BREAKING: President Obama Wants To Propose 'Mandatory Voting.' It would change everything.

[kpete]

Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'
By JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press
Updated 3:17 pm, Wednesday, March 18, 2015


WASHINGTON (AP) — They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it potentially transformative. Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."



MORE:
http://www.bipartisanreport.com/mandatory-voting-obama-says-it-would-be-transformative




*****************

Ballot Box
Obama Says Mandatory Voting Would 'Completely Change' U.S. Political Map
Mar 18, 2015 3:48 PM PDT
At a town hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, the president gave support to the idea of compulsory voting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-18/obama-says-mandatory-voting-would-completely-change-u-s-political-map

[annabanana]

1. I think we should make it a weekend long party!

Have parades to the polling places and fireworks at night. Voting is more important than the 4th of July.

[monmouth4]

2. You're absolutely right, I'm all for this...n/t

[Jefferson23]

3. +1/ n/t

[shenmue]

12. Vote naked!

[mindwalker_i]

16. That would really dick with

the er- ... elections.

[Half-Century Man]

35. Very few people would want to see me naked, voting or not.

I am so caucasian, the reflection from my thighs can be see from space. Fifty years worth of scars and a few old tattoos.

Lets just say; The years spent on Earth, have been unkind ones.

[calimary]

73. Meh, you're just fine! The reflection from my HAIR can be seen from space!

[Thor_MN]

125. Sounds like you are doing it right.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”

― Hunter S. Thompson

[Enthusiast]

170. Pfft!

[RKP5637]

194. Only if I can choose who's there! LOL!

[passiveporcupine]

17. Yeah baby!

[cstanleytech]

36. I agree with that, the length of voting should be at least 1-2 weeks and in fact July

would be the perfect time to start it off they could make it run from the 5th till say the 19th.

[cynzke]

173. TOO HOT!

It would be down right dangerous to stand in line. Especially for the elderly.

[A Simple Game]

177. One or two weeks; what lines? n/t

[cstanleytech]

210. Exactly. Not to mention the elderly would still have the option of mailing in their ballots. nt

[A Simple Game]

232. As long as we are making a wish list;

1 paper ballot only
2 6 week max for primaries, you announce earlier you are disqualified
3 $100 million max for primaries, private funds can be used
4 4 week of campaigning max for general election
5 100% public funding for general election, no private donations allowed
6 PACs are illegal for all elections, all campaign money must go through the candidates and will be strictly monitored

The numbers probably would need to be changed but you get the idea.

[swilton]

292. Add to that list

public office candidates who stand for substantive change on issues that represent critical challenges (war vs. peace, social justice, ecological proactivism (i.e., fighting global warming, transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, addressing solid and nuclear waste, weaning ourselves off of nuclear energy)) as opposed to 'lesser of two evil' candidates who support the status quo

[certainot]

103. yeehaaaww!

[C Moon]

145. Nice! ....sans the fireworks for the sake of the pups—2x per year is enough. :)

[Dustlawyer]

190. I'll raise your mandatory voting and add Publicly Funded Elections and outlaw campaign contributions

[jeff47]

229. Also require employers to give one of those two days off.

If you work Saturday, you can't work Sunday and vice-versa.

[totodeinhere]

4. Would this require a constitutional amendment or would simple legislation do it?

The article did not seem clear on that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. it would be challenged on free speech grounds

not voting is as much speech as voting is. without an amendment, i cannot see a law to that effect withstanding a challenge.

sP

[Half-Century Man]

37. Just attach a rider which say you can preregister to not vote each election.

But it should be something you have to purposely seek out.

[NobodyHere]

99. Why do we need extra bureaucracy and red tape

to be able to do what we're already able to do?

It makes no sense unless you're goal is just to harass people are to fine/jail them.

[Half-Century Man]

109. I am answering a question about a counterpoint to a speculated scenario.

I am sure other answers exist.

I want to overcome the American traditions of stupidity, inaction, and obstructionism. I am willing to discuss any method to do so.

[Sheepshank]

227. Actually Oregon recently did something like this.

and of course Republicans are freaking out over it.

in 90% of driver, everyone with a valid DL (citizenship is already dtermined in order to get a DL) is automatically enrolled. One can opt out of enrollment, showing up to the ballot box is still optional. Others I presume will have to enroll the old fashioned way.

Pathways to enrollment are no longer a hassle or blocked.

How is opting out a hassle? Republicans already want to make enrollment a hassle.

[cstanleytech]

41. They could just do what Oregon did and make it so everyone is registered automatically

and sent a mail in ballet, if you dont want to participate you dont have to but if you do you have the tools in hand to do so.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. this could work... n/t

[renate]

83. that really does seem like the best solution

It's logical and easy--no standing in lines! that's another part that would change everything!--and there's no free speech issues with forcing people to vote. Love it!

[cstanleytech]

106. Yup and if they get the IRS, Social Security and varies federal agencies involved it might help

weaken the Republicans continuing efforts at reducing the voting power of the poor.

[RKP5637]

200. That is a good idea! Also IMO voting should be standardized across the nation. Far too many states

and local authorities have an agenda to skew the vote. Much of voting today is a black box IMO with limited transparency.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

309. That would definitely take a Constitutional amendment

And I don't agree that mandatory voting is a good idea.

[RKP5637]

316. One thing that does bother me about mandatory voting, and maybe more, is that some people

will just vote to do it, not knowing anything about what they are voting for or why. They might vote for ridiculous reasons, the latest ad, or the color of the tie someone wears, yep, I've heard the latter does occur. I'll be long gone I think before a constitutional amendment, far too many like the system the way it is so they can manipulate it.

[SCVDem]

49. If they can draft you,

they can make you vote, or pay a penalty.

There are obligations which go with the American freeedoms.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. well, there is no constitutional provision which prohibits a draft...

there is one that protects speech...

sP

[subterranean]

91. There is the option of casting a blank ballot.

I think that would solve the free speech issue of which you speak.

[bklyncowgirl]

201. A "None of the Above" line would take away that objection

Better yet, if "None of the Above" wins you have to do the election over with new candidates.

[tjl148]

212. We would be doing a lot of elections. nt

[jeff47]

230. Only if you were required to vote for someone.

Turning in a ballot that said "I was here" and had zero votes would count towards the "mandatory voting" requirement while not requiring someone to actually cast a vote.

[srican69]

268. If sitting on jury is a duty .. then so is voting. You need to enforce voting just as much

you do participating in a jury

[ProdigalJunkMail]

277. the constitution disagrees with you

sitting on a jury is not speech... voting is.

sP

[grahamhgreen]

297. Who's going to challenge it.... Someone who doesn't vote???

[Yo_Mama]

55. I think it would require a constitutional amendment.

The SC has always held that freedom of speech includes the right not to speak, and that protecting political speech deserves the highest standard of First Amendment protections.

[totodeinhere]

65. Well if that's the case it's not gonna happen.

If it required just a law I could see it happening if the Dems retake control of Congress, but that's about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. It's not going to happen either way.

Sorry to burst any bubbles.

[jeff47]

231. So have a "none" line on the ballot.

You're effectively not speaking by checking that box.

[Yo_Mama]

301. I don't think that suffices. Not voting qualifies as expressive conduct in a different way. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

139. It's not going to happen, and the president saying "hey- neat idea" doesnt mean he's actually

Proposing it, either.

This is like silly season, on DU I think- People with nothing better to do than indulge their outlandish fantasies.

YES LETS OUTLAW THE AUTO TUNE GREAT IDEA ITS ABOUT TIME FINALLY

Sure, man. No one likes the auto tune. So obviously, it will happen any day now.

Derp.

[Demit]

185. We're so lucky to have your cynicism to correct us.

We absolutely did think it was going to happen immediately! Thanks, Smarter-Than-Us Man!

[Fred Sanders]

191. Gloom and Doom is for Republicans...who are those that agree with them? Why??

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Sure, Fred.

You go ahead and wait for this to be actually proposed as an actual legislative or constitutional action.

Get a good book and a comfy chair, while you wait.

[Warren DeMontague]

218. Oh, it's not only not going to happen immediately, it is never going to happen.

Sorry.

I realize this particular notion has a certain subset of this place oddly .... excited psycho-analyzing the reasons behind that is probably beyond even my considerable (wink nudge) intellectual pay grade (although I have my suspicions)

... but the bottom line is, even if this was ever to be seriously proposed (it won't) AND we could make everyone vote (we can't), what makes people so absolutely certain that all the not-voting folks out there would vote for our candidates?

And if people want to effect actual serious change in our actual world, and not the happy-land of their personal fantasies, maybe it might make more sense to ensure that everyone who wants to vote CAN (OR's vote-by-mail system works pretty well for that, as well as providing that all important paper ballot trail for recounts, etc) and then if that isn't enough, how about looking at how our candidates might appeal to and motivate those people who aren't voting or feeling engaged, and furthermore maybe look at the issues, etc. which HAVE been bringing non-voters to the polls recently?

Hmmmm, just a thought.

[Demit]

270. Why would you expect that compulsory voting would make people vote D?

That's a weird thing to think. And to project onto other people. I have no idea what's making you so snotty about the idea, but your whole tone is very strange.

Compulsory voting isn't any more wishful-thinking than the things on your list. And to address your last thought (the italicized, really dramatic one) that we have to look at how to get candidates to appeal to voters who don't presently feel engaged—well, if voters knew they'd be paying a fine for not voting, that might focus their thinking on the process, get them more engaged in it. They might start demanding more from their candidates than the usual bromides.

[Warren DeMontague]

307. One) I said the opposite- I DON'T think, necessarily, compulsory voting would make people vote D.

Rather, I have to assume that the folks getting all gooey over the idea in this thread DO think so, because presumably that's at least one reason why they're so excited about something that, again, isn't going to happen.

