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.
i would like the freedom to not be spied upon... if that takes mandatory voting... lets do it.
With voter turnout this epically low, we are at the point where all the eligible voters who don't vote could band together and elect a president and VP who aren't even on the ticket. Whether or not mandatory voting would help is unclear, but voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone and neither do all the various voter suppression methods that we see in each election cycle. Something should be done to push back.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Would it though? I feel like forcing everyone to vote, including those who aren't interested in what's going on and usually don't go out to vote, would lead itself to be more influenced by whoever throws the most money into advertisements.
One big problem with this plan for democrats: Voters would have to present ID to get credit for voting.
Nice try, though.
sig: sauer
What's next? The government is going to tell us what to eat? Or force us to buy services or products we don't want?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Don't mind me, I'm just enjoying this blank comments page before it becomes a shitfest. My sympathies if you're coming in later.
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.
I have read about mandatory voting in other countries... what can happen is that in elections that people really don't care about, they wind up voting for Mickey Mouse, the FSM, or some other character just for kicks.
However, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and maybe it might be a wise idea to at least get people to the polls somehow, even if they just play Tetris with the checkboxes on the voting machines, just to get rid of voter apathy.
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
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?
Am much much more tired of the congress and all the idiot Republicans. Obama did a good job, I am not interested in hearing from people who think he didn't. 99 problems the US has and none of them are Obama.
That must be some very tasty Cool Aid.
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.
So, choosing to NOT vote is a freedom that Obama wants to deny people? Reduce liberty?
Pass mandatory voting law, and you can be guaranteed that nobody who voted for the law in congress will ever be reelected again. This could be fresh start.
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.
... something other than FPP voting. I favor IRV, but I'd take anything that has half a chance of getting more choices that might actually be elected into the system.
That is all.
Obama said that mandatory voting would change the political landscape, but that it would be a temporary solution. He went on to say that he'd prefer a constitutional amendment that clearly defined the role of money in politics. Propaganda from the people with money who don't want to lose control...that's all this CNN article amounts to.
Yes, we should have mandatory voting. But for that to be reasonable, voting has to be easy for everybody. That means strict requirements for polling place access (meaning reasonable maximum wait times and transit times), make voting day a mandatory national holiday (i.e., no business could force a person to work on voting day), and absentee voting should be available everywhere.
Voter fraud is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent anyway.
That's a huge Democrat lie. It is rampant where I live, and I have a neighbor who is a local "election judge" who even jokes about it. Not just a problem here either. Chicago and Ohio are pretty famous for it, and I very much doubt if it stops there.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So many idiots get their knowledge of the candidates by scripted television ads. This is how you end up electing Monty Burns.
If instead there was a website where you could put in issues you find important (checkboxes) and get a record of voting on these issues by people in office, you could see if your incumbent did what you find important. It'd require some hard workers to simplify complex obfuscated legislation into an easy to understand format, so it is not an easy website to make, but it would be valuable.
Then people would be forced to check how their politician did against what they find important before they reelect people at the voting machines.
God spoke to me
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups" - How convenient. Sounds like it's smack dab in the middle of the Democrat demographic.
"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" - So we're going to punish lower income groups and minorities by fining them or throwing them in jail? Yeah...great plan.
"There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls" - Really? That's a pretty loaded statement. Typical wedge politics.
"Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections" - Yeah, you know why? Because people are fed up with the whole political process, both Democrat and Republican alike.
The last time I checked America was still a democracy. Choosing not to vote, while not a great choice, is our choice to make.
Say, a $10 tax credit if you submit your poll receipt? Or maybe civic minded companies could provide incentives: Starbucks gives you $2 off your next purchase with a voting receipt?
...Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for Dinner.
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.
I second this. Put 50% of any political contribution into a fund and then distribute it to those who vote. That will raise voter participation and reduce the influence of money in politics.
if you don't vote, you won't be allowed to pay taxes. Check and mate!
It's one hell of a way to start breaking out of the two party system, isn't it? Force someone into the booth who hates both major parties, and instead of voting for Mickey Mouse, maybe they'll pick a different guy who's actually on the ballot. All it takes is the tiniest, slimmest name recognition for the candidate or their party, and a lot of hate for the big guys.
The census is mandatory (at least in Canada), and that seems to work well enough. If you don't fill out your census, eventually somebody shows up at your door to remind you, and if you keep ignoring it, then you get in trouble. I don't see how mandatory voting is any harder. The same number of people need to be made to do something, and it happens every roughly the same number of years (four years for voting versus five years for census, at least in Canada).
Of course, there's also a possibility for mistakes to be made. Like how last census, I filled out the census online, only to have a guy show up at my door telling me that I hadn't filled out the census and demanding that I do so. Which meant that I had to fill it out all over again, from scratch. And on paper this time, because if you get to the point where they show up at your door, then they also make an appointment to come pick it up, so you have to do the paper version.
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?
How about national voting holiday. Perhaps in March or April where the holidays are sparse.
Require double-time wages if a co. requires somebody to come in for work, or at least double-time if required to stay more than 4 hours to encourage half-days. (A make-up voting day may be needed for those required to work all day, per signed note from employer.)
Anyhow, it would never pass the Supreme Court.
Table-ized A.I.
Does Obama mean voting as in they vote for you, your pets, and dead relatives, until there is at least 100% turnout?
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.
You sound like an emotional person. I'm glad there are logical people who are willing to engage in discussion.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
...oh wait.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
99 solutions to existing problems and he's solved none.
You have low standards.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Just to accidentally veer back on topic for a moment (it won't last, don't worry), mandatory voting, at least if it allows write-ins, might do something a bit unexpected, too. A lot of people don't vote because they think (know, actually) that voting for either of the mainstream political parties is voting for more of "the same", where "the same" is not a good thing by the vast majority of measures.
Force them to vote, they may go, "ok, fine, I'll vote, but you won't like it." And consider: With only 37% voting previously, those people could ALL be outvoted by the new influx. This could be a huge win for 3rd parties / candidates.
Such a result would amuse the hell out of me. And it could be really, really good for the country.
So bring it on, I say. Remains to be seen if the votes of those who simply aren't engaged (the ignorant by virtue of busy or poor education... the stupid are pretty much accounted for already) would tear us a new one. But hey, the new one isn't likely to be worse than the one we've got now.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Your options are: +1 a candidate, 0 (stay home), or -1 a candidate by voting for their opposition. So they want to shrink it to just two options. That actually gives people less choice.
Since when is a statistical sample of 37% not adequate? Is there any other case where the entirety of a group is sampled at anywhere near that rate?
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
I am neutral to mandatory voting. I believe they have this in Belgium, but it is not strictly enforced with sanctians, so the polical system works similar to neighboring countries. America has bigger political issues: 1) too large influence on politics of big money: by rich people via superPacs and by corporations via lobbying or outricht corruption. 2) Effective two party system, where everything is decided on a single left-right axis, so that non-issues like gun rights and being patriotic or christian enough decide all national politics. Fix these two issues first., then we can discuss mandatory voting.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
And it's this perspective that is why the system doesn't work.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
And that's not all the extra rights that non-citizens have! They don't even have to register for the draft, or serve on juries!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is the most dangerous time in my living memory to be an American citizen. The government has beaten us, as a people we are divided on something as simple as government. When you get both sides finger pointing at each other and saying "but he/she", we can't see the slight of hand. We are at a point where it's not the same country I was born and raised into, in some ways this is good as a people as a nation we should learn grow and evolve. It seems we are regressing in our freedoms and some if not most don't see it. This is how it works, it's just like feature creep by the time it's spotted it's far too late to change it. Those that make the same claim I have are labeled as wingnuts, it's only a conspiracy theory if untrue.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
And if asking someone to drive to the DMV and get a photo ID is too much of an imposition and tantamount to "Racist", what would this be?
