The POTUS just threw out having mandatory voting. This is just a threat to the poor minorities. How will these people be able to get to the polls when they are not even able to get to the DMV to get an ID?
Obama wants mandatory voting
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
Of course there is a solution. The fed gov will "help" them get licenses, and "help" them get to the polls.
Most likely "help" them pull the levers too.
Most likely "help" them pull the levers too.
It would be a brilliant solution to many problems if implemented. Over night we transform into a nation led by moderate centrists with no dependence on extreme special interests. I can see why that would piss off a lot of people.
I don't want people voting who don't know the issues and don't care.
In fact, I would imagine that those voters are even more easily persuaded by campaigning and advertising, which would lead to even more money spent on elections, not less like Obama says.
In fact, I would imagine that those voters are even more easily persuaded by campaigning and advertising, which would lead to even more money spent on elections, not less like Obama says.
So . . . if something is a good idea but counter to our 227-year-old constitution, we should reject it?
I'm glad the anti-slavery folks weren't so dogmatic. Or those who thought women should vote.
I have mixed feelings about mandatory voting. It's a conflict of 2 desirable ideals. How do you decide which should win?
If it were on a referendum, I would vote for it, but I suspect it would lose rather badly.
It would make doing that harder and make parties less relevant. I'm surprised this doesn't intrigue you.
Mandatory means forced, as in enforced. Of course this doesn't appeal to me. Yes, make voting mandatory and DC will do exactly what many would think they would. They'll limit the candidates, just like they have been doing for decades now.
It wouldn't change anything, and what happens to those that for some reason don't vote? Are they incarcerated? Fined? Do we need to establish an new entity in order to do this? MVE? Mandatory Voting Enforcement?
Come now Natural, you most certainly have thought of this correct?
Just last week you were all for mandatory prenuptial agreements. You really do pick your positions out of a hat. Did you envision having a MPV (Mandatory Prenup Enforcement) crew? Empirically this isn't hard, just follow Australia's lead. We aren't inventing the wheel here.
I am not against it because of any constitutional premise. It's just a very stupid idea. Never mind the issue about someone voting who has almost zero information on the candidates but how would it be enforced? What would the punishments be? Etc, etc. Talk about over burdened courts now, wait till that would become law.. There are so many things wrong with the idea, I am not surprised WWJD is all for it. To make it work we would need a much larger, much more intrusive government than we have now. In the end, maybe that's why all the libs get an erection when they think of it
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This post was edited on 3/19 1:22 PM by aflachawk
Well actually if you had read my post, I simply stated that the pre-nuptial agreement was an automatic part of the marriage license. UNLESS you and your spouse decided to decline it. This could be done without any penalty or approval from the courts. It would be the couples decision. It would be as easy as checking NO.
We'd find out real quick, how many people REALLY want to get married.
It's a completely different deal on my part. Since I know you love having law involved in everything, I figured that we would make sense of the laws pertaining to marriage.
You're aren't inventing the wheel, correct. You are simply changing the wheel and trying to convince everyone the ride is going to be smoother. Despite the fact that it costs more, and you never cared to go for a ride in the first place. Now you HAVE to go on the ride. Which will lead to exactly where you started the ride in the first place.
Taking people out of their homes and putting them in gas chambers isn't a new idea either Natural. Slavery also isn't a new idea. Forcing people to do anything isn't a new idea, but it doesn't make these ideas good ideas.
Good ideas Natural, not NEW ideas.
Yes taking responsibility for deciding who should have power and what direction the nation should move is pretty analogous to being a slave exterminated in a gas chamber. Good job.
Forcing people to vote is a step in the right direction when speaking slavery. Next you'll want to be able to force who they vote for.
EDIT: Oh wait, they already do. By simply limiting the candidates with BS rules and having corporations pay for the red or blues MVP. Nothing like 2 choices, from two teams that are a lot more similar than people like to believe.
This post was edited on 3/19 2:16 PM by Aegon_Targaryen
This post was edited on 3/19 2:16 PM by Aegon_Targaryen
How do Australia and other countries with mandatory voting handle it? My understanding of the Australian approach is that you have to show up, get checked off, and drop your ballot in the box, but you don't actually have to vote for anyone. Obviously most do, but you aren't forced to approve of any candidate.
I don't think it's unreasonable to revive the long-dormant notion of "civic duty." It seems to have fallen out of favor, but why? Voting being just one expression of civic duty. Why would a very modest activity like voting every other year be viewed as an unconscionable infringement of liberty?