Which leads into

Two) "why am I being so snotty"-- well, your response to me wasn't exactly not-snotty up there, was it? But why am I being so snotty about it? I don't know. I get a little bit eye-roll-y at the people here who positively froth at the mouth at the prospect of being able to make people do shit. Wheee, let's MAKE people vote! Hooray!

How about LET people vote? Wouldn't that be an effective start? The people who are paid by the hour, and want to, and have to wait in a 10 hour line in Ohio on a work day? No, we need to MAKE them because if there's one thing we know it is what's best for everyone and the only way to get the mindless muddled masses to behave properly is to MAKE them do things the way we know they SHOULD.

Yeah. It makes my eyes roll, that particular piece of pretense and 'tude. And my eyeroll muscles are directly connected to my snotty glands, I guess.

which, finally, leads into

Three) "isn't any more wishful-thinking than the things on your list"... really? REALLY? Asking our party and candidates to try to APPEAL to people not engaged by the current political system is as much wishful thinking as a quite likely unconstitutional measure to require people to vote, that is pretty certainly never going to see the light of an actual policy proposal?


My God, that is a profoundly sad statement, if true.

AND it's more unrealistic than, say, making election day a national holiday (doable, constitutional) or instituting a nationwide vote-by-mail system (doable, constitutional, and ALREADY IN PLACE in some states, like I said)

[Demit]

317. Your comment at #139 was snottiness ground zero, for the record.

Also, how am I supposed to know you don't think that? With all your assuming this & presuming that, you came up with words that no one ever said. The idea only exists because it came from your head.

It's bizarre that one of your arguments against the idea is "it's not going to happen." That's not an argument against the substance. If it's any kind of argument at all, it applies equally to 1) getting a nationwide vote-by-mail system or 2) making election day a holiday (and what about primary elections?) or 3) getting candidates to engage citizens who don't currently vote (whatever your concrete plans for achieving THAT are).

Of course there is precedent for the state to do things that benefit the common good. Helmet laws for motorcyclists; seatbelts for cars; there was once a time when we had no federal income tax. People squawked about being forced then, when those things were being debated.

And whether or not the idea is constitutional can be debated, too—and ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutionality, notwithstanding an anonymous poster's flat assertions on a political board on the internet.

[Warren DeMontague]

322. 1) is way more feasable than forcing everyone to vote.

2) again, more reasonable than forcing everyone to vote. Also IF you were to force everyone to vote without either 1) and/or 2) first, how do you think the system would handle the people who had some sort of job or physical imediment to getting to the polls?

as for 3) I laid it out fairly simply- find out what sorts of issues non-voters feel aren't being addressed by our current candidates, AND take a look ( ) at what issues HAVE been bringing non-aligned or non engaged people who otherwise don't vote, to the polls in recent years.

(I can think of at least one, off the top of my head.)

As for the rest of it, yes, I have a reflexive aversion to the sort of control-freaky fetish some people here have for MANDATING that people do shit. Mandating people vote is not the same thing as a helmet law. No one is going to end up with a smooshed cranium because they didn't vote. AND the principle of free expression, particularly political expression, is a pretty important one- not one, in my mind, to be lightly fucked with.. and NOT speaking, the right to not say anything (equivalent to the right to NOT vote) is also a form of free speech and expression of opinion.

But, fine, I can see this is really important, fantasizing about this -which, again, isn't going to happen, no matter what sorts of authoritative blarts are issued about it on DU- obviously scratches some sort of fundamental itch. So enjoy, Knock yourself out.

[Demit]

325. I am obviously no match for your emoticons.

They give such weight to your arguments. I am truly at a loss. Wavy goodbye to you too!

[Warren DeMontague]

328. That law about mandatory voting, let me know when that happens, okay?

I'll be waiting.

[swilton]

295. ++++

[ARMYofONE]

5. Not a bad idea, but probably unconstitutional.

The right of freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. This seems like compelled speech.

[gcomeau]

23. You can vote "none of the above"

Which would seem to satisfy anyone's right not to speak by registering their decision not to weigh in on the election outcome, just as they can invoke their right not to speak in any other context.

[gcomeau]

209. Only in the most trivial of senses.

And a certain amount of common sense is supposed to be expected in the interpretation and application of the law.

[mfcorey1]

6. Include Presidential election day as a holiday to coincide with mandatory

voting. Can he just do an executive order for it?

[awoke_in_2003]

62. Make it than one day available for voting...

and make it mandatory that employees be given the time off to vote. Plenty of people work holidays like Christmas and thanksgiving, so making it just a holiday will not be enough.

[Thor_MN]

127. Many states already have laws guaranteeing time off to vote.

Of course there are some backwards states.

http://www.findlaw.com/voting-rights-law.html

[GGJohn]

97. No, the President can't do it by EO, it would take a Constitutional Amendment

to make it legal.
Also, EO's are only binding until the next President comes into office, at which time it can be rescinded.

[jeff47]

235. Would probably only require a law, not an amendment.

Though an amendment would be good in order to move election day to the weekend.

[GGJohn]

334. No, it would require a constitutional amendment,

voting is considered free speech, therefore it's protected by the 1st Amendment.

[jeff47]

343. And turning in a blank ballot would allow that speech. (nt)

[GGJohn]

344. Very true, but it would still require a constitutional admendment

to make voting mandatory.

[jeff47]

346. Only if a blank ballot did not provide the equivalent speech

and you just said it did.

[GGJohn]

348. But to force citizens to vote would require a constitutional amendment,

whether or not the ballot is blank, voting or not voting is an expression of free speech, ergo, to make it mandatory would require a constitutional admendment.

[jeff47]

234. Won't work. Some people will still have to work that day.

Even if we close all private businesses, someone's gotta man the fire department, police department, drive the busses so people can get to the polls, and so on.

Make the election last at least two days, and require employers to give at least one of those days off. If voting is Saturday and Sunday, you can work Saturday but not Sunday and vice-versa. Employers would be free to stagger who gets which day off so they do not have to close.

[HereSince1628]

7. The hits just keep on coming! It's like the Silver Dollar Survey!!!

Too bad it has about as much chance of success in 2015 as an in-dash 45 rpm record player as an option in a mini-cooper

[pkdu]

146. You mean one of these?....

[link:|

[HereSince1628]

168. Yes sort of...even that one's not an option for 2015 Mini-Coopers

[Systematic Chaos]

225. They were actually those ultra-slow 16 2/3 RPM records.

And I tell you what, with the resurgence of vinyl I think it would be TERRIFFIC if they could somehow come up with an audiophile deck that would play 33 1/3 RPM albums, with a top-of-the-line cartridge and a stylus with about a 0.75 gram tracking weight, to greatly slow the wear on the records! If they could come up with a model where the needle wouldn't skip, that would be something I'd buy!

Now, the only other question is how to keep your records from warping in the heat....

[Logical]

8. Terrible idea. Talk about uninformed voters. We have enough idiots now voting based.....

on TV Ads. Lets add a few million more.

[rogerashton]

64. perhaps uninformed is better than misinformed. eom

edit corrected typo.

[jeff47]

236. Yes, only the right people should be allowed to vote.

And now we can battle on what group of people is "right".

If you can't get the "uniformed masses" on your side, that is your fault. Not the "uninformed masses" fault.

[Logical]

284. LOL, So you LOVE the money in politics! Nt

[jeff47]

286. If money had the effect you think, CA would have a different governor.

Brown raised far less than his two opponents. He won.

Money is only very powerful in races where people do not hear much about the candidates. As you reach higher and higher into politics, money has a weaker and weaker effect.

So money is a big factor for statehouses and the House of Representatives. It is less of a factor in governorships and Senators. It has very little power in a Presidential contest. Obama's and Romney's spending changed virtually no one's opinion about them.

The media likes covering money because 1) They get the money and 2) it's an impartial metric they can pretend is meaningful.

As soon as you start requiring people to pass some sort of test in order to vote, you open the doors to screwing with that test. "We want to make sure you're not an ignorant voter, so explain Ayn Rand's philosophy".

People aren't as dumb as you seem to believe. We just haven't had a liberal party tap into what they want for several decades, which has turned off a large chunk of the electorate.

[Logical]

312. When did I say a test? I just don't want a law to MAKE people vote. nt

[swilton]

296. Precisely

mandatory voting and bringing about change (let alone the change that the left wants) are mutually exclusive propositions. To bring about change you need some candidates with courage, back bone and a proven track record, not just candidates with financial backing and good public relations managers with a few good sound bites.

[LiberalLovinLug]

299. Totally agree

The way to get money influence out of elections, is to get money out of elections. ie. limited publicly funded campaigns.

Forcing uniformed, and misinformed, to have to get up an go the the polling station would not solve anything, least of all help to gain Democratic votes. Especially if it was a Democratic proposal. There'd be a hell of a lot of pissed off people that only get their "news" from hate radio, or Fox News that will be screaming about voting out the bastards that made them have to vote and they would flood the booths.

Australia just voted in a Con PM, who was heavily endorsed by Rupert Murdoch and slathered over day and night on his 24/7 "news" channels. The new Tory PM Tony Abbott unsurprisingly quickly dropped to a record 24% approval soon after the election.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. No thanks n/ t

[midnight]

10. How about a holiday off instead so more folks could vote.

[shenmue]

13. Yes

Good idea.

[midnight]

33. Hi

[freshwest]

159. I don't think it'd work any other way, and he did make an extra holiday to add to another day.

Extended a weekend, or something like that. Of course the RWNJ didn't care for it at all.

[jeff47]

237. Someone would still have to work on that holiday

Someone's got to man the fire department, hospitals, and so on.

Make elections last at least two days, and make it illegal for employers to require someone work both days. So if elections were Saturday or Sunday, you can work Saturday but not Sunday or vice-versa. Employers could stagger days off to remain open both days, just could not use the same workers both days.