Fine, go ahead, make it mandatory, have Automatic Registration, with biometric ID used at the polls. If you are going to go all Orwell, do it right.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Am much much more tired of the congress and all the idiot Republicans. Obama did a good job".
Isn't it a main responsibility of POTUS to lead and manage the legislative branch?
"99 problems the US has and none of them are Obama"
The jury's still out on that. His actions won't be measurable for at lest 8 years and we won't see exact results for at least 4 more.
That said, at the minimum, his rubber stamping of extending the Patriot Act perfectly demonstrates how his actions differ from his campaign platform and his ability or need to stand up for the people that elected him.
My guess is history will just see him as a "flash in the pan", using suggestions and band-aids to satiate whoever, but lacking a backbone to stand and do what's right.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
A state non-driving Photo ID is free in Indiana, where I live. I think they have a ID at the polls requirement that hasn't faced legal challenges, though.
I'm fine engaging with people I disagree with, but i don't blame OP for one second. I wasn't a fan of bush, personally or politically, but i could look at an issue, or a statement that he made and form an opinion on that one thing without hyperbolic rhetoric claiming him to be some dictator trying to shove, i don't know, something down my throat. Hell bush said everything would be much easier if this was a dictatorship, and i just thought it was a funny and true statement coming from someone in a position that gets all of the blame but has little he can do to affect what he gets to sign.
Can you imagine if Obama said that. Fox new would have breaking news headlines all day every day claiming that "Obama thinks America better off with Dictator".
Im not going to argue facts with people that want there opinions taken as fact, and i hear this shit every god damn day. If its not something about how Obama is a racist, or a socialist or a tyrant or the worst president ever, or....hell take this story, the even quoted what he said in the summary but the title is what...
Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
Except that he didn't say that, he surmised that other countries have mandatory voting, then went on to say that IF everyone voted it would be transformative. He never mentioned anything about having mandatory voting here. A simple discourse on voter turnout and its affects on politics turns into, OMGZ!!!!OBAMA!!!!MANDATORY!!!!OMGZ!!!!!
I'm seriously considering moving out of the US, and it has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or any policy positions or anything the government has done at all. If I leave, it will be because of the people. It will be because of people who care about czars, and signing statements and executive actions when the "other team" is in office yet can always find justification when "their guy" is in office.
It seems like turnout is lowest among the disgruntled, not the uninformed. Basically the only group likely to effect a change.
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?)
The amount of stupidly cast votes we get now is mind-boggling.
You want to add to that "spite" votes in response to mandatory voting?
A prime example for mandatory voting is Swizerland. But they have a 'direct democracy' (mostly) which means many laws are directly voted for by the population, not in the parliament.
America has a much bigger problem than lack of voters. First of all it is the more than archaic voting system from the late 1700s.
Secondly it is the abuse allowed in it: we have a district that voted mostly republicans and it is surrounded by mainly democrates? But last 4 year many 'democrates' moved into that district?
Lets just reshape the districts, so we are certain that we still have a republican majourity in said district.
In america before every election the 'ruling party' reshapes the voting destricts based on population data in the hope to 'manipulate' the outcome in their desire.
In every other nation that is considered 'voting fraud' or 'voting manipulation'. In the US it is business as usually.
Then comes the need to register for votes ... poor and underdogs, minorities etc. don't like to register.
Then you have the two party system (I really wonder why you laugh about China etc. with a one party system ...)
Then the 'electors' system ... it got changed at some point, but it is still retarded.
Then you had the Bush voting frauds ... come on, in every nation of the world, that is not a dictatorship, that election had been invalidated and Bush would be in jail and had haved no chance to even stay up for the 'Ersatzelection' ... but now 15 years later, who cares *shrugg*
Americans are really really strange regarding that ...
And from thst everything that is evil follows in the USA.
Who gets voted into office? Judges? Sheriffs? State Attorneys?
None of them is doing his job, they all only work to get reelected!!
Police cought one who has no aliby?
Sheriff: lets drop the hunt for the true culprit, lets focus on catching more idiots!
State atorney: How can we get him convicted? Hm, should be easy, he can not defend himself!
Judge: the harder I punish him, the more points I get for the next election!
How retarded is that? In germany the prime responsibility of a state atorney is to convict the right culprit, not a random 'victim'!
There are plenty of cases (in germany) where the state prosecutor in the end himself in the final speech plead 'non guilty' because it was obvious the guy charged was non guilty. Something like that can not even happen in the USA ... your law system is not much better than sharia, except cheating on your spouse is not punished (yet!)
Lets not even start with the idea that a jury in our days is the right thing to 'judge' a culprit.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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
The government can force you to pay taxes, serve in the military, and go to jail for a long list of inconsequential things, but forcing you to show up and put a piece of paper in a box once every four years is going too far?
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Typically we vote for turds for free.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Mandatory Voting? Because the world needs President Comancho. http://imgur.com/XSgEnxT
Mod UP!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
There is nothing more dangerous than an uneducated vote.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
How ironic.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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.
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!
Forcing people to vote in a FREE country? Um, not showing up to the polls is effectively saying "NONE OF THE ABOVE" and/or "I DON'T CARE" which is an opinion which we should be free to express. You can't force people to vote. That's nuts.
What we need are TERM LIMITS.
I suggest 12 years in elected Federal office (House, Senate, or combination of both) be the maximum any one person can serve in Congress. Of course a person could still run for president or serve in appointed positions beyond that.
Yes, this would take a constitutional amendment.... But it fixes the incumbent money advantage by forcing turnover, which also disrupts the possible corruption and influence peddling.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You get joke candidates. You get people voting for "Daffy Duck."
So you can force people to go to the polls, but you can't force them to care.
I think a better approach would be to make the voting day a federal mandatory holiday. Shops closed too.
Sure, some people will just play video games all day, but at least they can't use excuses like "I had to work" to shirk their civic duty.
And it is a duty. People died so you could vote. People are dying today for the right to vote. And to just ignore the luxury of voting, to live in a country where you get to pick the leaders? For laziness and cynicism? "The people in charge don't represent me so why should I vote" ...they don't represent you BECAUSE you don't vote, moron. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
In fact: make it Veterans Day. November 11.
What better way to honor those who died for this country than to show you care by voting? And if you say "in some wars they died so I could vote but in other wars it was just imperialist bullshit"... well then vote, moron, so we don't have legislators and presidents who want to start imperialist wars. Do you understand the purpose of voting now?
You can't combat all low IQ alienation, but you don't have to respect it.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
So his plan is to force uninformed, gullible morons to vote? What could possibly go wrong?!
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
Mod this up, please! Don't be afraid of 4-letter words that start with F.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Mandetory voting is one of those dumb ideas that gets tossed around time to time. It gets promoted by what ever people thing that by forcing people to vote those forced voters would vote in that party's favor. This is a very dangerous way to 'get out the vote' as it were.
