Slashdot Mirror
Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
HughPickens.com writes CNN reports that when asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said Obama "It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans — more than the population of Russia — skipped out. Critics of mandatory voting have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
What it does have is mandatory attendance . What you do in the voting booth is your own business. And all of which is done on a Saturday.
If anything I think the USA would be better off with moving the election day from Tuesday. See Why Tuesday? for info about the slow push to make this change.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round).
That is partially true. Politics are dominated by two parties (which are both marching further to the far-right end of the spectrum in a global sense) and they have the most money and ability to run candidates, by a long shot. Attempts to run as a third party candidate are often considered Quixotic.
What if both choices are bad?
In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
...
Really, voting for any eligible person is better than not voting at all. You can vote for yourself if you want, or vote for your favorite musician, athlete, comedian, etc
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
That is not true, in a presidential election there is no reason to think the delegation would follow suit
I was going to comment about Obama, but I see like me you realize R or D they are both after the same things.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Low turnout is a symptom, not the problem. Both parties are bought and paid for and are not very responsive to the rabble, so it is no surprise that most folks aren't very excited about elections anymore.
Most districts have been gerrymandered such that your vote does not matter, by design. If your district is 65% or more one party or the other thanks to disingenuous officials who rig the voting maps to keep their party in power there really is little reason to vote or even to keep believing the delusion that you are part of a good faith democratic system (you are decidedly not in the USA).
Finally, with a 2 party system with no minor parties of consequence I totally understand how a large and growing minority of voters cannot bring themselves to be affiliated with either party. The parties fight over issues rather than govern and there is no way to vote for "other" that will result in anything better than not voting at all. So it becomes a rational choice to not vote rather than wasting your time to cast a ballot that either does not matter, or for a party you very much do not approve of.
No, you are saying that the Dem's aren't at fault, and you're lying by obfuscation.
Words of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alwa
While lots of other parties are allowed, it's difficult for them to succeed. Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Barriers_to_third_party_success
Voter fraud is when an actual voter votes multiple times
In some areas they bus people to multiple polling stations. If no ID is required it's easy to vote for someone else at each station.
Chicago is famous for the dead voting. Just who do you think shows up at the polls to do so, and why do you think they would only vote for the dead person?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As a inhabitant of Belgium: I can assure you that the punishments aren't enforced.
10% of the eligible voters don't actually come to the voting poll
Another 5% of the voters does this blank or invalid. This means with compulsary voting in belgium we only reach around 85% of the eligible voters (looking at the latest elections).
Small semantic detail: you are not required to vote in belgium, you are only (technically) required to go to the voting station. You can legally put an empty ballot paper (electronic or old skool) in the box.
As said before, either way it doesn't make much difference, as the rule is rarely enfoced (I think if you don't vote for multiple elections in a row they might punish you, but missing one election won't give any result).
People don't vote because there is very little practical difference between the candidates nowadays. The parties (and their financial backers) set up a horse race between the two top contenders most amenable to the parties (and their financial backers), not the voters.
Oh sure, the voters can chose a candidate in their primaries, and they later can chose between the candidates from the different parties, but the actual decisions about the future leadership of the country have already been made by the parties and their financial backers.If it makes you feel like a rebel or a patriot, you can occasionally vote for the 3rd party candidate (but not so much anymore). They might garner some of the vote, but generally have no chance of winning, and don't change the fact that the candidates of the two major parties have already been selected for you. They might sway the election from one party to another, but that doesn't really make a difference. The American voter gets the choice of 31 flavors, but they're unfortunately all vanilla.
Here are U.S. presidential popular vote results since 1980 (if you don't remember who won, Google it or something). Note that the difference between the major party candidates hasn't exceeded 8% since 1984 (average difference was about 5% and has been decreasing with time), and that the party balance has bounced from Democrat to Republican several times in those years, even with major 3rd party rabble-rousers like Ross Perot. 3rd parties have been effectively snuffed (remember Ralph Nader? Me neither).
1980 50.8% 41.0% 6.6% (Anderson)
1984 58.8% 40.6%
1988 53.4% 45.7%
1992 43.0% 37.5% 18.9% (Ross Perot)
1996 49.2% 40.7% 8.4% (Ross Perot)
2000 47.9% 48.4%
2004 50.7% 48.3%
2008 52.9% 45.7%
2012 51.1% 47.2%
A variable +/-5% difference between winning and losing does not connote blow-out landside win to me. Sounds a lot like coin toss odds, exactly what you would expect if there was no real difference between the candidates.