[TheKentuckian]

341. Even that is probably silly. What is needed is an election period like an open enrollment

for the people who election day is now their "Super Bowl"...meh...too bad, politics isn't just a game.

[Cha]

11. "If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," If everyone

was required to vote.. they just might inform themselves on the issues.

Everything is political.. Air, Water, Food, etc etc.

Mahalo kpete

[namastea42]

14. This guy is on a roll. He is saying some awesome shit.

[PowerToThePeople]

40. where was this guy 6 years ago?

We could have used him then.

I guess late is better than never.

btw, welcome to DU

[namastea42]

56. He has always been there.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. I must be Rip Van Winkle

Because I heard and saw nothing like what he has said and done after this last election cycle prior to this election cycle.

[namastea42]

69. You have yourself a good evening.

[freshwest]

160. Just edited out by media. The examples are well known. So those who want to know, had to work for it

[Major Hogwash]

95. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, District of Columbia.

[img]
[/img]

[Matterate]

15. This is a wonderful idea.

I think anyone who doesn't vote should be ineligible for any and all government benefits, earned or not.

That would get people to the polls.

[GGJohn]

101. No, it's a horrible idea.

You would be in favor of throwing the poor and needy off govt. benefits because they didn't vote?
Benefits that keep poor families afloat?
Not very progressive of you.

[Matterate]

116. I am definitely in favor of that.

Those who don't participate in our system should not benefit from it.

But I also think voter registration should be automatic, Social Security cards should be reissued, free of charge, with photo identification, and voting times should be expanded.

Remove every possible obstacle to casting a vote and if people still refuse to participate, then there should be repercussions.

[Lochloosa]

187. Some choose to participate by not participating. Might want to read the First Amendment again.

[jeff47]

238. And when your boss requires you to work a 16-hour day?

Your views indicate a great deal of privilege.

What if your boss requires you to work a double-shift on election day, so you can't get to the polls? Now you get to pick between your benefits being taken away or getting fired.

Also:

Social Security cards should be reissued, free of charge

That works nicely when you can get to the Social Security office during business hours.

And that doesn't even account for problems that can't be anticipated - your car breaks down so you can't get to the polls. Now your kids starve because your WIC goes away.

I know! Let's add an appeals process! That requires a lot of work during business hours. At an office on the other side of the county. That has no public transit access. That'll take care of it!

It is not possible to remove every possible obstacle.

[Romeo.lima333]

245. yea your car broke down , your dog ate your shoes , you lost your calendar, your alarm didnt go

off, the list of excuses never ends -.

[jeff47]

248. Yeah, they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, even when they're barefoot.

[Romeo.lima333]

250. well they could wait until their barefoot and naked to start fighting back

with everything at stake you'd think people would find a way to get the voting done

[jeff47]

255. Only if you're clueless about poverty.

Feel free to explain how you get to a polling place that does not have public transportation access when your car broke down and your boss made you stay an extra 4 hours. You started work before the polls open, and have 15 minutes until they close. You are a 15 minute drive from your polling place, if you had a working car. Your friends and family are not available to help.

Tell me how you manage to pull that off without getting fired.

Or how about if you're hit by a car as you arrive at the polling place.

There are a million things that interrupt our day-to-day lives. When you have money, they're easy to absorb. When you don't they become very large problems.

[Romeo.lima333]

287. what i know about poverty is that unless you vote your situation isnt going to get much better

you have plenty of time to arrange a ride surely someone you know is going to vote and you can go with them. make sure you dont miss a day btwn now and then and when the person you know is going to the poll you call in sick (of course now you'll say if you call in sick even one day after a year and a half of perfect attendance you'll be fired or the boss will come take your temperture)
you forgot to add and your feet are cemented to sidewalk and aliens were attacking you

plus there are more days than one in which to vote - your carefully constructed scenario is ridiculous

[jeff47]

290. Yes, keep kicking those poor people!

you have plenty of time to arrange a ride

So you failed to read the bit about friends and family not available.

you know is going to vote and you can go with them.

Because everyone lives in the same voting district.

make sure you dont miss a day btwn now and then and when the person you know is going to the poll you call in sick

How cute. You think people get sick days. And that you should get to take one from them.

you forgot to add and your feet are cemented to sidewalk and aliens were attacking you

No, I actually provided a realistic scenario instead of a stupid one designed to deflect.

You also forgot to deal with getting in a car accident on the way to the polls.

plus there are more days than one in which to vote

Only in a small minority of states. Most states do not make absentee ballots available to everyone. Early voting is not available in all states, and where it is available early voting is located far from your regular polling place.

You want to beat the downtrodden due to your delusions of what life is like for them.

[Warren DeMontague]

336. Yeah, if you believe in treating free adult citizens like errant schoolchildren to be lectured at.

I happen to believe that people can make up their own minds about shit, including whether or not to vote.

Make it easier for them to vote? Absolutely. Make sure their votes are counted and verifiable with preferably a paper trail? Fuck yes.

But MAKING them vote? Fuck that. And this is from someone who votes every damn election, even for dogcatcher.

[Romeo.lima333]

340. voting is the act of a free adult, not voting is being an errant school child

non-free people dont get the chance to vote - it's a civic duty over which people have died so the process should be afforded more respect. the reasoning of "they cheat so im not voting" sounds less free adult and more errant child.
making excuses and over the top ridiculous scenarios isnt helping and again sounds less free adult and more errant child. dont want lectures? dont act like you need them.
*** im not directing this at you since you vote. it's a collective you ****

[Warren DeMontague]

354. I agree that not voting is stupid. And people who don't vote also, to my mind, forfeit their right

to complain.

Although they don't ACTUALLY (legally) forfeit their right to complain--- and just because not voting is childish and stupid, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[MosheFeingold]

214. Devil in the details

I always advised Congressman I worked for: never vote for a law you didn't want enforced at the barrel of a gun -- because that's what any law ultimately results in.

Take NYC tobacco laws, for example. Minor revenue-related law, persistent lawbreaker. Result: dead black man.

It's same here. OK, dumbasses won't vote. What to do? Force them to go to polls like the Soviets did? Fine them?

It's just not workable, however a great idea it is otherwise.

[Demit]

271. What to do? Do like Australia does.

Australian citizens aren't "forced" to go to the polls. They can not vote if they don't want to. They just pay a small fine.

[MosheFeingold]

311. And if they refuse to pay the fine?

What's next?

[Demit]

323. They're sentenced to death I think.

Or whatever the repercussions usually are in democracies, for not paying a fine.

[MosheFeingold]

349. Well, a black man

In NYC was choked to death because he refused to pay a piddling fine for selling cigarettes.

That's my point: eventually, any law is enforced at the point of a gun, somewhere.

And this law would have lots of noncompliance.

I admire the idea, but the mechanics would be a disaster.

[Demit]

351. No he wasn't. You're conflating the details in that story. Read it again.

And they are not enforcing the compulsory vote in Australia at the point of a gun.

Even in the U.S. (if you're trying to make a point about police overreach) the law that you have to pay your income tax is not enforced at the point of a gun.

Sure, like income tax, there would be noncompliance. There'd be a lot of compliance, too, just like income tax. Other countries have marveled at the high rate of voluntary compliance we have here for paying our taxes.

The mechanics, like any new process—like the ACA!—would have to be worked out, and would have hiccups, then eventually run smooth. It would become just the way we do things.

[liberal N proud]

18. It should at least be compulsory

Everyone should feel compelled to vote.

Voting should also be a two day event of a national holiday!

[former9thward]

20. If he does he knows it will not be taken seriously.

It would violate the First Amendment. Not voting is a form of speech and free expression.

[jeff47]

239. You can accomplish that by turning in a blank ballot. (nt)

[former9thward]

243. There are very few things our government can compel a citizen to do.

Voting is not one of them. There is nothing in our Constitution that would give power to the government to compel voting. Not only that, it would cost Democrats the youth vote for at least a generation as they don't want anyone telling them they have to do something they don't want to do.

[jeff47]

246. Yes, it would be terrible if the youth who were already not voting continued to not vote.

There is nothing in our Constitution that would give power to the government to compel voting.

Except for that whole "Congress can pass laws" part.

There's nothing in our Constitution that explicitly allows the government to create speed limits. Feel free to use that argument if you get a ticket. It won't go very far.

[former9thward]

252. You are wrong.

Speed limits are set by states and localities. They are governed by state constitutions which give them police powers --- not the federal constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says "Congress can pass laws" . Article I, Section 8 spells out exactly what laws Congress can pass. There is nothing in that section about voting.

[jeff47]

253. First, supremacy clause. Second, nationwide 55-mph limit until recently.

First, just because it's a state or local government does not mean they get to ignore the federal constitution.

Second, until relatively recently we had a nationwide 55-mph speed limit, enforced by withholding highway funding.

There is nothing in that section about voting.

There's nothing in that section about an FCC either. Or SEC. Or NASA. Or a standing military.

[former9thward]

259. Wrong again.

You seem to like to throw out slogans and phrases without any meaning to them. Who said someone was ignoring the federal constitution? You are the one ignoring it because it has nothing in it that supports you.


The 55 limit was not a federal law. States were enticed into passing state laws of 55 or else they would lose federal highway funding. If a state did not want the funding it could keep its limit at anything they wanted.

[jeff47]

260. And that 55-mph enticement was in the form of.....

A federal law!! TA-DA!!!

So with your reading of the Constitution, explain how the FCC, NASA, SEC, and a standing military are legal.

[former9thward]

261. TA-DA!!!

You really love slogans. You should run for Congress. I'm sure you will get a lot of really cool laws passed by shouting them. The federal law did not set any speed limits. It did what I said. No state was required to do anything. Because the Constitution does not allow it.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have a standing army. Art. I, Section 8 ((12)(13) and (14) specifically allows it. The only thing the Constitution says is that funding for our military can not be longer than two years. And we don't do that. We do annual budgets for the military. Art I, Section 8 (1) allows Congress to fund departments and Art. II, Section 2 (2) allows the president to set them up. The Constitution does not spell out by name any department.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read this document...

