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.

Comments

It is time to get up one way or the other

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Pentium100]

As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round). What if both choices are bad? I actually had that problem once. Two candidates made it to the second round (which happens if no candidate gets over 50% of votes in the first round) and both were people for whom I did not want to vote. I just went and marked both candidates, making the ballot invalid. I did got to vote because it's harder for someone to fake my vote that way.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[damn_registrars]

As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round).

That is partially true. Politics are dominated by two parties (which are both marching further to the far-right end of the spectrum in a global sense) and they have the most money and ability to run candidates, by a long shot. Attempts to run as a third party candidate are often considered Quixotic.

What if both choices are bad?

In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.

Really, voting for any eligible person is better than not voting at all. You can vote for yourself if you want, or vote for your favorite musician, athlete, comedian, etc ...

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[ArmoredDragon]

I don't think it will even be that. In my experience, most people just vote for somebody based on very meaningless reasons. E.g. vote for who their friends voted for, or in the case of the last president, my sister voted for him just because she felt it was time we had a black president...seriously no other reason than that. I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become due to the signal to noise being really bad. Even going out of my way to not register, somehow I still keep getting voter ID cards and mail in ballots every election, which during the 2014 election I literally threw in the trash.

That said, the president thinks this will take money out of politics...sorry but that has to be among the dumbest things I've heard him say. If anything, it will make it worse. Another thing people tend to do is stick to branding impressions. For example people who live in Dallas are more likely to vote for the Cowboys as the best sports team because that is the branding that they are the most exposed to. People likewise tend to pick a political party, and then will bend their views to whatever they think their party is most in favor of...Republicans and Democrats both do this, so don't think your party doesn't (another symptom of branding.)

Likewise, if we have compulsory voting, politicians are probably more likely to be elected solely based on how their brand image is promoted through advertising, so there's going to be a LOT more money in politics.

Re: It is time to get up one way or the other

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not true, in a presidential election there is no reason to think the delegation would follow suit

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Wycliffe]

What if both choices are bad? I actually had that problem once.

Yeah, you're lucky. South Park did a great episode on this where the two choices to vote for were a Giant Duche or a Turd Sandwich.
I always vote but I also continue to "throw my vote away" by voting for a third party because to me voting for the "lesser of two evils"
is no choice at all when for everything I care about the republicans and democrats are virtually indistiguishable. They pretent to be
different but they are usually squabling over a few million here or there while the TRILLIONS they are spending on war, etc... are
virtually the same. They'll brag about a 100 million dollar tax cut on a 4 trillion dollar budget. For anyone who isn't paying attention,
that's the equivalent of bragging that you cut out 1 dollar of expenses from your 40k a year paycheck.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Ralph Wiggam]

I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become

That's fine. I support your right to do that. But please don't complain that politicians don't care about you or your problems. You have given them no reason to care. Politicians care about 70 year old and their problems because they show up at the polls at twice the rate of 35 year olds.

Related to that, I think that election day should be a national holiday and no for-profit business should be allowed to be open. That would give everyone the opportunity to vote. Having elections on a regular work day is a huge disincentive for hourly workers to vote. It literally costs them money, like illegal poll taxes of the 19th century.

To balance out the work calender, they can get rid of MLK day. I have no doubt that Dr. King would approve.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[TheGratefulNet]

yes, its very much a 2 party system. well, not true anymore. I almost can't tell the diff between the thieves in the R class and the thieves in the D class. neither follows the laws, neither represents the will of the people. they are all bought and paid for, they got theirs, now fark you (in the parlance of our times..)

neither candidate has appealed to me in decades and I have not voted in decades. to force me to pick and endorse assholes like that, that we end up having to pick from, is insulting to say the least.

now, if we could vote against people, that would be fine. it should also allow voting against them all.

then, I would show up to the polls.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[John.Banister]

While lots of other parties are allowed, it's difficult for them to succeed. Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Barriers_to_third_party_success

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[msauve]

"voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone"

"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.

Then again, that's no doubt exactly why Obama wants it.

Re: It is time to get up one way or the other

[TapeCutter]

Preferential voting gets some strange results, we have it here in Oz and it is not uncommon to see someone get into the senate who had less that 5% of the primary vote. This often gives a handful of independent the balance of power, meaning when ever the two major parties disagree in the senate the only vote that counts is that of the independents. 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.

Compulsory voting doesn't bring good governance (as the current mod proves on a daily basis), however it does do a very good job of capturing what the whole country thinks on election day. The fines are trivial and it's very rare for them to be issued, let alone enforced, yet we always have a turnout well above 90%. Also why does the US insist on having an election on a Tuesday when everyone is at work, that's just fucking bizarre, it's like you don't want societies grunts to turn up.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Obfuscant]

You mean why would advertising play a bigger role in a mandatory election than in voluntary? I think it's obvious.

Right now, we have 37% turnout. Of those, less than half are probably well informed voters, the rest are voting because of, well, any number of reasons. First black President, first woman, not a Mormon, etc. Let's use 15% as a round number for the interested, informed group. That leaves 22%.

