NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Democracy to thrive impose serious responsibility on the citizens to participate in the sacred duty of Voting to elect leaders,who govern them. In many leading democracies the percentage of eligible voter participation is declining with the result that the winning candidates get away with a minority of the total vote percentage. This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance. I feel that penal provisions for violation of this fundamental duty by citizens must be made punishable,though freedom is the essence of democracy. Freedom does not mean remaining passive spectator and being lethargic to go to the polling stations and vote. To protect his freedom, the voter has to pay a price by doing his duty of Voting for his choice candidate.

Chill. Your vote is almost never going to matter. For example, I live in California and you know what change is going to happen if I don't vote? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Further, a lot of people don't care to learn about the candidates so they are going to pick random people, just to avoid the long arm of the law. There's a lot to be done to make more people vote.

* The time to vote should be increased, for at least a week, in many locations as well as mail in voting.

* Not requiring registration to vote prior to voting (citizenship should suffice)

However, as it stands, if corrupt folks were just tossed out on their ear and the government functioned like it should, there's be little need to care.

You want to force a person to do something they don't want to do upon penalty of law. The only thing you're going to do is force ignorant voters to the polls who don't understand the issue to vote fairly randomly.

"This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance." -- There's no data to suggest that the individuals likely voters would elect vs. all individuals are any worse. This connection is simply non-existent. The idea that if everybody votes we'll get better people running or winning is strictly speaking... false.

There are plenty of problems with government, not enough idiots voting isn't one of them.

If anybody made that a law, they'd be voted out of office by the millions facing prison suddenly forced to vote.

I agree that the electoral process needs reforms so that people get a chance to vote without bother we need participative democracies so that better governance emerges and the system truly reflects 'by the people, for the people and of the people'
I am worried about the citizens lack of interest in the voting and remaining in the sidelines and fume over the leaders who govern us.
What I want to emphasize is that many voters are not doing their sacred once in 4/5 years duty of voting and electing leaders.
In democracy we should realize the value of vote is the essence of my argument.
Penal provisions for Not Voting in my view are to remind the voters that they have a duty too to fulfill so that their democracy flourishes .
Countries are dragged into warlike situations by the leaders many a time and the worst sufferers are the citizens.
If the elected candidate gets less than the majority of the eligible votes, it is difficult to justify that he represents the will of the people.

The long arm of the law is not a process reform. People need to want to vote, and currently there's nothing worth voting for. Converting over to a run off election could certainly help get more people involved and give a voice to those who previously did not have a voice. But, honestly, you don't fix a "lack of interest" with a gun to your temple.

Also, voting isn't a sacred duty. There's noting sacred about it. You go into the polling place and put a mark next to whoever the Democrat in the election is and leave. Nothing holy or even slightly difficult about it.

Democracy doesn't flourish with a boot to the throat. We would have roughly the same government today as we would have had if we forced people to vote. The choices aren't that great and for the most part voting doesn't change the outcome. For example, did you know that the voting rate is better in Cuba and in Saddam's Iraq than it is in the US, and they only had one party systems... and similar provisions to your rules.

We could do many thing to improve the voting and to make the voting count for more, we could elect better people and fix the system, we could do a better job at counting the votes cast, and keeping legal voters on the voter rolls... and we should. Forcing people to the polls does not make magical democracy fairies come around to fix all the problem. Random disinterested people vote when they need to vote, and don't when they don't.

Non-voting in elections is near the bottom of problems with government.

I think responsible voting makes a difference. If everybody thinks that it does not matter whether he votes or abstains from voting, the fabric of democracy weakens. Because we have freedom not to vote, we abstain. Expressing choice by participating in the voting strengthens democracy.
Governance by leaders elected by minority voters violates the spirit of democracy.

YOU: "I think responsible voting makes a difference. If everybody thinks that it does not matter whether he votes or abstains from voting, the fabric of democracy weakens. Because we have freedom not to vote, we abstain. Expressing choice by participating in the voting strengthens democracy."

Do you realize how twisted this sounds? You advocate passing laws to make sure people vote because forcing people to vote will make for "responsible voting" because people choosing to vote or not vote "weakens the fabric of democracy" and yet "expressing choice by participating" strengthens democracy.

Let's see.

Responsible voting matters, so we must force disinterested people into voting.
Choosing not to vote weakens the fabric of democracy, so we must remove their choice.
Choosing to vote, strengthens democracy so we must force people to vote.

To top it all off, your vote typically doesn't matter. A few thousand votes in a small election might make a difference a in a larger election it won't. I live in California. When the presidential election comes around in November, my state will vote for the Democratic Nominee... it could be a Pringles can so long as it has a (D) next to the name. If I don't vote... this same thing happens. -- You honestly want to force disinterested people into voting, removing their choice, and choosing punishments for failure to comply in order to make them go to the polls and pull a random level and change a total of nothing?

I'm sorry, but this idea cannot be taken seriously. Further, in the United States at least, it isn't constitutional. You have a right to vote or not to vote. And while there are plenty of things to improve about the system forcing people to vote isn't anywhere on the list.