On the matter of the obligatory voting in the September 2022 plebiscite, some points to discuss or share or whatever.
One: if you were a CL resident obligated to vote in that plebiscite, how were you made aware of that condition?
Two: A parallel question might be: when you became qualified to vote in non-mandatory elections in CL, how did you become aware of such status?
Three: If you did not vote in the September plebiscite, but were obligated to do so, have you received any notification or accusation of being in violation of the applicable law?
Four: If you were not personally in violation, do you know of anyone who was, who may have been contacted regarding a failure to vote at that time? Outcomes?
Five: Any personal opinions from those non-citizens of CL (extranjeros con residencia definitiva) subject to voting in CL, regarding the current Senate proposal to return to mandatory voting for nearly all national elections?
A letter arrived at my house with information about my polling location.
I voted, so N/A
Also N/A
I am no longer a permanent resident, I am nationalized. I may be the only one here. Personally, I think voting should be voluntary again. When voting was made voluntary, everyone was registered based on Civil Registry records, whether they wanted it or not. I don’t think they can now make voting always mandatory again - unless they let people opt out by un-registering.
They also need to make another effort to make voting locations closer to where people live. My husband and I both had locations far from each other and far from the house again, despite all the promises to the contrary,
(1) News and Internet.
(2) Received snail mail from Servel. Thanks to that piece of paper, I was able to permanently remove myself from the jury list of that state of the Empire that issued and maintains my DL.
(3) Hell yeah I voted. ¡Viva el 63%!
(4) No. I find it strange that the commie government so eager to generate more funds for their excesses have not gone full Rambo on collecting those fines no debate or new tax law needed.
(5) Given the US libertarian inclinations of my distant past, I feel mixed on this as now with age and experience I see that all the crap that destroyed 30 + years of growth would possibly not have happened or been constructively modified if the responsible adults of the country actually had to pay attention and make a decision every so often. So yes and no with a few conditions like what feargle said.
For those with interest in how the legislative bill ( “proyecto”) is progressing in the CL Senate (to make voting mandatory again via constitutional measure), here is a recent link. As can be seen in the text, the measure would call for required voting in all plebiscites and elections, except for primaries.
I am told (let’s say a rumor) that a foreigner who might otherwise be obliged to vote can legally change his or her voter registration address to a location outside of the country and thus be relieved of the obligation – at least until foreign-site voting becomes part of the scene. At present I believe that legal CL residents residing in another country are not yet to be included in the proposed “mandatory” scheme.
I have said before, I as a resident would be more than happy to give up my right to vote to only Chilean citizens if the Bachelet era legislation was cancelled that gave citizens residing abroad the right to vote.
Except here usually only around half the registered voters actually bother to vote. So a candidate could win with a “majority” of just over a quarter of all the registered voters. And the leftwing parties historically have always been good at mobilizing their supporters.
Without the obligatory vote, the rechazo outcome would have been a lot closer.
For the 2020 plebiscite, which contemplated radical changes to every aspect of Chilean life, of the 51% who voted; 78% voted to change the Constitution, that is only 40% of the electorate.
Of course, the voters didn’t know what they were letting themselves in for at that stage.
That such a radical change could be undertaken so lightly shows the level of improvisation at that time, when its considered that just changing a single article in the current constitution requires a 2/3 or 3/5 parliamentary quorum.