Obama: Mandatory voting to counteract BIG money

[umbrella39]

Ah yes mandatory voting - no doubt Obama also likes making voting possible from phones. That way he can give free phones away to people he will also dangle free cheese in front of just before election day.

Make no mistake - Obama is a psyhco, banana republic politician through and through. All he needs is one of those funky military costumes like Qaddafi used to wear. He could get by with some Michael Jackson epaulets too.

 

[soccerballtux]

start with giving the day as paid holiday, then this might work.

 

[michal1980]

Obama is complaining about money in politics? LOL how much money did he and his supports spend to win?

Money is bad, until its not.

 

[Bock]

100% voting results in the US being openly socialist in 10 years. Why else do you think the GOP are all about voter id laws.

 

[fskimospy]

There was no intention to "dance around" anything. The term I used "Political campaign spending" was intended to include candidate campaign spending and that of PACs.

I've linked to proof of my remarks here at P&N before. I'm getting tired of the recent ploy by Dems to demand links for everything, even stuff currently on the headlines of newspapers, every website and all cable TV news. I recognize the point, and dishonest nature, of the 'exercise'.

In any case I have no time tonight as I must log off soon. Perhaps you could use google?

Fern

Yes, clearly the people asking for evidence to back up your assertions are the ones being dishonest. I have to say, that is a new level of bullshit.

As someone else mentioned earlier, people here tend to use 'dishonest' to mean 'doesn't agree with me'.

 

[fskimospy]

That is so true!

Though not nearly as annoying as those who equate "being honest" with "agreeing with me."


^^
Hahaha! Right there!

We live in a hyper-polarized political environment. And there are many various ways to rationalize right versus wrong on most issues, and when individuals consistently argue and declare the right side of the issue as coincidentally also the side that allows "my team to win," it draws skepticism. And rightfully so.

It was you!

My plan actually was to show the subjective nature of what it is to be 'informed'. Lots of people who think they are informed know about some things and know nothing about others, but because we all view the world through our own lens we never view ourselves as being uninformed.

I find the whole idea that we need to prevent the uneducated, unwashed masses from voting because they are too dumb and ignorant to be a pretty gross argument.

 

[HomerJS]

Obama is complaining about money in politics? LOL how much money did he and his supports spend to win?

Money is bad, until its not.

A lot of money from a few in politics is bad. Way to support that plutocracy

 

[Zargon]

start with giving the day as paid holiday, then this might work.

this

also, I like this no id gift card thing, I can hit every voting place before and after work and make a killing!


a state id in Illinois is 10 bucks and is good for 5-10 years., you have to have your SS card and I think two pieces of 'offical' mail, aka bills from utility or credit card statement, bank statement, to get an ID at that address.


the current democratic party is for this shit because their constituents that they spend almost as much time screwing in the bumhole as republicans, *believes* that the D party is all for them. they are more so than R, but not really by a long shot, its all window dressing to keep themselves in power, getting rich off the rest of us, just like the other party

 

[Jhhnn]

Off the top of my head with just a modicum of thought? Well, one, freedom of speech also entails the right not to speak, so it violates the First Amendment. Two, forcing someone to vote is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, so it also violates the Fifth Amendment.

But you know what? Screw the Constitution. Let's force people to vote. Heck, let's go beyond that. We should force people to volunteer for political campaigns.

Pretzel logic. If required to vote, it doesn't mean you actually have to cast any votes. Sign in, get your ballot, hand it in blank. You voted. The same thing can be done with mail in ballots. The anonymity of voting also insures that you cannot be held accountable for your vote.

If the law requires you to vote, then due process is observed. It's like observing the speed limit.

I think that there are constitutional issues wrt mandatory voting & States' Rights, but what you offer isn't the same sort of argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

what is conflicted about recognizing the various intellectual demographics of certain professions? cops aren't too bright by design, same with all the rest, obviously there is variation. would you think that suggesting that doctors are intelligent, and bus drivers arent, is accurate (by and large)?



just because they are dumb doesnt mean they shouldn't get a say. and yea, i think they should all vote

I'd suggest that you confuse opportunity, ambition & education with intelligence.

 

[XMan]

I like this idea. Of course, if voting is mandatory we'll have to implement some sort of tax penalty to spur participation. I obviously wouldn't want folks to be subject to a poll tax for all of the history that stirs up. So we'll have to have some easy way to prove and verify that we've voted to avoid that. Thankfully the states have already implemented photo ID for those who need one, we'll simply have them show their photo ID's to verify their voting status so as to avoid a tax penalty.

 

[Genx87]

Talk about a nightmare to enforce. Being forced to participate removes freedom. And who do you think the penalties will hit the most when they don't show up to vote? I'm guessing not the middle and upper classes. But screw the poor right?

 

[fskimospy]

Talk about a nightmare to enforce. Being forced to participate removes freedom. And who do you think the penalties will hit the most when they don't show up to vote? I'm guessing not the middle and upper classes. But screw the poor right?

Seems like it would be pretty easy to do really, and anyway you could simply structure it to be 'incentivized' voting vs. mandatory voting. Like give people a $25 credit or something for doing so.

I don't really buy the 'removes freedom' argument either. I mean we force people to do things all the time like jury duty, which is a way larger imposition than voting.

Regardless, Australia seems to pull it off just fine.