We're supposed to live in the 'land of the free' and one of those freedoms is the right to not vote. Please do not vote if you don't want to vote. I vote. When you don't vote I get more power!
Note how this legislation continues to be directed at you and me. The solution to corrupt policians involves threatening *us* with fines and prison for not doing our proper bits. It's not as if our elected leaders can help it, they're practically victims! Just going on with the system they've been given by a degenerate populace. No point in cracking down on the way they behave. But eventually in spite of us they will obtain their utopian society, I suppose -- just have to keep restricting us until we get into our thick heads to behave the perfect way they have envisioned for us, and then everything will be swell.
To properly understand what Obama means by the undue influence of money, you have to unpack the political dialect a bit. Obama was ushered into his latest term on a >$1 billion campaign, and has turned his back on statements about lobbyists and public financing, so it's not that he abjures the influence of money in politics. But it is bad when money is wielded to effect by the other party. (The other party is in fact the only one capable of corruption, one's own party might have some rogue individuals who make regrettable decisions, but their political principles are, if anything, redemptive.) This statement comes on the tail of the 2014 election, in which Obama's party was routed, due largely to poor turnout. In general democrats fair better from greater voter turnout. So this would be a nice fix to that, and probably would decrease the influence of money in politics, at least in the sense that it would not longer be needed to mobilizing voters and could instead be spent in focus on telling them which way to vote.
Of course, any electoral change is going to benefit one party or the other, and they will decide their allegiance to it accordingly. But I think it's sound to say any idea that comes out of party leadership is not going to be about "reform" it is going to be about consolidating their own power. Changing election mechanics is not going to be the means of rebuffing them and kicking them out of power. It is going to be the thing to do once we've built up the spine to kick them out ourselves.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
It's the lack of viable options.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's say that domestic spying is your #1 concern - who do you vote for?
If I were unilaterally pick who becomes the next president I'd pick Ron Paul, because I believe he would put a quick end to domestic spying (and because I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian.) However, the rational thing to do is to select from whichever of the (D,R) candidates I believe is infinitesimally least bad, because it is certain that one of them will win.
If we used Range Voting instead of plurality voting then the rational decision would be to cast an honest vote. In my case in the last election it would be something like Hillary=0%, Obama=10%, Romney=15%, GaryJohnson=85%, RonPaul=100%. Range voting not only allows you to express all of your desires, but does away with the need for political parties/primaries.
But in our current system - vote for who?
Here's a clue, for the clueless. You have dedicated a lot of time to lying about me (based mostly on what you refuse to read). However, there are already accounts set up for the purpose of lying about me, so you're late to the party. Repeating your same lies endlessly won't make them true, and you clearly have a problem with facts. You can't really save face at this point but you can at least stop making yourself look like more of an idiot (than what you have already demonstrated yourself to be) by giving up.
Now that you've lied about me in a discussion in a front page thread, there is a better chance that some of your friends here on slashdot will see what you have written. Slashdot doesn't allow you to edit your posts, but you can stop lying.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Lack of interest in voting is primarily caused by poor choice of candidates. Trying to chose the lesser of two evils is such a hassle. Source: my opinion. In Australia we have compulsary voting, it just wastes my time ... I have to walk to the voting place, wait in lines, look at various party billboards full of empty promises, just to get my name ticked off a list to avoid a fine...all just to drop an empty ballot....
The problem is even if you are lucky enough to find a politician with wonderful sounding promises, there is the track record of election campaign promises to remember....
I think it would fine assuming exemptions can be made for shut-ins, hospitalized people, etc.
However, I think before requiring U.S. Citizens to vote, every member of congress should be required to vote yea or nay (not "present") on every bill.
Before requiring us to do it, we who have jobs and lives outside of law making and politics, how about we require the ones who are paid to represent us by voting on bills, to vote on bills.
Here in Australia they keep complaining about wasted votes, without giving the population a way to explain why they don't want to vote. People should either fill out a ballot, or a short form to indicate why they don't want their vote to count.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Careful how you write it, if that F is in one of the rings, it just might be a validly cast vote.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Instead lets call the result of an election that does not have a majority of participants NULL. In the case of a congressional election, no one fills the seat. This will drive candidates back to the center. Our current system that has party members pandering to the extremes in their parties which results in a dysfunctional, polarized Congress.
Actually, money doesn't matter much once a candidate hits the "saturation point" in advertising. We've seen that quite a few times where one side or the other will outspend their opponent by 7 to 1, and yet still lose. Money only matters if one candidate can hit saturation and the other can't.
Constitution
Mandatory proportional representation in the electoral college would also be nice. It would help people feel more like their vote makes a difference.
Now the US become even more like the USSR was. Let's all go voting, and everyone cast his vote for a party that protects the status quo, so that means that we're all really happy with our system! Yay for us! USA! USA!
Huh? 2 parties, yes. But essentially similar enough that it doesn't matter. They both stand for the system system, you could call it the "democratic republican party". Yeah, I think it would be cool. Nobody really remembers that this once existed, except maybe a few historians, but who listens to those eggheads.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have no intention of ever casting a vote for a Democrat or Republican, but I will vote on local and state measures. There is a middle ground between refusing to participate in a broken system and exercising what little agency you have over your government.
Learned as a child that the Soviet Union had mandatory voting to try to pretend like they weren't a totalitarian state. Very bad for any community that failed to have a high turnout, so they were always over 90%. Wondered why Obama doesn't remember this basic civics lesson. Then I remembered: he spent much of his childhood abroad where he wouldn't have been exposed to U.S. culture.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It's clear to most of us when our vote matters (turnout rises) and when it doesn't (low turnout).
In my district- I've had ONE vote in 17 years that mattered. The rest came down just the way the gerrymandering predicted.
I either voted with a 60/40 or higher majority or with a 40/60 or lower minority.
In the one vote, the race was by 31 votes. It was contested and maybe if it had been 30, it might have been contested longer. And turnout was high because it was clear the challenger might unseat the incumbent (and did.. barely).
Perhaps if we had term limits ...
But really modern computers can predict the outcomes from districts fro years at a time.
Silver and Wang predicted almost all of the elections for the last two cycles before the vote.
If it is clear which way the vote is before we go to the polls (and it almost always is) then why go vote?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yay, like in American Idiot. People could cast their vote with text messages and whoever gets the most wins! The money would go to the national treasury. Essentially we'd get the same we get now: Politicians that are bought and sold, but at least the money would go towards filling the debt hole, politicians wouldn't have to campaign anymore (because, frankly, whatever few texts the average Joe could send would be dwarfed by the automessages from various corporations) and corporations get predictably the candidates they really want instead of having that uncertainty of their whores making some bumbling mistake in a campaign speech looming over their head.
It would solve so many problems our current political system has. Though we'd have to drop the charade that "the people" have any say in it, but then again, does anyone still care 'bout that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What problems does this actually solve, to put them all back-to-back-to-back. If anything it makes it difficult when the entire country coordinates its vacations to take advantage of a 5 day weekend.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Generally it has been held that the Constitution empowers states to decide who gets to vote and generally how elections are to be conducted (within limits, such as the 15th Amendment).