Now imagine that mandatory voting is implemented. You get 95% turnout. Where do the extra voters come from? From the one who aren't interested, of course. If they were interested, they'd have voted without it being mandatory. So you now have 15% of the turnout as informed voters, and 80% are now emotion-based or simply uninterested.

If an advertiser of a commercial product went from an audience of 22% to 80%, they'd be orgasmic. Imagine political advertisers all trying to reach that new 58% of the voters who aren't already committed to any candidate but want a way to make a decision. The $1 that could sway only 22% of the population yesterday now blossoms into $100 to try to reach all 80% of the targets.

Claiming that mandatory voting will get money out of politics is one of the stupidest things anyone has said. Since we know that Mr. Obama isn't that stupid, he must have another reason to suggest it. If the reason can't be openly stated, then there must be a problem with it.

In any case, mandatory voting is a bad idea no matter how many other countries do it. It is someone's right not to vote just as much as it is to vote, and encouraging people who otherwise have no interest in the process to vote is a mistake. Voting for voting's sake is a travesty of the process.

Re: It is time to get up one way or the other

[Obfuscant]

however it does do a very good job of capturing what the whole country thinks on election day.

Unless there's an option on the ballot for "leave me the hell alone, I don't care, I just want another beer", I don't think you're accurately capturing the feelings of the voters.

Also why does the US insist on having an election on a Tuesday when everyone is at work, that's just fucking bizarre,

So you vote on Monday or whenever your absentee ballot shows up. Very difficult, not.

it's like you don't want societies grunts to turn up.

"Societies grunts" don't have jobs so they have no excuse for not voting. It's more like a useful way of weeding out the people who don't really care enough about voting to spend half an hour doing it. For the ones who truly care and cannot make it on Tuesday there are ways around that.

I live in a place where we have mail-in ballots, and I can't say that our decision making based on that is any different or better than it was when we had polling places. We do get a lot more political ads than we used to, though. Three weeks solid.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Obfuscant]

There are, however, plenty of voters who are informed but find voting to be so difficult -

s/are informed/care enough to do it/i;

It should take both a level of informed decision making and concern about the output. Lacking either one is a good reason not to vote. Changing the system so more people who are uninformed/don't care can vote is a bad thing.

If your local municipality has issues with providing sufficient facilities so that those who are informed and care can vote, fix that problem. Trying to solve a local problem at the national level is wrong.

One thing that should be seriously considered is making election day a national holiday to guarantee that everyone has time to vote.

"Oh, goody, it's National Voting Day again. I can sleep late, and then we can go to the lake and drink a few brewskies..." Good for the brewers, but not so good for the rest of the economy.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[angel'o'sphere]

Politicians don't care about anything but the money they can make by gaming the system.

The whole 'climate change controvercy' (an artificial controvercy about a topic where never was any controversy aboit in the first place) is a prime example for that.

Or the idiotic idea that car companies may not have their own shops and laws banning Tessla selling their cars directly.

It is just a few days away that Apple has to close its
AppleStores ...

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[rtb61]

Actually the outcome of compulsory voting with a fine for failure to vote is far more subtle than you think. Firstly it teaches people to vote, so from 18 on you can turn up to the polls and vote, turn up to the polls sign off and put in a junk non-vote or pay the fine. Any choice still gets them to the polls and gets them used to the idea and of course gets the associating with other voters. Secondly and often far more importantly in the US, is the what is required to happen in the election process in order to make the fine valid, the election process must be more accessible to the voters. So weekend elections because it is easier for the majority to vote on weekends rather than weekdays. More voting booths because long lines and queues to drive people away from the pools becomes very corrupt when the result is that they will be fined.

Either the US electoral process changes or the US will continue to fail, rampant political corruption, failing infrastructure, collapse of the criminal justice system, all are signs of an already failed state that is simply waiting for that collapse to propagate throughout the whole US society, the dominoes are already falling.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Attila Dimedici]

In the U.S., you have plenty to choose from in the first round. However, most Americans who do vote don't bother to vote until the final round. At which point everyone knows that one of two people is going to win (although there are often many more on the ballot). They than complain about the fact that they only have two choices.
Of course, if they would bother to vote in the primaries, they would have more choices. In addition, because so few people actually vote in the primaries, they could easily tip the vote at that stage to someone different.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[sysrammer]

I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become

That's fine. I support your right to do that. But please don't complain that politicians don't care about you or your problems. You have given them no reason to care.

Yeah, I quit reading his post at that point because if he doesn't care about his opinion, why should I?

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Mr. Freeman]

>If they were interested, they'd have voted without it being mandatory

Nope. A lot of those people would have voted were it not for voter disenfranchisement, having to work (yeah, your employer has to let you vote, but they don't have to pay you while you're gone, and they don't have to give you any extra hours to make up the time missed while voting), not having an address (you didn't forget about the homeless who can't vote absentee and usually can't even register because they don't have an address, did you?).

