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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

[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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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

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!

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.

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).

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: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.