Having a successful society of the type we want requires some level of useful citizen effort or participation. This strikes me as an easy step and a heck of a lot better than leaving it up to the oligarchs and plutocrats.
One of the things I would like to see on all ballots is a "None of the Above" option. If you are forcing people to vote, I suspect that idea would get a lot of support. And that, in turn, could help combat the problem Husker likes to raise of never getting real choices.
I think your compass is broken. "Tell me what you think" is in the opposite direction from "This is what you must think." "Everyone has the responsibility to lead" is over the mountains and through the woods from "only a few get to lead."
Here you have a major political leader championing something that moves the needle in your "libertarian, no party control" direction and you run from it. I am left to conclude you don't actually value the things you say you value. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone as I argue for more personal responsibility and individual control of our government and you and the rest of your conservative allies argue for maintaining the current party system that you will then complain about in every other thread. This is the brass ring, you should at least reach out for it.
This conversation is a little scary. Some of you think it's OK for the government to MAKE you do something under duress of a fine or jail? I mean, I know they got their foot in the door with Obamacare, but let's stop it there. What else is the govt. going to make us do if this is allowed?
,montross......that is a lie. A flame throwing lie. An idea that was taken fully out of context. And, typical.
Anyway....who would not support 100% voting in a democracy? You??
Registering to vote and going to the polls are legal duties in Australia. The fine for not going to the polls is about $20. Once there no one looks at your ballot, some do protest by filling out an improper ballot or essentially a "none of the above" option.
Australia also uses ranked or preferential voting so that 3rd parties have a better chance to capture a vote. There voting 3rd doesn't waste your vote as you can still rank the traditional parties as a fall back position. The final plank in their system is they proportion districts like we do in Iowa with a computer aided map approved by a nonpartisan districting board which limits gerrymandering. We should just adopt the entire system.
I find it charming that a couple of posters who often get tagged as statists are the onces advocating for more personal responsibility in the running of the state. It sort of flips the "maker vs. taker" 47% argument on its head. "Give me liberty, but I'll cry like hell if you ask me to lift a finger for it" doesn't seem to jive with the "Freedom isn't free" mantra we heard not long ago from the opposition.
Comparing what works in Australia(about 23 million people) to a country as expansive and populated as ours(over 300 million people is very appropriate.
What a horribly lazy argument. By this logic Indonesia would be the perfect foil to compare to the US. Does that seem logical to you? Australia has the population of a large state. It also has a similar culture, religious, ethnic mix and it too is expansive. If one large state can do it, then so can the rest. Thats a principle of federalism we are based on in part.Originally posted by aflachawk:
Comparing what works in Australia(about 23 million people) to a country as expansive and populated as ours(over 300 million people is very appropriate.Civic duty has not fallen out of favor and still exists in the lives of tens of millions of American but to force those who have no desire to know any thing about the issues involved in a political campaign would create a mess of biblical proportions and has nothing at all to do with civic duty. In our country it would be an idea that's is unworkable in the real world in which we live. You still have not answered about the penalties for not voting? A large fine, jail time, what? One of the things freedom should mean is we have the right to participate in society as much or little as we want. This only works in the mind of a person who thinks a large and powerful enough government can make any idea work
Australia proves your concerns are unfounded. Their political system is more complicated than ours and yet they have made it work for a century. The fine is just $20, yet it produces ~90% turn out rates. IMO freedom requires constant vigilance to preserve. I'm beginning to sound like a Churchillian conservative where you are preaching like a liberal, apathetic hippie. I'm totally having a Twilight Zone moment.
Are we back in the third grade?
Ours is a democratic republic. These are not either-or things. There are different kinds of republics, depending on how the representatives are chosen and the folks they represent. Our constitution, as amended, tells us it is the people who are to be represented and the representatives are to be chosen by the people. That's known as a democracy.
So our republic is a democratic republic. It is correct to call our form of government (and also our society) by either term. It is stupidity to think they are opposites or in conflict.
This is not rocket science. Why is it that cons have so much trouble with this?
