Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US 1089
HughPickens.com writes CNN reports that when asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said Obama "It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly. "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans — more than the population of Russia — skipped out. Critics of mandatory voting have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round). What if both choices are bad? I actually had that problem once. Two candidates made it to the second round (which happens if no candidate gets over 50% of votes in the first round) and both were people for whom I did not want to vote. I just went and marked both candidates, making the ballot invalid. I did got to vote because it's h
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round).
That is partially true. Politics are dominated by two parties (which are both marching further to the far-right end of the spectrum in a global sense) and they have the most money and ability to run candidates, by a long shot. Attempts to run as a third party candidate are often considered Quixotic.
What if both choices are bad?
In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
...
Really, voting for any eligible person is better than not voting at all. You can vote for yourself if you want, or vote for your favorite musician, athlete, comedian, etc
Re: It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:3, Informative)
That is not true, in a presidential election there is no reason to think the delegation would follow suit
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:4, Informative)
> In the US you can always write in a candidate of your choosing. Now, some people like to protest vote for Mickey Mouse, or various other inanimate objects. However if you were to vote for someone who was eligible to run who was not on the ballot, and they pulled in more votes than anyone else, they would be the winner.
YMMV. In many jurisdictions (if not most) there is a list of pre-qualified write in candidates. I shit you not. Google "qualified write-in list" (with the quotes) for a bunch of examples. Sure, you can write in anyone you want, but if they are not on the list, it will not get counted.
Here is one example, from San Francisco: (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/05/18725142.php)
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, it turns out that it's only some, not most, jurisdictions that restrict write-ins. Here's an informative page:
http://www.anamericanvision.co... [anamericanvision.com]
Note that there are seven states which do not allow write-ins for president at all.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Insightful)
What if both choices are bad? I actually had that problem once.
Yeah, you're lucky. South Park did a great episode on this where the two choices to vote for were a Giant Duche or a Turd Sandwich.
I always vote but I also continue to "throw my vote away" by voting for a third party because to me voting for the "lesser of two evils"
is no choice at all when for everything I care about the republicans and democrats are virtually indistiguishable. They pretent to be
different but they are usually squabling over a few million here or there while the TRILLIONS they are spending on war, etc... are
virtually the same. They'll brag about a 100 million dollar tax cut on a 4 trillion dollar budget. For anyone who isn't paying attention,
that's the equivalent of bragging that you cut out 1 dollar of expenses from your 40k a year paycheck.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Interesting)
I also continue to "throw my vote away" by voting for a third party
A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. Those are the votes that matter the most. They indicate to the major parties which direction they should shift. If there are few third party votes, they will shift closer to the center, to steal moderates from the other party. If the third party vote is high, they will shift to win back their base. Third parties have a negligible chance of winning any major office, but that doesn't matter. You should still vote for them because of the effect it will have on the major parties ... unless you are perfectly happy with current two party hegemony.
Personally, I am fine with the two party system ... I just think the two parties should be the Greens and the Libertarians.
Re: It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Interesting)
Compulsory voting doesn't bring good governance (as the current mod proves on a daily basis), however it does do a very good job of capturing what the whole country thinks on election day. The fines are trivial and it's very rare for them to be issued, let alone enforced, yet we always have a turnout well above 90%. Also why does the US insist on having an election on a Tuesday when everyone is at work, that's just fucking bizarre, it's like you don't want societies grunts to turn up.
Re: (Score:3)
however it does do a very good job of capturing what the whole country thinks on election day.
Unless there's an option on the ballot for "leave me the hell alone, I don't care, I just want another beer", I don't think you're accurately capturing the feelings of the voters.
Also why does the US insist on having an election on a Tuesday when everyone is at work, that's just fucking bizarre,
So you vote on Monday or whenever your absentee ballot shows up. Very difficult, not.
it's like you don't want societies grunts to turn up.
"Societies grunts" don't have jobs so they have no excuse for not voting. It's more like a useful way of weeding out the people who don't really care enough about voting to spend half an hour doing it. For the ones who truly care and cannot make
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, its very much a 2 party system. well, not true anymore. I almost can't tell the diff between the thieves in the R class and the thieves in the D class. neither follows the laws, neither represents the will of the people. they are all bought and paid for, they got theirs, now fark you (in the parlance of our times..)
neither candidate has appealed to me in decades and I have not voted in decades. to force me to pick and endorse assholes like that, that we end up having to pick from, is insulting to say the least.
now, if we could vote against people, that would be fine. it should also allow voting against them all.
then, I would show up to the polls.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:4, Interesting)
1. In 1984 Reagan took all states except Minnesota.
2. "Winner takes all" rule is set by each state; it's not part of federal law. Some states have toyed with the idea of proportional voting, but it severely weakens that state's clout. Consider what a candidate would think about a state with eleven electoral votes. If the state were winner-take-all, he'd campaign hard to get 11 votes. If it were proportional, in all likelihood the best outcome would be 6 to 5, a net 1 vote advantage. Why bother when there are better return-on-effort states available?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Voter apathy," you mean. I for one don't want people who would only vote because of a legal requirement to do so. If they won't get out and vote on their own, they're certainly not going to take the time to make an informed decision.
