Mandatory Voting? His Highness The One Floats The Notion
What would the punishment be?
A fine? Jail time? Both?
An ancient dude named Draco and his Draconian government comes to mind.
A fine? Jail time? Both?
An ancient dude named Draco and his Draconian government comes to mind.
We have had other discussions in the Gulch about the positive effects that showing an ID and proving that you are a (unique) citizen would have on the honesty of the voting process. I think that 'mandatory voting' is different than 'directed voting'.
I am against mandatory voting the same way I am against the EPA controlling your barbeque grill: The government should stay out of the personal life of the individual. Leave Us Alone.
Jan
For example - there has to be a list of people to whom the ballots would be mailed. A simple scrutiny of people >100 years of age would be an easy task (exclusionary criterion). Cross-checking the list against DMV records for licenses given/renewed within the last [10 years] should show people who are probably actual residents (inclusionary criterion). I assume that each ballot has a unique ballot id code so that only one vote can be cast per code (no xeroxed ballots - common sense criterion).
Voting by mail has the potential for being more honest than booth voting, with the notable exception that a bully could force his/her family members to all vote a given way, which cannot happen in a booth - but I think that is rare. You will never get perfect honesty, but I think that we can do a lot better than we are doing now. Corporations may have this system already scoped out, for stock votes.
Jan
We have such a problem up here with spoiled ballots and how they are handled (or not handled). There have been numerous cases of people voting multiple time. It's bad.
Jan
I'm stealing "Dimocrat" for future use.
Also don't forget that most of these non-voters are poor and "marginalized" (whatever THAT means) and will have be picked up and driven to the polls (preferably on buses driven by union drivers on overtime), given some re-education first in a camp run by Bill Ayers, AND most of all have their meager incomes supplemented in some way. It's only fair, after all.
At least he did point out, I believe in the account I read that that pesky thing called The Constitution might get in the way of this brilliant plan, but hey, no big deal.
Jan
1) Only citizens were allowed to vote, and ID was required.
2) Voters had to also pass a basic civics test on the Constitution.
3) Any politicians caught lying were immediately jailed, forced to vacate their positions, and barred from any future government or government contractor position.
4) Only legal voters could provide campaign contributions.
And that's just for starters.
Gave you a thumbs up even though I do not agree with the first line, the rest should be what is required to gain the privileged to vote.
Also speak English at a level where communication is possible with you in English.
I would always be against requiring people to vote. It would be a form of the government initiating force on its people and that power should be used only when no other recourse is available.
Under a mandatory voting system we’d more than double the voting turnout by people who have no idea about politics, the candidates, or ant of the issues that are important. What exactly would we get because these people would represent the majority? We could end up with our elected officials not based on qualifications but on race, sex, looks, and all the attributes that have nothing to do with running a country. Think about it, “Hands Up” people could elect a president, or perhaps the “Occupy Movement” people would select our leaders. We might even get people elected like Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, and even Hillary Clinton.
Proof of my theory is we got Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. And in the 2014 elections the people that showed up were the lowest in numbers in years. The Barack Obama electorate were worn out, they lost faith in “Hope and Change”*, and just didn’t turn out to vote. What would the results have been if voting was mandatory? Perhaps a lot different. I don’t think we should vote on who puts the most attractive yard signs in the poorer areas. It’s a poor reason to elect those that are going to represent us.
The president himself said it on Wednesday in Ohio, “If everybody voted theeeeen (that’s what he said) it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are, young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups.” He forgot a few other attributes, one being less educated, another with lower family affiliations, higher crime rates, etc. Are these the kind of people that understand how fragile our system has been for some 240 years now? Would these people elect the right people that would keep try to keep this country free?
* I found it interesting, the guy that ran against Netanyahu, his slogan was, "Change and Hope". I actually heard it come out of his mouth. Perhaps the people of Israel are smarter than us.
Joseph Stalin — 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'
A driver we hired in Oz told us his son just turned 18 and he got a letter saying you will now vote or pay $150.
But again it's 28 v 316 million
And as for me, give me liberty from voting or give me successful revolution.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=the+...
"Statistically speaking, Obama is correct. Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse."
The less educated section of this is a key that Obama wants. A less educated voter is more easily swayed to any cause. They are more likely to do what your adds tell them to do.
Another key that BO wants that also stinks is his use of the poor as a club to beat the rich into submission and rob them to give the poor stuff. This would provide a much larger club. A star trek episode comes to mind "Muri" - Bam Bam the grumps.