[jeff47]

263. Did you think people would not notice you switched from "doesn't say they can" to

"doesn't say they can't"?

Your claim was mandatory voting is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not say they can do that.
Now, your claim is a standing military is legal because the Constitution does not say they can not do that.

Did you expect everyone to just skip over you utterly abandoning your previous argument?

Did you expect the crack about "running for Congress" would make people forget you left out the other agencies mentioned in that post?

And did you think agreeing with what I said about the 55-mph speed limit would somehow indicate you were right?

[former9thward]

272. Read the Constitution.

Though you won't because it will hurt your arguments. The Constitution authorizes a military. Just as it authorizes a post office. It does not say we have to have either. And we didn't have a permanent army of any size until the Mexican War. I did not leave the other agencies off. Reread the post. Do you think people won't notice you have not put a single fact in ANY of your posts backing you up?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

247. Or no ballot.

[jeff47]

249. Same message, but one satisfies the "compulsory voting" rule. (nt)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

257. I'd like a referendum --

PROPOSED

Shall those passing compulsory participation laws be taken to the town square, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail?

What do you think the odds of passage are?

[jeff47]

258. Zero. Your point?

Besides a childlike view of the benefits of anarchy?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

262. Oh. I dunno. I think the people might actually pass such a referendum.

Your point?

Mostly, it'd be fun to watch as those who demand compulsory-anything suddenly gain the dawning realization that they aren't as clever as they once thought they were.

It's weird and ironic that those with control issues seem so unable to control themselves when they are neither needed nor wanted.

[jeff47]

264. Yeah, a torturous death is so much fun!!

It's weird and ironic that those with control issues seem so unable to control themselves when they are neither needed nor wanted.

Wanted by you.

You are not everyone. You are one person living within a society. That society provides you many benefits, and in return requires you to pay certain costs. You can't light people you disagree with on fire for your personal amusement. In return, we don't let others enact their torture fantasies on you.

Mandatory voting would be just another cost.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

265. "Wanted by you."

If people wanted what you're proposing are we discussing compulsory laws?

Mandatory voting would be just another cost.

Yeah, but those with control issues -- who ironically cannot control themselves -- will keep pushing the platitude of "just another cost." Then it'll be another and another and another. I wonder what the MIC thinks we owe it for its beneficence and grace? Or the corporatists? Or the moralists?

Man, I owe so many people; I should just do whatever they say because they know what's best for me better than I ever will!

Or maybe they're just arrogant a-holes who can't keep to themselves.

Yeah, a torturous death is so much fun!!

It's weird that you would demand compulsory participation in government (under the misnomer of "democracy&quot but would then complain about an unforeseen result.

No. Wait. No, it's not. That's exactly the point I was making with my referendum joke.

[jeff47]

266. Yes, you do owe so many people.

The fact you want to trivialize that with your libertarian fantasies does not change that you rely on the society around you to survive.

Yeah, but those with control issues -- who ironically cannot control themselves -- will keep pushing the platitude of "just another cost." Then it'll be another and another and another.

That's why our society is (more-or-less) democratic. Everyone gets to have a say in the debate about those costs and benefits.

It's weird that you would demand compulsory participation in government (under the misnomer of "democracy&quot but would then complain about an unforeseen result.

No, it's weird that you think everyone is so dumb that your "result" is unforeseen. The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" ring a bell?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

275. "Everyone gets to have a say in the debate about those costs and benefits."

Unless they're compelled by threat of force.

The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" ring a bell?

Fine.

Hanging works too.

Yes, you do owe so many people. The fact you want to trivialize that with your libertarian fantasies does not change that you rely on the society around you to survive.

Now who is peddling childish misunderstandings about anarchism? You have this wildly inaccurate belief that anarchists can't organize for community projects.

I do not owe the MIC, the corporatists and the moralists. Maybe you do and that is why you feel the need to lobby on behalf of the control freaks of the world, but I don't.

If someone sticks something in my life without my asking for it I presume it is a gift without obligation. If the uncontrolled busybodies of the world feel so gosh-darned poopy about my ingratitude they're free to mind their own business and keep to themselves. But I have a sneaking suspicion they won't.

I'm reminded of a story --

About a year ago some company sent my brother -- who is a restaurant manager -- a case of urinal cakes. Yes, really, urinal cakes. He never solicited the product. He never agreed to accept the product. Yet, they tried to bill his restaurant over $200 AND make it part of a subscription service. He never paid. They threatened legal action. He still didn't pay. He ended up keeping the case of urinal cakes.

You may think you make crap smell better but I don't owe you or anybody else so much as one, thin dime for it.

[jeff47]

276. And now we move on to the strawman round.

Now who is peddling childish misunderstandings about anarchism? You have this wildly inaccurate belief that anarchists can't organize for community projects.

I never said they couldn't. In fact, anarchy was the state humans started with. We changed that when we quickly discovered that anarchy was not very stable.

I do not owe the MIC, the corporatists and the moralists.

You don't owe the moralists.

The MIC means you don't have to worry about an invasion. And they've been so effective that the idea of an invasion seems insane. You pay that with taxes.

You owe the corporatists at the moment for the food you eat, the clothes you wear and the host of other goods and services you use. And most likely the job you have. You pay that back with money used to purchase those goods and services.

If someone sticks something in my life without my asking for it I presume it is a gift without obligation.

When did you file your request for speed limits?

If the uncontrolled busybodies of the world feel so gosh-darned poopy about my ingratitude they're free to mind their own business and keep to themselves.

And they have the right to withdraw all the things they provide to you.

About a year ago some company sent my brother -- who is a restaurant manager -- a case of urinal cakes. Yes, really, urinal cakes. He never solicited the product. He never agreed to accept the product. Yet, they tried to bill his restaurant over $200 AND make it part of a subscription service. He never paid. They threatened legal action. He still didn't pay. He ended up keeping the case of urinal cakes.

Now imagine if instead they showed up with guns, shot your brother, and looted everything in the restaurant. They didn't because of the protections society gave your brother - society would hunt them down and imprison or kill them for those actions. So the urinal cake company didn't do that.

You may think you make crap smell better but I don't owe you or anybody else so much as one, thin dime for it.

You do, if you want to reap the benefits of the society in which you live. If you don't want to pay, you are free to leave. Enjoy growing your own food while fighting off others who seek to steal it or enslave you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

289. "You owe the corporatists at the moment for the food you eat blah blah blah"

Paid for at the point of purchase. Once the agreed upon compensation has been paid for my obligation ends. They cannot entitle me to participate in compulsory government. They cannot obligate me to purchase what I refuse to accept.

And they have the right to withdraw all the things they provide to you.

Please.

Pretty please.

Pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top

And tell the m***** f****** to take this with them --

Now imagine if instead they showed up with guns, shot your brother, and looted everything in the restaurant. They didn't because of the protections society gave your brother - society would hunt them down and imprison or kill them for those actions. So the urinal cake company didn't do that.

Actually, the thugs you're referring to are pictured above. They kick in doors, kill people with impunity and steal everything those people have worked their entire lives to build.

Garner was choked over taxes on a cigarette sold for fifty cents. Why are the taxes on a fifty cent cigarette worth killing a man?

Because the controlling busybodies sat we need it for our own good to make our lives better or something.

The System, LLC doesn't care about anyone. It protects only itself.

What will this authoritarian mafia-with-a-badge thug empire of yours do when it tells me I have to turn in a ballot but all they get in return is a one-fingered salute? How many people are you willing to see choked to death for the good of society?

You do, if you want to reap the benefits of the society in which you live. If you don't want to pay, you are free to leave. Enjoy growing your own food while fighting off others who seek to steal it or enslave you.

Aren't you also one of the regular anti-RKBA controller types?

[spinbaby]

21. Great idea!

Republicans would protest by not voting.

[MynameisBlarney]

22. Fuck yes.

And keep the polls open for at least a week.

[Jamaal510]

24. I like the idea,

and it makes sense to do something like that considering how it is mandatory to fill out the Census every 10 years. Not only that, but it might spur people to get better-informed about the issues and to not take for granted what people died for in the past. I hope they'll ditch the ID laws and other restrictions before they make mandatory voting a thing here, though. With the idea of mandatory voting, there's also going to be a glaring political risk; the GOP and friends would probably oppose it (for obvious reasons), and then paint it as another attack on "freedom". Another move that might result in higher turnout (albeit not as high as with mandatory voting) and is less politically-risky would be to set aside a holiday or two dedicated to voting.

[allinthegame]

30. you do remember

all those hip folks in Williamsburg who said they would only fill out the census for money.
Translate that to how well informed they will be at their polling place …

[AtomicKitten]

25. I think Oregon is on to something with automatic voter registration.

And, of course, their voting by mail. I think I prefer a hard copy with that as opposed to online voting. Not a fan of the idea of mandatory voting. Just make it easy and convenient for those inclined.

[CTyankee]

51. that is a good idea. I do think also that there could be more incentives to vote.

I would increase outreach to all voters with door to door neighborhood canvassing and getting local businesses to reward those who voted with free stuff. I know the parties do lots of that now and I've done my share of GOTV calls on election day and offered free rides to the polls. Perhaps there could also be a special tax refund to voting people by issuing a number that voters could only get from poll officials but make it easy to get.

[AtomicKitten]

138. I like the idea of some sort of reward.

Discount coupons, lottery tickets, or as you mentioned some sort of tax credit/refund.

you:

me:

[CTyankee]

205. glad you appreciate it. I was kinda speculating...

Another no brainer is to include LOTS more info about voting to kids in school curricula, to prepare them for when they can vote and stir enthusiasm and patriotism. The League of Women Voters might already assist in this effort in schools locally, but IDK...