Then again, that's no doubt exactly why Obama wants it.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Insightful)
I've personally made it a point to stop registering to vote and not vote at all just because of how pointless I feel the whole thing has become
That's fine. I support your right to do that. But please don't complain that politicians don't care about you or your problems. You have given them no reason to care. Politicians care about 70 year old and their problems because they show up at the polls at twice the rate of 35 year olds.
Related to that, I think that election day should be a national holiday and no for-profit business should be allowed to be open. That would give everyone the opportunity to vote. Having elections on a regular work day is a huge disincentive for hourly workers to vote. It literally costs them money, like illegal poll taxes of the 19th century.
To balance out the work calender, they can get rid of MLK day. I have no doubt that Dr. King would approve.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:5, Informative)
Politicians don't care about anything but the money they can make by gaming the system.
The whole 'climate change controvercy' (an artificial controvercy about a topic where never was any controversy aboit in the first place) is a prime example for that.
Or the idiotic idea that car companies may not have their own shops and laws banning Tessla selling their cars directly.
It is just a few days away that Apple has to close its ...
AppleStores
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, we have 37% turnout. Of those, less than half are probably well informed voters, the rest are voting because of, well, any number of reasons. First black President, first woman, not a Mormon, etc. Let's use 15% as a round number for the interested, informed group. That leaves 22%.
Now imagine that mandatory voting is implemented. You get 95% turnout. Where do the extra voters come from? From the one who aren't interested, of course. If they were interested, they'd have voted without it being mandatory. So you now have 15% of the turnout as informed voters, and 80% are now emotion-based or simply uninterested.
If an advertiser of a commercial product went from an audience of 22% to 80%, they'd be orgasmic. Imagine political advertisers all trying to reach that new 58% of the voters who aren't already committed to any candidate but want a way to make a decision. The $1 that could sway only 22% of the population yesterday now blossoms into $100 to try to reach all 80% of the targets.
Claiming that mandatory voting will get money out of politics is one of the stupidest things anyone has said. Since we know that Mr. Obama isn't that stupid, he must have another reason to suggest it. If the reason can't be openly stated, then there must be a problem with it.
In any case, mandatory voting is a bad idea no matter how many other countries do it. It is someone's right not to vote just as much as it is to vote, and encouraging people who otherwise have no interest in the process to vote is a mistake. Voting for voting's sake is a travesty of the process.
Re:It is time to get up one way or the other (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. A lot of those people would have voted were it not for voter disenfranchisement, having to work (yeah, your employer has to let you vote, but they don't have to pay you while you're gone, and they don't have to give you any extra hours to make up the time missed while voting), not having an address (you didn't forget about the homeless who can't vote absentee and usually can't even register because they don't have an address, did you?).
Then ID would be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice try, though.
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Voter fraud is very real (Score:5, Insightful)
Margins these days on many elections are within a percent or two, so non-citizen voting [washingtonpost.com] is enough to have a real impact on how elections swing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't claim it's non-existent because the system is set up in a manner that makes it extremely difficult to detect, especially in states that don't require an ID.
It's like you saying you don't have cancer because you can't see through your skin and see it.
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be even harder to commit if you go to vote, and the person at the polls helpfully informs you that you already did.
The very situation you describe here is in fact post-fraud as in already committed instead of as you so dishonestly claim "harder to commit."
Re:non-existent fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
That's election fraud. Voter fraud is when an actual voter votes multiple times or tries to vote as someone they are not. Election fraud is sneaking ballots into the box, throwing away ballots, and all that fun stuff.
So no, it's not a lie, voter fraud is incredibly ineffective as a means of influencing an election because it has to be done more publicly and more frequently to have an effect that simply getting the right person to transport the ballot boxes from the polling location and get them to accidentally lose a few.
That exists also (Score:3, Informative)
Voter fraud is when an actual voter votes multiple times
In some areas they bus people to multiple polling stations. If no ID is required it's easy to vote for someone else at each station.
Chicago is famous for the dead voting. Just who do you think shows up at the polls to do so, and why do you think they would only vote for the dead person?
what's the C in AC stand for? (Score:4, Informative)
Spoken like a true AC.
Do a little searching of the news. You should find references that there are at least 850 registered voters over 150 in New York City. In North Carolina there are over 2200 registered voters over 110 and at least two actively voting over age 150, the oldest being 160 when a vote was cast in 2012. These people would be automatically purged from the voting rolls if votes were not being regularly cast against their registrations. And, by an amazing coincidence, the vast majority of these voters are registered Democrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, you'd still get your name checked off on the voter rolls when you get your ballot and someone latter aggregates the whole thing. Biggest difference is that it would make it slightly less harder to vote for someone else (to prevent their vote) as you might end up being the second person to ask... Vs knowing ahead of time who isn't likely.
