Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

a reply to: coldkidc

Mandatory voting will be forcing those who don't care or are totally uninformed to cast a vote based upon "enie, meanine, miney moe." Unless they gave us all a day-off to vote and a voting option to select "shove it up your ..." I would than possibly consider it.

It figures this clown would think FORCING people to vote would be a good idea. After all, it worked for his failed health care program. Maybe he can put the IRS in charge of fining people for not voting or better yet jail people that don't vote. This is a horrible idea and one that only Obama would think is good. Part of being free is being free to NOT participate in society or Government.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Kind of defeats the idea of democracy. You live in a free democracy, but you must vote. Surely the freedom not to vote is just as important

No we live in a republic but I know what you mean, paying taxes no one likes it but we all benefit from it, getting out of voting should be as difficult as getting out of jury duties or paying taxes.

One might say it would go to the majority voters then. On the other hand, if presidents weren't selected but elected and citizens demonstrated that they are sick of voting for least of the worst and or learned they are being duped there might be something to it.

OK, I'll throw the first partisan stone into the pond, then... We live in a country where *almost* half of the nation pays zero net taxes at the end of the year and 47% receive some manner of assistance, entitlement, or benefit check. Traditionally, whether true or otherwise, the Democrat party is seen as the mighty endorser of kickbacks to the poor and lower middle class while Republicans are seen as the great protector of incomes of the middle middle class and up. The middle middle class is DYING in America. We're taxed to death. As those formerly middle class Americans slip past the threshold at which they can start depending on the ever shrinking pool of higher earners to take responsibility for their financial futures, there will be a swing towards the majority of America being on the dole.

Of course politicians like Obama would love to see every one of those people forced to vote. Very, very few people vote against their Meal Ticket.

a reply to: coldkidc

"counteract" money. Thats just code for make sure the democrats gain control and stay in control. Their azzes are still hurting over the last election. Their own party want to make them vote now. How dare they just stay at home....which is a form of voting anyway.

Plus always remember its always opposite of what they say it will be. Like "affordable health care". Nothing will be counteracted but will become worse.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The middle middle class is DYING in America. We're taxed to death. As those formerly middle class Americans slip past the threshold at which they can start depending on the ever shrinking pool of higher earners to take responsibility for their financial futures, there will be a swing towards the majority of America being on the dole.

And the fault lies with ???
Okay forget who is to blame for a sec we can return to that later, what to do about it, when was the golden era of the middle class what was the policies that led to that growth.

originally posted by: Spider879
when was the golden era of the middle class what was the policies that led to that growth.

It was before global free trade took off. An era in which America actually produced things and had import tariffs and laws preventing companies from packing up shop and moving their whole factory outside America's borders.

You can have:
1. Robust minimum wage laws and pro-union policies
OR
2. International free trade

You cannot have both! If you choose to have #1, you damn well better lock down your borders and make it economically unfeasible for the good sold in America to have been manufactured anywhere other than America. If, however, you want #2, then you have to break the unions and eliminate the minimum wage laws because there is simply zero reason for producers to pay steep wages when they can get the same work for a fraction of the price and simply import the goods produced back in the USA with no worry of import taxes or regulations.

This isn't a partisan issue, per se, because BOTH parties have their heads right up their asses in regards to free trade... #1, however, is pretty much a partisan issue.

Am I the only one that believes that voting is a civic duty and ought to be required of a populace?

2012 Voter Turnout Report

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election.

Just over half the eligible voters voted in 2012...

That's ridiculous.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Am I the only one that believes that voting is a civic duty and ought to be required of a populace?

You're probably not the only one that believes that, but I have a much different slant. I support the idea of mandatory voter education and a voter test that, at the very least, demonstrates a general understanding of actual stated platforms, positions, and goal of the candidates prior to being allowed near a poll. Alongside that, I support a Constitutional amendment banishing parties and any affiliation from being listed on any government document, ballot, or caucus. "By your deeds I shall know thee" WAY too many RINOS masquerading as Conservatives and way too many obsequious corporate bootlicks masquerading as Democrats in DC to allow the Rs and Ds to dominate the ballot. Mandatory voter education would also entirely neuter the current fiasco in campaign finances... simply put, if you have an education policy which provides the facts to the voters for, say, the top 10 polling candidates for any given office, campaign funds don't mean squat.