[Man from Pickens]

152. I've got an idea

effective representation is an excellent incentive to vote - why don't we try that one

[AtomicKitten]

156. funny

and true

[jeff47]

241. Don't bother with local businesses for free stuff. Just send people cash. (nt)

[CTyankee]

273. I thought about that but had some concerns that a system of cash payments could be hijacked by one

party and further complicate an already corrupt system. If it were done through the tax system where folks could get an extra refund from the IRS there would be some built in safeguards. It would be like a bonus that you get at work. Have the bonus advertised for first time voters letting 18 year olds know that when they register they will get the bonus in the next election. Advertise it heavily for this age group. Who wouldn't want a bonus when you are a kid starting out? It would also get them in the habit of voting and they'd be less likely to skip it.

[Ineeda]

279. You might be surprised at the length people will go (lefties and righties, both)

if they're getting something free or discounted. It doesn't matter what the 'something' is. For example, when a new Dairy Queen opened nearby, they offered a small vanilla cone for $1. The lines were so long and traffic was so backed-up that a couple of police officers were needed to maintain order. Though your post may be sarcastic (hard to tell with you) there could be some merit in incentivizing. And though you seem to be quite argumentative, don't bother with me because I'm opting out of your shenanigans.

[jeff47]

282. (insert argumentative shenanigan here)

I'm saying cash would provide the same incentive and be simpler - you wouldn't have to negotiate with local businesses, and you wouldn't have to wade into the political morass of their business practices.

"You're handing out McDonalds coupons?! They pay too little and their food is evil!". "You're handing out coupons to the vegan store? But they're communists!! And I want meat!!". "You're only using their coupons because they gave money to your campaign!". And so on.

[Botany]

26. Right Wing Heads to 'xplode in 3 .... 2 ..... 1

[vt_native]

27. A mandatory vote

For a Bush or a Clinton is not much of a choice.

[allinthegame]

28. I prefer

that people who vote WANT to do it. Regardless of current outcomes those who care, vote. Those who don't care enough make me not want them in a voting booth.

[TBF]

29. Can it be done via executive order -

because the Repugs are NOT going to like this.

[GGJohn]

102. No, it can't.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment and the next incoming President can rescind an EO.

[TBF]

171. I don't know if I'm 100% of mandatory anything -

but would love to see voting on the weekend, via cell phones, or actual federal holiday declared (at very least) so more have a chance to vote.

At this point in time if we are doing constitutional amendments then I am still waiting for the one (ERA) that establishes equal rights for women. The party that can accomplish that feat will have my vote forever.

[bread_and_roses]

31. How democratic. Not.

All I could think when I saw the header was how that would sing to the authoritarian soul.

Voting is a RIGHT. A right that people have the right to decline to exercise. Just as with speech - I may have the RIGHT to speak to something but CHOOSE not to exercise that right at some times.

Authoritarians always think that compulsion and punishment are the answer to everything.

Give people someone and something to vote for. Show us a government that - by multiple measures and applicable to both parties - gives a hoot what most of us want instead of completely ignoring it. Maybe then more people will go out to vote. As well, as course, as eliminating obstacles and making it as easy as possible.

And yes, I know about Australia and no, I don't care. Nor do I intend to bother to argue the point. I will instead exercise my RIGHT to choose not to speak.

[cstanleytech]

45. Actually his opinion is based solidly in our Constitution.

That being his first amendment rights to have an opinion, thats not to say his opinion will ever become law though.

[christx30]

350. Of course the President has a right to his opinion.

No one is disputing that fact. But he doesn't have the right to impose his opinion on society. That's everyone's point of contention.

My opinion is that everyone should change their underwear 4 times a day, and they should wear it on the outside of their pants, so we can check. I don't have the right to force that opinion on anyone. I can state my opinion for all the world to hear. But everyone can reject what I have to say.

Voting is a great, wonderful thing. I think everyone should do it. But not everyone wants to. If you force people, you not going to get the results you want. We don't have candidates that we believe in. We're tired of voting for the lessor of two evils. We have no way of choosing which candidates are nominated. I'm in Texas, with the electoral college, my vote for a Dem is meaningless. The last time Texas went blue was 1976.

[cstanleytech]

356. What imposing? He expressed an opinion he didnt say you or anyone else has to agree with it.

[christx30]

357. But he's talking about making it mandatory.

You vote, or you get fined. You pay the fine, or you get jailed.
I'm perfectly fine with him expressing his opinions. When they start writing legislation to make his or anyone else's opinions the law of the land, I get nervous.

[cstanleytech]

358. OMG you are right, we are all doomed because someone is talking about something that

will probably never happen!!!!!

[hugo_from_TN]

305. Voting is not a right, constitutionally speaking

[harun]

320. I don't have a right not to file my taxes either.

There are good arguments against mandatory voting, rights isn't one of them.

[bread_and_roses]

338. Who said anything about the constitution? I'm a woman

I'm a woman - I'm pretty well aware of our history regarding what is commonly called the RIGHT to vote.

[ut oh]

32. YES PLEASE!!!!

And make it over several days (including at least one weekend) to allow people to schedule time to do it.

[world wide wally]

34. Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!

[Warren DeMontague]

38. "gave support to the idea" is not "wants to propose"

"I think a warp drive would be neat"

BREAKING: PRESIDENT TO BEGIN WORK ON WARP DRIVE

[MADem]

164. Bingo--you've parsed his actual POV skillfully and accurately, and succinctly too!!!! nt

[C_U_L8R]

39. Wingnuts are freaking out

Facebook and Twitter are slimed with right wing hate spittle. They just can't face it that when people vote... They lose.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Of course they're freaking out.

It's an idea that is never going to happen, like taking their guns away, so it has them wetting their underoos.

[Chathamization]

53. I'm sure you could post "Wingnuts are freaking out" with any news item and it'd be correct

[jtuck004]

42. See, cultural exchange with North Korea is bringing advances. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

43. How about we just start with universal vote by mail?

It works pretty well for turnout in Oregon.

[cstanleytech]

48. I said the same thing at the same time up thread

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Indeed.

It works great. AND it provides that all important paper ballot record.

[cyberswede]

46. WaPo: A Case for a Compulsory Voting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-a-case-for-compulsory-voting/2014/11/04/9b486afe-6463-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

Compulsory voting would reduce the cost of elections. Candidates, parties and outside groups would no longer have to devote resources to turning out voters — the requirement would do it for them. You might think that this would simply have the perverse effect of freeing up money to spend on ever more television advertising. Maybe, but there is only so much airtime, and only so much marginal return on advertising investment.

Interesting piece.

[DeSwiss]

47. How ''democratic and freedom-loving'' of him to think of this.

- He loves his form of government so much, that he wants to cram it down everyone's throats.

Of course. How else could it have ended but with demands that we show them that we like getting kicked in the ass through mandatory voting......

[cstanleytech]

52. Its honestly very freedom loving if you think about it.

After all how much more do you have to love the freedom of speech than to be able to express an opinion even though you know there it little if any chance it will be passed?

[liberal_at_heart]

293. as much as some don't like it, not voting is freedom of speech. Just because you don't like it

doesn't mean you get to take that freedom away. I find it very bizarre how liberals and conservatives agree on one subject. That they know what's best for everybody and that they should have the right to force everybody to do what they think is best.

[cstanleytech]

310. I am not disagreeing with you but on the other hand something does need to be done

because the voter turnout in this country sucks ass which goes to the heart of the comment Obama made which is all it is, a comment or that is unless he was to ask congress to pass such a law which i doubt he would do.

[liberal_at_heart]

314. More voters would turn out if we did something about the corruption in the system.

We need publicly funded elections, and we need regulations on lobbying and on what kind of compensation politicians get when they leave office.

[LiberalElite]

50. I've been saying this for years nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. The repubs won't like this...

If everyone of voting age HAS to vote, they'll never win another national election.

[Vots]

58. This is ridiculous

Oh wow, so many reasons to hate this...

Just forcing people to vote gives me a shiver. I don't like it.

[namastea42]

70. having the Kochs buy elections is even more shivery.

Freedoms this freedoms that, everyone wants their freedoms and think they have it by being free to be irresponsible for civic duty.

[JaneyVee]

74. TYRANNY! IMPEACH! OBAMA IS FORCING DEMOCRACY UPON US!

[Vots]

134. ...

Yeah ok, sensationalize my comment. But if this ever becomes part of the platform, I'm out.

If we start forcing people to vote, we're going to be getting more bad laws passed than good. This isn't Australia. This is America where there are huge special interests on all sides and that will never change short of revolution.

Forcing the American people to vote in ignorance is one of the most terrible concepts I've heard.

[jeff47]

242. Australia has "huge special interest on all sides" too. (nt)

[Vots]

302. ...

Just because Australia does it doesn't mean it's right for the U.S. I don't live in Australia and I've never been to Australia. If it works for them great, correlation does not equal causation. If the argument is, Australia does it, then that's not good enough.

This country's problem is not too few ignorant people voting.

[freshwest]

161. PERFECT!!!!

[Yo_Mama]

59. It would give money more influence, not less.

Many people who are only voting to avoid a fine are not interested in politics, and it is the mentally non-participating voter who is most likely to be influenced by advertising, slogans, etc. Every advertising dollar would bring more potential votes.

Entirely a bad idea, IMO.

[enough]

63. I've voted in every state, local, and presidential election since 1960.

Still, I think it's the right of the individual to decide whether s/he will participate in elections. The state should not have that kind of control over individuals.

[tiptonic]

66. Government Funded

100% government funded election. With free air time on tv and real debates.

[BlueJazz]

67. According to Fox News: "Australians who fail to vote or Australians who are not able to vote due...

...to illness are subject to extreme punishment and prison. Many non-voters have never been seen again"

[marlakay]

84. Total lie

According to my friend who lives in Sydney, small fine the first time and just adds up each time you don't vote.

