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.

27 of 1,089 comments (clear)

  1. Then ID would be required by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One big problem with this plan for democrats: Voters would have to present ID to get credit for voting.

    Nice try, though.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Then ID would be required by Mantrid42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Name and social security number. Done. Voter fraud is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent anyway. It would be even harder to commit if you go to vote, and the person at the polls helpfully informs you that you already did.

    2. Re:Then ID would be required by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You get around it by making ID freely provided by the government, and find a way to help people who live hours away from the nearest DMV (rural Texas or Alaska for example). It costs something around twenty bucks to get a photo ID card, so requiring ID is de facto charging a fee to vote; many elderly people, homemakers, or disabled who don't work don't have up-to-date IDs because they've never needed them, and these are often the same people where paying for government ID, let alone securing transportation to a licensing facility, might mean not having money for rent. Gas for a trip to the nearby large town can be one hell of an expense.

      If the government says "everyone must have ID", the government must provide it free of charge. Otherwise it's a forced tax just like the Obamacare opt-out fee, and Republicans don't like that, do they? Add a service where if your town is more than X distance from the nearest licensing facility, they'll send out some kind of licensemobile to photograph and print on-site once a year or so, that would cover nearly everybody. It still sucks if you lose all your ID in a fire, or if you're homeless and have lost your documents, but it's about as close as you can get.

      For the record, I live in Washington state where almost everyone votes by mail. It doesn't require ID because there's no way to do it, and we don't have rampant fraud, so clearly ID isn't a 100% necessary requirement for a sane voting system. What's the problem?

    3. Re:Then ID would be required by Calhune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've heard this, but I don't understand this. What 18 year old doesn't have a drivers license in the US? Or a simple state ID card? You have to have an ID card to simply apply for jobs or open a bank account or go to a bar (once you hit 21). Same goes for minorities. All states give out non-drivers license ID's for a small fee or for free. The one group I've heard that I could understand are the elderly that are house bound. But most Voter ID initiatives provide for free ID's for these groups.

    4. Re:Then ID would be required by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't claim it's non-existent because the system is set up in a manner that makes it extremely difficult to detect, especially in states that don't require an ID.

      It's like you saying you don't have cancer because you can't see through your skin and see it.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Then ID would be required by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard this, but I don't understand this.

      Its very easy to understand when you realize that its an obvious lie.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. do you really want the uninformed voting by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:do you really want the uninformed voting by ras · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I live in country where voting is compulsory. (Actually it is showing up at a polling booth is compulsory. Compulsory voting isn't compatible with a secret ballot. The name choice is unfortunate because it sends the libertarians into a frenzy.) Turns out it's not an "informed decision" that's important. It's avoiding making a dumb decision. Regardless of whether you follow politics or not you do know when politicians make dumb mistakes, particularly when they effect you. I can't imagine too make people in New Orleans voting for Bush after the Katrina debacle for example.

      It turns out that's all that is required. The people who care enough about politics to vote are the dangerous ones, because a fair percentage of them do not make an informed decision. They vote for tribal reasons - gun laws, "I'm a democrat" or whatever. You think you are making an "uninformed decision" and therefore it must be poor but trust me, it's infinitely better than those who vote the same way regardless of how they have been informed.

  3. How about just a day off? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:How about just a day off? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or just do it Saturdays and with absentee ballots. I don't understand what the problem is. You guys are supposed to be the greatest country in the world, why are you having such problems figuring this out?

  4. He's too hopeful for voters to change. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama did a good job, I am not interested in hearing from people who think he didn't.

    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.

  6. Re:freedom by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh.. You know democrats voted overwhelmingly for patriot and its renewals (under obama as well), right? Patriot was a 'reaching across the aisle' moment.

  7. Voter fraud is very real by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. You have the right not to act. by RLBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
  9. Re:What's next? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:freedom by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:non-existent fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. False assumption by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:It is time to get up one way or the other by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:It is time to get up one way or the other by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Ohhh, Democrats!!! by Gription · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?)

  16. Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. There's a much more sensible first step by facetube · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Do I understand this correctly? by Mantrid42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So have a box on every ballot that says, "None of the above."

  19. Re:It is time to get up one way or the other by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You mean why would advertising play a bigger role in a mandatory election than in voluntary? I think it's obvious.

    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.

  20. Re:freedom by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!