It was mandatory in the former USSR. The Communists would point out that they had the support of 'the people'. Don't vote. It encourages them.
Probably, I sort of hope so for your sake. If you put a lot of effort into that reply it sure doesn't show. You didn't disagree, you just dismissed the notion that America can ever be compared to any nation with a difference. Thats lazy and foolish. Most comparisons aren't with things that are identical, but with things that share some common points. Every state is different, but they share a large number of commonalities. If a policy works in Oklahoma, there is a pretty decent chance it will work in Wisconsin with minor adjustments, etc.Originally posted by aflachawk:
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.
The same way we decided that not have g slavery and give women the right to vote won. There's a process provided for us.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
It's a conflict of 2 desirable ideals. How do you decide which should win?Originally posted by linkshero:
the idea seems kind of counter to the whole idea of our constitution, but I'm no expert
The enforcment has been discussed several times in this thread, read up. $20 works in Australia. Maybe we strip them of their citezenship or double their taxes. Its not hard to enforce laws, we have centuries of practice accomplishing that task.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
If you really feel like that and for whatever reason believe that....then you have bigger problems than I thought. MAKING people vote?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
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.
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.
Oh, so if we don't got by the needless system your increasingly authoritarian government wants....then we get to pay them for it?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
The enforcment has been discussed several times in this thread, read up. $20 works in Australia. Maybe we strip them of their citezenship or double their taxes. Its not hard to enforce laws, we have centuries of practice accomplishing that task.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
If you really feel like that and for whatever reason believe that....then you have bigger problems than I thought. MAKING people vote?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
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.
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.
You didn't ask me to address how it would broaden candidate selection so I thought it would be obvious to you. If more people are voting, then the party base that finds acceptable candidates to the minority who vote today will have less power. So that candidate who the party bosses didn't love, but has popular appeal will naturally stand a better chance if everyone is voting. The smaller the turn out, the more control the party bosses have. More voters means you have the opportunity to actually win based on your ideas, rather than party maneuvering and deal making. If thats not what you want, then I guess I can't help you if you aren't willing to work for it. Please don't complain any more about the two party, left right system. Its clear you love it.
Its amazing to me that you see honoring the will of the people as more authoritarian. Sounds like you just hate the American people. I can understand that to a degree, so why don't you just do as WWJD suggested and admit you like oligarchies and think its proper for the elite to control everything. That is the traditional, conservative view on government.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Oh, so if we don't got by the needless system your increasingly authoritarian government wants....then we get to pay them for it?
Sorry, don't want to vote for option A or B, which both are F's in reality,..so I'll go ahead and give you more money, so you can give yourselves more raises and promote more wars with other countries.
Natural, your god is failing you. In a survival scenario, you would not survive. You're entirely too dependent on the system.
How does more voters increase the candidates Natural. Your explanation hold absolutely no water whatsoever. Details, details.
There are people all over this thread arguing against the mandatory voting and explaining why. So are you just taking from this thread what you want to hear? Are you sure YOU aren't the only child? You sure do see to be dependent on an authority type hovering over you and saving your from all those bad things in life.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Its amazing to me that you see honoring the will of the people as more authoritarian. Sounds like you just hate the American people. I can understand that to a degree, so why don't you just do as WWJD suggested and admit you like oligarchies and think its proper for the elite to control everything. That is the traditional, conservative view on government.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Oh, so if we don't got by the needless system your increasingly authoritarian government wants....then we get to pay them for it?
Sorry, don't want to vote for option A or B, which both are F's in reality,..so I'll go ahead and give you more money, so you can give yourselves more raises and promote more wars with other countries.
Natural, your god is failing you. In a survival scenario, you would not survive. You're entirely too dependent on the system.
How does more voters increase the candidates Natural. Your explanation hold absolutely no water whatsoever. Details, details.
I gave you my argument, less party power equals more ballot access for other candidates. I can't make it any simpler for you.