[BlueJazz]

98. I was lying about Fox News. Every month or two I make up something about Fox News...

...that's totally ridiculous.

[marlakay]

108. Lol. With them it is easy to believe! Nt

[gollygee]

175. Not true

They have a fairly small fine. Complain about the fine if you want, but they don't go to prison.

[BlueJazz]

193. Look at post number 98

[gollygee]

196. Ah

LOL - my thought was that it sounded like something on Fox.

[barbtries]

68. i was just thinking about that the other day!

but you know the republicans would probably throw another civil war before they would allow that. they hate democracy.

[jberryhill]

71. Make it a tax credit

A refundable one

[LynneSin]

72. I hope Faux News and GOP will treat this the same way they treated Vaccinations...

[rock]

75. I am against this concept

Forcing people who have no interest in politics means we would dump a bunch of un-informed voters into the system. This is equivalent to rolling dice. This is not a good idea.

[chillfactor]

78. sorry but I differ...

I think it is a GREAT idea!

[rock]

82. So you like the idea of a watered-down voting pool, eh?

Why's that?

[840high]

326. I totally agree with you.

[NickB79]

76. Make voting a $100 million lottery event, and you get your ticket after you vote

VIOLA! You'll have millions of new voters flocking to the polling booths, salivating at their miniscule chance to win it big.

Hell, California has even given it serious thought: http://time.com/money/3117303/vote-lottery-cash-prizes/

In Los Angeles, a government ethics commission approved a measure recommending that cash prizes of up to $50,000 be used to boost voter turnout.

[seveneyes]

77. Not something you want to advertise

Sure, a weekend with the one you love, and all it may entail, is not something you want to share with the world.

The same with mandatory anything. You just keep it to your fucking self. Hello?

[stage left]

79. my husband and I were talking about this very thing today!

I was bemoaning all the people who think their vote doesn't matter. I said Australia has mandatory voting and we should have it. He said they would have to make it easier for people to vote, especially by mail.

[El Supremo]

80. Just cut of all the millionaire's "free speech" contributions.

That is the most detrimental aspect of our whole political system. My state has restricted it for state elections. Why hasn't it become law in federal elections? And PACs too.

[markpkessinger]

81. Great idea. But the problem is . . .

. . . there is ZERO chance it will pass the House given that body's current composition (and the President knows this full well). The President's window of opportunity for getting bold initiatives, how ever good and needed they might be in principle, has closed. If he were ever serious about such a proposal, he would have made it back when there might have been a chance in hell of passing it. To bring it up now is, in my view, naught but irritating hot air.

[hughee99]

157. The legislation isn't workable anyway. There's no bill they could write that would be feasible to

enforce.

Currently each state sets it's own eligibility (like convicted felons, for example). If convicted felons in one state are allowed to vote, and those in other states aren't, you'll have an equal protection issue. The only way to really fix this is for the federal government to take charge of this, and you'll get a fight from either (or both) red and blue states depending on the standard set, and they'll win in the courts because the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do it...

Beyond that, to do it properly, you'd have to account for each and every person in the US and determine whether they're eligible to vote or not, which is going to create a nightmare for whatever federal agency is in charge of doing it (the census already has a hard time, and they're just counting people), not to mention an issue for ICE (what do you do when you come across someone who isn't even supposed to be in the US). You'd probably have to register EVERYONE eligible to vote, and perhaps issue some sort of voter ID and database (and we already know how that will go).

And then, of course, there's the issue of forcing individuals to vote, creating some sort of penalty (if it's financial, which is likely, it will be called a "non-Poll Tax" or something like that), and you'd need an agency to enforce it (if you could even get the SC to agree that the federal government can force people to exercise a right, which they likely won't)

The policy would be very expensive, largely unenforceable, logistically unfeasible, likely unconstitutional, and if they even tried to write a law for it, it would be about 5 seconds after rumors of what the law would be before the first person says "Papers please" and compares the effort to Nazi Germany, which would make it politically unpopular among large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats.

This policy has crater sized constitutional potholes all over it any any one of them would derail it.

[markpkessinger]

355. Indeed -- which is why I find it exceedingly annoying for the President even to bring it up n/t

[craigmatic]

85. I agree with POTUS voting should be mandatory and a holiday.

[maindawg]

174. I agree with you

there should be a holiday,November 7th a national holiday. As a tax paying adult, your vote should be required.
1 . When you get your registration you check the box that says you voted, your registration costs 20 less.
2. When you file your taxes, you get a credit if you check the box that says you voted
3. send every taxpayer a voting form in the mail so that option is available to everyone.
4.If you lie, you get caught lying and you are issued a fine. If you ignore that you loose your DL
5.Finally , we make it a holiday and push that mem hard.Schools would teach it, colleges would celebrate it
A day off with pay would be a huge benefit to our general moral.

[noamnety]

86. One year I volunteered to help at the polls as a watcher

but I ended up not following through because I came down with a huge fever that day. Not something that was worth paying for a doctor's visit to me, I can handle 102 for a day or two and see if it passes. But possibly contagious, probably not all that safe to drive.

Not sure how I would have handled it if it had been mandatory to be at the polls that day. Go in and infect everyone, like food workers that have to report or take an unpaid sick day or risk other penalties? Or go into debt with a doctor's bill to get a note saying I'm sick?

[MrModerate]

87. I live in Australia at present . . .

And I can tell you that my Aussie friends and colleagues do not resent the requirement to vote. They may grumble a bit, but mostly they're happy to accept it as a responsibility.

And their turnout is quite high. (I'm at work now, so I'll leave googling the stats to others.)

There are penalties for not voting, but they are seldom applied. Mostly it's just that Australia has embedded the practice in their society — voting is something "responsible people do."

And it works kinda-OK keeping big money out of politics. Which is a good thing, because there are so few people in Australia (a bit more than 23 million IIRC), that it wouldn't be too expensive to buy elections — and the "big end of town" (major industries like banking and resources) sometimes tries.

In a discouraging sign, however, Australian pollies are now beginning to hire out-of-work electoral consultants from the US, and the face of Australian elections may be changing.

The pre-election period for a national election is still only 6 weeks though, which helps keep things real.

[shaayecanaan]

172. Bullshit, I got fined

I didn't vote in a byelection and got fined $75.00 for my trouble.

The shit thing is that there was only one candidate in the byelection, so I thought that they would allow some leeway. The lady who phoned me said, yeah, you werent the only one. They must have raked in the fines that day.

[MrModerate]

308. I said seldom, not never.

I know several people who have failed to vote at one time or the other (and yes, they got razzed by their peers) without any fine ever catching up with them.

[shaayecanaan]

319. That's crap

The AEC's policy manual says that they will generally give some leeway once (ie they will buy any bullshit excuse). After that one time they will generally seek a fine unless you have a doctors note or some genuine excuse for not voting.

Occasionally some people make a show of not paying their fine and the coppers put them in the watch house for a hour or two just for form's sake.

I don't know why anyone would get "razzed by their peers" for not voting in Australia, most Australians don't really give a shit and tend to hold both sides of politics in almost equal contempt.

[MrModerate]

337. Maybe it's the circles we travel in . . .

My evidence is purely based on observation: colleagues who have mentioned that they missed voting but were never fined. And observing their colleagues who did/do vote criticizing them (i.e, "razzing&quot for not having fulfilled their civic obligation.

And yes, everyone's cynical about politicians, as they should be. But the majority give a shit, at least the ones I know.

[arcane1]

94. Free transportation for every voter sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Especially since different people would vote at different times.

[daleanime]

89. K&R.....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Now watch an idiot Republican claim NOT voting is a "freedom" issue....

A tactic not really thought trough as their idiot Base says, "Eyyupp! I should have the FREEDOM to not vote!!! You're trying to take away my FREEDOM to stay home!!!"

[subterranean]

93. Some people in this thread have already made that claim. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

333. There's precedent. They did it with SUVs.

[arcane1]

96. Maybe if we push the issue, they'll be compelled to "exercise" that right to not vote.

[Frank Cannon]

220. I wish Obama would declare it illegal to drink Drano.

I guarantee there would be people chug-a-lugging it in protest.

[Ineeda]

281. LOL -- with a little touch of guilt. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

332. I know....

"Pleeeeze don't throw me into that briar patch!"

[christx30]

222. My wife has absolutely no interest in voting.

She does not follow politics. Hates anything having to do with Washington DC. Has never voted for anything ever. She keeps making jokes about voting for Ted Cruz if she had to vote.
Would you really want someone like that voting?
I know I would vote against any politician that made it mandatory. There are too many damned laws. Too many things are mandatory. Too many ways we can all be taxed or jailed or fined or put on probation. We don't need more.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

331. I can picture a few "Bozo For Prez" ballots at first but after a while people would get serious.

[christx30]

342. This country has been around for

200+ years. You can't force people to care. If the parties won't give viable candidates, why should anyone give a crap? I know I can't pick the candidates or have any say whatsoever in who is nominated. If it's someone like Obama, I'll go out to the polls again. If it's Hilary this time, I probably won't. I don't like her at all as a politician.
There are people that won't vote for the lessor of two evils.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

347. Politics here is treated like a sport....

For some people, that's ALL it is too.

They busy themselves all year long with other things and then every four years they go "Rah! Rah! Rah!" for their team and then go back to those other things.

[hughee99]

92. It will never happen.

The logistics are a nightmare. We're not in Australia.

[liberal_at_heart]

100. how about universal health care Obama? You never once even brought that to the bargaining table

but now you want universal voting? And no, mandatory voting would not counteract money. Money is what buys the commercials that tells people who to vote for and the American people are sheep when it comes to tv telling them what to do. They love to have the tv tell them what to do. It means they don't have to do any research about a candidate's voting record. It means they don't have to think, just like it already is today. I just bet the the two party system would love mandatory voting. They have billions to throw at the tv to tell people who to vote for. Just how is that supposed to change what we already have? Maybe this is the two party system's way of squashing any chance a third party might have in the future because after all why do so many people not vote? Because they know both parties are bought by rich people and big business. They know that the two parties support millionaires, not the average worker. No, President Obama if you want to counteract money in politics then make elections publicly funded. That is how you counteract money in politics.