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Le Marteau]

> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.

YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.

Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)

For voters who wish to cast their vote for candidates other than the ones printed on the ballot in San Francisco-- they need to know that they are still limited to a few official write-in candidate names if their vote is to be counted.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Le Marteau]

OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:

http://www.anamericanvision.co...

Note that there are seven states which do not allow write-ins for president at all.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Le Marteau]

> OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:

Scratch that. Looks like most states have restrictions.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[ShanghaiBill]

I also continue to "throw my vote away" by voting for a third party

A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. Those are the votes that matter the most. They indicate to the major parties which direction they should shift. If there are few third party votes, they will shift closer to the center, to steal moderates from the other party. If the third party vote is high, they will shift to win back their base. Third parties have a negligible chance of winning any major office, but that doesn't matter. You should still vote for them because of the effect it will have on the major parties ... unless you are perfectly happy with current two party hegemony.

Personally, I am fine with the two party system ... I just think the two parties should be the Greens and the Libertarians.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[ChrisMaple]

1. In 1984 Reagan took all states except Minnesota.

2. "Winner takes all" rule is set by each state; it's not part of federal law. Some states have toyed with the idea of proportional voting, but it severely weakens that state's clout. Consider what a candidate would think about a state with eleven electoral votes. If the state were winner-take-all, he'd campaign hard to get 11 votes. If it were proportional, in all likelihood the best outcome would be 6 to 5, a net 1 vote advantage. Why bother when there are better return-on-effort states available?

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Immerman]

So why not vote for one of the third party candidates? Write them in if you have to. Sure, they may have no realistic chance of being elected, but you're mostly throwing your vote away on either sock-puppet A or B anyway, so you may as well send a message of what you'd actually like to see in a candidate. Sure, the sock puppets aren't going to even try to emancipate themselves from the hands up their asses, but it's a multi-layered power game and they do vie with each other for dominance, so you may even sway policy* slightly as they try to capture your vote.

*or at least rhetoric - which isn't *completely* worthless, it does help shape public opinion.

Re: It is time to get up one way or the other

[silentcoder]

>Polls are commonly open at least 11 hours a day. Very few people are working the whole time the polls are open.

The average working-poor person I mentioned in my other comment spends 16 hours a day at work, commute-time included. Most of them have two jobs. In welfare-to-work states they often can't get foodstamps if they have less than two jobs. And the work is in the rich neighbourhoods where they can't afford to live so 4 hour commutes are not unusual.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Wycliffe]

You realize that even the creators of that episode think they were being stupid about it.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of satire. They exagerate something stupid to make it sound stupider so people realize how stupid it is.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[zidium]

Seeing how the nation's Founders required voters to OWN LAND, just having a mailing address seems to pale in comparison. If you mismanage your life so much you don't have one, I reckon you have not proven your ability to conscientiously vote. For what it's worth, I would love a return to the landed gentry system.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[SlideRuleGuy]

Politics are dominated by two parties (which are both marching further to the far-right end of the spectrum in a global sense)

Surely you're not calling our slide into a police state, with government consuming an ever-growing percentage of GDP a move to the right. Obamacare was move to the right??

Unless you've redefined the political spectrum recently, these are all moves that liberals I know still applaud. I can hear them clapping. (They're not actually happy, but they never were. Obamacare wasn't far enough for them!)

There are a few actual conservatives left in this country, and they'd still like to see us shrink the size of government as a percent of GDP, reduce taxes, reduce the intrusion of government into our personal lives, and so on. We're getting farther from their goals, not closer. They've basically given up all hope for the US.

Perhaps you're confusing conservatives with Republicans. Repubs abandoned conservatism about a decade ago, leaving the conservatives I know with no one to (willingly) vote for.

Re:It is time to get up one way or the other

[Rakarra]

They don't have to follow popular vote, and many times the way it works out even though popular vote won, someone else was elected

There are a few rules that complicate this. First, first and foremost, it is a mistake to think that the President is elected by a single election of all eligible voters across the nation. It is a mistake to think of that, because it is a mistake to think of the USA as a singular, monolithic country. It is not, and never was intended to be. The nation is a collection of individual states, each state which chooses how it votes for a presidential candidate. These days it seems kids learn about the primacy of the federal government, and that states are unimportant, but it is the wrong, wrong way to think about things in the US, and such an attitude will make plenty of rules seem archaic. Therefore, the popular vote summed up across the entire country... doesn't matter. That's right, doesn't, and shouldn't matter. What matters most is the popular vote across a state, and across districts.

Then ID would be required

[ichthus]

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

Nice try, though.

Re:Then ID would be required

[Mantrid42]

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

Re:Then ID would be required

[DaHat]

Not really, you'd still get your name checked off on the voter rolls when you get your ballot and someone latter aggregates the whole thing. Biggest difference is that it would make it slightly less harder to vote for someone else (to prevent their vote) as you might end up being the second person to ask... Vs knowing ahead of time who isn't likely.