Also, you fail to see that mandatory voting does not mean more enthusiasm and campaign participation from people.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Its amazing to me that you see honoring the will of the people as more authoritarian. Sounds like you just hate the American people. I can understand that to a degree, so why don't you just do as WWJD suggested and admit you like oligarchies and think its proper for the elite to control everything. That is the traditional, conservative view on government.
I gave you my argument, less party power equals more ballot access for other candidates. I can't make it any simpler for you.
Yes, more fast food eaters would equal more fast food restaurants in a similar way that more voters would provide the path for more candidates to gain the support and money needed to operate outside of the party system successfully. You're sounding very Republican today.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There are people all over this thread arguing against the mandatory voting and explaining why. So are you just taking from this thread what you want to hear? Are you sure YOU aren't the only child? You sure do see to be dependent on an authority type hovering over you and saving your from all those bad things in life.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Its amazing to me that you see honoring the will of the people as more authoritarian. Sounds like you just hate the American people. I can understand that to a degree, so why don't you just do as WWJD suggested and admit you like oligarchies and think its proper for the elite to control everything. That is the traditional, conservative view on government.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Oh, so if we don't got by the needless system your increasingly authoritarian government wants....then we get to pay them for it?
Sorry, don't want to vote for option A or B, which both are F's in reality,..so I'll go ahead and give you more money, so you can give yourselves more raises and promote more wars with other countries.
Natural, your god is failing you. In a survival scenario, you would not survive. You're entirely too dependent on the system.
How does more voters increase the candidates Natural. Your explanation hold absolutely no water whatsoever. Details, details.
I gave you my argument, less party power equals more ballot access for other candidates. I can't make it any simpler for you.
This doesn't change anything Natural, and you have yet to explain in an actual REALISTIC way as to why it would. More voters equal more candidates? Why is that exactly? Would more fast food eaters, automatically equal a bigger menu at a fast food place? Especially since they were being made to eat there? No the menu would not need to change.
If Joe or Jill Schmoe don't want to vote, that is their right. How dare you try and take that away from them. What other uses of force to you want to invent for us next?
Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.
But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.
I am required to report for jury duty. Apparently the government thinks its my civic duty and I have to give reason not to appear. Too bad voting is not a civic duty because I think its just as important as serving on a jury.
No, it's not. It's a REPUBLIC. Period.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Are we back in the third grade?Originally posted by IMCC965:
We don't vote in a democracy. We vote in a REPUBLIC. There's a difference.Originally posted by joelbc1:
,montross......that is a lie. A flame throwing lie. An idea that was taken fully out of context. And, typical.Originally posted by montross:
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?
Anyway....who would not support 100% voting in a democracy? You??
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?
Originally posted by IMCC965:
No, it's not. It's a REPUBLIC. Period.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Are we back in the third grade?Originally posted by IMCC965:
We don't vote in a democracy. We vote in a REPUBLIC. There's a difference.Originally posted by joelbc1:
,montross......that is a lie. A flame throwing lie. An idea that was taken fully out of context. And, typical.Originally posted by montross:
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?
Anyway....who would not support 100% voting in a democracy? You??
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?
You are off topic.
Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.
Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How do you feel about jury duty?
Originally posted by HallofFame:
I can assume that people who are wanting this mandatory are also wanting to bring back the draft. Isn't serving your county also a civic duty just like voting or does that not fit your agenda.
I was 1A in the draft. Its OK with me if all young people are required to serve. I did.
Flawless mental gymnasticsOriginally posted by augHAWK:
I hate being on it....
On a serious note, it's necessary for our justice system. The law as it presently stands affords U.S. citizens the right to trial by jury. Thus, we need juries, and if we leave it up to volunteers it will lead to either an impossible or unreliable system.