Works for the countries he mentioned (Score:4, Insightful)
One the one hand he thinks mandatory voting as in Belgium is a good idea, but he is also opposed to the type of photo IDs [wikipedia.org] they require to vote.
I suppose there's a compromise: maybe people could issue the ID to themselves (kind of like running your own email server). Or (in Chicago) give people as many IDs as they need.
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Informative)
ID is not necessarily required.
e.g. in Australia, you turn up to the polling station (usually a local school or whatever), go to the desk and tell them your name. they look it up in their lists of voters, and cross your name off. Then they initial and hand you your ballot papers which you take to a private voting booth and fill out. Then you fold them and drop them into the ballot boxes (one for the house of reps, one for the senate). done.
In the last few elections, the Australian Electoral Commission (an independant govt body who have the responsibility for running elections) have been mailing out helpful voter cards with your name and IIRC your address on it which you can show at the desk. These cards are completely optional, you can still vote if you forget to bring it or have lost it or never got it, and you still don't have to show any ID.
And, yes, voting is compulsory in australia. In practice, this means you just have to turn up to a polling station and get your name crossed off the list. You can then vote informally if you choose, nobody will know. If you don't turn up, you'll get a letter in the mail a few weeks later asking if you have a good excuse (like, "I was too sick to leave the house"). If not, you'll get fined.
btw, compulsory voting is a good thing. it tends to limit the excesses of the loony extreme fringes of all sides, by encouraging politicians and major parties to pander to the middle ground.
and preferential voting (i.e. ordering your preferences as 1, 2, 3, etc) is also a good thing. it allows voters to vote for third parties and independant candidates without wasting their vote - if their first choice fails to win, their 2nd choice gets their vote...and then their third, fourth, etc choices. It also allows voters to send a message or lodge a protest, e.g. vote for the socialist party 1st and Labour 2nd - Labour will still (almost certainly) end up with that person's vote but they're also telling the Labour party that their policies are too right-wing and too cozy with business.....and, hey, if the impossible happens and the pimple-faced university student from Socialist Alliance wins a seat, that'll shake things up a bit in parliament!
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, is this a thing? There are people in the USA who don't have a form of acceptable ID? How do you buy alcohol when you're 21? Or do you just keep shopping around till someone gives you some? What about get jobs, tax returns, hell government handouts?
I don't understand why ID is a problem. In many countries of the world most people have drivers licenses, those who don't have another form of ID typically a government issued seniors card, passport, proof of age card, a welfare card, birth certificate, cert
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Insightful)
You get around it by making ID freely provided by the government, and find a way to help people who live hours away from the nearest DMV (rural Texas or Alaska for example). It costs something around twenty bucks to get a photo ID card, so requiring ID is de facto charging a fee to vote; many elderly people, homemakers, or disabled who don't work don't have up-to-date IDs because they've never needed them, and these are often the same people where paying for government ID, let alone securing transportation to a licensing facility, might mean not having money for rent. Gas for a trip to the nearby large town can be one hell of an expense.
If the government says "everyone must have ID", the government must provide it free of charge. Otherwise it's a forced tax just like the Obamacare opt-out fee, and Republicans don't like that, do they? Add a service where if your town is more than X distance from the nearest licensing facility, they'll send out some kind of licensemobile to photograph and print on-site once a year or so, that would cover nearly everybody. It still sucks if you lose all your ID in a fire, or if you're homeless and have lost your documents, but it's about as close as you can get.
For the record, I live in Washington state where almost everyone votes by mail. It doesn't require ID because there's no way to do it, and we don't have rampant fraud, so clearly ID isn't a 100% necessary requirement for a sane voting system. What's the problem?
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this, but I don't understand this.
Its very easy to understand when you realize that its an obvious lie.
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Interesting)
I forgot to add, for those that feel strongly about not voting, require a form of contentious objector status against voting, requiring renewal every so often (like once per decade) to qualify to not vote.
Why not just a "None of the Above" option? If NotA wins, all candidates in the election are disqualified, and new candidates must be presented.
Re: (Score:3)
The only times I've needed to show ID in the last couple years was...getting a new job, opening a new bank account, and buying alcohol. Hell of a lot of people don't do any of those for several years in a row, and also don't drive.
Re:Then ID would be required (Score:5, Informative)
Voter ID, a drivers license or state issued ID card, which I believe if you are over 18 it is against the law to not carry photo ID. I know in my state it is illegal to not carry a state issued ID.
You know incorrectly. There are no laws compelling you to carry a photo ID, although as you note not carrying ID can limit what you can do.