Well, no, it's not. The primary function of the POTUS is to be the chief executive of the administration. That is, all the agencies, administrations and departments of the federal government. So, along with that comes the responsibility to make appointments to the various non-legislative parts of the government... the dept of justice, for example. So it also goes with firing the other executives in federal government.
The influence of the POTUS on congress is really very small. He can offer vision or direction to the congress from the standpoint of what laws he says he will sign or veto, and the POTUS is going to lay out his direction every year in the state of the union address, but he has no vote in the making of legislation, no leadership role on any committee, and no legislative responsibilities other than the enacting or vetoing legislation at the end. There is a little niggle in that the president can convene or adjourn congress on the occasion of sweeping national tragedy, attack or martial law, but those are true rarities. The VP is the president of the senate, and that means he can cast tie-breaking votes in the event they are needed, but even this is a very limited role in the congress. One would suppose that the VP, if casting such a senate vote, would reflect the position of the administration and by extension the chief executive, but that's not written anywhere. In the early days of the country, the vice president was the guy who came in second in the presidential race, and had opposing views.
There's also the POTUS role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which he has for practical decision-making. We have the joint chiefs, but ultimately it's the president that is the one with the responsibility for what they do.
The POTUS is the single highest representative of the nation in foreign policy, and as he holds the top position over the secretary of state, he's responsible, ultimately, for making treaties with foreign nations.
That said, at the minimum, his rubber stamping of extending the Patriot Act perfectly demonstrates how his actions differ from his campaign platform and his ability or need to stand up for the people that elected him.
Well, anyone can hazard a guess, but I think history will probably treat him better than you think it will, though I do agree that he hasn't lived up to expectations. I'll also add that expectations were set uncommonly high. Between the time he got elected and when he took the oath, he was given a pretty cold and deep soak in the dirty bathwater from the previous administration -- and by that I mean extensive debriefing by the leaders of all the various departments of the government in the outgoing administration. Anyone with half a brain would change their opinions when presented with the real-life playbook left my the former tenant of the white house. I have no doubt that the national security stuff in particular was especially hard for him to change course on, as it wasn't part of his set of strengths. We were also at war in 2 places at once and he didn't want to be in any more of those, so he was pretty hawkish about looking out for threats.
Anyhow, I'll close with the observation that many people missed about him from the start. He was, and is, very much a person who wants consensus. He was far far too willing to kowtow to the demands of people that wanted him to leave the status quo in place -- and here I'm talking about the neocon chickenhawks and the big wall street banks. He did not, as most presidents do, clean house at the justice department and remove all the bush-era appointees, for example, even though they all got their JDs from Oral Roberts U and Liberty U and were diametrically opposed to everything he wanted to see. He let them stay, as a conciliatory gesture, hoping that it would earn him a place at the table with his nominal opposition. What he took awhile to learn is that he could not make nice with thes
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
There are actually very few times that your vote can make a difference, at least in the US first-past-the-post system. In nearly all elections, it does not. When you're living in a state that routinely votes with 70% for candidate A (whatever party he may be of), you can safely stay at home. Independent of whether you support or oppose candidate A. Whether he gets 70% or 51% doesn't matter.
And yes "but if all think like that...", fuck if all thought like it we could get a third party. We don't, so ... just stay at home and enjoy your day. Or, in the eternal words of George Carlin, while you're out there voting, I'll jack off. It's not that much different an action, but in the end, I at least have something to show for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wanting to make people go to vote is grounds for impeachment, but starting 2 wars on nothing but false rumors when knowing they're false is not.
I'll never get you Americans. But I like you. You're funny.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And that's not all the extra rights that non-citizens have! They don't even have to register for the draft, or serve on juries!
or participate in the Obamacare mandate.
Hell, if I want to travel out of the country I have to pay at least $135 for a passport, I can't get back into the country without it. If an illegal is caught breaking our laws he gets a free tax-payer trip home, and he is usually back here without a passport in less than a month.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Umm... we already have that, what's your point?
Ok, granted, you get the final say which corporate whore gets to shovel your money into the pockets of whoever's cock they suck, but ... be honest, does that really matter?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Slashdot should have First past the first post voting.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
at least the Democrats give the issues that matters to me (Worker's rights and declining middle class) lip service. The Republicans are pretty open about their contempt for anyone who's on the losing end of the modern economy (e.g. 90%+ of the populace).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mandatory voting is a hugely bad idea:
1) It goes against freedom
2) It encourages people to vote who have no idea (or less idea) what the issues are. This brings poorer choices and dilutes the votes of those who DO know what the issues are.
3) It encourages people to vote who apparently have no interest in the issues.
What we desperately need is the introduction of some form of preferential voting like instant runoff voting (and possibly the end of the electoral college). THAT would make a HUGE and PRODUCTIVE change in ways that really matter. We could then be free of being locked into a two-party race where both parties essentially suck. People could vote for who they want without fear they are throwing their vote away or fear of allowing someone they don't like getting elected because they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.fairvote.org/reform...
People who have enough of an opinion to vote aren't going to be swayed by ads nearly as much as those, who had no interest in voting in the first place. These are the types of people who will more likely vote for the most familiar brand name.
If anything, we should be going in the other direction. If you can't name the vice president, or you don't know which party controls the senate, you should lose your right to vote, until you do. We need better informed voters, not less informed.
You first have to give a shit about the world around you.
Good luck legislating away apathy.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
... because it favours one right over another.
How about making gun ownership mandatory? How about everyone HAS to speak?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
That's what we need: more people in jail.
I have a counter idea: give us some reasonable choices. How about a few people in the government, who aren't on the take?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
He should have called this mandatory balloting, in which you are required to show up and cast a ballot, even if you choose to mark it "no vote".
This is a countermeasure for civic apathy, not civic dissent.
Yes, I agree completely. Whatever could be more fascistic than trying to make sure that each person in the country has a say in who runs the government.
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”
Mark Twain
"That dirty dictator O, he's forcing democracy!"
Table-ized A.I.
...and it works. When everyone is enfranchised, the politicians have to have a much broader appeal. And every voter has to look long and hard at exactly who and what they're voting for.
I can recommend it. I take great interest in Politics in the US, since it effects us and the rest of the word. And it looks to me like the congress has been captured by a small number of extremely rich people and is no longer representative of the will of the people. This can only happen when only a limited number of people vote, and they can be heavily influenced by massive donations towards media advertising, and when certain highly motivated blocks of voters are far more likely to vote than other groups.
I'm also scandalized by way parts of the US make registering to vote so hard, and actively excluding people from voting. In Australia, if you're not in jail, you have to vote, period. No exceptions. Imagine if that was the case in the US, that it was a right that everyone had by default, regardless of having the right ID at the right time, or previous felonies etc.
The other thing we have which I can highly recommend is the Australian Electoral Commission. They're the group that runs all elections across the entire country. All of them. In a completely standardized way. So the ballot papers (yes still paper) and voting in every part of the country is exactly the same. They're not perfect - they lost a small number of ballot papers at the last election, and a part of the election had to be re-run - but still better than, say, the debacle in Tallahassee in 2000.
And our final innovation? Elections are always held on a Saturday, not a week day, which makes it dramatically easier for everyone to attend.
It's a duty of being a citizen where a government is elected by the citizens. Turning up and scrawling on a bit of paper "you're all evil bastards", or leaving it blank, is good enough if you don't think anyone is worth voting for. It still sends a message and may make someone try harder.
