Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 06:48 PM by MsAphrodite

Forced voting, can't say I'd be for that idea. When you register to vote you also register to be called for jury duty. That keeps many people from ever voting.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 07:04 PM by xuenchen

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I think we should all vote on the matter, and it should be a mandatory vote to vote on the matter...but I suppose if we are going to make the vote on voting for mandatory voting mandatory, then maybe we need to have a vote on whether the vote on mandatory voting should be mandatory.

Ain't nothing like forced freedom, baby.

That's a good one !!

I would go further and start a petition drive and then have a referendum !!
(if I supported the idea that is)

But I wonder if the entire concept on a national level would even be Constitutional in the first place ??

I would think that State's rights would be the issue.

If that's the case, then the guy suggesting this would be way off base.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 07:44 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by xuenchen

But I wonder if the entire concept on a national level would even be Constitutional in the first place ??

It would not only be unconstitutional, it would place a large spotlight on the odious 14th Amendment and bring up many questions about that Amendment and what it means to be a "citizen".

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 09:36 PM by timetothink

reply to post by habitforming

Yes I went that far...I used it in the same way he did....I would be forced to show up, not care, but was "present" as required.....not choosing an actual vote....not reaching at all.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 09:51 PM by links234

reply to post by timetothink

So you have no opinion on the 20 or so issues that are presented on your ballot every two years? It's a lot more than just president or representative.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:06 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by timetothink

So you have no opinion on the 20 or so issues that are presented on your ballot every two years? It's a lot more than just president or representative.

It's a lot more than just voting too. A large reason this country is in the mess we're in is because far too many people believe that all the average person can do is "vote the bums out", but there is far more the average person can do and should do.

I can understand "going along to get along" as long as we all can get along, but the divide in this country is so sharp and so acrimonious it is clear that "going along to get along" is not working. We have so ridiculously empowered local governments by acquiescing to so many ridiculous licensing schemes that it gets to a point that our children one day approach us and say: "I'd like to build a lemonade stand to pay for summer camp, is that legal?" Astonishingly, many parents will inform their kids that is illegal, and the more diligent of those "go along to get along" parents will explain that it is not "illegal" per se, but it would require so many permits and licenses, that it wouldn't really be cost effective to open up a lemonade stand, and so we teach our children, sometimes simultaneously that we should be proud to live in "the freest country in the world" but make sure you get permission to exercise your rights, or watch out!

The once American character of non-acquiescence has morphed into to: "You can't beat city hall", but hey, you can "vote the bums out" or put a measure on the ballot...just as long as we all "go along to get along".

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:13 PM by links234

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

So I have to ask, since we seem to be so terribly divided to the point that the extremes are the norm...what do we do to get the remaining 40% of the registered population to actually show up and vote?

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:20 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

So I have to ask, since we seem to be so terribly divided to the point that the extremes are the norm...what do we do to get the remaining 40% of the registered population to actually show up and vote?

I don't think voting is the answer, and it doesn't matter if 100% of the registered voters show up or none. If those registered voters are A-Okay with constant rights violations, if those registered voters care more about "civil rights" than they do unalienable rights, if those registered voters have no regard for the established republics, national and states, that were put in place to pull the reigns on democracy, then we're far better off if even less show up to vote.

Voting is the very least a person can do in the name of the rule of law. If voting is all a person does then that person cannot be counted on to do the hard tasks it will take to reign in out of control government.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:25 PM by timetothink

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No...you misunderstand me...I do vote when when I feel I need to...when things are important to me and I am informed about them and the candidates.

What I am saying is you cannot unconstitutionally force someone to vote first of all and you cannot force someone to be interested in something they are not.

Obama wanted to be a senator and still could not be bothered to choose a side on things he was voting on but he and his administration think they can force others to do what he himself couldn't?

"present" was not a vote....it simply meant he was forced to be there and signed "here"fr role call.....that s what you will get with forced voting from me if I am not interested in what's on the ballot or I don't want any of the candidates.....you cannot force me to vote for something I do not agree with.....

