Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
story from Breitbart
by Ben Shapiro -- 21 Jun 2012

Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory
 

Somebody named Peter Orszag, who is the former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, wants Mandatory voting here in the U.S. !!


The article cites that this is already done in Australia and a few other countries.

He claims that low voter turnout is a problem because we apparently have elected officials that are not elected by the majority.

Naturally, many think this is some kind of wild Left Wing conspiracy.



Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:

The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.

It’s our own fault -- because voter participation rates are running below 60 percent, a candidate would have to win 85 percent or more of the vote to be elected by a majority.

Compulsory voting, as exists in Australia and more than two dozen other countries, would fix that problem. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting?”



During the 2008 election cycle, voter participation was approximately 64 percent; in 2004, it was about the same. Orszag wants that number up. Why?

Beyond simply raising participation, compulsory voting could alter the role of money in elections. Turn-out-the-vote efforts, often bankrolled by big-money groups, would become largely irrelevant. Negative advertising could be less effective, because a central aim of such ads is to discourage participation in the opponent’s camp.



Interesting theory. I bet many Americans have never heard of this concept.

Can our friends in Australia and other countries give us some details on how "mandatory" voting works ?




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
The day the establishment attempts to force me to vote, my response will be "kill me". I absolutely refuse to participate in a system that is a sham. I refuse to participate in a system where the common people are the product of, subject to, and work for the will of the government. Rather than a government which is the product of, subject to, and work for the will of the common people. The day these ideals are forced upon common people, men such as myself have only two possible outcomes, fight and win, or fight and die.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen


Beyond simply raising participation, compulsory voting could alter the role of money in elections. Turn-out-the-vote efforts, often bankrolled by big-money groups, would become largely irrelevant. Negative advertising could be less effective, because a central aim of such ads is to discourage participation in the opponent’s camp.







So, it's a 'left-wing conspiracy' because it would stop big money groups from corrupting our elections by buying votes?

Sounds good to me.



Seriously though, I think compulsory voting is a rather touchy concept. I've never understood what would possess a person to just throw away their only political voice and choose not to vote. If these people are that apathetic to the democratic process, do we really want them voting for [whoever] just because they had to vote for someone?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
"NUTZ"



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


If they're gonna send something to my house and I have to choose between say, two candidates and that's my only option, well I have a problem. If they're gonna send something to my house and I can write down "Luke Skywalker" well then I have less of a problem.

Bad idea overall. One more freedom to lose.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Staying away from the voting booth is exactly what the Plutocracy wants - the fewer people voting, the easier it is for the big monied Plutocracy to dominate the upper echelons of government. If you say, "Well that's why I don't vote", then you have no room to complain about being led around by the nose by those same Plutocrats.

It's also the reason why the Plutocrats are doing everything they can to suppress the vote. (And one way to keep the poor from voting is to run them through the jails and prisons. The greater the percentage of people with a criminal record, the fewer people voting.)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I've never understood what would possess a person to just throw away their only political voice and choose not to vote.
Going by this comment, you have the perception that voting actually gives common men a political voice. I am of the perception that it doesn't. This is where you seem to fail to understand some throwing away their vote or political voice. How can I "throw away" something I never had in the first place?I am not trying to be combative or argumentative, this is just an ideal in which we have to agree to disagree. I cannot change your mind, and you cannot change mine. I'm just trying to give you perspective on why some may refuse to vote, in which there are many who I know refuse to vote based on the same feeling I have.EDIT TO ADD: I see voting as like a double edged sword. If you vote, you are giving your consent that there is nothing wrong with the system. If you don't vote, you're giving consent through silence. As long as enough people continue to show up to the polls, it's validation to those in control that they can continue to operate unchecked. I see voting as like a census for lack of a better term. It gives the establishment a good idea who is buying into the charade. As those numbers continue to drop (and they will) it should become concerning to those at the top that fewer and fewer are buying the bull!@#$ being shoveled into their faces. If you want real change, don't show up to the polls. I'm not talking about just a few, I'm talking about everyone. There would be no better way for a nation to let it's government know that it doesn't agree than to have voting booths virtually empty. If you want a nonviolent way to change, this may be the best way. The only viable alternative is the road many fear.
edit on 21-6-2012 by GD21D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


This clown wants to take away the freedom to NOT participate in the election process.

Obama wants to take away the freedom to NOT participate in healthcare.

Bloomberg wants to take away the freedom to NOT get a small soda.

Anyone see a trend here?

When it stops being vouluntary, when it stops being an individual choice (either to vote, get healthcare, buy a large soda) then it becomes a dictate.
Then it becomes an order.
A mandate.

I have not seen such a massive loss of freedoms as I've seen in the past decade.

