between facts and value judgments, as well as between intentions and outcomes. And that we are well served by keeping such distinctions in mind. I think that’s right.
"there is no such thing as human objective judgment". I suppose then the discrimination is between those attempting to seek truth and those who're already certain ( & are thereby entitled to impose that certainty on others)?
Yes, the contrast is between those who are aware of human fallibility and try to do their best vs those who think they have already attained the truth. But the later are *not* entitled to impose their certainties on others. They only *think* they are entitled.
Thanks again, Massimo, for this wonderful guidance on what will be turbulent time.
I hope it will be useful!
Thanks, Massimo!