It was not lazy at all, it just disagreed with yours. Comparing us to Australia is the lazy argument. I would argue that a fine of $20 is leveed two things would happen. 1) It would move almost no one who does not to vote to vote 2) almost no one would pay the fine. I would further argue that the fine is not the thing producing the 90% vote rather the sense of civic engagement they have there. As far as your characterizations. I am the realistic Con and you are the idyllic if we just pass a law every thing will work out lib I assume that's another lazy argument on my part?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
What a horribly lazy argument. By this logic Indonesia would be the perfect foil to compare to the US. Does that seem logical to you? Australia has the population of a large state. It also has a similar culture, religious, ethnic mix and it too is expansive. If one large state can do it, then so can the rest. Thats a principle of federalism we are based on in part.Originally posted by aflachawk:
Comparing what works in Australia(about 23 million people) to a country as expansive and populated as ours(over 300 million people is very appropriate.Civic duty has not fallen out of favor and still exists in the lives of tens of millions of American but to force those who have no desire to know any thing about the issues involved in a political campaign would create a mess of biblical proportions and has nothing at all to do with civic duty. In our country it would be an idea that's is unworkable in the real world in which we live. You still have not answered about the penalties for not voting? A large fine, jail time, what? One of the things freedom should mean is we have the right to participate in society as much or little as we want. This only works in the mind of a person who thinks a large and powerful enough government can make any idea work
Australia proves your concerns are unfounded. Their political system is more complicated than ours and yet they have made it work for a century. The fine is just $20, yet it produces ~90% turn out rates. IMO freedom requires constant vigilance to preserve. I'm beginning to sound like a Churchillian conservative where you are preaching like a liberal, apathetic hippie. I'm totally having a Twilight Zone moment.
I agree we should be able to drive on either side of the street and challenge annoying people to duels. How dare government MAKE us do ANYTHING?Originally posted by IMCC965:
This conversation is a little scary. Some of you think it's OK for the government to MAKE you do something under duress of a fine or jail? I mean, I know they got their foot in the door with Obamacare, but let's stop it there. What else is the govt. going to make us do if this is allowed?
The fact is that we DO allow government to make us do various things. A lot of things. Maybe too many things. So we should be on guard. But let's not pretend that this is particularly awful or the only thing the government makes us do.
Nor should government be able to make us do whatever simply because the whatever isn't much of an infringement of our liberties. There also has to be a good reason for the thing we are being asked to do.
If you are opposed to democracy - which I'm pretty sure is the case - just say you don't like this because it would broaden democracy and you want control of our govenment kept in the hands of the rich and powerful where it belongs. For most of human history that's been the norm, so I'm sure you'll find a lot who will agree.
But here's the thing, IMCC, even if you get your king or theocracy or corporatocracy or military dictatorship, that government will ALSO MAKE you do things. So that's hardly a good argument on its own, is it?
First of all...to do so would be illegal under the constitution.
second of all....mandatory voting? That's not democratic at all. That's authoritarian.
How do you wish to enforce it? By gunpoint?
If you really feel like that and for whatever reason believe that....then you have bigger problems than I thought. MAKING people vote?
Again, how do you handle those that refuse? Jail them? Fine Them? That's Libertarian? How is that in any way going towards what I want. Why is more people voting simply going to change things?
You still haven't been able to address how they limit candidates and would continue to do so despite this measure. Personal responsibility relates directly to personal choice Natural. You are not good at this freedom stuff. Do you do a lot of drugs or something? Not that I'm one to criticize, but you have a rather twisted image of reality.
Doesn't a democracy mean you have a choice in matters? Forcing voting along with the enforcement that follows is not exactly democracy.
Plus like I've asked before,...what does this change? If we have limited candidates, like we do now, what does it help. It's an illusion of choice. Has history not taught you liberals anything?
One question WWJD. Why do we need MORE authority? That is exactly what would come of this.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
I agree we should be able to drive on either side of the street and challenge annoying people to duels. How dare government MAKE us do ANYTHING?Originally posted by IMCC965:
This conversation is a little scary. Some of you think it's OK for the government to MAKE you do something under duress of a fine or jail? I mean, I know they got their foot in the door with Obamacare, but let's stop it there. What else is the govt. going to make us do if this is allowed?
The fact is that we DO allow government to make us do various things. A lot of things. Maybe too many things. So we should be on guard. But let's not pretend that this is particularly awful or the only thing the government makes us do.
Nor should government be able to make us do whatever simply because the whatever isn't much of an infringement of our liberties. There also has to be a good reason for the thing we are being asked to do.
If you are opposed to democracy - which I'm pretty sure is the case - just say you don't like this because it would broaden democracy and you want control of our govenment kept in the hands of the rich and powerful where it belongs. For most of human history that's been the norm, so I'm sure you'll find a lot who will agree.
But here's the thing, IMCC, even if you get your king or theocracy or corporatocracy or military dictatorship, that government will ALSO MAKE you do things. So that's hardly a good argument on its own, is it?