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? It already controls healthcare funding. It will then want to minimize costs, so it will start dictating what can be eaten and tax people accordingly. Welcome to the radiant socialist future comrade.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
If you were forced to vote, then you could vote for a politician who promised to end the mandatory voting!
Nice and quiet in here (Score:5, Funny)
do you really want the uninformed voting (Score:5, Insightful)
Over time I have gotten a little more interested in politics and voting. but when i was not interested, me voting was useless. I did not make a informed decision. So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote. Then it really could become a popularity contest instead of more on the facts. Make sure you are seen more then the other guy and people like that persons face and you could win based on that.
Re:do you really want the uninformed voting (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in country where voting is compulsory. (Actually it is showing up at a polling booth is compulsory. Compulsory voting isn't compatible with a secret ballot. The name choice is unfortunate because it sends the libertarians into a frenzy.) Turns out it's not an "informed decision" that's important. It's avoiding making a dumb decision. Regardless of whether you follow politics or not you do know when politicians make dumb mistakes, particularly when they effect you. I can't imagine too make people in New Orleans voting for Bush after the Katrina debacle for example.
It turns out that's all that is required. The people who care enough about politics to vote are the dangerous ones, because a fair percentage of them do not make an informed decision. They vote for tribal reasons - gun laws, "I'm a democrat" or whatever. You think you are making an "uninformed decision" and therefore it must be poor but trust me, it's infinitely better than those who vote the same way regardless of how they have been informed.
Re:do you really want the uninformed voting (Score:5, Interesting)
So do you really want the uninformed/non interested making a vote.
The unspoken assumption behind this proposal is that yes, Obama does want the uninterested and uninformed to vote, because he assumes they will trend Democrat. Some of the Democrats' greatest strongholds are high-density urban centers where both education and income levels are low. So Obama extrapolates that out and decides that means that mandatory voting will be a big windfall for Democrats, and give them a one-party lock on government.
I suspect that the reality wouldn't be as rosy for them as they're hoping. I could see it being a boon for third parties, as people who have no interest in the two major parties are compelled to find a candidate they don't hate.
How about just a day off? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why aren't Election Days mandatory holidays? Do it over two days: The last Thursday before normal Election Day is Alternate Election Day, when people who will be working on Election Day must have off. Then everybody else takes Tuesday as a holiday. That, combined with absentee ballots should be an excellent start.
Re:How about just a day off? (Score:4, Informative)
In Australia, polling day is a Saturday. Always. Voting opens early, and closes relatively late, so those who work weekends do have a time that they can get to a polling station without having to take the day off; and if worst comes to worst, there are always early voting centres.
It's absolutely crazy that voting is done on a working day; makes it a lot easier for people to be coerced in various subtle and not-so-subtle ways to not vote.
Re:How about just a day off? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just do it Saturdays and with absentee ballots. I don't understand what the problem is. You guys are supposed to be the greatest country in the world, why are you having such problems figuring this out?
He's too hopeful for voters to change. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take the money OUT of politics.
Stop outright lying.
It too obvious that congress critters have a price tag.
Until that changes, there is no hope for America.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to take the money out of politics is to eliminate taxes. Otherwise, there's lotsa money to spread around.
Australia does not have mandatory voting (Score:5, Informative)
What it does have is mandatory attendance . What you do in the voting booth is your own business. And all of which is done on a Saturday.
If anything I think the USA would be better off with moving the election day from Tuesday. See Why Tuesday? [whytuesday.org] for info about the slow push to make this change.
Re:Australia does not have mandatory voting (Score:5, Informative)
One counter-point: because Tuesday is not a day of rest for any notable religion (that I am aware of), thus avoiding voter disenfranchisement if they are strongly religious.
Not saying it's a good reason. Just that such exists.
yes, let's do that (Score:4, Funny)
You have the right not to act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's time we had... (Score:3)
... something other than FPP voting [wikipedia.org]. I favor IRV [wikipedia.org], but I'd take anything that has half a chance of getting more choices that might actually be elected into the system.
Yes. But access needs to be made better. (Score:3)
Do I understand this correctly? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups" - How convenient. Sounds like it's smack dab in the middle of the Democrat demographic.
"Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison" - So we're going to punish lower income groups and minorities by fining them or throwing them in jail? Yeah...great plan.
"There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls" - Really? That's a pretty loaded statement. Typical wedge politics.
"Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections" - Yeah, you know why? Because people are fed up with the whole political process, both Democrat and Republican alike.
The last time I checked America was still a democracy. Choosing not to vote, while not a great choice, is our choice to make.