On the other having every citizen vote is not necessary.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No, by in large he's basically running rings around you so it's not surprising you would come back with that response. Do you want me to translate it for you?Originally posted by aflachawk:
Looks to like natural is on the defensive here and just making it up as he goes. Typical for the lazy arguments a lib makes😀
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That's probably how they position it in N. Korea.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
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.
Why is that Natural? Voting means I'm automatically going to donate more money? Seems trivial at best.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Yes, more fast food eaters would equal more fast food restaurants in a similar way that more voters would provide the path for more candidates to gain the support and money needed to operate outside of the party system successfully. You're sounding very Republican today.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
There are people all over this thread arguing against the mandatory voting and explaining why. So are you just taking from this thread what you want to hear? Are you sure YOU aren't the only child? You sure do see to be dependent on an authority type hovering over you and saving your from all those bad things in life.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Its amazing to me that you see honoring the will of the people as more authoritarian. Sounds like you just hate the American people. I can understand that to a degree, so why don't you just do as WWJD suggested and admit you like oligarchies and think its proper for the elite to control everything. That is the traditional, conservative view on government.Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Oh, so if we don't got by the needless system your increasingly authoritarian government wants....then we get to pay them for it?
Sorry, don't want to vote for option A or B, which both are F's in reality,..so I'll go ahead and give you more money, so you can give yourselves more raises and promote more wars with other countries.
Natural, your god is failing you. In a survival scenario, you would not survive. You're entirely too dependent on the system.
How does more voters increase the candidates Natural. Your explanation hold absolutely no water whatsoever. Details, details.
I gave you my argument, less party power equals more ballot access for other candidates. I can't make it any simpler for you.
This doesn't change anything Natural, and you have yet to explain in an actual REALISTIC way as to why it would. More voters equal more candidates? Why is that exactly? Would more fast food eaters, automatically equal a bigger menu at a fast food place? Especially since they were being made to eat there? No the menu would not need to change.
If Joe or Jill Schmoe don't want to vote, that is their right. How dare you try and take that away from them. What other uses of force to you want to invent for us next?
That is such an utterly ridiculous analogy that it doesn't deserve attention. But since you've mentioned it twice, I'll explain why it's an utterly ridiculous analogy.Originally posted by wildcatdad:
Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.
Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How do you feel about jury duty?
I'm not surprised you would miss the point, but I suspect its on purpose. Jury duty imposes a duty on citizens to assist the judiciary in running the nation. Mandatory voting imposes a duty on citizens to assist with executive and legislative necessities. Its the same type of burden to take responsibility for helping a government of the people actually be that. Neither is any more tyranical than requiring citizens to fill out a census form.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
That is such an utterly ridiculous analogy that it doesn't deserve attention. But since you've mentioned it twice, I'll explain why it's an utterly ridiculous analogy.Originally posted by wildcatdad:
Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.
Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How do you feel about jury duty?
One reason is that potential jurors are chosen at random. Mandatory voting would be exactly the opposite. The system does not provide for every citizen to serve on every jury in every case. Mandatory voting would not randomly select a small percentage of citizens and require them to vote.
The bigger reason is that once you are chosen as a potential juror, you are vetted to see if you are qualified to serve on the jury. Now, if you're saying there should be a government panel to decide in every case whether an individual is qualified to vote, then I guess you'd have a point. But somehow I don't think that's your position.
Incidentally, my 69th birthday is next week, I've been registered to vote every year since attaining majority, and I've never been called for jury duty. Mrs. LC has been called numerous times and served on two or three. I've never gotten any kind of call.
This post was edited on 3/20 4:09 PM by Aegon_TargaryenOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
I'm not surprised you would miss the point, but I suspect its on purpose. Jury duty imposes a duty on citizens to assist the judiciary in running the nation. Mandatory voting imposes a duty on citizens to assist with executive and legislative necessities. Its the same type of burden to take responsibility for helping a government of the people actually be that. Neither is any more tyranical than requiring citizens to fill out a census form.
