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.
One big problem with this plan for democrats: Voters would have to present ID to get credit for voting.
Nice try, though.
sig: sauer
Over time I have gotten a little more interested in politics and voting. but when i was not interested, me voting was useless. I did not make a informed decision. So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote. Then it really could become a popularity contest instead of more on the facts. Make sure you are seen more then the other guy and people like that persons face and you could win based on that.
Seriously, why aren't Election Days mandatory holidays? Do it over two days: The last Thursday before normal Election Day is Alternate Election Day, when people who will be working on Election Day must have off. Then everybody else takes Tuesday as a holiday. That, combined with absentee ballots should be an excellent start.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Take the money OUT of politics.
Stop outright lying.
It too obvious that congress critters have a price tag.
Until that changes, there is no hope for America.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
i would like the freedom to not be spied upon... if that takes mandatory voting... lets do it.
Talk to the idiot Republicans in congress, that shit is a throw back to that retarded cowboy that came before Obama NOT Obama! It is amazing how quick the public forgets and blames everything on the current administration.
Then you're part of the problem. Not because of your opinion of Obama, but because you refuse to engage with people who disagree with you. It makes you identical to those "idiot Republicans" you claim to be tired of.
Uh.. You know democrats voted overwhelmingly for patriot and its renewals (under obama as well), right? Patriot was a 'reaching across the aisle' moment.
Margins these days on many elections are within a percent or two, so non-citizen voting is enough to have a real impact on how elections swing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Choosing not to decide is still making a choice." There are those who may wish to stay partially off the grid by not registering to vote. There are those who consider absence to be a show of protest. Let those who wish to vote do so, freely without needing anything except a state ID. Let those who do not wish to vote live in peace.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
Based on the same lies regarding WMDs in Iraq by the previous administration. I'm not saying the Dems aren't at fault for not doing due diligence, but there was a lot of screaming from the previous administration's side that pushed a lot of unhealthy decisions for the country.
Why not? It already controls healthcare funding. It will then want to minimize costs, so it will start dictating what can be eaten and tax people accordingly. Welcome to the radiant socialist future comrade.
I don't think it will even be that. In my experience, most people just vote for somebody based on very meaningless reasons. E.g. vote for who their friends voted for, or in the case of the last president, my sister voted for him just because she felt it was time we had a black president...seriously no other reason than that. I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become due to the signal to noise being really bad. Even going out of my way to not register, somehow I still keep getting voter ID cards and mail in ballots every election, which during the 2014 election I literally threw in the trash.
That said, the president thinks this will take money out of politics...sorry but that has to be among the dumbest things I've heard him say. If anything, it will make it worse. Another thing people tend to do is stick to branding impressions. For example people who live in Dallas are more likely to vote for the Cowboys as the best sports team because that is the branding that they are the most exposed to. People likewise tend to pick a political party, and then will bend their views to whatever they think their party is most in favor of...Republicans and Democrats both do this, so don't think your party doesn't (another symptom of branding.)
Likewise, if we have compulsory voting, politicians are probably more likely to be elected solely based on how their brand image is promoted through advertising, so there's going to be a LOT more money in politics.
You defend one side or the other as the lesser of two evils when they are both part of the problem. Voting democrat or republican is voting for status quo. Obama and the democrats had 8 years to undo some of the damage. What did he do? He signed the patriot renewal. He could've vetoed it. He could've issued the same kind of 'executive orders' that bush abused to undo a lot of that damage too. He didn't. Instead he enabled it for another round, or even enhanced it. You can hate on bush and co all you want, but obama and hillary are just as much to blame.
One the one hand he thinks mandatory voting as in Belgium is a good idea, but he is also opposed to the type of photo IDs they require to vote.
I suppose there's a compromise: maybe people could issue the ID to themselves (kind of like running your own email server). Or (in Chicago) give people as many IDs as they need.
That's election fraud. Voter fraud is when an actual voter votes multiple times or tries to vote as someone they are not. Election fraud is sneaking ballots into the box, throwing away ballots, and all that fun stuff.
So no, it's not a lie, voter fraud is incredibly ineffective as a means of influencing an election because it has to be done more publicly and more frequently to have an effect that simply getting the right person to transport the ballot boxes from the polling location and get them to accidentally lose a few.
I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become due to the signal to noise being really bad. Even going out of my way to not register, somehow I still keep getting voter ID cards and mail in ballots every election, which during the 2014 election I literally threw in the trash.
If you be bothered to vote then you have no right to complain about the outcome.
The assumption is that money buys votes. It doesn't. It buys advertising on a lot of levels along with all the people who are needed to promote a given candidate. By requiring everybody to vote, candidates would have to spend even more money to be sure that they reach the half of the voting population that doesn't vote.
