Slashdot Mirror
Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
HughPickens.com writes CNN reports that when asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said Obama "It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans — more than the population of Russia — skipped out. Critics of mandatory voting have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
With voter turnout this epically low, we are at the point where all the eligible voters who don't vote could band together and elect a president and VP who aren't even on the ticket. Whether or not mandatory voting would help is unclear, but voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone and neither do all the various voter suppression methods that we see in each election cycle. Something should be done to push back.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Over time I have gotten a little more interested in politics and voting. but when i was not interested, me voting was useless. I did not make a informed decision. So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote. Then it really could become a popularity contest instead of more on the facts. Make sure you are seen more then the other guy and people like that persons face and you could win based on that.
Seriously, why aren't Election Days mandatory holidays? Do it over two days: The last Thursday before normal Election Day is Alternate Election Day, when people who will be working on Election Day must have off. Then everybody else takes Tuesday as a holiday. That, combined with absentee ballots should be an excellent start.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Take the money OUT of politics.
Stop outright lying.
It too obvious that congress critters have a price tag.
Until that changes, there is no hope for America.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
What it does have is mandatory attendance . What you do in the voting booth is your own business. And all of which is done on a Saturday.
If anything I think the USA would be better off with moving the election day from Tuesday. See Why Tuesday? for info about the slow push to make this change.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Then you're part of the problem. Not because of your opinion of Obama, but because you refuse to engage with people who disagree with you. It makes you identical to those "idiot Republicans" you claim to be tired of.
Uh.. You know democrats voted overwhelmingly for patriot and its renewals (under obama as well), right? Patriot was a 'reaching across the aisle' moment.
Margins these days on many elections are within a percent or two, so non-citizen voting is enough to have a real impact on how elections swing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Choosing not to decide is still making a choice." There are those who may wish to stay partially off the grid by not registering to vote. There are those who consider absence to be a show of protest. Let those who wish to vote do so, freely without needing anything except a state ID. Let those who do not wish to vote live in peace.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
"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.
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?
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.
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, you won't be allowed to pay taxes. Check and mate!
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.
Just to accidentally veer back on topic for a moment (it won't last, don't worry), mandatory voting, at least if it allows write-ins, might do something a bit unexpected, too. A lot of people don't vote because they think (know, actually) that voting for either of the mainstream political parties is voting for more of "the same", where "the same" is not a good thing by the vast majority of measures.
Force them to vote, they may go, "ok, fine, I'll vote, but you won't like it." And consider: With only 37% voting previously, those people could ALL be outvoted by the new influx. This could be a huge win for 3rd parties / candidates.
Such a result would amuse the hell out of me. And it could be really, really good for the country.
So bring it on, I say. Remains to be seen if the votes of those who simply aren't engaged (the ignorant by virtue of busy or poor education... the stupid are pretty much accounted for already) would tear us a new one. But hey, the new one isn't likely to be worse than the one we've got now.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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
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.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
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?)
A prime example for mandatory voting is Swizerland. But they have a 'direct democracy' (mostly) which means many laws are directly voted for by the population, not in the parliament.
America has a much bigger problem than lack of voters. First of all it is the more than archaic voting system from the late 1700s.
Secondly it is the abuse allowed in it: we have a district that voted mostly republicans and it is surrounded by mainly democrates? But last 4 year many 'democrates' moved into that district?
Lets just reshape the districts, so we are certain that we still have a republican majourity in said district.
In america before every election the 'ruling party' reshapes the voting destricts based on population data in the hope to 'manipulate' the outcome in their desire.
In every other nation that is considered 'voting fraud' or 'voting manipulation'. In the US it is business as usually.
Then comes the need to register for votes ... poor and underdogs, minorities etc. don't like to register.
Then you have the two party system (I really wonder why you laugh about China etc. with a one party system ...)
Then the 'electors' system ... it got changed at some point, but it is still retarded.
Then you had the Bush voting frauds ... come on, in every nation of the world, that is not a dictatorship, that election had been invalidated and Bush would be in jail and had haved no chance to even stay up for the 'Ersatzelection' ... but now 15 years later, who cares *shrugg*
Americans are really really strange regarding that ...
And from thst everything that is evil follows in the USA.
Who gets voted into office? Judges? Sheriffs? State Attorneys?
None of them is doing his job, they all only work to get reelected!!
Police cought one who has no aliby?
Sheriff: lets drop the hunt for the true culprit, lets focus on catching more idiots!
State atorney: How can we get him convicted? Hm, should be easy, he can not defend himself!
Judge: the harder I punish him, the more points I get for the next election!
How retarded is that? In germany the prime responsibility of a state atorney is to convict the right culprit, not a random 'victim'!
There are plenty of cases (in germany) where the state prosecutor in the end himself in the final speech plead 'non guilty' because it was obvious the guy charged was non guilty. Something like that can not even happen in the USA ... your law system is not much better than sharia, except cheating on your spouse is not punished (yet!)
Lets not even start with the idea that a jury in our days is the right thing to 'judge' a culprit.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I've heard this, but I don't understand this.
Its very easy to understand when you realize that its an obvious lie.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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!
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.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?