Re:Then ID would be required

[Sowelu]

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

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

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

Re:Then ID would be required

[tomhath]

How do you know there isn't wide spread fraud? There's no way to tell with the honor system in use today. Require a state issued ID card an you'll find out in a hurry.

Re:Then ID would be required

[Sarius64]

What if someone doesn't want to pay a fine for simply existing? Oh, forgot...

Re:Then ID would be required

[Calhune]

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

Re:Then ID would be required

[Strider-]

I forgot to add, for those that feel strongly about not voting, require a form of contentious objector status against voting, requiring renewal every so often (like once per decade) to qualify to not vote.

Why not just a "None of the Above" option? If NotA wins, all candidates in the election are disqualified, and new candidates must be presented.

Re:Then ID would be required

[sycodon]

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

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

Re:Then ID would be required

[Rockoon]

It would be even harder to commit if you go to vote, and the person at the polls helpfully informs you that you already did.

The very situation you describe here is in fact post-fraud as in already committed instead of as you so dishonestly claim "harder to commit."

Re:Then ID would be required

[Rockoon]

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

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

Re:Then ID would be required

[hackwrench]

Unless you are trying to say he should use a non-standard usage for some reason, you just broke it for him.
http://grammarist.com/eggcorns...
https://www.google.com/webhp?q...

Re:Then ID would be required

[Sowelu]

The only times I've needed to show ID in the last couple years was...getting a new job, opening a new bank account, and buying alcohol. Hell of a lot of people don't do any of those for several years in a row, and also don't drive.

Re:Then ID would be required

[cas2000]

ID is not necessarily required.

e.g. in Australia, you turn up to the polling station (usually a local school or whatever), go to the desk and tell them your name. they look it up in their lists of voters, and cross your name off. Then they initial and hand you your ballot papers which you take to a private voting booth and fill out. Then you fold them and drop them into the ballot boxes (one for the house of reps, one for the senate). done.

In the last few elections, the Australian Electoral Commission (an independant govt body who have the responsibility for running elections) have been mailing out helpful voter cards with your name and IIRC your address on it which you can show at the desk. These cards are completely optional, you can still vote if you forget to bring it or have lost it or never got it, and you still don't have to show any ID.

And, yes, voting is compulsory in australia. In practice, this means you just have to turn up to a polling station and get your name crossed off the list. You can then vote informally if you choose, nobody will know. If you don't turn up, you'll get a letter in the mail a few weeks later asking if you have a good excuse (like, "I was too sick to leave the house"). If not, you'll get fined.

btw, compulsory voting is a good thing. it tends to limit the excesses of the loony extreme fringes of all sides, by encouraging politicians and major parties to pander to the middle ground.

and preferential voting (i.e. ordering your preferences as 1, 2, 3, etc) is also a good thing. it allows voters to vote for third parties and independant candidates without wasting their vote - if their first choice fails to win, their 2nd choice gets their vote...and then their third, fourth, etc choices. It also allows voters to send a message or lodge a protest, e.g. vote for the socialist party 1st and Labour 2nd - Labour will still (almost certainly) end up with that person's vote but they're also telling the Labour party that their policies are too right-wing and too cozy with business.....and, hey, if the impossible happens and the pimple-faced university student from Socialist Alliance wins a seat, that'll shake things up a bit in parliament!

Re:Then ID would be required

[thegarbz]

Wait, is this a thing? There are people in the USA who don't have a form of acceptable ID? How do you buy alcohol when you're 21? Or do you just keep shopping around till someone gives you some? What about get jobs, tax returns, hell government handouts?

I don't understand why ID is a problem. In many countries of the world most people have drivers licenses, those who don't have another form of ID typically a government issued seniors card, passport, proof of age card, a welfare card, birth certificate, certificate of citizenship.

How is it that the USA even knows how many people are in the country if people can't be ID'd?

Re:Then ID would be required

[aardvarkjoe]

Voter ID, a drivers license or state issued ID card, which I believe if you are over 18 it is against the law to not carry photo ID. I know in my state it is illegal to not carry a state issued ID.

You know incorrectly. There are no laws compelling you to carry a photo ID, although as you note not carrying ID can limit what you can do.

Re:Then ID would be required

[jordanjay29]

The 18-24 demographic likely affected are college students living out of state (or far enough away from their home region in state) who don't bother to get absentee ballots or register to vote on campus.

Re:Then ID would be required

[blueg3]

in Australia, you turn up to the polling station (usually a local school or whatever), go to the desk and tell them your name. they look it up in their lists of voters, and cross your name off. Then they initial and hand you your ballot papers which you take to a private voting booth and fill out. Then you fold them and drop them into the ballot boxes (one for the house of reps, one for the senate). done.

In the last few elections, the Australian Electoral Commission (an independant govt body who have the responsibility for running elections) have been mailing out helpful voter cards with your name and IIRC your address on it which you can show at the desk. These cards are completely optional, you can still vote if you forget to bring it or have lost it or never got it, and you still don't have to show any ID.