So you believe DC is handing out a recipe that in YOUR OPINION, would render DC with less power than they previously had? Because according to you this measure would make it so that the voting went more for the people, rather than in the direction DC wants it to go.
I'm thinking you've started drinking a little too early today Natural. You have hope and that is good, but don't let it cloud reality for you.
I didn't miss the point. But you know that.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I'm not surprised you would miss the point, but I suspect its on purpose. Jury duty imposes a duty on citizens to assist the judiciary in running the nation. Mandatory voting imposes a duty on citizens to assist with executive and legislative necessities. Its the same type of burden to take responsibility for helping a government of the people actually be that. Neither is any more tyranical than requiring citizens to fill out a census form.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
That is such an utterly ridiculous analogy that it doesn't deserve attention. But since you've mentioned it twice, I'll explain why it's an utterly ridiculous analogy.Originally posted by wildcatdad:
Originally posted by augHAWK:
It amazes me that people are so eager for more government control and regulation. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea and the argument that it would somehow enhance democracy is the largest load of deuce I've heard in a long time. You do not promote democratic principles by enacting measures that promote tyranny.
Liberty is a cornerstone of our country. Some may detest this (as often seems the case on this board), but it is this very principle that gives you the right to speak against it. The more we allow government to interfere in our lives, the more it will do so. Government should regulate only when necessary; never when merely convenient. I know many here may disagree, but they shouldn't. Today increased governmental authority may further your agenda. But it's a slippery slope. Tomorrow it may destroy your agenda (for starters) and forbid you from saying a damn word about it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How do you feel about jury duty?
One reason is that potential jurors are chosen at random. Mandatory voting would be exactly the opposite. The system does not provide for every citizen to serve on every jury in every case. Mandatory voting would not randomly select a small percentage of citizens and require them to vote.
The bigger reason is that once you are chosen as a potential juror, you are vetted to see if you are qualified to serve on the jury. Now, if you're saying there should be a government panel to decide in every case whether an individual is qualified to vote, then I guess you'd have a point. But somehow I don't think that's your position.
Incidentally, my 69th birthday is next week, I've been registered to vote every year since attaining majority, and I've never been called for jury duty. Mrs. LC has been called numerous times and served on two or three. I've never gotten any kind of call.
I suspected as much.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
I didn't miss the point. But you know that.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I'm not surprised you would miss the point, but I suspect its on purpose. Jury duty imposes a duty on citizens to assist the judiciary in running the nation. Mandatory voting imposes a duty on citizens to assist with executive and legislative necessities. Its the same type of burden to take responsibility for helping a government of the people actually be that. Neither is any more tyranical than requiring citizens to fill out a census form.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
That is such an utterly ridiculous analogy that it doesn't deserve attention. But since you've mentioned it twice, I'll explain why it's an utterly ridiculous analogy.
One reason is that potential jurors are chosen at random. Mandatory voting would be exactly the opposite. The system does not provide for every citizen to serve on every jury in every case. Mandatory voting would not randomly select a small percentage of citizens and require them to vote.
The bigger reason is that once you are chosen as a potential juror, you are vetted to see if you are qualified to serve on the jury. Now, if you're saying there should be a government panel to decide in every case whether an individual is qualified to vote, then I guess you'd have a point. But somehow I don't think that's your position.
Incidentally, my 69th birthday is next week, I've been registered to vote every year since attaining majority, and I've never been called for jury duty. Mrs. LC has been called numerous times and served on two or three. I've never gotten any kind of call.
This deserves a second post.Originally posted by TJ8869:
Am I being Punk'd here? The very same people who have spent years passionately arguing against voter id are now calling for mandatory voting?
We can't require people to spend $20 once every 4 years on an id card because that's draconian and unconstitutional. It's Jim Crow laws redux.