The freedom to DO something is just the same as the freedom to NOT do something.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The only thing that would make a difference is when people actually care whats going on instead of focusing on pointless tv shows like American Idol.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Lol, like that would help Obama. Not even kfc likes Obama. I hear he's banned.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echo007
The only thing that would make a difference is when people actually care whats going on instead of focusing on pointless tv shows like American Idol.

But you aren't forced to vote on American Idol.

Right now, the people that DO vote, DO care.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I can agree with them requiring people to vote if they bend over backwards to make it easy, simple, and have an option entitled "none of the above."

And if "none of the above" outweighs the highest scoring individual candidate, then the election is invalid and a new election must be called for until somebody actually doesn't suck enough to get less votes than nothing.

Also, they could make it so that if you don't care enough to meet the vote by a deadline you automatically are put into the "none of the above" category without any penalty.
edit on 21-6-2012 by nuclear12346 because: grammar


I guess that means its not so much a "requirement" to vote but that even if you don't vote your decision to not vote is counted and shown to the public.
edit on 21-6-2012 by nuclear12346 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
This would actually be a blessing in disguise for America as minorities, the middle class ans the poor would be required to vote.


Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

link



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
This would actually be a blessing in disguise for America as minorities, the middle class ans the poor would be required to vote.


Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

link




Remember these guys ?

I wonder if they voted ?

"Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


I prefer to vote "locally", casting my vote for the various city, county and state representatives. Those are the people that matter to the individual and those are also the people you can look into their past and also actually contact with a grievance...or praise. These people actually need your vote to hold office.

But the POTUS is elected by a electoral college vote. I've never agreed with that system.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Haha.

Im sure most people didn't get that. But I did.
Just not sure if that was appropriate here or not. LOL



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Honestly I think that is a horrible idea! I am 33 years old and this past year I registered to vote for the first time in my life!! I was going to vote for Ron Paul in our primary down here but apparently you have to choose Republican to do tha
...... I chose "no party" because basically no one is saying anything I want to hear!

I will vote in September but not for either of the imbeciles that are running, our current POTUS or for the idiot that is Romney, I will write Ron Paul's name in there if I have to, but I'll be damned if they are going to tell me I have the choice for Obama or Romney!!

I am not throwing my vote away by writing Ron Paul in there, I have never voted in my life! I doubt me doing that is going to change anything, but I have to try, I don't like the place our country is turning out to be, it's not good, and not a place I want to raise my children or my children to raise their children
.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by GD21D
 


I prefer to vote "locally", casting my vote for the various city, county and state representatives. Those are the people that matter to the individual and those are also the people you can look into their past and also actually contact with a grievance...or praise. These people actually need your vote to hold office.

But the POTUS is elected by a electoral college vote. I've never agreed with that system.
I agree, and you do bring up a valid point. Voting locally is a viable option in my opinion, if one is so inclined. The only issue I see with local voting is that the waters are so muddied with corruption it's very difficult to tell who is on the take and who is not.A common misconception some have of individuals such as me, is that I believe ALL voting is rigged, This is simply not the case at all. It's just not feasible to intervene in every sector of political voting. My fear is that we could very well be moving in that direction with the current progression of technological advancement. Does Diebold ring a bell to anyone? I think the integrity of the common mans vote should be paramount in any Democracy or Republic, whichever term you fancy.But I digress, what's important is not the ability to dominate every sector of the political spectrum, but to put enough creatures of your own in enough positions to hold sway over the interests of your competition. This is why large corporate interests have always been protected by government entities for thousands of years. This game is nothing new, it's a tried and true practice going as far back as roman times. With that I give you a video that illustrates my point of the common man never really having a voice. Not only in government policies, but also in a historical context. I can understand some having an opposed view to Michael Parentis' democratic views, but everything he says in this lecture in context to Roman history rings true to me. It is a very fine lecture, and if you have the time and patience this is the lecture to listen to.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


I live next to Cleveland. Think Detroit on a smaller scale but still devastating nonetheless. Why they keep on voting for the same party is beyond me. Not that I think the GOP would bring about any greater changes. I just think that a 50/50 parity would be good overall in the long run as long as they communicate.

Right now I compare politics in America to the trench warfare of WW1. People are entrenched in their beliefs and just keep lobbing artillery shells at on another but neither side is really gaining any ground.

As for the video, Thanks, but I'll have to watch it in the morn. Work was a ball buster today and it has finally caught up to me.

I'm not a big fan of TV nor the MSM (though I do watch and read both though not regularly), so I do look forward to a good lecture/documentary from time to time. But it is a hit and miss thing I find.

g'nite



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
In theory, 100% voter turnout would make voter fraud much more difficult, at least to the extent alleged currently. Suppose Puppet A wins the election. 150,000,000 people stand up and say that's not who they voted for. Forced or not, they expect their vote to count. If an election is flip flopped, such as RP supporters claimed with some states, the public outcry would be too much to ignore.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join