Incidentally, this is how it works in the state of New York. Except it's a scannable, bubble type of form, so you don't fold it, but rather feed it into a little scanner that then drops it in a box.

What's next?

[GLMDesigns]

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?

Re:What's next?

[epyT-R]

Why not? It already controls healthcare funding. It will then want to minimize costs, so it will start dictating what can be eaten and tax people accordingly. Welcome to the radiant socialist future comrade.

Re:What's next?

[joebok]

If you were forced to vote, then you could vote for a politician who promised to end the mandatory voting!

Nice and quiet in here

[Headw1nd]

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.

do you really want the uninformed voting

[VEGETA_GT]

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.

Re:do you really want the uninformed voting

[ras]

Over time I have gotten a little more interested in politics and voting. but when i was not interested, me voting was useless. I did not make a informed decision.

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

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

Re:do you really want the uninformed voting

[Zordak]

So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote.

The unspoken assumption behind this proposal is that yes, Obama does want the uninterested and uninformed to vote, because he assumes they will trend Democrat. Some of the Democrats' greatest strongholds are high-density urban centers where both education and income levels are low. So Obama extrapolates that out and decides that means that mandatory voting will be a big windfall for Democrats, and give them a one-party lock on government.

I suspect that the reality wouldn't be as rosy for them as they're hoping. I could see it being a boon for third parties, as people who have no interest in the two major parties are compelled to find a candidate they don't hate.

Re:do you really want the uninformed voting

[quantaman]

So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote.

The unspoken assumption behind this proposal is that yes, Obama does want the uninterested and uninformed to vote, because he assumes they will trend Democrat. Some of the Democrats' greatest strongholds are high-density urban centers where both education and income levels are low. So Obama extrapolates that out and decides that means that mandatory voting will be a big windfall for Democrats, and give them a one-party lock on government.

I suspect that the reality wouldn't be as rosy for them as they're hoping. I could see it being a boon for third parties, as people who have no interest in the two major parties are compelled to find a candidate they don't hate.

The Republicans have a turnout advantage so mandatory voting would certainly help the Democrats. However, it's still a really good idea.

Here's the fundamental issue with the current arrangement. Turnout is very low, particularly during midterms, this creates two big problems.

The first is that the only people coming out to vote are the highly motivated, they may be informed but they're going to include the fringes of society which is why they're so motivated. They're the people watching Glenn Beck thinking Obama is founding a secular Nazi caliphate or reading the Huffington Post health section and trying to ban vaccines to stop autism, they're the last people who want steering the government.

The second problem is it's really hard to change people's minds. So even in a Presidential election you don't win by swaying people to your side, you win by boosting your turnout and depressing the opponents turnout. That means more scaremongering and mudslinging, the Tea Party didn't succeed by convincing people of conservative ideals, it succeeded by riling up conservatives to go to the polls.

Change to mandatory voting and the only thing motivation helps is your volunteer base. If you want to win the election you need to win the centre which means changing peoples minds, and that's where you get a better political system.

How about just a day off?

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Re:How about just a day off?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, polling day is a Saturday. Always. Voting opens early, and closes relatively late, so those who work weekends do have a time that they can get to a polling station without having to take the day off; and if worst comes to worst, there are always early voting centres.

It's absolutely crazy that voting is done on a working day; makes it a lot easier for people to be coerced in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways to not vote.

Re:How about just a day off?

[thegarbz]

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

He's too hopeful for voters to change.

[denis-The-menace]

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.

Re:He's too hopeful for voters to change.

[Bing Tsher E]

The only way to take the money out of politics is to eliminate taxes. Otherwise, there's lotsa money to spread around.

Australia does not have mandatory voting

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Australia does not have mandatory voting

[The Raven]

One counter-point: because Tuesday is not a day of rest for any notable religion (that I am aware of), thus avoiding voter disenfranchisement if they are strongly religious.

Not saying it's a good reason. Just that such exists.

Re:Australia does not have mandatory voting

[elphie007]

Yes we have compulsory attendance. You also do not need to show any ID. Your word is good enough. The electoral roll gets cross-referenced and there are penalties for multiple votes. Apart from the joy of voting, at every place of voting (normally a local school or community hall) there will be some kind of fundraiser on election days. For example, the local school, whose hall that gets seconded as a voting booth, will run an event. This has led to the tradition of finding the best election sausage sizzle available. It's a national pastime in Australia!

Re:I for one

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Then you're part of the problem. Not because of your opinion of Obama, but because you refuse to engage with people who disagree with you. It makes you identical to those "idiot Republicans" you claim to be tired of.

Re:freedom

[epyT-R]

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

yes, let's do that

[pesho]

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.

Voter fraud is very real

[SuperKendall]

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.

You have the right not to act.

[RLBrown]

"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.

Maybe it's time we had...

[frank_adrian314159]

... 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.

Propaganda everywhere!!

[InfiniteBlaze]

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. But access needs to be made better.

[Chalnoth]

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.

Do I understand this correctly?

[erp_consultant]

"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.

