Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

I've always said that it should be mandatory.

It's your civic duty to vote. Nothing irks me more than someone who doesn't vote, but complains about the country's leaders. SMH

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't see how voting can possibly be viewed any differently than paying your taxes. In both, you'd be making a mandatory contribution to the betterment of the country, rather than just one being mandatory. Instead of sitting on your backside deriding everything going wrong & never casting a vote, you're prodded to get off your duff & do it. I thought the running insult for non-voters with the more conservative people was if you don't vote, you're no worthy American, therefore leave? Has this stance actually changed to fit a new narrative now?

Like with jury duty, this can be done with room for participation exceptions. I doubt they'd harass someone undergoing a scheduled surgery or unable to get off work (with verifiable proof from the employer)

And for that matter...taxes are a contribution to the betterment of the country? Do you have any clue how much of our tax money is wasted on collecting, managing and paying people to manage that money? What is left out of each dollar? And then it is sent to other countries? Spent on million dollar presidential parties and vacations? I won't go on...lets just say that there isn't much left over and it is as much of a scam as any other.

The Constitution guarantees the RIGHT to vote.

Not the necessity to vote, nor does it state that it is MANDITORY to vote.

So silly wishes from a president who doesn't even know enough to "google" what the US Constitution says about voting.

a reply to: beezzer

The Constitution guarantees the RIGHT to vote.

No. It doesn't. The Constitution did not even originally define who was eligible to vote. The 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments give voting rights, but as history shows, don't guarantee them.

The U.S. Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. ...Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states or sometimes the District of Columbia may not be restrained from voting for a variety of protected reasons, stated in the ...15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

a reply to: soficrow

I stand corrected.

a reply to: beezzer

Cool. Now please, get your tin-foil hat and find the real conspiracy here.

Is this a timely warning?

Use it or lose it

???

From what I gather, most politicians don't want to expand voting, as most people fall someplace in the middle. If anything, a smart politician would want LESS people voting. The people that get the politicians elected are already voting for them, why dilute the voting pool?

If it were mandatory, we'd be forcing people that don't care about politics to vote. These people wouldn't bother reading the issues or digging into the candidates. The candidate that gets the most media exposure, is the most popular/entertaining might end up winning, as people will just vote for whatever name they remember off of the TV. (not to say that doesn't happen already...)

So I don't see how this would "get money" out of politics. The candidate who has the most media exposure, ads, talk shows, and gets their name stuck in the minds of the masses ... will win. We're liable to get even worse people in places of power this way, with ten times more money being spent.

If they're serious about making voting mandatory, I wish they'd put a "none of the above" box on the ballot. I swear the past few elections ...

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: beezzer

Cool. Now please, get your tin-foil hat and find the real conspiracy here.

Is this a timely warning?

Use it or lose it

???

Use it or lose it.

Could apply to any and every freedom we currently enjoy.

a reply to: coldkidc

I don't think mandatory voting would be a good thing. The whole idea of freedom also means having the freedom to not vote if you don't want to.

Nobody should be forced to vote. That opens a whole can of worms.

The right would not want that. They would never hold an important seat ever again.

They could never gain the majority of the minority, women and gay vote.

They would rather have voting rules where it would limit those people.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The right would not want that. They would never hold an important seat ever again.

They could never gain the majority of the minority, women and gay vote.

They would rather have voting rules where it would limit those people.

Never say never. People have a funny way of disappointing expectations. Then what will liberals do when they are out of favor? Don't say it can't happen because that would be disingenuous foolhardy.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Just to play devil's advocate with you burd, how do you explain how GOP strongholds can justify receiving so much federal money?



That's not the right infographic I wanted, but it's close enough. I always knew Alaska took in tons of federal money, and I always found it ironic everyone votes Republican here.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I see you've just uncovered how what Obama claims is actually the opposite of what the reality would actually be.

In this case, it would not get the money out of politics because the most successful candidate would be the shallowest, prettiest talking head, not the most competent. So the candidate that had the most money to spread their exposure around would be the one most likely to win when the uneducated, disinterested masses were bussed in and forced to vote.

Anyone who pays attention knows by now that this is his MO.

a reply to: EternalSolace

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

That's ridiculous.

I am an anarchist and I want to live in a stateless society. From my perspective, not voting is one means to topple a government.

I see it as a positive thing.

I refuse to elect my rulers. I am perfectly capable of governing myself.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

Just to play devil's advocate with you burd, how do you explain how GOP strongholds can justify receiving so much federal money?

That's not the right infographic I wanted, but it's close enough. I always knew Alaska took in tons of federal money, and I always found it ironic everyone votes Republican here.

Looks like some lubrication to political and public works wheels of the recalcitrant upstarts is the likely explanation when the data is presented that way.

Just over half of Americans care enough to vote. On the surface, it's a good idea.

However, many Americans don't know the first thing about politics and don't care to learn, and don't care enough to vote.

There is also that pesky little issue in a true Democracy known as exercising your right NOT to vote.

Doubtful this would pass any Constitutional challenge based on the First Amendment, a Grade 10 high school law student could bust this case wide open.

a reply to: coldkidc

American Freedom is about PERSONAL CHOICE , The Word "Mandatory" does not Fit into that Equation . The Current Commie Prez in the White House is Mentally Ill IMO....................

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: EternalSolace

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

That's ridiculous.

I am an anarchist and I want to live in a stateless society. From my perspective, not voting is one means to topple a government.

I see it as a positive thing.

I refuse to elect my rulers. I am perfectly capable of governing myself.

You'll NEVER topple a Government by NOT voting.

If you're an anarchist, and get ANY Government assistance of ANY kind (even down to driving on roads that were built by the Government), you're a hypocrite.

If you refuse to elect your rulers, then you have no say at all over who those rulers might be, even though you have to abide by their laws.

What an idiotic outlook.

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: EternalSolace

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

That's ridiculous.

I am an anarchist and I want to live in a stateless society. From my perspective, not voting is one means to topple a government.

I see it as a positive thing.

I refuse to elect my rulers. I am perfectly capable of governing myself.

You'll NEVER topple a Government by NOT voting.

If you're an anarchist, and get ANY Government assistance of ANY kind (even down to driving on roads that were built by the Government), you're a hypocrite.

If you refuse to elect your rulers, then you have no say at all over who those rulers might be, even though you have to abide by their laws.

What an idiotic outlook.

There is a logic to not voting, it is a protest of unacceptable options and can be very effective if widespread.

What would really be transformative is having to pass a simple civics test to vote.

If you're a brain-dead-I- liked- his- pretty- white- teeth- and- big- cute- ears voter, maybe you shouldn't be allowed in the booth.

Just kidding.....voting should be a choice.