Obama: Mandatory voting to counteract BIG money

[dank69]

So pay people for their vote? That sounds... sleazy.

We're not advocating that specific candidates pay people to vote for them, lol.

 

[Subyman]

It would cost $5 billion to give everyone a $25 gift card for showing up and voting. This is a complete no brainer. The only people who would be against this are the top 1%, who happen to control pretty much all of the institutions. This is another one of those very simple planks that should be on any real candidate's platform. (Like reforming the BLS to create a real national online employment survey) But you just dont see these sort of planks, because all mainstream candidates cater to the 1%, not the people.

Gift card? So tax payer money goes to a retail corporation?

 

[dank69]

Gift card? So tax payer money goes to a retail corporation?

Unless you think there are voters out there that will spend less than $25 over the next year

 

[Subyman]

We're not advocating that specific candidates pay people to vote for them, lol.

Surely not, but this sounds no better than gerrymandering and perhaps even worse. I don't think the founders had it in mind for clueless morons to show up to vote for the future of the country so they can cash in on a $25 walmart shopping spree.

 

[BoberFett]

$25 per vote? Hell, I'll vote a dozen times.

 

[cabri]

They mark your name off the list at the polling place. Same as today.

And is it you?

 

[Subyman]

Unless you think there are voters out there that will spend less than $25 over the next year

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The government would pay a retail corporation for gift cards to disperse to Americans to vote. That is practically the government making the choice for you to shop at Walmart/Target/Lonestar with your tax money.

 

[dank69]

Surely not, but this sounds no better than gerrymandering and perhaps even worse. I don't think the founders had it in mind for clueless morons to show up to vote for the future of the country so they can cash in on a $25 walmart shopping spree.

What is wrong with a clueless moron voting? Clueless morons have needs, too.

 

[MiniDoom]

don't have money for voter ID's but gift cards are fine?

 

[dank69]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The government would pay a retail corporation for gift cards to disperse to Americans to vote. That is practically the government making the choice for you to shop at Walmart/Target/Lonestar with your tax money.

VISA/MC gift card. Spend anywhere.

 

[cabri]

How are these illegals registering to vote?

By showing a driver's license in many states.

And many states will accept a license from another state as proof of legality.

So get a license from a state that allows illegals or get a fake license and file a registration.

 

[highland145]

And is it you?

Sure. You showed your ID.


Looked it up for SC. To register you have to have a valid state/military ID, current utility bill, or paycheck with your address on it.

 

[Subyman]

VISA/MC gift card. Spend anywhere.

That's a bit better, but there are still the processing fees which go straight to VISA, which would be on the order of 10's of millions of dollars. I simply do not like the idea of getting a reward as I go out the door of the polls. People should be there for the right reasons, not to collect a check. If you can't get off your ass to vote for the future of the country, but $25 greases the wheels enough, then you shouldn't be voting.

 

[Knowing]

Yes, we should make rights mandatory.

Mandatory speech with mandatory religion, mandatory firearms, all service members are mandatory homeless, mandatory privacy, we'll get rid of eminent domain all together, mandatory trials (the president and DoJ will hate that), we'll actually get rid of cruel and unusual punishment perhaps close those pesky black sites and ask the FBI wtf when they kill someone, in their own home, at midnight, during an interview, mandating the 9th and 10th amendments would be interesting.

Think of all of the industries we could enrich by dispensing with agency.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

 

[schmuckley]

System is corrupt...

Forcing 'the little people' to participate in a corrupt system isn't a fix...

Uno

^This is how it is.
A) Corporations are not "people" Corporations are corporations.
B) Bribery in the name of "Campaign contributions" should be punishable by jail/prison time.

These 2 things usurp the ideology this country was founded upon.
If they went away,it would be soo much better.

 

[fskimospy]

By showing a driver's license in many states.

And many states will accept a license from another state as proof of legality.

So get a license from a state that allows illegals or get a fake license and file a registration.