Re:Do I understand this correctly?

[TheGratefulNet]

and what about those of us who think its all rigged, pre-determined and our vote just does not matter anymore?

we really are quite disconnected from those who make our laws. they don't come from us (they are from the aristocracy, almost always), they don't care about us and I am not quite sure that the ones we see on the news or tv are the ones that really run things.

so many layers of mistrust, but all well-earned. we saw GWB steal an election via court rule. we've seen massive fraud from election machine makers to those that run the machines. doesn't it seem odd that the 2 parties in the US are now so similar, they differ only on highly emotional polarizing topics?

it sure seems like we have lost all control over things. you can think you are voting, but your choice list was already picked out, sanitized and both choices are GOING to do what their masters tell them. that's how they got there in the first place (duh!).

perhaps voting works in other countries. I think its a total failure, in the US, though. sorry to say (as I live here) but it really is true. our system is broken beyond repair. little tweaks are not gonna fix anything this broken.

a lot of you are from a software background. you've seen systems that are bad by design and yet some 'helpful' person thinks that lots of litte band-aids will fix things.

part of moving forward is admitting that what you have is broken. define what you -want-, chart a course for it and implement it.

but that's not what we get. if we try, we are even called names...

Re:Do I understand this correctly?

[Mantrid42]

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

Re:freedom

[epyT-R]

You defend one side or the other as the lesser of two evils when they are both part of the problem. Voting democrat or republican is voting for status quo. Obama and the democrats had 8 years to undo some of the damage. What did he do? He signed the patriot renewal. He could've vetoed it. He could've issued the same kind of 'executive orders' that bush abused to undo a lot of that damage too. He didn't. Instead he enabled it for another round, or even enhanced it. You can hate on bush and co all you want, but obama and hillary are just as much to blame.

Works for the countries he mentioned

[tomhath]

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.

Re:non-existent fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

That's election fraud. Voter fraud is when an actual voter votes multiple times or tries to vote as someone they are not. Election fraud is sneaking ballots into the box, throwing away ballots, and all that fun stuff.

So no, it's not a lie, voter fraud is incredibly ineffective as a means of influencing an election because it has to be done more publicly and more frequently to have an effect that simply getting the right person to transport the ballot boxes from the polling location and get them to accidentally lose a few.

If you don't vote.

[linear a]

if you don't vote, you won't be allowed to pay taxes. Check and mate!

Re:He's a special kind of stupid.

[Sowelu]

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.

Re:freedom

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. While the two parties may differ on certain things, on this issue, they are completely united. Voting Democrat isn't going to help stop domestic spying, because they're just as in favor of it as the Republicans, as seen by how it's been handled by both the Obama and Bush administrations.

Re:freedom

[g0bshiTe]

Amazing how quick people are to point the finger at Bush, remind me again who just extended it? expanded it?

False assumption

[RogueWarrior65]

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?

Re:freedom

[Feral Nerd]

Talk to the idiot Republicans in congress, that shit is a throw back to that retarded cowboy that came before Obama NOT Obama! It is amazing how quick the public forgets and blames everything on the current administration.

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

Based on the same lies regarding WMDs in Iraq by the previous administration. I'm not saying the Dems aren't at fault for not doing due diligence, but there was a lot of screaming from the previous administration's side that pushed a lot of unhealthy decisions for the country.

People keep dredging up that so-and-so voted in favour of the patriot act or some other covert operations bill and it is certainly true that giving the security services such extensive powers was a mistake. On the other hand, if you guys had been a congress critter in the days after 9/11, would you have had the brass balls to make the career ending move of not voting the patriot act? On the other hand it's been close to 15 years now and it says a lot about the US political class that they still haven't grown the spine to let the patriot act expire and repeal the parts of it that didn't have sunset provisions.

Re:freedom

[g0bshiTe]

I was going to comment about Obama, but I see like me you realize R or D they are both after the same things.

Chicago style

[ITRambo]

Does Obama mean voting as in they vote for you, your pets, and dead relatives, until there is at least 100% turnout?

Ugh, symptom, not the problem

[Moof123]

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.

Re:I for one

[g0bshiTe]

99 solutions to existing problems and he's solved none.

You have low standards.

Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me

[fyngyrz]

Voting democrat or republican is voting for status quo.

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.

Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me

[ckatko]

In other words, "Let them change anything they want" because the current system is so shitty you'd be hard pressed to find much worth saving.

Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I read one post somewhere that said "Obama to Force Mandatory Voting." I chuckled, as that article implied he was being a dictator forcing people into democracy!

I used to be for mandatory voting until I realized that stupid people would vote anyway, and that they are most likely influenced by silly one liners in paid TV ads, so we'd simply end up with the same lot of garbage politicians. Heck, maybe even worse!

I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms. This would have the added benefit that only citizens, who are also taxpayers,(or at least those who took the time to file, even if they earned nothing) would qualify for certain benefits. You shine on filing your taxes, you shine on your benefits. Maybe you get a notice saying you are eligible for benefits in countries where people have no obligations.