The upshot - the variation in candidate choices has flat-lined. The candidates are effectively clones - they'll do their backer's bidding, no matter who actually wins the election. Vote if you like, but don't expect big change.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
ID is not necessarily required.
e.g. in Australia, you turn up to the polling station (usually a local school or whatever), go to the desk and tell them your name. they look it up in their lists of voters, and cross your name off. Then they initial and hand you your ballot papers which you take to a private voting booth and fill out. Then you fold them and drop them into the ballot boxes (one for the house of reps, one for the senate). done.
In the last few elections, the Australian Electoral Commission (an independant govt body who have the responsibility for running elections) have been mailing out helpful voter cards with your name and IIRC your address on it which you can show at the desk. These cards are completely optional, you can still vote if you forget to bring it or have lost it or never got it, and you still don't have to show any ID.
And, yes, voting is compulsory in australia. In practice, this means you just have to turn up to a polling station and get your name crossed off the list. You can then vote informally if you choose, nobody will know. If you don't turn up, you'll get a letter in the mail a few weeks later asking if you have a good excuse (like, "I was too sick to leave the house"). If not, you'll get fined.
btw, compulsory voting is a good thing. it tends to limit the excesses of the loony extreme fringes of all sides, by encouraging politicians and major parties to pander to the middle ground.
and preferential voting (i.e. ordering your preferences as 1, 2, 3, etc) is also a good thing. it allows voters to vote for third parties and independant candidates without wasting their vote - if their first choice fails to win, their 2nd choice gets their vote...and then their third, fourth, etc choices. It also allows voters to send a message or lodge a protest, e.g. vote for the socialist party 1st and Labour 2nd - Labour will still (almost certainly) end up with that person's vote but they're also telling the Labour party that their policies are too right-wing and too cozy with business.....and, hey, if the impossible happens and the pimple-faced university student from Socialist Alliance wins a seat, that'll shake things up a bit in parliament!
In Australia, polling day is a Saturday. Always. Voting opens early, and closes relatively late, so those who work weekends do have a time that they can get to a polling station without having to take the day off; and if worst comes to worst, there are always early voting centres.
It's absolutely crazy that voting is done on a working day; makes it a lot easier for people to be coerced in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways to not vote.
Voter ID, a drivers license or state issued ID card, which I believe if you are over 18 it is against the law to not carry photo ID. I know in my state it is illegal to not carry a state issued ID.
You know incorrectly. There are no laws compelling you to carry a photo ID, although as you note not carrying ID can limit what you can do.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The 18-24 demographic likely affected are college students living out of state (or far enough away from their home region in state) who don't bother to get absentee ballots or register to vote on campus.
Spoken like a true AC.
Do a little searching of the news. You should find references that there are at least 850 registered voters over 150 in New York City. In North Carolina there are over 2200 registered voters over 110 and at least two actively voting over age 150, the oldest being 160 when a vote was cast in 2012. These people would be automatically purged from the voting rolls if votes were not being regularly cast against their registrations. And, by an amazing coincidence, the vast majority of these voters are registered Democrats.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Politicians don't care about anything but the money they can make by gaming the system.
The whole 'climate change controvercy' (an artificial controvercy about a topic where never was any controversy aboit in the first place) is a prime example for that.
Or the idiotic idea that car companies may not have their own shops and laws banning Tessla selling their cars directly.
It is just a few days away that Apple has to close its ...
AppleStores
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. "
Not anymore it's not. Seriously, that's new: You 'have' to file now since the ACA. I have yet to hear of an exception for the homeless to at least file the form for your exemption. So the homeless are technically in violation of tax law.
I see now, the real plan: They are just going to outlaw being poor. Seattle is at the forefront of this trend.
Fucking brilliant! Why didn't we think of this years ago?
Just for the record, 66 people (59 Democrat, 3 Republican, 4 Other) voted no in the House and only Feingold voted no in the Senate.
> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.
Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
> OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
Scratch that. Looks like most states have restrictions.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs