Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

NavyDoc

I'd rather have fewer well informed and educated voters than many ignorant and apathetic voters. If one is so apathetic and ignorant that he has to be forced to vote, I don't want him voting.

Mandatory voting will actually harm the democratic process because it will go from people studying the issues and voting for someone who most represents their interests to a name recognition contest or who promises the most stuff or even pure randomness.

I'd hate to break it to you, but that's already happening.

Early voting, busing in voters, no ID laws, using dead people's names...etc. All bringing low information voters (or voters who have been told what to think) to the polls.

Like I said, I believe the more informed voters are not voting as much as they used to because they believe that it's futile.

a reply to: poncho1982

Early voting, busing in voters, no ID laws, using dead people's names...etc. All bringing low information voters (or voters who have been told what to think) to the polls.

Or some time back where they were taking them to the polls and giving them a pack of cigarettes for their trouble. There was a little stink raised over that one, but not much.

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.

Ummm....nothing was built and paid for by the government. Everything was built and paid for by the people of this country. What an idiotic outlook!

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: brandiwine14
There is nothing in the word "mandatory" that goes with the freedom that we are supposed to have. What worries me most are his comments, Obama is quoted in some of the articles as saying that it would be "fun" to amend the Constitution. Fun? Really, like a freakin carnival ride you can't get off. Please, please leave our Constitution alone.

I honestly don't know if our republic can take another two years of this man! I think he became a constitutional lawyer just to find ways to undermine it and go around it.

You must know your enemy in order to defeat your enemy. And you are right...two more years while we already have decades of work to do just to clean up the feces he has flung on the walls and at the people.

Oh...and in general about this topic, I have a theory. I know Obama is insane and out of his mind. Maybe he actually believes that if everyone was forced to vote, the left would always win. The left obviously always believes they have the ONLY answers...even after their plans don't work. Then they just blame others for messing up their plan. Kind of ingenious...kind of narcissistic. Maybe it isn't just Obama?

This will be turned into another money making project. The electoral college officially elects the Pres and VPres.

originally posted by: poncho1982

NavyDoc

I'd rather have fewer well informed and educated voters than many ignorant and apathetic voters. If one is so apathetic and ignorant that he has to be forced to vote, I don't want him voting.

Mandatory voting will actually harm the democratic process because it will go from people studying the issues and voting for someone who most represents their interests to a name recognition contest or who promises the most stuff or even pure randomness.

I'd hate to break it to you, but that's already happening.

Early voting, busing in voters, no ID laws, using dead people's names...etc. All bringing low information voters (or voters who have been told what to think) to the polls.

Like I said, I believe the more informed voters are not voting as much as they used to because they believe that it's futile.

So instead of trying to fix those other problems, the answer is to bring in even more of those low information voters? If someone doesn't care enough to get off his rear to exercise his franchise without coercion, I'm not sure he'd vote wisely at all.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: poncho1982

NavyDoc

I'd rather have fewer well informed and educated voters than many ignorant and apathetic voters. If one is so apathetic and ignorant that he has to be forced to vote, I don't want him voting.

Mandatory voting will actually harm the democratic process because it will go from people studying the issues and voting for someone who most represents their interests to a name recognition contest or who promises the most stuff or even pure randomness.

I'd hate to break it to you, but that's already happening.

Early voting, busing in voters, no ID laws, using dead people's names...etc. All bringing low information voters (or voters who have been told what to think) to the polls.

Like I said, I believe the more informed voters are not voting as much as they used to because they believe that it's futile.

So instead of trying to fix those other problems, the answer is to bring in even more of those low information voters? If someone doesn't care enough to get off his rear to exercise his franchise without coercion, I'm not sure he'd vote wisely at all.

Those other problems have been attempted to be fixed. But when one side keeps screaming racism, or suppressing the poor, it'll never happen.

Getting EVERYONE out to vote would be the answer. It would take a few election cycles, but coupled with a return of civics classes in schools, eventually it would work out for the best.

Other countries that have mandatory voting don't have these issues. Australia seems to have done quite well with it since 1924.

We claim to be a democracy, but when over half the population isn't voting, how can you claim that? It's then a minority rule (voters), over a majority (non voters)

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: poncho1982

NavyDoc

I'd rather have fewer well informed and educated voters than many ignorant and apathetic voters. If one is so apathetic and ignorant that he has to be forced to vote, I don't want him voting.

Mandatory voting will actually harm the democratic process because it will go from people studying the issues and voting for someone who most represents their interests to a name recognition contest or who promises the most stuff or even pure randomness.

I'd hate to break it to you, but that's already happening.