I'd also like to see congressmen who vote for something that's bad for the country, solely to screw the other party, be stripped of their citizenship and deported.

Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me

[fyngyrz]

I'm not a conservative. I'm also not easily fooled. And I don't see it that way. I see it as you have been blinded by the party you adhere to -- because I assure you, neither party is worth jack shit at the present moment.

I'm not saying they are the same in platform -- they clearly aren't -- I'm saying they're equally corrupt and not working for the benefit of their constituents, their platforms serve only as the vaguest possible guides for their actual actions, almost no elected member of either party even remotely understands or complies with the constitution they swore an oath to, and that goes double or triple or perhaps 10x for SCOTUS, who, unfortunately, we cannot vote out.

But, as part of that 37-or-so%, by all means, you keep on voting in the dem/rep situation you have so much faith in. If compulsory voting comes about, it'll be interesting to see if your vote matters any longer. I truly hope it doesn't, but that, of course, is just me.

Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me

[LordLucless]

In Australia, we have mandatory voting. It only contributes to inertia.

Reason being, is people who are not interested in politics will take the minimal effort required to discharge their obligation - which generally means voting for a major party, who've had enough money to finance yapping at them from the television for the month prior.

If you want to adopt an electoral change that would empower third parties, go for preferential voting.

Re:freedom

[Sarius64]

No, you are saying that the Dem's aren't at fault, and you're lying by obfuscation.

Words of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alwa

Re:I for one

[fred911]

"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.

Re:freedom

[ralphsiegler]

really, he supported wiretapping without warrant, assassination of citizens without due process, NSA data collection before becoming president? do tell.

Ohhh, Democrats!!!

[Gription]

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?)

Nice idea, but the problem is elsewhere

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:freedom

[ckatko]

Shut up with your damn facts and quotations! We're trying to be mad at Republicans!

That exists also

[SuperKendall]

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?

Re:That exists also

[LiquidAvatar]

What's with all of this elitist livingism. A hundred years ago, we realized that African-Americans deserved the right to vote. A few decades later, we realized that women deserved to vote. When will we, as a country, wake up and realize that everyone in our country is created equal, no matter if they are alive or dead!

Re:That exists also

[Electricity Likes Me]

Hi, I'm an electoral roll. Polling station staff check names off of me when people turn up to cast an anonymous vote. In this way, it quickly becomes apparent if a person claiming a particular name has voted multiple times, at multiple polling stations.

It turns out the rate of this happening is so low as to be nearly non-existent. It is metrically insignificant, since the small fraction of attempts do not result in enough votes to potentially change the result of an election, and if it did it would result in a re-run.

Re:Mandatory exercise of Constitutional rights...

[Skidborg]

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?

There's a much more sensible first step

[facetube]

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.

He's getting away with murder.

[shihonage]

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.

Belgium

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Who Decides the Candidates?

[Irate Engineer]

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.

Forget that stupid idea...

[bobbied]

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.

Re:freedom

[MobSwatter]

Maybe there should be a three party system after all, repubs, dems, mafia, so red/blue/joker? After all they have been filling the gap between church and state long enough to be granted the appropriate recognition for this and the pledge updated to:

"I pledge allegiance to our faded Flag of the Divided States of Amerika, and to the broken Republic for which it fell, one Nation under the mob, totally divided, with fascism and injustice for all."

Re:freedom

[stonedown]

Democrats deserve far less blame than the Bush administration, which actually set the war in motion. The Bush administration argued that they needed the authorization to use force in order to have a strong negotiating position with Saddam Hussein. Turned out negotiation was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush. The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).

In countries with mandatory voting

[circletimessquare]

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.

Yeah, no.

[fyngyrz]

I used to be for mandatory voting until I realized that stupid people would vote anyway

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.

I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms.

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 also like to see congressmen who vote for something that's bad for the country, solely to screw the other party, be stripped of their citizenship and deported.

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.

Re:Yeah, no.

[towermac]

"Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. "

Not anymore it's not. Seriously, that's new: You 'have' to file now since the ACA. I have yet to hear of an exception for the homeless to at least file the form for your exemption. So the homeless are technically in violation of tax law.

I see now, the real plan: They are just going to outlaw being poor. Seattle is at the forefront of this trend.

Fucking brilliant! Why didn't we think of this years ago?

Brilliant plan!

[tehlinux]

So his plan is to force uninformed, gullible morons to vote? What could possibly go wrong?!

Re:Brilliant plan!

[tehlinux]

Right now, my vote is drowned out by a sea of morons. If everyone voted, it would be an ocean.

Re:freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).

"I was powerless to stop the woman from being raped, because I had abdicated my power by deciding I wanted to fuck her."

"I was powerless to stop the child from getting drunk, because I had abdicated my power by buying the kid a fifth of Jack Daniels."

Do you realize how ABSOLUTELY MORONIC your argument sounds?

Democrats voted overwhelmingly to authorize force: that was exactly when they could have exercised their power to "affect the actions of the executive branch." Arguing that "because they exercised bad judgement, they're blameless for the results that came from that bad judgement" is completely stupid.

They had the power to stop the war from happening - they didn't have to authorize the use of force. They did.

Re:37% Participation?

[ichabod801]

Since when is a statistical sample of 37% not adequate?

Since it's a self-selecting, biased sample.

One of the Grand Dumb Ideas

[pubwvj]

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!

Vote for Who?

[Teppy]

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?

what's the C in AC stand for?

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:freedom

[Teppy]

Ron Paul had the balls to vote "no" on the patriot act, both in 2001 and 2005. Did you vote for him? (Or, would you have?)

Re:Social contract

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:mandatory voting != liberty

[Opportunist]

Now that's cute. It doesn't stop to amaze me what the average American can get worked up over when he perceives some imaginary "liberty" being taken away that would actually make some sense, but as soon as some bullshit patriotism, safety or thinkofthechildren is paraded in front of him, he accepts any and all freedoms being taken away "for the greater good".

Not that this is one of the better ideas that Obama ever had, but the reasoning for your rejection just doesn't make any sense.

Completely bad idea

[markdavis]

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...

Re:Completely bad idea

[quantaman]

Mandatory voting is a hugely bad idea:

1) It goes against freedom

Living in a Democracy comes with some responsibilities, mandatory voting is one I'm comfortable with (you can still cast a protest vote/spoil a ballot).

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.

The people who come out to vote now aren't informed as much as they are rabid partisans. Get everyone involved and the knowledge will tick up.

3) It encourages people to vote who apparently have no interest in the issues.

That's a wonderful idea. The last person I want voting is rabid partisans who thinks their candidate losing means the end of the world. You know why McCain chose Palin? Because they figured she could motivate the base. She did that brilliantly but it really took a staggering amount of extremism and incompetence on her part to become a hindrance to the campaign. In a mandatory system you'd never let a representative like her anywhere near the campaign.

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...

I think that would be cool but I don't think it's the cause of your voting woes. A preferential system inserted into the current US system would simply mean more chaos and an electorate who has no idea who's doing what.

For your vote to mean something

[OrangeTide]

You first have to give a shit about the world around you.

Good luck legislating away apathy.

Bullshit

[BrendaEM]

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?

Re:freedom

[stonedown]

I agree with you that Democrats and Republicans in Congress should not have authorized the Iraq war. It was a colossal mistake. But, the blame rests squarely with the Bush administration, which manipulated the country into going to war.

You you did write bullshit

[dbIII]

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.

Re:freedom

[budgenator]

You do realise that not only did they actually find WMD like nitrogen mustard and sarin, but they covered it up so the public wouldn't freak out; Bush was less worried about public reaction to not finding WMD, than he was about the reaction to the causalties involved with finding the chemical agents. Seriously blaming "Gulf War Syndrome" on burning oil wells made as much sense as blaming every unexplained aerial phenomina on "swamp gas".

Re: freedom

[LynnwoodRooster]

Don't worry, that's what the precincts with more than 100% turnout are there for - to cover those who don't vote!

And while you're at it

[Trogre]

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?

Re:freedom

[Old VMS Junkie]

Maybe they weren't quite the lies that the left would like you to believe... http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Re:freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason our system of government has what's called "checks and balances" -- when one branch starts trying to take on too much power and do too much, the other branches have the authority to CHECK these abuses of power, and BALANCE the government back into a more moderate approach.

If the Legislative branch "abdicated its responsibility" and allowed the President to set both legislative and executive agendas in prosecuting a war that they did not believe in, then they share just as much blame as the president who overreached.

They have an *affirmative duty* to exercise a restraining influence on the executive branch. It is their JOB. By your own words, they "abdicated responsibility." This makes them - at best - accessories to the crime, and at worst, willing conspirators.

Re:USSR Law

[sg_oneill]

The "turnout requirement" where an election had to be done over if voters failed to show up originated in the USSR. There was only one candidate on the ballot, but if you failed to turn out and vote for him you could get yourself and your neighbors in hot water.

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.

Re:freedom

[davester666]

I believe the proper frame of reference to keep in mind when following American politics is the WWE.

Lots of winning and losing, but you don't go anywhere. And your wallet is a lot lighter at the end of the day.

Re:freedom

[dave420]

They found a few badly-degraded shells which were stolen from testing facilities. There were no ready-to-use WMDs.

Truer words never spoken

[ThatsNotPudding]

"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."

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.

Re: freedom

[JWW]

Do you realize just how many potential mandatory voters don't file taxes every year? Or move beteween voting locales between elections? It's much larger numbers than you think. Mandatory voting would require the authorities to find them and, and this is the truly larger point CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.

Voting is a right. Mandatory voting is a compulsion. It changes the power of the vote from being something of the citizen over the government to a power the government wields over a citizen.

You can believe that power would be wielded honorably, but you'd quickly be proven wrong.

Re: Ironic

[buck-yar]

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.