Thanks for pointing that out..
Imagine the politicos facing a career ending election *every* term... Life would be wonderful!
There is something else lurking behind this ''notion'' Wait for the other shoe to drop. Pay to vote perhaps. Like Soros?
A couple of days later I saw an editorial cartoon of Obama peering into a crystal ball, asking those who did not vote what they were thinking.
Voters are fickle. It all comes down to who ever comes up with the messages voters want to hear will get their vote. Liberal OR Conservative. Explain how in the world President Reagan won not only a first term against the liberals but a second term as well.
total of the first formula is Chipped Beef On Toast
Obama as state senator responding to question on should a duty to vote be mandatory and expounding on libertarian right to sit on a couch
Odyssey WBEZ 91.5 FM Chicago Public Radio
host Gretchen Helfritch
Barack Obama Illinois State Senator district 13
and senior lecturer in law school at U Chicago
stuttering over words, but in a pompous professorial manner
43:06 Obama: "You know I think, uh, I am not sure that uh we wouldn't have a uh healthier political process if we had mandatory voting of the sort that they have in Australia as I understand it I think, you're you're looking at a modest fine in Australia for not voting, uhm so at least there's some incentive to vote, uh, eh, beyond uh you know civic uh uh interest or or involvement, and, n, I'm not sure that wouldn't be a healthy thing uh I don't think it's a realistic prospect becuz it runs contrary to a -- strong libertarian uh ethos uh in this country uh that you know uh I think applies to uh uh voting like everything else uh I don't get a sense uh that this country eh I think most individuals feel that uh voting's a good thing, uh it's part of our civic responsibility, but I think they also feel like you know I want to sit on the couch uh and watch uh the XFL and and uh and not go to the polls then that's ok too uh and an that's so there's a strong dose of skepticism about uh mandating uh voting that that I think uh could not be overcome in this country."
host: "Do I detect an anti-XFL bias in you, Barak Obama?"
Obama: [laughs cynically] "No comment."
host: "Ok"
Richard John (Assoc Professor of History at University of Illinois at Chicago): "I'd like to add just one more thing on this I think that that one could at least argue, and I might be inclined to argue, that -- and there's some question of realism that was just referred to that, that in fact the major political parties today have no particular interest in increasing turnout.
Obama: "That's right uh you know, the uh, uh I mean one of one of the things that we haven't spoken about but I think uh Richard's raising an excellent point, is that uh thet one of the tricky aspects of tinkering with voting laws is that uh whoever's in power, whoever controls the uh mechanisms of the state uh obviously did pretty good under the current voting rules uh and so you know they they you know there's there's a a strong bias towards uh the status quo and inertia when uh when it comes to uh voting arrangements."
Voting online presents an interesting dilemma, given the opportunity for hacking. However, the science of biometrics has advanced enough that devices now exist to identify the voter by retinal pattern, presenting a form of ID difficult to fake.
Being a proponent of the carrot over the stick, I would recommend some form of tax refund for exercising one's duty to vote. Under a flat tax system, a reduction from 17% to 16% during voting periods should be incitement enough. I think that would be more effective in inciting voter turnout than penalties for not voting.
Disregard the comment about "duty". Reward is a different angle.
But no one has a right to tell me that voting is my duty or else.
If you force the uninformed masses who do not care to vote you can get whatever vote you need by campaign advertising and political gifts. pretty easy to see what he would want it for.
No small government person would ever win again unless they behaved like a big government guy during the election.
I just watched Captain Phillips for the second time last weekend. The main reason was that I knew Ritchie Phillips in High School. He was in my graduating class from Winchester High School (Mass) in 1973. I had a small circle of friends at this point in High School, having been an Ayn Rand and knowledge inspired lad wasting time in public school. Us like minded friends would gather in a study hall between classes. Ritchie would sometimes join our group during study break and was welcome. He was a good kid as well as I recall but we never became fast friends and after graduation that was it. It is weird watching Tom Hanks play the guy I knew even after 40 years of time has passed.
But this time around, I noticed and appreciated the scenes where Captain Phillips is advising the pirates on how to use the equipment. Very reminiscent of a smiling John Galt advising his torturers on how to fix the equipment. I doubt this was a deliberate connection but was quite significant for me anyway.
OR: piece of capital 'S' followed by a 'hit'
Load more comments...