IMHO getting more people off their arses to at least turn up will provide room for minor parties that may actually engage with the population more than with political donors - so you guys may start to get back the USA you want instead of the one you complain about as if you are not part of the process.
Yes I know there are electoral colleges, voting on a Tuesday, hanging fucking chads, possibly rigged machines and all kinds of other barriers, but they can be dealt with.
In Australia when people don't turn up to vote and can't justify it there is a small fine, but it's rarely applied. There's a religious group (they call themselves that anyway) called "the exclusive bretheren" who refuse to let their members vote and none of them have been fined.
You can have mandatory voting without the threat of prison time and there's plenty of places where that is practiced.
As for your second point, ironically getting more people off their arses and into polling booths is a good way to remove people in government who are on the take. People who don't give a shit about political ideology are still likely to get pissed off by corrupt bastards and if they can actually do something about it by ticking a box in secret they can do so.
Look beyond your nose at places where it's already done. If "libertarians" had a clue they'd actually be cheering for this because it creates room for minor parties and independents instead of just flipping the Rep/Dem coin.
This is the most dangerous time in my living memory to be an American citizen.
So, born after the Cold War ended, then.
There's nothing that stops you from coming back in the same way if you'd like.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, that's the least effective argument for Barack Obama. If he can force you to buy health insurance, forcing you to vote is a piece of cake. That's what Statists calling themselves "Liberals" do: whatever they believe to be a good idea, they try to make mandatory, and what they disapprove of, must be banned...
(Gebyy/synzronvg zl nff.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Make politics not about who has the most money for their campaign.
In this day and age of social networking, why is it that voters still only consider Kodos or Kang, and then grizzle when they end up on a serving platter?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
You don't need to make it mandatory, you need to make it a holiday. You want people to vote, but you don't want them to vote badly enough to give them a day off work. I get holidays for religious ceremonies... but not you know: the most important day in any democracy.
Mandatory voting seems nice, but another game-changer would be recall procedure at federal level.
There wasn't a single viable candidate. I didn't vote because there was no point. Forcing people to vote is akin to forcing people to toss a coin. You'll get a result and but it won't mean anything. I've always felt that if you can't take the time to educate yourself about politics, you should abstain from voting because you'll be hurting more than helping.
Maybe we'll see a really good president in my lifetime but not if everyone votes.
+1
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Osama is dead and GM is alive!
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
In Brazil we have mandatory voting, but it is far from perfect because the (big) campaings are paid by big companies. So, the more politicians are inclined to money, and to do "favors" when they win elections, the more companies will inject money. Even Lula (from the left party, in the good old days) surrendered himself (in part) for power and favors to become president. There is this idea going on here to make elections funded by public money, so every party would have equal chances. Of course, the big ones are not happy with this, since they will not be alowed to receive money from "donators". Alstom, for instance, is involved in corruption with a governor who made them win a contract to build some subway lines in São Paulo (the city, no the state). I think that, if in US voting becomes mandatory, it is likely the system will be the same we have here now.
Forcing people to vote sounds like something North Korea would do.
Obama is a tyrant.
How about introducing "against all" option on the ballot? I bet that would boost turnout. Democrats and Republicans are two flavors of the same: parties wholly controlled by corporations.
Only in favor if there's a Cowboy Neil style option.
I wish I was joking
A blog I run for the wealth
Mod this up, please! Don't be afraid of four-letter words that start with F.
ftfy
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
" If anything it makes it difficult when the entire country coordinates its vacations to take advantage of a 5 day weekend."
truth
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
If my choices are between Chucko and Bozo the clowns, I'll not be interested in voting. This upcoming presidential election may be between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina. If that is the case, I will not vote because it's like a choice between cancer and ebola. The same existed in the California Senate vote. The choices were Barbara Boxer (bounced checks on the Senate bank account) and Fiorina who is a legend in her own mind. These are NOT choices. They are two awful candidates. The game is rigged.
So sayth the man who missed over 400 roll calls as "Senator Barack Obama."
Oh really, this is your sole role in life Sysrammer - pedantic grammar Nazi? "Ooh...ooh, let's derail the whole topic with a style critique. "Four" is definitely more appropriate than "4". Clarifies everything! I must be superior! Everybody bow before the Great Clarifier!
Try to get laid Sysrammer. Success isn't guaranteed but you should try to actually do something with your life. Some desperate boy might let you in.
Your parents are probably praying for you to leave their basement and to actually do something useful with your life.
Did you have any other bullshit waste-of-time comment to add to this conversation? No? Good! GTFA
.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
What makes anyone think mandatory voting would somehow fix thatWhat makes anyone think mandatory voting would somehow fix that?
In fact it would cause more problems that it purports to solve. In particular, it would greatly increase the incidence of violence in politics and, in particular, the likelyhood of civil war.
Elections aren't about being nice by doing what the majority prefer. Elections are about seeing how the civil war would come out, so you don't have to fight it. To do this they have to be a good enough MODEL of the war, and be run, if not squeay clean, at least honestly and transparently enough to convince the losers that, if they tried to reverse the result by violence, they'd lose THAT contest, too.
That means, among other things, that only people who care enough to fight should vote. Dragging in a bunch of people who could care less and are only voting because they're required to, dilutes the votes of those who care. If they also vote opposite to a group who care a lot and are percieved as a bunch of brainwashed non-threats, those people can easily convince themselves that they could win a war, make it stick, and are justified in fighting to reverse their oppression.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Voting becomes compulsory.
2. Party in power manipulates poll hours and ID requirements so that working poor and other groups can't vote without taking time off work, standing in long lines, triple-checking their papers, etc.
3. Working poor, etc., not only still have no voice but owe money for being excluded from voting.
(4. PROFIT!)
We need to make voting as easy and transparent as possible, not to impose rules the disenfranchised can't follow.
What about the millions of white hill-billies who, in the past, had no idea when Election Day was, but came out to vote because they DIDN'T want a "brotha" in the White House?
The populace should be as free to vote as they are at spewing disinformation, in which case is an absolute choice. Poking and prodding everybody to choose of the two parties(which have very little difference) is not an honest attempt to solve the problem. Yes, we could check both, or none, or make up a name but lets be honest, most people will not do that.
Democrats have pushed-through so-called "motor voter" laws in states like CA
Actually it's the National Voter Registration Act, not just in California. It passed both houses in 1993 with bipartisan support, and took effect at the beginning of 1995.
No Republican has won state-wide national office in CA since these policies went into effect
Absolutely false.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I might be more compelled to vote if i got a better sticker. Maybe make it a metal pin.
I have to imagine that mandatory voting would simply replace our current system with a human-powered random number generator...
either that, or folks will skew towards the top/bottom/middle option. I could see a lot of candidates changing their names to Aaron Aabraham and such...
What I don't see happening is a large impact in voter turnout: http://www.idea.int/vt/images/...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Oh wait, you said state-wide national office. Yes, you're right. But so what? You're talking about two US senators who have been incumbents since prior to NVRA, so it's a half-truth. California has elected plenty of Republicans to other national and state offices since NVRA took effect, including Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who served two terms, from 2003 to 2011.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I doubt it would work the first time. For just as you describe.
However, the new group of 80% of the population will get to see what happens when the person/team they voted for trashes the office, lies to them, treats them as garbage, etc. The new voters can no longer sit on the fence, as they have always done so, and bitch and complain about politicians and politics. Because now, it is their fault. They voted for them.