What are you basing this on? Every state I've ever heard of that allows an out of state drivers license to be used as proof of citizenship only allows them from states that themselves require proof of citizenship to get a drivers license.

Can you show me an example of where this can happen today?

 

[Nebor]

Even the most die hard republicans must realize that such a law would kill the GOP overnight.

 

[Blanky]

It is a fucking terrible idea. A great many people who vote now are so ignorant they are making the country worse by sharing their idiotic views. Why would the US do better y forcing people who care so little they don't want to vote to now influence the country's future.

 

[highland145]

Even the most die hard republicans must realize that such a law would kill the GOP overnight.

That's been posted before. Curious why? Do you think that most of the voters on the right are already voting and a lot of people that would vote on the left aren't currently?

 

[QuantumPion]

Why not just skip the formalities, cancel elections, and just make the democrat candidate win by default. We all know the evil republicans and corporations are scumbags, it's the only way to beat them.

 

[fskimospy]

That's been posted before. Curious why? Do you think that most of the voters on the right are already voting and a lot of people that would vote on the left aren't currently?

The data shows that pretty strongly.

If everyone voted it's unlikely the GOP could ever win the presidency again without moving to the left considerably. I'm sure they would still maintain a decent congressional presence, but it would be hard for them to ever win a majority in either chamber again.

The difference between registered voters and actual voters tends to be about 3 points more favorable to the GOP. And remember, Republicans are more likely to be registered voters than average too. You're probably looking at a 4-5 point total move towards the Democrats on average, maybe upwards of 7-8 points in midterm years, which in US politics is a huge amount.

 

[dank69]

That's been posted before. Curious why? Do you think that most of the voters on the right are already voting and a lot of people that would vote on the left aren't currently?

This was discussed in the other thread:

I think it's pretty easy to see that the median US electoral representative would be much more liberal if everyone voted, considering groups that lean conservative vote at considerably higher rates than liberal ones.

http://cacs.org/research/effect-voter-turnout-political-polarization/

(this is an article on political polarization, but it has an informative chart)

Considering that US elections often turn on a few percentage points either way if you equalized turnout between those groups it is highly likely that Democrats would win considerably more elections. It would also likely put the presidency almost permanently out of reach for Republicans.

Of course political parties change their ideology with different electoral circumstances, which is what would happen then, but regardless conservatives would almost certainly need to move left considerably to maintain competitiveness.

In fact, this is why polling firms shift between registered voters and 'likely voters'. If you look at the registered voter numbers they are nearly always more favorable to Democrats, specifically because they narrow the turnout gap. (liberal groups also register in lower numbers if I'm not mistaken, but they vote in even lower proportion)

EDIT: Ha, eskimo

 

[fskimospy]

Why not just skip the formalities, cancel elections, and just make the democrat candidate win by default. We all know the evil republicans and corporations are scumbags, it's the only way to beat them.

It's pretty hilarious that your post is in response to the question of "why not have everyone vote and find out what the whole country thinks?"

 

[rudder]

Requiring voter ID is too onerous and is just Republicans trying to disenfranchise minorities, but Obama brings up andatory voting and Democrats collectively jizz themselves as they picture the landslide wins they imagine they'll get.

LOL, Democrats.

Lower income folks statistically do not vote as often as higher income groups. With mandatory voting I am sure obama would include taxpayer money for either portable voting booths or busing everyone to the voting booth.

 

[highland145]

The data shows that pretty strongly.

If everyone voted it's unlikely the GOP could ever win the presidency again without moving to the left considerably. I'm sure they would still maintain a decent congressional presence, but it would be hard for them to ever win a majority in either chamber again.

The difference between registered voters and actual voters tends to be about 3 points more favorable to the GOP. And remember, Republicans are more likely to be registered voters than average too. You're probably looking at a 4-5 point total move towards the Democrats on average, maybe upwards of 7-8 points in midterm years, which in US politics is a huge amount.

Thanks. I had no idea.

This was discussed in the other thread:

EDIT: Ha, eskimo

I didn't go there.