But we can order them to vote. And if they don't vote then we'll fine them $20 (kind of an ironic amount). And if they don't pay their fine then we'll put them in prison.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It would if the people with the nutty ideas were open to rational thought.Originally posted by HallofFame:
This deserves a second post.Originally posted by TJ8869:
Am I being Punk'd here? The very same people who have spent years passionately arguing against voter id are now calling for mandatory voting?
We can't require people to spend $20 once every 4 years on an id card because that's draconian and unconstitutional. It's Jim Crow laws redux.
But we can order them to vote. And if they don't vote then we'll fine them $20 (kind of an ironic amount). And if they don't pay their fine then we'll put them in prison.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Sounds like a brilliant opportunity for you to get what you want too, can we put you in the pro column now? I've always been open to horse trading, you just never saddle up and put anything on the table.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
It would if the people with the nutty ideas were open to rational thought.Originally posted by HallofFame:
This deserves a second post.Originally posted by TJ8869:
Am I being Punk'd here? The very same people who have spent years passionately arguing against voter id are now calling for mandatory voting?
We can't require people to spend $20 once every 4 years on an id card because that's draconian and unconstitutional. It's Jim Crow laws redux.
But we can order them to vote. And if they don't vote then we'll fine them $20 (kind of an ironic amount). And if they don't pay their fine then we'll put them in prison.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Then we could ask them how they're going to enforce the mandatory voting law without asking anybody who they are.
Wait...so forcing the elderly and the indigent to purchase an id card is no longer racist and onerous and unconstitutional so long as we also force them to vote, under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Sounds like a brilliant opportunity for you to get what you want too, can we put you in the pro column now? I've always been open to horse trading, you just never saddle up and put anything on the table.
...and a third time.Originally posted by TJ8869:
Am I being Punk'd here? The very same people who have spent years passionately arguing against voter id are now calling for mandatory voting?
We can't require people to spend $20 once every 4 years on an id card because that's draconian and unconstitutional. It's Jim Crow laws redux.
But we can order them to vote. And if they don't vote then we'll fine them $20 (kind of an ironic amount). And if they don't pay their fine then we'll put them in prison.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Thats never been my position. My position has always been that ID's simply aren't a solution to any real problem, but if Rs want them, I'd be willing to trade them for it. So I'll give you ID's, you give me compulsory voting. Deal?Originally posted by TJ8869:
Wait...so forcing the elderly and the indigent to purchase an id card is no longer racist and onerous and unconstitutional so long as we also force them to vote, under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Sounds like a brilliant opportunity for you to get what you want too, can we put you in the pro column now? I've always been open to horse trading, you just never saddle up and put anything on the table.
Your logic confounds me.
OK, I get it. he's pulling our collective leg. Good one, Natural. You got us.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Thats never been my position. My position has alwasy been that ID's simply aren't a solution to any real problem, but if Rs want them, I'd be willing to trade them for it. So I'll give you ID's, you give me compulsory voting. Deal?Originally posted by TJ8869:
Wait...so forcing the elderly and the indigent to purchase an id card is no longer racist and onerous and unconstitutional so long as we also force them to vote, under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Sounds like a brilliant opportunity for you to get what you want too, can we put you in the pro column now? I've always been open to horse trading, you just never saddle up and put anything on the table.
Your logic confounds me.
Not unconstitutional.Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.
But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.
I think we are all aware that its different, hence the discussion. I think its a difference with many mostly positive results.Originally posted by augHAWK:
Under the law as it presently stands, voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Not a requirement, but a right. However, it's a right only for U.S. citizens. As such, making sure that only U.S. citizens are voting is not only reasonable, but appropriate. Requiring a citizen to prove his/her citizenship by merely producing a government issued ID is a simple way to do this.
Suffer your own delusions all you want, forcing people to vote is something very different.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I highly doubt that.Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Well, it's unconstitutional, of course. And a terrible idea for good governance -- you're taking the people who demonstrably know less and care less about government and putting them in charge of it.
But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.
Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.