So next time, more of them will pay attention to the details that affect them. Hopefully, eventually, they start to think beyond themselves.
.
So you see, I'm totally against this.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
Democracy would be a good idea first.
If it's not Proportional Representation (PR), it's not democracy.
Sadly, USA is not a democractic country in spite of their silly belief that they are.
work in progress
I haven't lied to you. You're just too crazy and bigoted to deal with reality.
As to setting up other accounts... I've not done that. I've suspected you of that frankly but I wouldn't bother to do such a thing. Not only do I not need to do it but it wouldn't amuse me or flatter my ego to do it.
I'm too proud to engage in such degenerate tactics. I'm also too good at what I do to need to do it.
I note in your comment that you don't state what I lied about or really make any effort to defend yourself. Just a lot of babbling about how unfair it is for people to call you out on your bullshit.
Well here's the bottom line, shit for brains... if you make a statement, people are free to comment on it. And if you say something fucking stupid, then people are going to tattoo "idiot" on your stupid face.
Get over it.
I am.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I use facts with people that listen to them. We've done this dance before. You refuse to say which source you'll accept for facts.
Until you do, you can't ask for them. I will not make any effort to present information unless you agree to accept information from given sources.
Absent that, you'll just say anything I cite is wrong no matter who verifies it.
I must have explained this to you about a dozen times now... how fucking stupid are you?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I vote occasionally. Here are some things that would encourage me to vote more:
1. Ranked ballot voting, top 3 choices. This would shut everybody up. Now your vote counts.
2. Online/electronic absentee ballot. I'm lazy. So are most people.
3. Transparency and availability of easy-to-read candidate data. Most of the time I don't know any of the people on the ballot. I want a brief overview of the candidate's stances on core issues as well as record of their past accomplishments. It would also be nice if potential conflicts of interest were listed.
4. Make voting-day a national holiday. If it's a part of the culture, it gains permanent respect. Quality voting is essential to our future. Take the day off? Sounds good to me!
A hundred years ago, we realized that African-Americans deserved the right to vote.
Absolutely, and every person should be able to vote.
Once.
All of Europe for example, requires ID to vote so that each person can only vote once.
If you can't trust that people are only voting once, it's really hard to have a working democracy. ID is not about race, it's about rule of law, and other fundamental concepts that every other modern country already employs...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm about 90 percent certain you're a sock puppet account from register at this point. Which is deeply pathetic if that's true.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The end of the Republican party. Normal people voting instead of crazy, obsessed people who have no life, such as elderly voters who watch Fox.
In many civilized countries, voters will receive a voter's card inviting them to vote at each election. To vote you show up with the card and it is matched with a list. In case of issues picture id may be required but that's extremely rare. When validated you get the ballot and do the actual voting.
How hard can that be?
Of course illegals with get no voter's card and cannot vote, but that's to be expected.
If you don't vote you'll have no say in the decisions made but it's all up to you. Making people vote by force will gain noting useful.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Wouldn't it be better just to spin a roulette wheel?
I don't see how, given the information provided us we can actually make an intelligent and informed decision as to who is better qualified to hold a job position we ourselves don't understand we can choose correctly.
From my experience, campaigns are little more that bitch slap matches similar in nature to a WWF interview with someone talking a lot of smack. We're really only assembling a team of gray haired wrinkle warriors who can battle with words against the other team.
It's hopeless.
whoosh
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I haven't lied to you.
You have lied to - and about - me repeatedly. Lying about lying about - and to - me doesn't help change that. You would do better to just stop lying.
As to setting up other accounts... I've not done that.
And I never accused you of setting up the other accounts. If you had the reading comprehension of a third grader you would have realized that. I have tried to write responses to you as simply as possible as you are clearly of only very marginal literacy. Try setting your wounded ego aside for a bit before you make yourself look like an even more massive idiot than you already have. Hell, you're preaching in front of a conservative majority here and you're being moderated down - you're clearly doing something wrong.
I'm also too good at what I do to need to do it.
You are willing to lie, and are a frequent practitioner of lying. Good at it, though, I would say no. Someone who is good at lying would be able to make their lies look truthful (see: politicians). You lie all the time and your lies just come across as lies.
And concluding your comment with grade-school insults doesn't help your argument in any way, shape, or form. Indeed it mostly just reinforces that you are not prepared for a discussion based on facts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I use facts with people that listen to them.
You haven't tried actual facts with me, yet. You started with a list of lies - not a single one of which you ever made an attempt to support with anything resembling a fact in the slightest. I called you out on those lies and then you reached for a conspiracy theory that you were only willing to try to "support" with a youtube video. Since then you've gone to attacking me instead.
I will not make any effort to present information unless you agree to accept information from given sources.
You once attempted one awful source and I told you why I was not interested in it. You have not attempted any other source. Since that point you have been obsessed with attacking me and spouting a meaningless conspiracy.
Your recent attempt to declare yourself the victor is amusing. The fact that you are being moderated down by your own conservative peers for being off your rocker shows that nobody finds you credible.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I hate having to be forced to vote in my country.
I wish we didn't have to!
What is an "Enforced Education Camp"? Sounds like part of a juvenile detention system.
As far as implementing the "universal competency of critical thinking"... I said no such thing and I don't think any sane person would think it is possible. You might as well pass a law making an above average IQ mandatory. It serves no purpose. (Hey! Let's pass a law making pi equal to 3! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... )
But you can expose people to the concept and process of thinking for themselves and lay out a framework for intelligent, skeptical analysis of ideas and the life around them. With the internet spewing stupidity at a higher rate then accurate, intelligent information we need to offer people the tools to deal with the bright, shiny bullshit that is waiting to inundate them.
This is the one downside to health care advances: the geriatric gentry like DICK Cheney will hang around far too long, doing out-sized damage to every facet of our existence.
It will be harder to fool a majority of everybody than a majority of 50% who bother to vote. Just think about it, the people you fool WILL GO VOTE and the people you don't will either abstain or vote for the opposition.
When you notice the impact of impulsive people who don't care and pick major candidates is when you've gamed the public to the point where your election is so close that anything; including the weather, could decide who wins. The MORE people the more difficult it is to game the majority of the populace.
Majority rule does not produce the best results but it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the majority for how happy they are with their results. It is their fault if they are a bunch of sheep; you can't excuse yourself from civic duty as easily when you have to at least participate.
You have to be a moron to fall for the "right to abstain" argument. Everybody can go to vote and not choose any candidate or write in a joke candidate. But to argue Ayn Rand with the usual appeal to absolute freedom is ignoring a fundamental concept of civilization; your duty to society.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I was recently at a homeowners assoc. annual meeting. There were no pitchforks or tar and feathers and yet in person attendance was just over 50% and total (by proxy) over 70%.
When people care about something or some place and feel that their input really does count, they will be engaged.
When people feel it truly does not matter which shithead is elected to Congress or the White Hourse, turnout will be poor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSh0VAVYn4
How about rather than compulsory voting a tax cut for all who vote. Nothing big, but something like 0.2% general tax-cut to anyone who votes so that it'll seriously make people think it'd be a nice idea to go cast a vote. And those who really don't give a fuck will know they made a conscious choice in not voting for the common good of all and accept the normal tax. Perhaps increase tax for everyone by 0.2% and for those who vote give them 0.2% tax deduction. Those millions who don't vote will then handsomely help fund the increased activity at polling stations.