Re:Do I understand this correctly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
and what about those of us who think its all rigged, pre-determined and our vote just does not matter anymore?
we really are quite disconnected from those who make our laws. they don't come from us (they are from the aristocracy, almost always), they don't care about us and I am not quite sure that the ones we see on the news or tv are the ones that really run things.
so many layers of mistrust, but all well-earned. we saw GWB steal an election via court rule. we've seen massive fraud from election machine
If you don't vote. (Score:5, Funny)
False assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
The assumption is that money buys votes. It doesn't. It buys advertising on a lot of levels along with all the people who are needed to promote a given candidate. By requiring everybody to vote, candidates would have to spend even more money to be sure that they reach the half of the voting population that doesn't vote.
What we really need is to get rid of the winner-take-all for state electoral votes. Imagine you live in a county that regularly has a majority vote for one party but because a little more than half of the rest of the counties in the state regularly voted for the other party. Your votes no longer count because the electoral votes got flipped. What if this happens over and over? How represented would you feel?
Ugh, symptom, not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Low turnout is a symptom, not the problem. Both parties are bought and paid for and are not very responsive to the rabble, so it is no surprise that most folks aren't very excited about elections anymore.
Most districts have been gerrymandered such that your vote does not matter, by design. If your district is 65% or more one party or the other thanks to disingenuous officials who rig the voting maps to keep their party in power there really is little reason to vote or even to keep believing the delusion that you are part of a good faith democratic system (you are decidedly not in the USA).
Finally, with a 2 party system with no minor parties of consequence I totally understand how a large and growing minority of voters cannot bring themselves to be affiliated with either party. The parties fight over issues rather than govern and there is no way to vote for "other" that will result in anything better than not voting at all. So it becomes a rational choice to not vote rather than wasting your time to cast a ballot that either does not matter, or for a party you very much do not approve of.
Nice idea, but the problem is elsewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
A prime example for mandatory voting is Swizerland. But they have a 'direct democracy' (mostly) which means many laws are directly voted for by the population, not in the parliament.
America has a much bigger problem than lack of voters. First of all it is the more than archaic voting system from the late 1700s.
Secondly it is the abuse allowed in it: we have a district that voted mostly republicans and it is surrounded by mainly democrates? But last 4 year many 'democrates' moved into that district?
Lets just reshape the districts, so we are certain that we still have a republican majourity in said district.
In america before every election the 'ruling party' reshapes the voting destricts based on population data in the hope to 'manipulate' the outcome in their desire.
In every other nation that is considered 'voting fraud' or 'voting manipulation'. In the US it is business as usually.
Then comes the need to register for votes ... poor and underdogs, minorities etc. don't like to register.
Then you have the two party system (I really wonder why you laugh about China etc. with a one party system ...)
Then the 'electors' system ... it got changed at some point, but it is still retarded.
Then you had the Bush voting frauds ... come on, in every nation of the world, that is not a dictatorship, that election had been invalidated and Bush would be in jail and had haved no chance to even stay up for the 'Ersatzelection' ... but now 15 years later, who cares *shrugg*
Americans are really really strange regarding that ...
And from thst everything that is evil follows in the USA.
Who gets voted into office? Judges? Sheriffs? State Attorneys?
None of them is doing his job, they all only work to get reelected!!
Police cought one who has no aliby?
Sheriff: lets drop the hunt for the true culprit, lets focus on catching more idiots!
State atorney: How can we get him convicted? Hm, should be easy, he can not defend himself!
Judge: the harder I punish him, the more points I get for the next election!
How retarded is that? In germany the prime responsibility of a state atorney is to convict the right culprit, not a random 'victim'!
There are plenty of cases (in germany) where the state prosecutor in the end himself in the final speech plead 'non guilty' because it was obvious the guy charged was non guilty. Something like that can not even happen in the USA ... your law system is not much better than sharia, except cheating on your spouse is not punished (yet!)
Lets not even start with the idea that a jury in our days is the right thing to 'judge' a culprit.
There's a much more sensible first step (Score:5, Insightful)
Follow in the footsteps of Oregon. Automatic voter registration and universal vote-by-mail. A ballot automatically shows up wherever you get your mail, provided you're known to the state in any capacity whatsoever as an 18+ year old human. You have more than a month to research issues/candidates, fill it out, and drop it back in a USPS or free ballot-only mailbox. A non-partisan voters guide even shows up in your mailbox a few weeks before the ballot arrives. No more begging for time off work to go wait in line for two hours to use an unverifiable machine. No more issues with transportation to polling places, or equity issues surrounding placement of polling places.
Don't bother making it mandatory until you make it easy.
He's getting away with murder. (Score:3, Insightful)
Belgium (Score:4, Informative)
As a inhabitant of Belgium: I can assure you that the punishments aren't enforced.
10% of the eligible voters don't actually come to the voting poll
Another 5% of the voters does this blank or invalid. This means with compulsary voting in belgium we only reach around 85% of the eligible voters (looking at the latest elections).
Small semantic detail: you are not required to vote in belgium, you are only (technically) required to go to the voting station. You can legally put an empty ballot paper (electronic or old skool) in the box.