Early voting, busing in voters, no ID laws, using dead people's names...etc. All bringing low information voters (or voters who have been told what to think) to the polls.

Like I said, I believe the more informed voters are not voting as much as they used to because they believe that it's futile.

So instead of trying to fix those other problems, the answer is to bring in even more of those low information voters? If someone doesn't care enough to get off his rear to exercise his franchise without coercion, I'm not sure he'd vote wisely at all.

It is much easier to be the King of a populous of idiots than of intelligence. They know that and they see this as a way to keep their King. Personally...I don't want to be ruled.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Bilk22

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.

That's kind of misleading. The more populous states may get less back from the federal government, dollar for dollar, but they get a boat load more money overall, because they have far more people and a much higher tax base. Additionally, many of those red states are farming states and farms get government subsidies, sometimes to not grow any crops. Just ask Al Gore. He didn't grow tobacco and got paid for that. The BS chart you posted has been used many times in this argument, but it's still BS.


Edit: To support what I said about which states get what and for what. LINK You'll notice that the Dept. of Agriculture doles out the most dollars from the federal coffers to state coffers. Monsanto must get a nice piece of that too. 2009 census was the latest I could find, but I'm sure the numbers are pretty much the same now.

I'm also pretty sure if you add up all of the dollars by category per state, you'll see that the list won't match the one you posted for total dollars received by state.

All true. In addition most of those red states have many military bases in them, which greatly increases the influx of federal dollars. That chart has always been misleading and does not fool anyone who actually bothers to look in to what dollars are going in for what reason.

Yeah I've had this argument many times before. The bulk of federal dollars to states goes to agriculture and land management. Health care and education are way behind. People also don't look at the total received by each state, independent of what they pay out in taxes. So they cite the dollar for dollar revenue exchange or per capita. The more populous states like CA, NY, IL etc. have millions of more people and skew the numbers a lot in the terms democrats love to exhibit as unfair. It's slanted toward their argument, but not a fair analysis.

a reply to: coldkidc
A "no-vote" is a form of voting.
It's a way to vote your opinion that the current line-up is no good across the board.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: coldkidc
A "no-vote" is a form of voting.
It's a way to vote your opinion that the current line-up is no good across the board.

But it does absolutely nothing. Literally.

Just ends up putting the wrong person in office.

Romney would have been a better President than Obama, but voter apathy stuck us with another 4 years of his idiocy.

originally posted by: poncho1982
But it does absolutely nothing. Literally.

Just ends up putting the wrong person in office.

Romney would have been a better President than Obama, but voter apathy stuck us with another 4 years of his idiocy.

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Remember Romneys whole makers and takers spiel? How about when he called the poor ungrateful moochers? How about when he wanted China style factories in the US. How about all his shady drug deals with his family in Mexico? Romney wouldn't have been a good president, Obama is pretty average so we're talking a solid 50% chance Romney would be worse.

None of that even matters though, when you force people to vote they're just going to go with whatever branding is more catchy and vote without learning the issues. How is that a good thing? We have too much of that as is.

If this was implemented, would effectively 'Classify' every Americans by political leanings, race and just follow more closely in our business........ uninvited, instead invaded...... Where's our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Well...apparently this won't happen anyway: FoxNews

Cause...you know...if it isn't permitted by the Constitution...ummm....well he wouldn't...ummm. Hmmm...if anyone would, I guess he would. You know, cause that Constitution is still on the roll next to Obama's toilet.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Well...apparently this won't happen anyway: FoxNews

Cause...you know...if it isn't permitted by the Constitution...ummm....well he wouldn't...ummm. Hmmm...if anyone would, I guess he would. You know, cause that Constitution is still on the roll next to Obama's toilet.

Erm. No. Voting rights are NOT protected by the Constitution. 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

Dude...did you read the article? It references "free speech" as the reason. Your vote being your speech and that you can't be compelled to HAVE TO speak your opinion. Regardless...that was from "Rutgers School of Law Professor Frank Askin, an expert on election law". At this point, I'll have to take his opinion over "ATS member soficrow, Open Access Advocate and
Writer-Scholar".

No offence.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: soficrow

Dude...did you read the article?

Nope. Saw the FoxNews link, kept right on going. My apologies though, I was still responding to people who keep insisting that the Constitution protects voting rights. This is a completely different argument. But still, just an argument.

Sincerely,
Ms soficrow
Open Access Advocate and Writer-Scholar

Obama has confirmed yet once again, that he is a lunatic. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Obama has confirmed yet once again, that he is a lunatic. ~$heopleNation

Well making everyone vote may off set the Lunatic side of the Reps who are busy suppressing votes.