"Do, or do not. There is no try." -Yoda.
It's worth noting, for how it may impact those hypothetical historians that Obama even now in the position of lame-duck president has the highest approval rating of any president in the second half of his second term for a hundred years - more than twice what Bush 2 had at the same time.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Obama got 95% of the black vote in 08. If you show me a stat showing 95% of hillbillies voted Republican, I will print out this slashdot page and eat it.
Vote - get a ticket to punch into your tax forms, so you don't pay the fine.
Don't vote - pay the not-voting fine.
Another way is to have an ID.
Which for some fluoride-in-our-teeth-reptilian-overlords-guns-eagles-freedom-aliens-mark-of-the-beast reason many here seem to be against.
Back in less crazy world, personal ID system is automatically a list of all living voters with their addresses and all.
Just compile a list of "no shows" and mail them their fines.
Instead of "I voted" stickers give out name+date+voting time+whatever tickets to cancel out accidental fines.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
I don't think you'll have to worry about that much longer. Freedom is disappearing at an astonishing rate.
After half a century of this I'm still not sure if it's a good thing or not, independents are more often than not fringe dwellers, radicals, and religious nutters.
Basic tests of "are you a crazy person?" and "how does government work?" for those wanting to be elected should fix a lot of that.
I mean... ANY job interview requires at least SOME qualification and basic sanity.
If you're gonna serve food to people someone might want to know do you plan on poisoning anyone or do you understand the concept of food - just in case you are an alien (from space) or a robot from the future.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I wouldn't require voters to come to the poll, though I would compare every item on the ballet against the total number of eligible voters.
Examples
1. Should there be a bill to raise the sales tax by 0.05% to raise funds for Local Schools? A. Yes B. No - Default or no responses will be counted as B. No.
This means that not only would the bill supports need to convince 51% of the population to come to the polls but also to vote their way.
2. Who Should be the next President / Congress Man etc. A. Obama (D) B. Bush (R) C. Leave the position empty and forward the decisions that seat would have made to an open poll like example 1. - Default or no responses will be counted as C. Leave the position empty
Low voter turnout always tend to favor Republicans.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Tell your candidate to submit his fMRI/Integrity report before you vote for him;
Casteism
In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In FEUDALISM it's your count that votes;
http://m.timesofindia.com/indi...
Casteism
"Anything that is not prohibited, is mantatory."
Some people think they are qualified to run the world...
They are wrong.
And for all the brainwashed suckers (aka libertarians), who say they're all the same, and nothing ever changes:
unemployment insurance
Medicare (or don't you have parents?)
Medicaid
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
NASA puts a man on the Moon, 1969
Oh, that's right, if it doesn't involve you getting rich, and screw everyone else, it's not changing, and they're all the same....
And we keep reading of countries where they finally get to vote, and stand in line for a day or more, and then there was the in-all-the-media disgrace in France 10 years or so ago, when they didn't even have 72% turnout.... and you little shits think that tweeting's all you need to do, and not put your body where it matters....
Why, yes, I *do* vote, so if you don't, SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, and listen to me - if you don't vote, you ain't got no right to open your mouth. Voting is my license to bitch.
mark
1) If you get a government check you shouldn't be able to vote. It's a clear conflict of interest. 2) We need a 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice voting system to give any third party a fair chance. Something also needs to be done about the Supreme Court making law instead of applying it but I'm not sure what the answer would be.
There are wonderful benefits behind the freedom of the voter to choose not to vote: (1) the person may use his lack of vote as a statement; (2) anyone who lacks the interest to learn about the issues is not someone whose opinions matter. I once thought that the Washington leadership were worse than fools and scoundrels. I now realize that such an view is far too dishonoring of fools and scoundrels.
"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."
And there's a reason you, Mr., President, want them to be forced to go to the polls. Same reason. You believe it gives you and your allies an advantage.
Of course, that presumes there is a concerted effort to keep these groups away from the polls to start with, and I dispute that, but we can disagree on that and still find fault with the initial proposal, that voting be mandatory.
Oh, and getting the money (or even the influence of money) out of politics by making voting mandatory? That was a sly joke, right?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Maybe this type of sweeping change to the way our voting happens should be put to the vote not just a decision made...
Your opinion that authoritarian corporatists who push nationalism and traditional values are liberals has been noted. As much as it deserves, anyway.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Perhaps but it isn't... I don't lower myself to such things. It isn't fun for me, I'm too proud, and I really don't see the point given that I don't need to do it.
The people I suspect of doing it are the people that get really mad and are sort of stupid. Those sorts clearly care enough to do something and aren't clever enough to be able to weather an argument. So rather than deal with logic they resort to trolling because it is that or just lose. They lose either way of course... but they try.
I don't have that problem. I don't care enough, I get no joy from doing that, I don't need to do it, and I won't dirty myself with such tactics.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your opinion that authoritarian corporatists who push nationalism and traditional values are liberals has been noted.
That is 100% correct, except for the aspect of people being forced to do anything against their will being "traditional".
But as you rightfully point out, Obama is indeed a corporatists of the highest order. They don't call him President Goldman-Sachs for nothing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups
Pay everybody who votes $5 on their way out of the polls.
Wealthy people who already vote won't care, but those that currently don't will be delighted to get $5 for such little effort.
Also coffee and cookies for all who show up. Works for the Red Cross.
I haven not attempted further sourced facts because you STILL haven't cited a source you would accept.
For all your babble you still have not cited a single source you would accept.
As to moderation... I maintain an excellent rating 99.9 percent of the time. So. I don't really care.
Let me say this multiple times because you're as stupid as you are dishonest:
Provide a source you will accept and I will provide facts using that source... assuming your source is reasonable.
Provide a source you will accept and I will provide facts using that source... assuming your source is reasonable.
Provide a source you will accept and I will provide facts using that source... assuming your source is reasonable.
Provide a source you will accept and I will provide facts using that source... assuming your source is reasonable.
Provide a source you will accept and I will provide facts using that source... assuming your source is reasonable.
Did you read that even once, shit for brains? Do that and we'll move to the next stage of your humiliation. ;-)
Until then, you can't ask for facts. You haven't the right. You lost the right when you rejected facts arbitrarily requiring me to demand that you provide criteria that allows me to know which sources you'll accept and which you will not. Absent that criteria... are you just arbitrarily rejecting facts and that means citing them to you is pointless.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal even for the crowd you idolize here on slashdot. I could layout a list of why it is obvious to anyone who read even your first comment to me that you couldn't carry an argument in a bucket, but that would be comically obvious to everyone but you, and you likely wouldn't learn anything from it.
Here's the thing. You don't win arguments by stating your opinion and shoving your fingers in your ears when facts are presented that discredit them all. You also don't win arguments by pretending that you never posted any non-factual opinions and following them up with conspiracies instead. And you most definitely don't win arguments by throwing petty insults at the person who dismantles your arguments.
You're always welcomed to post comments in my journal entries in the future again, but please do yourself a favor and post comments that are useful next time. You never posted anything that was more valuable (or arguably more relevant) than a birther claim. Then when you showed you weren't willing to read the replies that were posted to your comments you did nothing to earn any respect for your stance. If you want respect, show respect - and show some sources instead of just making wild fact-free claims (that have been debunked many times before) and ducking your head.