As said before, either way it doesn't make much difference, as the rule is rarely enfoced (I think if you don't vote for multiple elections in a row they might punish you, but missing one election won't give any result).
Who Decides the Candidates? (Score:3, Informative)
People don't vote because there is very little practical difference between the candidates nowadays. The parties (and their financial backers) set up a horse race between the two top contenders most amenable to the parties (and their financial backers), not the voters.
Oh sure, the voters can chose a candidate in their primaries, and they later can chose between the candidates from the different parties, but the actual decisions about the future leadership of the country have already been made by the parties and their financial backers.If it makes you feel like a rebel or a patriot, you can occasionally vote for the 3rd party candidate (but not so much anymore). They might garner some of the vote, but generally have no chance of winning, and don't change the fact that the candidates of the two major parties have already been selected for you. They might sway the election from one party to another, but that doesn't really make a difference. The American voter gets the choice of 31 flavors, but they're unfortunately all vanilla.
Here are U.S. presidential popular vote results since 1980 (if you don't remember who won, Google it or something). Note that the difference between the major party candidates hasn't exceeded 8% since 1984 (average difference was about 5% and has been decreasing with time), and that the party balance has bounced from Democrat to Republican several times in those years, even with major 3rd party rabble-rousers like Ross Perot. 3rd parties have been effectively snuffed (remember Ralph Nader? Me neither).
1980 50.8% 41.0% 6.6% (Anderson)
1984 58.8% 40.6%
1988 53.4% 45.7%
1992 43.0% 37.5% 18.9% (Ross Perot)
1996 49.2% 40.7% 8.4% (Ross Perot)
2000 47.9% 48.4%
2004 50.7% 48.3%
2008 52.9% 45.7%
2012 51.1% 47.2%
A variable +/-5% difference between winning and losing does not connote blow-out landside win to me. Sounds a lot like coin toss odds, exactly what you would expect if there was no real difference between the candidates.
The upshot - the variation in candidate choices has flat-lined. The candidates are effectively clones - they'll do their backer's bidding, no matter who actually wins the election. Vote if you like, but don't expect big change.
Forget that stupid idea... (Score:3)
Forcing people to vote in a FREE country? Um, not showing up to the polls is effectively saying "NONE OF THE ABOVE" and/or "I DON'T CARE" which is an opinion which we should be free to express. You can't force people to vote. That's nuts.
What we need are TERM LIMITS.
I suggest 12 years in elected Federal office (House, Senate, or combination of both) be the maximum any one person can serve in Congress. Of course a person could still run for president or serve in appointed positions beyond that.
Yes, this would take a constitutional amendment.... But it fixes the incumbent money advantage by forcing turnover, which also disrupts the possible corruption and influence peddling.
In countries with mandatory voting (Score:3)
You get joke candidates. You get people voting for "Daffy Duck."
So you can force people to go to the polls, but you can't force them to care.
I think a better approach would be to make the voting day a federal mandatory holiday. Shops closed too.
Sure, some people will just play video games all day, but at least they can't use excuses like "I had to work" to shirk their civic duty.
And it is a duty. People died so you could vote. People are dying today for the right to vote. And to just ignore the luxury of voting, to live in a country where you get to pick the leaders? For laziness and cynicism? "The people in charge don't represent me so why should I vote" ...they don't represent you BECAUSE you don't vote, moron. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
In fact: make it Veterans Day. November 11.
What better way to honor those who died for this country than to show you care by voting? And if you say "in some wars they died so I could vote but in other wars it was just imperialist bullshit"... well then vote, moron, so we don't have legislators and presidents who want to start imperialist wars. Do you understand the purpose of voting now?
You can't combat all low IQ alienation, but you don't have to respect it.
One of the Grand Dumb Ideas (Score:3)
Mandetory voting is one of those dumb ideas that gets tossed around time to time. It gets promoted by what ever people thing that by forcing people to vote those forced voters would vote in that party's favor. This is a very dangerous way to 'get out the vote' as it were.
We're supposed to live in the 'land of the free' and one of those freedoms is the right to not vote. Please do not vote if you don't want to vote. I vote. When you don't vote I get more power!
Vote for Who? (Score:3)
If I were unilaterally pick who becomes the next president I'd pick Ron Paul, because I believe he would put a quick end to domestic spying (and because I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian.) However, the rational thing to do is to select from whichever of the (D,R) candidates I believe is infinitesimally least bad, because it is certain that one of them will win.
If we used Range Voting [rangevoting.org] instead of plurality voting then the rational decision would be to cast an honest vote. In my case in the last election it would be something like Hillary=0%, Obama=10%, Romney=15%, GaryJohnson=85%, RonPaul=100%. Range voting not only allows you to express all of your desires, but does away with the need for political parties/primaries.
But in our current system - vote for who?