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:30 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by timetothink

I haven't misunderstood you. I was replying to links question of ballot measures. While I do believe voting on a local level has far more significance than on a national level, voting remains the least effective way of reigning in out of control governments. With respect to links, I felt the counter point was merited.

reply posted on 23-6-2012 @ 10:35 PM by timetothink

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I better go to sleep....I misunderstood your reply to my post thinking you misunderstood my reply to someone else's post because THEY misunderstood my post....sorry for the misunderstanding!

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 01:39 AM by habitforming

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by habitforming

Yes I went that far...I used it in the same way he did....

No you did not. He is voting with a choice of yes, no, or indifferent. Electing a person is a completely different type of vote.

would be forced to show up, not care, but was "present" as required.....not choosing an actual vote....not reaching at all.

So you have no clue why "present" was one of his options, do you?

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 02:57 AM by ownbestenemy

reply to post by xuenchen

It would be a tall order considering the following: Voting isn't a Constitutionally held Right -- it is deferred via the Ninth (Individual's Right to not vote) and the Tenth (what isn't enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the States and the People) amendments.

Also considering the Supreme Court's views on Freedom of Speech; specifically political speech (in which voting is surely "political speech").

Justice Kennedy stated it best. "Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it." Not voting is political speech and I would love to see this guy try and get me to vote for someone when I feel my non-vote is the speech in which I engage in.

edit on 24-6-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:09 PM by Grimpachi

Those who do not vote should stay out of politics including political discusions.

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:15 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Those who do not vote should stay out of politics including political discusions.

Sure, let's pretend as if a voter is the only person due rights. Let's pretend that rights are just inventions of government and only the voter gets to have them. Let's pretend that voters voting in a Constitutional republic are really voting for democracy and let's pretend that such a voter is informed.

Better yet, let's not pretend and let's call a spade a spade, your vote for tyranny never ever trumps the unalienable rights of all individuals, no matter how little regard you have for those rights.

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:22 PM by Grimpachi

People who don't excersise there rights shouldn't excersise there mouth.

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:27 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Grimpachi
People who don't excersise there rights shouldn't excersise there mouth.

Are you suggesting that someone who doesn't exercise their right to speech shouldn't exercise their right to speech, or are you exercising your right to foolishness?

Voting is a civil right and does not preexist government and only government can grant the right to vote. Unalienable rights preexist government and no government, nor any fool exercising their right to be a fool, can grant unalienable rights.

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:32 PM by Grimpachi

Seeing as how that went over your head I will spell it out. If you don.t vote you shouldnt have anthing to say on the matter.

There do you understand that?

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 03:40 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Seeing as how that went over your head I will spell it out. If you don.t vote you shouldnt have anthing to say on the matter.

There do you understand that?

Understood it the first time, and it is clear what is going over who's head. You cannot vote for policies that affect non voters rights and declare those non-voters do not have anything to say on the matter.

All you've managed to do is reveal the profound problem with voting. Clearly there is no litmus test for voting, you've shown that in spades.

There, do you understand that?

edit on 24-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-6-2012 @ 04:00 PM by Grimpachi

The real problem with voteing is that anyone over the age of 18 can vote so long as they havn't commited a seriose crime. People should have to earn the right to vote then they would take it seriously.

I have seriouse problem with those in power as well. To be president they shouuld have at least served in the military at some point in there life actualy that should apply to anyone in congress or senate but instead we have the system we do now wich is far from perfect.

If a person can't be bothered to at least vote once every 4 years then they should shut there mouth when political discussions come up.

If you understood it the first time why be such a jack #ss and act like you didn't Mr Spade is a Spade.
That was a rhetorical question I don't require a answere because I have delt with your kind before and know we will never see eye to eye on this. I just hope in the current political system we have that you will not be voteing ths year.

Have a nice day.