ETA:

Just over half the eligible voters voted in 2012...

That's ridiculous.

No, that's disillusionment and disappointment. That mad turnout in 2008 had unrealistic expectations created by believing their candidate was going to change the world. When he failed and when he lied, their sparks were blown out and they now are among the apathetic who feel disenfranchised. It isn't the system that has disenfranchised them, though, it's the politicians and their never ending stream of manipulation and lies that has disenfranchised them.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I can't argue mandatory voter education. I agree with that whole heartedly. If a voter can't, at the least, accurately describe the three branches of government, and how a bill is passed, then they have no business voting.

But would an educated voter be capable of feeling disenfranchised? I would like to think an educated voter would be able to overcome that...
Which lends credence to your comment about mandatory voter education.

Belgium is one of the few countries in the world where voting is mandatory.
Practically, if you don't show up on election day, it is very unlikelly that you get finned for not voting.

It has been argued that the rise of flemish nationalism in Belgium was boosted by the mandatory voting, people considering that party as a form of counter-power. Now they are in charge, and guess what, they have the same issues as their mainstream counterpart.

a reply to: EternalSolace

But what problem would mandatory voting really address? What is really being hoped for in larger turnouts?

a reply to: Logarock

I would hope that when a populace is required to vote, it forces them to think about the choices they make and how it effects them.

But that would only work on an informed populace.

I whole heartedly believe that a lot of the country's problems lies with apathy. People look at the problems within the country and because they're too difficult for one person to understand, or too difficult to effectively change, that the choices they make, or would make, don't matter.

Apathy is our country's greatest enemy.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Spider879
when was the golden era of the middle class what was the policies that led to that growth.

It was before global free trade took off. An era in which America actually produced things and had import tariffs and laws preventing companies from packing up shop and moving their whole factory outside America's borders.

You can have:
1. Robust minimum wage laws and pro-union policies
OR
2. International free trade

You cannot have both! If you choose to have #1, you damn well better lock down your borders and make it economically unfeasible for the good sold in America to have been manufactured anywhere other than America. If, however, you want #2, then you have to break the unions and eliminate the minimum wage laws because there is simply zero reason for producers to pay steep wages when they can get the same work for a fraction of the price and simply import the goods produced back in the USA with no worry of import taxes or regulations.

This isn't a partisan issue, per se, because BOTH parties have their heads right up their asses in regards to free trade... #1, however, is pretty much a partisan issue.

Ouuut standing , the direct result which led to the erosion of the middle class, they TPTB then promised us we would be better off having tech jobs, however they neglect to put plans into action to replace loss jobs in places like Detroit with training for those tech jobs they now also outsourced off shore. we now faced with the prospect of living like Bangladeshis which will be the new normal.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I whole heartedly believe that a lot of the country's problems lies with apathy. People look at the problems within the country and because they're too difficult for one person to understand, or too difficult to effectively change, that the choices they make, or would make, don't matter.

Apathy is our country's greatest enemy.

Mandatory voting may bring numbers up but really doesn't address the problems with apathy.

Coming from Obama this idea looks clearly like an attempt by the left to guarantee winning numbers....in their estimation anyway. His appeal is clearly one to the masses, along wealth politic lines and they don't really know whats good for them anyway. And really the democratic hordes or those that easily believe slogans "Hope and Change" or vote along class economic lines are never exposed to a rounded look at anything.

a reply to: Spider879

Don't we have the collective knowledge to overcome the problem of third world countries? Can't we build for each other homes? Can't we grow food for one another? Can we not come together and provide a quality of life for each other?


The only thing that stands in the way of that becoming reality in a country such as ours is the mindset of, "What can one do for me?"

a reply to: Logarock

Which is why I agree with burdman30ott6 that an educated populace is key. I agree with your post immensely.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Logarock

I would hope that when a populace is required to vote, it forces them to think about the choices they make and how it effects them.

But that would only work on an informed populace.

Not made easy by network news, for the so called 4th estate is a...FAIL! they lie as shamelessly as any politician and often times they are one and the same, think of the crew over at F.O.X like Palin,Mike Huckabee and a sloe of others and folks at MSNBC with Sharpton a politician and Joe Scarborough a possible presidential candidate.