Completely bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
Mandatory voting is a hugely bad idea:
1) It goes against freedom
2) It encourages people to vote who have no idea (or less idea) what the issues are. This brings poorer choices and dilutes the votes of those who DO know what the issues are.
3) It encourages people to vote who apparently have no interest in the issues.
What we desperately need is the introduction of some form of preferential voting like instant runoff voting (and possibly the end of the electoral college). THAT would make a HUGE and PRODUCTIVE change in ways that really matter. We could then be free of being locked into a two-party race where both parties essentially suck. People could vote for who they want without fear they are throwing their vote away or fear of allowing someone they don't like getting elected because they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fairvote.org/reform... [fairvote.org]
Re:I for one (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you're part of the problem. Not because of your opinion of Obama, but because you refuse to engage with people who disagree with you. It makes you identical to those "idiot Republicans" you claim to be tired of.
Re: (Score:3)
You have low standards.
Re: (Score:3)
"Am much much more tired of the congress and all the idiot Republicans. Obama did a good job".
Isn't it a main responsibility of POTUS to lead and manage the legislative branch?
"99 problems the US has and none of them are Obama"
The jury's still out on that. His actions won't be measurable for at lest 8 years and we won't see exact results for at least 4 more.
That said, at the minimum, his rubber stamping of extending the Patriot Act perfectly demonstrates how his actions differ from h
Re:freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh.. You know democrats voted overwhelmingly for patriot and its renewals (under obama as well), right? Patriot was a 'reaching across the aisle' moment.
Re:freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You defend one side or the other as the lesser of two evils when they are both part of the problem. Voting democrat or republican is voting for status quo. Obama and the democrats had 8 years to undo some of the damage. What did he do? He signed the patriot renewal. He could've vetoed it. He could've issued the same kind of 'executive orders' that bush abused to undo a lot of that damage too. He didn't. Instead he enabled it for another round, or even enhanced it. You can hate on bush and co all you want, but obama and hillary are just as much to blame.
Re:freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. While the two parties may differ on certain things, on this issue, they are completely united. Voting Democrat isn't going to help stop domestic spying, because they're just as in favor of it as the Republicans, as seen by how it's been handled by both the Obama and Bush administrations.
Re:freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the proper frame of reference to keep in mind when following American politics is the WWE.
Lots of winning and losing, but you don't go anywhere. And your wallet is a lot lighter at the end of the day.
Re:freedom (Score:4, Informative)
Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to accidentally veer back on topic for a moment (it won't last, don't worry), mandatory voting, at least if it allows write-ins, might do something a bit unexpected, too. A lot of people don't vote because they think (know, actually) that voting for either of the mainstream political parties is voting for more of "the same", where "the same" is not a good thing by the vast majority of measures.
Force them to vote, they may go, "ok, fine, I'll vote, but you won't like it." And consider: With only 37% voting previously, those people could ALL be outvoted by the new influx. This could be a huge win for 3rd parties / candidates.
Such a result would amuse the hell out of me. And it could be really, really good for the country.
So bring it on, I say. Remains to be seen if the votes of those who simply aren't engaged (the ignorant by virtue of busy or poor education... the stupid are pretty much accounted for already) would tear us a new one. But hey, the new one isn't likely to be worse than the one we've got now.
Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory doesn't sound all bad to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I read one post somewhere that said "Obama to Force Mandatory Voting." I chuckled, as that article implied he was being a dictator forcing people into democracy!
I used to be for mandatory voting until I realized that stupid people would vote anyway, and that they are most likely influenced by silly one liners in paid TV ads, so we'd simply end up with the same lot of garbage politicians. Heck, maybe even worse!
I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms. This would have the added benefit that only citizens, who are also taxpayers,(or at least those who took the time to file, even if they earned nothing) would qualify for certain benefits. You shine on filing your taxes, you shine on your benefits. Maybe you get a notice saying you are eligible for benefits in countries where people have no obligations.
I'd also like to see congressmen who vote for something that's bad for the country, solely to screw the other party, be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Yeah, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
The very reason we have the democratic and republican parties is that the voting public is already comprised largely of the stupid. Given the realities of the Gaussian, most of what's that's left should be smarter people.
Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. Your idea would lock them out of any active political role in determining their own destinies. You can't lock people out of voting. Period.
I'd substitute "unconstitutional" for "bad for the country", and remove "solely to screw the other party", and make them stay here so their fellow citizens could sneer at them on a regular basis, but yeah. If you enter public service, and you don't serve the public, I figure that's maximum bad behavior with absolutely huge harm. Worse than anything else on the books. Seriously. Murderer kills what, a few people? Bad law hurts people by the tens or hundreds of thousands or even (drug laws, for example) millions, tens of millions.