[Doctor_J]

124. it hasn't got a prayer of passing

Empty rhetoric from the dc dems

[lovemydog]

104. 'If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings.'

Yes, people said that around the time of the invention of the airplane. A people and its government can do a lot of things if it wants to do so.

I welcome this discussion. At the very least, it's planting a seed in people's minds. One-third of eligible voters voted in the last Congressional election. That's atrocious. What does it cause? It causes authoritarian control as evidenced by the tea party and right wing controlled Congress.

Am I in favor of compulsory voting in the United States? I don't know. I'm leaning toward a yes. And I am not in favor of a military draft.

It's certainly worthy of discussion. Do I think we've reached a crisis point, where our ideals of expanding rights and congressional houses that represent average people is looking more and more bleak? Yes I do.

We're losing our hard fought rights, due to big money in politics, cynicism and ignorance about voting (some of which is in evidence here on this thread and throughout this message board), and new laws springing up nationwide that are actually making it harder rather than easier for people to vote.

It's not enough to criticize a President or a Presidential candidate or non-candidate. What are we doing to actually improve this country? In my opinion it's not even enough to just vote. That's the least one does as a citizen.

I applaud President Obama for opening up this discussion.

[Gore1FL]

105. My fear is a boom in low information voters. n/t

[cstanleytech]

107. We already have that though, how do you think the Republicans gained control

of the senate and retained control over the house?

[Gore1FL]

112. gerrymandering

Dem voters vastly outnumbered republican voters nationwide.

[cstanleytech]

113. Oh that helped no doubt but those gerrymandered districts that they won

in had a hell of alot of people who were uninformed or atleast only getting their information from very limited and or biased sources like Fox News which is the main PR firm for the Republicans and thats why they ended up buying the Republicans BS hook line and sinker.

[Fred Sanders]

197. It is already an epidemic....no further harm could be done.

[PoliticAverse]

110. Only if 'none of the above' is also on all ballots. n/t

[Jenoch]

111. I don't have a solution to the problem

of money and elections.

I am against mandatory voting however. There too many uninformed people out there.

This may get me flamed, but I think President Obama is hypocritical when criticizing big spending on elections. He was the first presidential candidate to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a presidential campaign.

[samsingh]

114. that would destroy the repug party - so i'm for it

[fishwax]

115. the story doesn't seem to support the headline

Saying it would be different if everyone voted is hardly floating the idea of making voting mandatory

[Nye Bevan]

118. Mandatory voting = a bunch of ill-informed people picking a candidate for the shallowest of reasons

such as their looks or their great head of hair.

[Art_from_Ark]

162. In other words,

it wouldn't be too much different from the way it is now.

[jeff47]

244. You mean exactly what we already have? (nt)

[Travelman]

119. Worst. Idea. Ever.

My choice to withhold a vote is exactly as valid as my choice to cast a vote. Telling me I don't have the choice to not vote is at least as bad as telling me that I don't have the choice to vote.

[Demit]

274. You can still 'withhold' your vote, by leaving the ballot blank.

That way you get to make your big statement. Of course it's not as convenient as just staying in your easy chair on Election Day and hoping they interpret that as your big statement, and not just laziness and apathy.

[blkmusclmachine]

120. Won't matter if we let Corporations "count" the votes with no oversight and no verification.

[Diremoon]

121. I agree with this!

It is a person's civic duty to vote. This would send republicans to the asylum, where they belong.

[Jamastiene]

122. Just because he mentioned the concept of it doesn't mean he is planning

on really implementing it, does it?

It is probably a good idea. It certainly sounds reasonable to expect citizens to vote. We live here. We have to live with what decisions our government makes.

[McCamy Taylor]

123. Better idea--give away lotto tickets to voters.

[WinkyDink]

126. Under threat of what penalty? This is one of those "Be careful what you wish for" notions.

[Beartracks]

128. Interesting. Paying taxes isn't just patriotic, it's required. Perhaps same with voting?

America is all about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What's the engine of representative democracy? Voting.

Some could argue mandatory voting goes against "freedom." Does it really? Frankly, people who think military service should be mandatory should at least consider that perhaps voting should be mandatory. Voting, more than military might, keeps democracy safe.

If a politician argues against taxes AND against voting, perhaps s/he really isn't arguing for America at all. It's some other country they're pining for.

Just some idle thoughts. Thanks for the OP!

======================

[harun]

339. Agree. But people should always be able to vote none of the above.

[Kalidurga]

129. That would be great

everyone who complains their vote doesn't count so they don't vote would have to prove their vote doesn't count by voting.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

130. for those who are suggesting this may not be constitutional...

I think, of just about anyone, that President Obama would know enough about the Constitution to know whether it's constitutional or not.

[liberal_at_heart]

131. Thanks for the laugh.

The same President who supports the NSA and punishes whistle blowers. The same President who has made it more difficult to protest than Bush did. Yeah, okay.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. So .... Is he actially proposing legislation on this, and sending it to congress?

Let me know when that happens, eh?

[rhett o rick]

132. I guess this is what a lame duck president can do. Just make up schtuff.

We live in a country that goes way out of it's wat TO NOT ALLOW EVERYONE TO VOTE. The Fracking SCOTUS recently told us that it was un-Fracking-constitutional for the Federal Government to help people get to vote if they want to.

So explain how this will work, Mr. President? You don't even have the power to allow people to vote.

[Man from Pickens]

133. not voting has a purpose

and that purpose is withholding one's consent.

With the hypercorporatist agenda followed by governments at all levels regardless of which individuals or parties happen to hold office, the act of withholding consent can be justified. Why would anyone consent to a system rigged to discard their input because it doesn't come with a large donation to some politician's slush fund?

[eridani]

137. However much I like the idea, I don't think it's going to fly n/t

[LittleBlue]

141. It's antithetical to free expression

I'm completely against it. Mandatory voting clearly violates the constitution.

[raindaddy]

142. Why not ask the question why voter turnout get lower evey election?

With only 36.4 % turnout out for the last election....Let's avoid the embarrassment and make it a forced 100%! The answer is simple, the lack of real representation from either party is becoming so dismal people aren't bothering to show up to vote.

[liberal_at_heart]

143. That would require work on the part of the two party system. Why work when you can just

buy millions of dollars worth of political commercials telling people who to vote for and then force people to vote?

[merrily]

147. There's a two party system?

[liberal_at_heart]

148. good point. Just sayin. I bet both the Republican and Democratic parties would love mandatory voting

Gives them even more power. The one of two things they care about most; power and money.

[raindaddy]

149. Yep, of course they're cool with the current system

Most of them retire millionaires.. Even if they eventually lose an election, they end up becoming a lobbyist, give speeches or sitting on some board. How many current politicians actually inspire you? a handful of Democrats maybe and no Republicans. Might as well fake it. The whole thing is f-ing sad...

[liberal_at_heart]

151. "How many current politicians actually inspire you?" Damn good question.

[merrily]

144. If politicians stopped selling us out, it would change everything.

But, sure, let's blame voters.

[tomp]

165. you got it!

this would be just further entrenching of the two party system, which, if one hadn't noticed, sucks.

but if we're going that way, how about we include a "none of the above" option on all ballots, and that to win the candidate must obtain an absolute majority, not a simple plurality.

[merrily]

330. I exercised that option once, just by writing in someone.

You can also leave one or more slots blank. Means the same thing.The

"None of the above" would have to appear as a choice for every office because there usually are people on the ballot for whom I'd like to vote.

The real trick would be to convince people it's worth it to do whatever it is they must do to get to the polls or to obtain an absentee ballot, only to vote "none of the above." That would require an education campaign and that would cost time and money.

There are no easy solutions, especially for those who want to fight the tide of the entire system as it currently exists.

[Politicalboi]

150. So GOP do just the opposite of Obama

He's telling you to vote. Just stay home and show him who's the boss.

[still_one]

153. won't happen, republicans don't want it

[romanic]

154. I doubt this would work.

Obama and others in Washington should pinpoint the problem that causes low voter turnout instead of forcing everyone to vote under some executive order.

[spanone]

155. genius.

[quakerboy]

158. The ironic thing is that I think manditory voting would end up making money more effecting, not less

Think about it. The people who dont care enough to vote today? If they have to show up, are they really going to do their homework beforehand? Or are they going to be the group most easily swayed by the advertisements that big money can buy?

So this could well end up adding more votes to the R side than the D, if it were to happen.

[MADem]

163. In Australia, though, it's not really compulsory--you just pay a fine if you don't vote.

There are consequences, but like always, money rules. You pay MONEY to avoid having to participate.

Of course, people could--and probably would--vote for Bozo The Clown and a host of other candidates if they were forced to the polls against their will. Enforcement would be an issue, too. People would find a way to protest being required to be a good citizen--because people DO do that sort of thing. Elections could turn into something like that sick joke of a festival in California that installed "Aaaaaaaaah-nuld" in the governor's mansion.

It's an interesting conversation to start, though--I wish people would be more civic-minded. Rather than force people to vote, I think we should just start teaching "Civics" in school again.

[NM_Birder]

208. Same as the ACA, prove insurance requirements, join CA or pay.

HALT CITIZEN ! Present papers for recognition. !

[davidpdx]

166. I don't agree with mandatory registration or a voting holiday

There is no way to force people to vote short of fining them for their lack of participation. As mentioned up thread the automatic registration through the motor vehicles department provides access and a way to opt out. In addition how about some of these states with REAL voting problems go to vote by mail. Then you can vote in your living room and mail it back. Here in Korea they have a voting holiday and it doesn't work well. Most people use the day off to go do something else. Both of the aforementioned ideas have been implemented in Oregon.