What we really need is to get rid of the winner-take-all for state electoral votes. Imagine you live in a county that regularly has a majority vote for one party but because a little more than half of the rest of the counties in the state regularly voted for the other party. Your votes no longer count because the electoral votes got flipped. What if this happens over and over? How represented would you feel?
What if both choices are bad? I actually had that problem once.
Yeah, you're lucky. South Park did a great episode on this where the two choices to vote for were a Giant Duche or a Turd Sandwich.
I always vote but I also continue to "throw my vote away" by voting for a third party because to me voting for the "lesser of two evils"
is no choice at all when for everything I care about the republicans and democrats are virtually indistiguishable. They pretent to be
different but they are usually squabling over a few million here or there while the TRILLIONS they are spending on war, etc... are
virtually the same. They'll brag about a 100 million dollar tax cut on a 4 trillion dollar budget. For anyone who isn't paying attention,
that's the equivalent of bragging that you cut out 1 dollar of expenses from your 40k a year paycheck.
I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become
That's fine. I support your right to do that. But please don't complain that politicians don't care about you or your problems. You have given them no reason to care. Politicians care about 70 year old and their problems because they show up at the polls at twice the rate of 35 year olds.
Related to that, I think that election day should be a national holiday and no for-profit business should be allowed to be open. That would give everyone the opportunity to vote. Having elections on a regular work day is a huge disincentive for hourly workers to vote. It literally costs them money, like illegal poll taxes of the 19th century.
To balance out the work calender, they can get rid of MLK day. I have no doubt that Dr. King would approve.
The problem isn't Republicans. It isn't even Democrats.
(The problem may not even be Libertarians but we will never know will we...)
Our problem is government by popularity contest in a world that will keep watching more then 5 seconds after they hear "Kardashians". We have a people that let the courts declare that corporations have the rights assigned to people. We have "We The People" who are so adverse to risk that they live in fear of terrorists while living in the safest era in human history and then they demand that the government devours personal liberties en masse to give what is only the popular appearance of something called "safety". We have a country that when polled 80% were in favor of warning labels on food that has DNA in it. (And if you are reading this and you don't know why DNA warnings are an unbelievably stupid idea then you are an idiot and you should stop reading now and take some remedial science courses immediately.)
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
(... Hallelujah... Holy shit... Where's the Tylenol?)
yes, its very much a 2 party system. well, not true anymore. I almost can't tell the diff between the thieves in the R class and the thieves in the D class. neither follows the laws, neither represents the will of the people. they are all bought and paid for, they got theirs, now fark you (in the parlance of our times..)
neither candidate has appealed to me in decades and I have not voted in decades. to force me to pick and endorse assholes like that, that we end up having to pick from, is insulting to say the least.
now, if we could vote against people, that would be fine. it should also allow voting against them all.
then, I would show up to the polls.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
In other words, "Let them change anything they want" because the current system is so shitty you'd be hard pressed to find much worth saving.
I read one post somewhere that said "Obama to Force Mandatory Voting." I chuckled, as that article implied he was being a dictator forcing people into democracy!
I used to be for mandatory voting until I realized that stupid people would vote anyway, and that they are most likely influenced by silly one liners in paid TV ads, so we'd simply end up with the same lot of garbage politicians. Heck, maybe even worse!
I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms. This would have the added benefit that only citizens, who are also taxpayers,(or at least those who took the time to file, even if they earned nothing) would qualify for certain benefits. You shine on filing your taxes, you shine on your benefits. Maybe you get a notice saying you are eligible for benefits in countries where people have no obligations.
I'd also like to see congressmen who vote for something that's bad for the country, solely to screw the other party, be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Follow in the footsteps of Oregon. Automatic voter registration and universal vote-by-mail. A ballot automatically shows up wherever you get your mail, provided you're known to the state in any capacity whatsoever as an 18+ year old human. You have more than a month to research issues/candidates, fill it out, and drop it back in a USPS or free ballot-only mailbox. A non-partisan voters guide even shows up in your mailbox a few weeks before the ballot arrives. No more begging for time off work to go wait in line for two hours to use an unverifiable machine. No more issues with transportation to polling places, or equity issues surrounding placement of polling places.
Don't bother making it mandatory until you make it easy.
1) Import 30 million of illegal aliens, many of whom are illiterate not just in English but in Spanish 2) Provide them a sneaky legal path to citizenship and voting 3) Implement mandatory voting Result: Democrats win every election.
So have a box on every ballot that says, "None of the above."
"voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone"
"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.
Then again, that's no doubt exactly why Obama wants it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Democrats deserve far less blame than the Bush administration, which actually set the war in motion. The Bush administration argued that they needed the authorization to use force in order to have a strong negotiating position with Saddam Hussein. Turned out negotiation was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush. The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).
The very reason we have the democratic and republican parties is that the voting public is already comprised largely of the stupid. Given the realities of the Gaussian, most of what's that's left should be smarter people.
Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. Your idea would lock them out of any active political role in determining their own destinies. You can't lock people out of voting. Period.
I'd substitute "unconstitutional" for "bad for the country", and remove "solely to screw the other party", and make them stay here so their fellow citizens could sneer at them on a regular basis, but yeah. If you enter public service, and you don't serve the public, I figure that's maximum bad behavior with absolutely huge harm. Worse than anything else on the books. Seriously. Murderer kills what, a few people? Bad law hurts people by the tens or hundreds of thousands or even (drug laws, for example) millions, tens of millions.
I'm honestly quite surprised that one of the more severely injured victims of bad law -- and there's plenty of it, and of them -- hasn't already taken their mistreatment directly to the source(s) as a matter of some well-deserved kickback. Still, only a matter of time, I'm thinking. All it takes is one person with not much more to lose and a good reason. Good reason being trivially available in prolific amounts, the rest is just a matter of social Russian roulette for congress and SCOTUS.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"I was powerless to stop the woman from being raped, because I had abdicated my power by deciding I wanted to fuck her."
"I was powerless to stop the child from getting drunk, because I had abdicated my power by buying the kid a fifth of Jack Daniels."
Do you realize how ABSOLUTELY MORONIC your argument sounds?
Democrats voted overwhelmingly to authorize force: that was exactly when they could have exercised their power to "affect the actions of the executive branch." Arguing that "because they exercised bad judgement, they're blameless for the results that came from that bad judgement" is completely stupid.
They had the power to stop the war from happening - they didn't have to authorize the use of force. They did.
Right now, we have 37% turnout. Of those, less than half are probably well informed voters, the rest are voting because of, well, any number of reasons. First black President, first woman, not a Mormon, etc. Let's use 15% as a round number for the interested, informed group. That leaves 22%.
Now imagine that mandatory voting is implemented. You get 95% turnout. Where do the extra voters come from? From the one who aren't interested, of course. If they were interested, they'd have voted without it being mandatory. So you now have 15% of the turnout as informed voters, and 80% are now emotion-based or simply uninterested.
If an advertiser of a commercial product went from an audience of 22% to 80%, they'd be orgasmic. Imagine political advertisers all trying to reach that new 58% of the voters who aren't already committed to any candidate but want a way to make a decision. The $1 that could sway only 22% of the population yesterday now blossoms into $100 to try to reach all 80% of the targets.
Claiming that mandatory voting will get money out of politics is one of the stupidest things anyone has said. Since we know that Mr. Obama isn't that stupid, he must have another reason to suggest it. If the reason can't be openly stated, then there must be a problem with it.
In any case, mandatory voting is a bad idea no matter how many other countries do it. It is someone's right not to vote just as much as it is to vote, and encouraging people who otherwise have no interest in the process to vote is a mistake. Voting for voting's sake is a travesty of the process.
Ron Paul had the balls to vote "no" on the patriot act, both in 2001 and 2005. Did you vote for him? (Or, would you have?)
There are, however, plenty of voters who are informed but find voting to be so difficult -
s/are informed/care enough to do it/i;
It should take both a level of informed decision making and concern about the output. Lacking either one is a good reason not to vote. Changing the system so more people who are uninformed/don't care can vote is a bad thing.
If your local municipality has issues with providing sufficient facilities so that those who are informed and care can vote, fix that problem. Trying to solve a local problem at the national level is wrong.
One thing that should be seriously considered is making election day a national holiday to guarantee that everyone has time to vote.
"Oh, goody, it's National Voting Day again. I can sleep late, and then we can go to the lake and drink a few brewskies..." Good for the brewers, but not so good for the rest of the economy.
There is a reason our system of government has what's called "checks and balances" -- when one branch starts trying to take on too much power and do too much, the other branches have the authority to CHECK these abuses of power, and BALANCE the government back into a more moderate approach.
If the Legislative branch "abdicated its responsibility" and allowed the President to set both legislative and executive agendas in prosecuting a war that they did not believe in, then they share just as much blame as the president who overreached.
They have an *affirmative duty* to exercise a restraining influence on the executive branch. It is their JOB. By your own words, they "abdicated responsibility." This makes them - at best - accessories to the crime, and at worst, willing conspirators.
Pretty sure ancient athens was not in the soviet block. Pretty sure 1700s era Georgia (US) was not in the soviet block.
The only thing that was in the Soviet block was the Soviet block, and guess what? They didn't have compulsary voting. Yes they had a turnout requirement, aka a Quorum. B
Don't just [i]make shit up[/i] if you want to make apoint dude. Its a very dishonest way to argue.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I believe the proper frame of reference to keep in mind when following American politics is the WWE.
Lots of winning and losing, but you don't go anywhere. And your wallet is a lot lighter at the end of the day.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!