Unless, of course, your aspiration is for a career in comedy. You're almost on the right path for someone who aspires to be the next Colbert, but cursing in anger was not part of his act and wouldn't really have been much welcomed.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In Australia, if we don't turn up to vote (we don't have to actually cast a vote) we get a small fine. In the USA if you don't turn up to vote, you get George W Bush.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
So you wrote all that and didn't state anywhere in it what sources you'd accept?
Then you still can't ask for facts yet.
Cite a source you'll accept or you can't ask for facts. End of discussion.
We both know you'll never cite such a source because you know you're a fraud. And you're not even an especially clever or skillful fraud. Your fraud is obvious.
Fuck off.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Absolutely not.
In theory, I want people to want to vote.
But hey, if you're too lazy/stupid to vote, better for me, since my vote then "matters more".
(BTW, I purposely don't vote on a lot of things, from propositions I don't know enough about or care either way, or most local political votes.)
You don't read anyways, so it wouldn't matter if I specified sources or not. I gave specific reasons why I reject your conspiracy and the video you attempted to use to support it.
Your anger - likely stemming from the realization that not a single statement you have made yet is supported by anything resembling factual information - is so voluminous I can see it from my house. It's not helping your cause, though it is amusing watching it battle with your ego.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Because Range Voting is more expressive than Condorcet methods. Suppose I am very satisfied with either of two Libertarian candidates, but would say "hell, no!" to Hillary Clinton. Merely voting "Paul > Johnson > Clinton" does not adequately express that. In fact with a Condorcet method, a more rational vote would be "Paul > Johnson > Hitler > Clinton" (knowing that nobody else will vote for Hitler.)
Also, Range Votes are usually normalized so that each voter has equal influence.
There are two parties, experts claim and I concur, because of the nature of US voting. The candidate with the most votes is elected. A bloc of voters will have more success trying to get their favorite sort of candidate elected as the nominee of one of the two dominant parties, than by starting a new political party. Typically. If a new party starts to get too successful to suit the two dominant parties of the era, one or both will adopt that issue, and the new party's voters will abandon it for candidates that have a better shot at getting elected.
There are occasional exceptions. The last major exception to this occurred in the 1850s, when anti-slavery voters could not get either the Democrats or the Whigs to take on slavery. That opened up an opportunity for a new party to form around that issue. The Republicans went from nothing to winning seats in the Congress and eventually the presidency in about a decade. The Whigs disappeared.
That's why there are two. But why those two?
Because laws, that's why.
In the late 19th century, there was a push in the states for government-printed ballots (among other bad ideas). Once that happened, government decides who is and who is not a "real" candidate, and which political parties are the "real" ones. Unsurprisingly, the laws passed by Democrats and Republicans made it very hard to start new political parties. (Well, it's unsurprising now.)
This had the effect of reducing participation in the political process -- you would simply not believe what Americans did for fun and civic involvement in the 19th century -- and election competitiveness. Voting is the limit for most people, and only about half even do that in the "big" elections. Few elections are close, which further makes voting unappealing.
This is documented in "Why America Stopped Voting" by Mark Lawrence Kornbluh. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... The statistical analysis parts are rather dry, but the descriptions of the political clubs of the 19th century more than make up for it. They were positively European in their zest for political constructions and group activities. (No giant puppet caricatures of political figures, though. I think.)
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
That's pretty much true, though there is an exception.
In my state (Missouri) a write-in candidate has to file a declaration of candidacy by 5 PM on the second Friday preceding the election, or the votes won't count. In an election with filed candidates on the ballot, that is.
If no one files for the position, all votes for write-in candidates are reported, and a winner could be chosen.
It's a major pain for the election board, apparently, as they have to verify that the winning candidate exists and is qualified to hold the office. (I don't know what they plan to do if someone named Michael Mouse is eligible to hold an office, and a write-in candidate named Mickey Mouse gets the most votes.)
Did I say "a winner could be chosen" and "the winning candidate"? In some races where no one files and there are write-ins, there's a tie. Then the fun begins.
For political party county committee positions, apparently it's up to the party's county committee to decide, at their first meeting after the election. That's how we did it. Not a problem for us, as the "photo finish" candidates didn't show up for the meeting. Maybe they did not know they got any votes.
Probably not a problem for the Democrats and Republicans, but for a different reason. Those county committee elections are a big deal for them, and those elections are hotly contested, at least in St. Louis County. Anyone who wants the position would file. No write-ins counted, in that case.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Voting should remain a right, not a requirement. What the US needs more is a change in political culture away from a two party system. I strongly suggest splitting up the Republican and Democratic parties along their bloc lines as well as having voters support other parties more. Keeping a two party system will ensure that Congress remains utterly dysfunctional unless one party has 2/3rd majority in both houses and a president from its own party to rubber stamp anything. A two party system is only marginally better than a one party system. Plus, term limits are direly needed, extend terms to five years and after that you are out for at least two term on both federal and state level in any position. Same needs to apply to Supreme Court judges, there are way too many old geezers on that panel who lost total contact to reality.
So what he was really discussing was "How do we make it easier to vote?" And that if everyone voted, things would really change â" that everyone voting would "counteract money more than anything."
He did say that mandatory voting, like some countries have, might be good in the short term simply to get people to the polls -- but that a better plan, albeit one that is long-term, is meaningful reform of campaign finance.
Make the election system proportional as well. At least for the house of representatives.
This will make it possible for some fresh blood to enter the politics.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I doubt most of the posters claiming to know why most people don't vote in many U.S. elections have any empirical data to back up what they are saying.
If the problem is that the parties are too much alike, why are there typically fewer votes cast in primaries? Primaries give voters who do align themselves with a party a chance to choose that candidate. Voters, especially in non-Federal elections, may have a better chance of knowing things about the candidates.
Personally I don't think voting should be mandatory, withholding one's vote is a legitimate choice. (However being unwilling to explore the potential consequences of your action/inaction is not the same as a considered decision to stay home on voting day.)
In my opinion mandatory voting would ultimately increase the influence of money. All the persuasive tools that are at play in the supermarket and advertising world will be brought to bear against currently non-voting/consumers. "Product placement" of candidates in movies and television anyone?
Most ballots offer a chance to write in a candidate. One can write in "None of the above." I've only felt compelled to use this option once.
As a test of theories as to why people don't vote why not try out ballot options such "I am not selecting a candidate because it wouldn't make any difference," "I am not selecting a candidate because none of them reflect my views" or just plain "I am not selecting a candidate." I doubt that this opportunity to use the system to condemn/complain about the system would dramatically attract new voters.
Mandatory voting would require some sort of ID to track who has voted. According to the news media and the Democrat party this would be racist.
Apologies on my dismal spelling/etc above. Serves me right for posting before my first coffee
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Money? Nope that will just mean people who care nothing about politics will be forced to check a box based on whatever ads they watched the most of - payed for by money. These people can't be bothered to vote, and certainly can't be bothered to be informed citizens. This would completely drown out the voice of informed citizens, and cede everything to money.
Obama just sees the short term 'gain' of groups that he thinks would vote for Democrats being forced to vote more. As if 'Democrat' or 'Republican' are even a coherent things.
...