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.
Obama wants mandatory voting
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
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.
What evidence do you have that the fine is not dispositive. I have the empirical example on my side. But you wrote above that Americans have a high degree of civic duty ourselves. So by your logic we could make this law and never need to enforce it and still get ~90% turn out. Thats a reason to be for this, not against.
It's ever so practical to believe that freedom and liberty will always exist as a natural matter of course that will never demand any effort from the citizens to maintain. That sounds very realistic to me. My idealism tells me that the powerful will try to marginalize, take advantage of or ostracize the weak and make them hopeless so they don't fight back. My idealistic notion of the world says if you want to be free, you must fight for it, protect it, nourish it and make your voice heard loud and often. I realize standing up to powerful bullies make seem like a fairytale to you, but to me its very realistic. Citizenship carries duties, not just privileges. One of those duties is showing up to vote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Also, you fail to see that mandatory voting does not mean more enthusiasm and campaign participation from people.
I'd also like to know why you think this is any way constitutional. I'd also like you explain, how Corporate money wouldn't ensure that the candidates they wanted always remained out front.
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.
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
Posted from Rivals Mobile
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.
But there could be some interesting consequences if everybody voted. For one thing, abortion would sudden be much more heavily restricted.
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
"I got nothing."
The end.
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
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
Why is that Natural? Voting means I'm automatically going to donate more money? Seems trivial at best.
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.
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.
It would if the people with the nutty ideas were open to rational thought.
Then we could ask them how they're going to enforce the mandatory voting law without asking anybody who they are.
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.
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?
But if that was my position, combining them still makes sense. The reason behind ID's for both sides is usually related to turn out. Compulsory voting substantially takes turn out off the table. So there is no inconsistency.
This post was edited on 3/20 5:47 PM by naturalmwa
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
Suffer your own delusions all you want, forcing people to vote is something very different.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Not unconstitutional.
I wish conservatives would stop pretending they know anything about the constitution.
Any state that wants to implement mandatory voting is free to do so under the constitution.
And a great idea. Rather than spending all our time preventing people from voting, if everybody has to vote, maybe we'll invest in making sure we have an educated electorate - as the founders intended.
That would be a small step in the right direction - the opposite direction from the GOP push of recent times.
I think we are all aware that its different, hence the discussion. I think its a difference with many mostly positive results.
Similar threads
Honest question, Rs. How will Trump take on the rest of the world when he can't even take on Harris?