 

[dank69]

this

also, I like this no id gift card thing, I can hit every voting place before and after work and make a killing!


a state id in Illinois is 10 bucks and is good for 5-10 years., you have to have your SS card and I think two pieces of 'offical' mail, aka bills from utility or credit card statement, bank statement, to get an ID at that address.


the current democratic party is for this shit because their constituents that they spend almost as much time screwing in the bumhole as republicans, *believes* that the D party is all for them. they are more so than R, but not really by a long shot, its all window dressing to keep themselves in power, getting rich off the rest of us, just like the other party

Good luck registering to vote in several districts and enjoy your time in FPMITAP.

 

[Genx87]

Seems like it would be pretty easy to do really, and anyway you could simply structure it to be 'incentivized' voting vs. mandatory voting. Like give people a $25 credit or something for doing so.

I don't really buy the 'removes freedom' argument either. I mean we force people to do things all the time like jury duty, which is a way larger imposition than voting.

Regardless, Australia seems to pull it off just fine.

If it is incentivized that is different than mandatory. I could get behind something like that provided the system put in place to verify this isn't a cluster fuck with costs that outweigh the benefits.

 

[CZroe]

Horrible idea. Forcing uninformed people to vote just means that entire elections will be ruined over stupid things like who's name sounds cooler or more recognizable.

 

[PokerGuy]

If it is incentivized that is different than mandatory. I could get behind something like that provided the system put in place to verify this isn't a cluster f*ck with costs that outweigh the benefits.

What benefits are we looking at exactly? People who want to have a say in the process can have a say right now. What benefits are there to forcing people who don't want to vote (they currently don't) to vote?

It's an obvious and pathetic ploy by obummer and his minions to try to gain more votes by forcing those the lazy (ie, people most likely to vote for his party) to vote.

 

[PokerGuy]

Seems like it would be pretty easy to do really, and anyway you could simply structure it to be 'incentivized' voting vs. mandatory voting. Like give people a $25 credit or something for doing so.

Assuming 200 million potential voters, you're talking about $5 Billion dollars to spend.... to gain what exactly? I still haven't seen anyone articulate any reason why it is desirable to have those who currently don't want to vote cast a ballot.

I don't really buy the 'removes freedom' argument either.

Not surprising coming from the guy who has never met a big government power he didn't like.

I mean we force people to do things all the time like jury duty, which is a way larger imposition than voting.

Yes, we force people to do things all the time, but only when it is actually necessary to accomplish something or has some compelling argument as to why it should be required. "adding more democrat voters" is neither necessary nor a compelling argument to spend a single dime or force anyone who doesn't want to vote to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

Assuming 200 million potential voters, you're talking about $5 Billion dollars to spend.... to gain what exactly? I still haven't seen anyone articulate any reason why it is desirable to have those who currently don't want to vote cast a ballot.

Because I'm of the opinion that the purpose of democracy is in large part to determine the will of the citizens governed by it. Therefore democracy works best when it has input from all its members.

Not surprising coming from the guy who has never met a big government power he didn't like.

Don't be ridiculous. Straw man.

Yes, we force people to do things all the time, but only when it is actually necessary to accomplish something or has some compelling argument as to why it should be required. "adding more democrat voters" is neither necessary nor a compelling argument to spend a single dime or force anyone who doesn't want to vote to do so.

It's certainly not necessary to force people to be on juries, we could accomplish the same goal in any number of different ways. Having input from everyone as to how the country should be run certainly sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. Not so much for you?

 

[nickqt]

What benefits are we looking at exactly? People who want to have a say in the process can have a say right now. What benefits are there to forcing people who don't want to vote (they currently don't) to vote?

It's an obvious and pathetic ploy by obummer and his minions to try to gain more votes by forcing those the lazy (ie, people most likely to vote for his party) to vote.

Yes, KingObummer™ knows that non-voters would vote for evil libruuuls because evil libruuuls are always promising to take away your stuff and give it to evil lazy people.

Because KingObummer™.

Does your hatred of half of the population make you feel good about yourself, or just mask your insecurities?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I had an idea.


How about we counter big money in politics by


getting rid of big money in politics.

all joking aside, nuke citizens united

and as a card carrying, bleeding heart, tree-hugging, hippy liberal, I think this is a seriously stupid idea. You do not force people to vote, that is just wrong.

 

[Nebor]

100% voting results in the US being openly socialist in 10 years. Why else do you think the GOP are all about voter id laws.

This seems obvious to most. Its why democrats support it and republicans don't. Why else would anyone oppose the theory of 100% voter turnout?

 

[michal1980]

Because I'm of the opinion that the purpose of democracy is in large part to determine the will of the citizens governed by it. Therefore democracy works best when it has input from all its members.

Everyone that wants to vote can vote today.


I don't see why we should care about the input of people that don't care enough to vote today.

also by not voting the people have by default voted.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It would be very funny to me and also hugely ironic if this thing if enacted were to completely backfire on democrats. LOL Of course they'll never admit it and will move to remove it if it did all the while blaming everyone else but themselves.

 

[werepossum]

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.

lol indeed.

I was thinking how it could be enforced but giving a tax credit makes good sense. Or a mix of it and punishment make it so you can't claim certain tax credits or over a certain amount.

Can't make it a tax credit since many if not most Democratic voters don't pay income taxes. Unless maybe you make a tax credit like the earned income tax credit, where Uncle Sugar sends you more than you paid and calls it a tax credit.