I'm honestly quite surprised that one of the more severely injured victims of bad law -- and there's plenty of it, and of them -- hasn't already taken their mistreatment directly to the source(s) as a matter of some well-deserved kickback. Still, only a matter of time, I'm thinking. All it takes is one person with not much more to lose and a good reason. Good reason being trivially available in prolific amounts, the rest is just a matter of social Russian roulette for congress and SCOTUS.
Re:Yeah, no. (Score:4, Informative)
"Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. "
Not anymore it's not. Seriously, that's new: You 'have' to file now since the ACA. I have yet to hear of an exception for the homeless to at least file the form for your exemption. So the homeless are technically in violation of tax law.
I see now, the real plan: They are just going to outlaw being poor. Seattle is at the forefront of this trend.
Fucking brilliant! Why didn't we think of this years ago?
Re: Ironic (Score:4, Funny)
Obama got 95% of the black vote in 08. If you show me a stat showing 95% of hillbillies voted Republican, I will print out this slashdot page and eat it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a conservative. I'm also not easily fooled. And I don't see it that way. I see it as you have been blinded by the party you adhere to -- because I assure you, neither party is worth jack shit at the present moment.
I'm not saying they are the same in platform -- they clearly aren't -- I'm saying they're equally corrupt and not working for the benefit of their constituents, their platforms serve only as the vaguest possible guides for their actual actions, almost no elected member of either party even
Re:freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Talk to the idiot Republicans in congress, that shit is a throw back to that retarded cowboy that came before Obama NOT Obama! It is amazing how quick the public forgets and blames everything on the current administration.
Uh.. You know democrats voted overwhelmingly for patriot and its renewals (under obama as well), right? Patriot was a 'reaching across the aisle' moment.
Based on the same lies regarding WMDs in Iraq by the previous administration. I'm not saying the Dems aren't at fault for not doing due diligence, but there was a lot of screaming from the previous administration's side that pushed a lot of unhealthy decisions for the country.
People keep dredging up that so-and-so voted in favour of the patriot act or some other covert operations bill and it is certainly true that giving the security services such extensive powers was a mistake. On the other hand, if you guys had been a congress critter in the days after 9/11, would you have had the brass balls to make the career ending move of not voting the patriot act? On the other hand it's been close to 15 years now and it says a lot about the US political class that they still haven't grown the spine to let the patriot act expire and repeal the parts of it that didn't have sunset provisions.
Re:freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:freedom (Score:5, Informative)
No, you are saying that the Dem's aren't at fault, and you're lying by obfuscation.
Words of Mass Destruction [snopes.com]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alwa
Re:freedom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats deserve far less blame than the Bush administration, which actually set the war in motion. The Bush administration argued that they needed the authorization to use force in order to have a strong negotiating position with Saddam Hussein. Turned out negotiation was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush. The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I was powerless to stop the woman from being raped, because I had abdicated my power by deciding I wanted to fuck her."
"I was powerless to stop the child from getting drunk, because I had abdicated my power by buying the kid a fifth of Jack Daniels."
Do you realize how ABSOLUTELY MORONIC your argument sounds?
Democrats voted overwhelmingly to autho
Re:freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Ohhh, Democrats!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
(The problem may not even be Libertarians but we will never know will we...)
Our problem is government by popularity contest in a world that will keep watching more then 5 seconds after they hear "Kardashians". We have a people that let the courts declare that corporations have the rights assigned to people. We have "We The People" who are so adverse to risk that they live in fear of terrorists while living in the safest era in human history and then they demand that the government devours personal liberties en masse to give what is only the popular appearance of something called "safety". We have a country that when polled 80% were in favor of warning labels on food that has DNA in it. (And if you are reading this and you don't know why DNA warnings are an unbelievably stupid idea then you are an idiot and you should stop reading now and take some remedial science courses immediately.)
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
(... Hallelujah... Holy shit... Where's the Tylenol?)
Re:USSR Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure ancient athens was not in the soviet block. Pretty sure 1700s era Georgia (US) was not in the soviet block.
The only thing that was in the Soviet block was the Soviet block, and guess what? They didn't have compulsary voting. Yes they had a turnout requirement, aka a Quorum. B
Don't just [i]make shit up[/i] if you want to make apoint dude. Its a very dishonest way to argue.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one hell of a way to start breaking out of the two party system, isn't it? Force someone into the booth who hates both major parties, and instead of voting for Mickey Mouse, maybe they'll pick a different guy who's actually on the ballot. All it takes is the tiniest, slimmest name recognition for the candidate or their party, and a lot of hate for the big guys.
Re:Mandatory exercise of Constitutional rights... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Now the US become even more like the USSR was. Let's all go voting, and everyone cast his vote for a party that protects the status quo, so that means that we're all really happy with our system! Yay for us! USA! USA!
Huh? 2 parties, yes. But essentially similar enough that it doesn't matter. They both stand for the system system, you could call it the "democratic republican party". Yeah, I think it would be cool. Nobody really remembers that this once existed, except maybe a few historians, but who listens