So when they can make sure you voted, they can then make sure you vote the right way.

Would the requirement extend to illegals and dead people??? Would Chicago be required to put a maximum number of times one person can vote? So many questions...

Gee that seams to work ok in North Korea and everybody votes for Kin Jong Un. Wow isn't that how "O" would want it.

Government in general might not want to tug too hard on that particular thread. Politicians might wake up to find a ballot initiative to institute all kinds of changes like, say, a requirement that all ballots must have a new, additional choice on them. One that says, "None of the above". Transformative he says? Indeed.

I wouldn't have any problems with requiring people to vote, IF:

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.

Yes, and that means the election clerk will be sure to cast votes in the names of the dead and the moved-out. Guaranteed Democratic votes.

Obama ALWAYS has a hidden agenda. I never listen to their reasons for wanting things. I look to the hidden agendas. In this case, it would hasten our demise into socialism and support for the democratic party. Its pretty transparent what he wants.

After watching him talk about it again, I got to thinking about mandatory voting, what would it do for us? We're split about 50/50 today with those do vote. I'd expect most of those that do vote have some knowledge of the candidates and where they stand, so we should get something close to a reasonable outcome and selecting reasonably qualified candidates.

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.

If the government can have such a power will they stop there? Does it matter?
Joseph Stalin — 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'

Let's see....28 million v. 316 million.
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

we should find out who writes this fools speeches. he is too stupid to think this stuff up himself but thinks anything that is bad for america is good and that has to be explained to him.

Educated Electorate is what is needed to move things in any kind of good direction.

"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.

Only in a Communist country. Look where we are headed!

It's just another thing to change the subject and take you mind off the important issues. What happened in Benghazi, Mexican Gun Running, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.............

Actually, it would be great as long as NoTA (None of The Above) was *ALWAYS* on the ballot!

Imagine the politicos facing a career ending election *every* term... Life would be wonderful!

The government will vote for you if you don't do it yourself based on the formula: V= |O<=p(D)/p(R)<=1|. Of course, the DOJ will determine what numbers to plug into the formula.

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."

The ultimate in Big Government; mandate vote or else!!

Interesting to read the comments here about how only the "producers" should be permitted to vote, for in fact that's pretty much what's happening. The most consistent voters tend to be working, knowledgeable, and older. There are instances where the ignorant or incompetent are "assisted" in the voting process, but the method isn't organized enough to control the outcomes on a large scale.

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.

I'd consider mandatory voting with one caveat. ALL ballots for an office must include a "None of the Above" box. If "None of the Above" wins, then another election is held. Anyone who was on the ballot where "None of the Above" has won, can NEVER run for that office again.

More "fundamental transformation" from this character. I don't trust it. When he says it will remove the money from politics you can be sure of just the opposite. It will be more Soros and Heinz money to get the "young and racially diverse" non-voters to the polls.With all that is attached.

Would be largely ineffective, since we have a tradition of the ruling party rigging the electoral rolls to exclude huge numbers of people in demographic groups likely to vote against it.

In true Obummer form perhaps benevolent loss of three fingers, the pinky, the one next to it, and the index,...so when he was humiliated he could politely wave to his/her politically correct friends!