[Android3.14]

167. Sounds good

Would have been even better 7 years ago.

What a waste.

[Scuba]

169. The time to do this was 2009. Now he proposes it when there's zero chance it will pass.

[Android3.14]

186. Exactly!

More of the same bullshit to keep us fighting each other rather than the corporate masters.

[Kingofalldems]

176. I see the republicans don't like it. Must be a good idea.

[Vinca]

178. I'm 100% opposed to mandatory voting.

I don't want some numbnuts writing in "Bozo the Clown" because they're too lazy to learn about the candidates, the issues and how it might affect them. Voting is not a joke. And how do we enforce mandatory voting? Do we open another branch of government and install the voting police around the country?

[randome]

184. How about a tax write-off if you can provide proof of your vote?

You vote, a marker is sent to the IRS with no information other than the fact that you voted. Instant tax credit.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vinca]

240. If a guy writes in "Bozo," I doubt he takes the process seriously.No tax credit for being a fool.

[randome]

269. True. But he would still need to show up at a polling station and cast a vote.

And I still think most people who normally don't vote would be inclined to vote for someone on the ballot rather than write something in. There is no fool-proof system, that's for sure.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vinca]

306. I guess I think no vote is better than an uninformed vote.

[Fred Sanders]

195. Voting is a fucking joke when only 33% vote and here we are with a joke of a Congress....

[GliderGuider]

179. So long as there's a NOTA or blank-ballot option I'd be OK with it.

NOTA = "None Of The Above".

[RoccoR5955]

180. You can always vote for nobody...

I have done it in the past, and will do it again, should the candidates running be either unopposed, or not to my liking.
Just leave the box blank!

[randome]

183. I think the point is that most would actually think about and vote for a specific candidate.

There are always loopholes such as you mention but not everyone would opt for that. Overall, mandatory voting would be a good thing, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[rjsquirrel]

181. Brilliant!!!!

When Obama endorses something the crazies lose their shit about it.

I can just see the morans (sic) deciding to boycott voting if the black guy makes them do it.

Problems solved.

[morningfog]

182. The headline overstates Obama's statement.

He said it would be fun to discuss it, that it would take a constitutional amendment and discussed the problems with low voter turnout compared to high turnout.

He's not going to do anything or propose anything related to this.

That said, I don't think mandatory coming is the answer. Instead, voting needs to be encouraged and made so easy that everyone who wants to vote has no impediment whatsoever.

[cascadiance]

188. If Australia is an example, we should also start instant runoff voting here too!

Since they also use that to help ensure that we wouldn't have spoilers as well.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/instant-runoff-voting-in-australia-guest-blog-from-ben-raue/

[B Calm]

189. I think voting is our patriotic duty! If politicians are going to send our young into arms way

in foreign lands, then we should take the time to get involved. Yes voting should be law, but it will never become law. Republicans know suppressing the vote allows them to win elections. The last thing republicans want is big voter turnouts!

[99Forever]

192. Great idea.

Chance of it actually happening?

Zero

Aren't proposals made when they have absolutely no hope of being enacted just the best?

[Dont call me Shirley]

198. Just do it! And before 2016!

[brooklynite]

204. How do you plan to do it?

[Dont call me Shirley]

213. If President Obama wants it, I've got his back. And I'll leave the rest up to the experts.

[greymattermom]

199. It's a great topic of conversation

Obama says you should have to vote! So, what should teaparty folks do????

[B Calm]

202. LOL

[brooklynite]

203. I think this article is stretching the point...

...the headlines suggests that Obama WILL propose this. I think he mentioned it in passing as something useful to civic discourse, but has no intention at all of pursuing it.

[Cha]

206. At least POTUS wants people to get informed and vote.. unlike the gop that wants to make it

impossible for certain people to vote.. if they had their way.

[NM_Birder]

207. "where citizens have no choice..... but to vote" i don't like the way that sentence starts

we are not Australia, but president Obama seems more and more anxious to give as much ammunition as possible to ensure there is a republican president to go along with the republican House and Senate.

why not just bag the whole "freedom" thing, and make everything the government thinks is best "mandatory", after all the ignorant citizens don't know what to do with their own lives anyway. Why not have the government feed us all, clothe us all, provide appropriate entertainment, mandate the family construct, require enlistment and demand obedience.

"Mandatory voting",............... I watched the Rachael Maddow show last night when she had the new Governor of Oregon on. All voting eligible people will be automatically registered to vote thru the DMV, and then the Citizen will have the ability to "opt" out of being registered. I would guess most people nationwide don't like the idea of being automatically registered for anything without permission.

The push to make so much of everyday people lives the mandatory property of the government is all but guaranteeing a republican clean sweep in 2016. i know ......with ONLY 80 weeks to go, Hillary's poll numbers against republicans look good,................ but there are a lot of things being said, that have no chance of becoming reality and EVERY chance of being used to push Democrats out.

[valerief]

211. Wow, then the GOP racists would have to round EVEN MORE non-whites for their prisons. nt

[turbinetree]

215. Jump IN

Where is a senator or a congress person asking for legislation on this matter.
As reported by Maddow last night in Oregon, they require you to vote, by the simple fact of your drivers license, and prior to an election (21 days) you can opt out---its beautiful, and then they also send you a paper ballot in the mail---beautiful , this was proposed by the new governor and she signed it into state law yesterday---beautiful, everyone had the right if you have a drivers license they can't discriminate, on felons, legal immigrants, residents, U.S. Citizens, miltary. donkey:

This would put a big dampener on the right wing republicans, the sucker base, and the millionaires and billionaires, and state legislatures, and governors, on there plan of decimating voting rights in this country, because its all about these right wingers saying its a states right issue, well here is one that is great and the right wing U.S. Supreme court and would basically make them do this
scalia) (Roberts) (alito) kennedy) thomas)

[RedCappedBandit]

216. We wouldn't need mandatory voting if all roadblocks to voting were removed

[Orsino]

217. As long as the onus is on the government to accept and count each ballot.

Rather than the current opt-in with hurdles in place for prospective voters, the government should be charged as perhaps its highest duty with registering our intent. Eliminate the standing of private citizens even to sue to stop my vote, and fund appeals of the disenfranchised all the wY up to the Supremes.

[The2ndWheel]

219. Forcing people to participate

When it gets to that point, is it really worth it?

[randome]

221. Give people a tax incentive for voting. They don't have to take it.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sheepshank]

224. teeny clarification. Voting is mandatory in Aust, a VALID vote is not

so while you must vote, it doesn't mean that you must mark the box or mark all the boxes (thereby invalidating the vote). Still, with a mandatory vote it will definitnley make secret money donorship, feel less the deciding factor for the voting population.

[bowens43]

226. Nothing that Obama proposes is going to happen.

[semanticwikiian]

228. i have been recommending this step for years

for instance see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026260914#post31 where I said this about the recent DNC resolution:

A truly progressive initiative would assert an 'obligation to vote' -- not just a right to vote.
Like Australia, there would be a fine for not voting if one is not excused from voting.
A truly progressive initiative would forbid proprietary voting software in federal elections.

yes this is a 'feel good' resolution, but it's yet another wasted opportunity.
i do love Donna Brazile however this is a mediocre reply to the problem of low voter participation.
A classic half-measure that carefully avoids challenging status quo manipulation and control.

[PatrynXX]

233. now if only our jury pool was better

got one for Federal Court. nobody in my family has gotten one for federal court I'd be lucky to find 100 on DU who've gotten that ugly on.

[Alkene]

251. Perhaps the U.S. Intelligence Community can simply surmise our vote. n/t

[lark]

254. Obama hits the nail on the head, obliquely.

His idea is absolutely perfect, but it will NEVER in 1,000,000 years pass. The Repugs know they'd never win in an even field, so they make sure it's tilted their way by excluding people from voting that don't vote they way they'd like. I doubt there's even 1 Repug that would vote for this, they hate democracy and will only vote for things that advance the corportacrcy and diminish voting participation.

[Richard D]

256. If Obama does this . . .

. . . the republicans would never vote again.

[drm604]

267. I like it, but it will never happen.

[benld74]

278. Instead of a duty,,,,,,,Make it so #1,,,,

[Corey_Baker08]

280. I Say Mandatory Early Voting In Every State...

Mandatory Early Voting That Will Begin On A MINIMUM of 30 days before the election!

[Xyzse]

283. I'd like that.

In fact, I actually want to extend that right to people who have done their time in jail.

Since they are out and served their time, doesn't that mean they should have access to rights that should be shared for all?

[rhett o rick]

285. I suggest we fix gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and vote machine

fraud, first.

[mehrrh]

288. voting should be easy

Weekend voting could be the first step. What about mobile voting buses like mobile libraries? Bringing the polls to the voters.
But mandatory voting will be condemned by the RW. They will never stand for a requirement to vote -- what? the government telling them what to do? They will never stand for any kind of enforcement of such a law -- in fact it couldn't be a law -- the SCOTUS won't allow it (we must be free not to exercise our rights).
If everyone who could vote were allowed to do so, and if it were made a little more convenient, the Republicans couldn't win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

291. Fine. Just as long as it has a "None of the above" box and write in line.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[Arkana]

294. Make elections last a full week and voting compulsory. Register everyone

with a valid birth certificate and set up MASSIVE phone bank operations and mail campaigns to make sure everyone knows where their polling places are.

Republicans would never, ever win another election again. It would be glorious.

[47of74]

298. Not only should it be mandatory in most cases

But it should truly be universal. The only requirement to vote should be that the person should be 18 and over. I think even those in prison should have the right to vote. No matter what they were convicted of. I can see cases where if someone is in a coma or vegetative state where they are physically incapable of voting that they aren't made to vote. Otherwise people should have a duty to vote. And finally make voter suppression punishable by life imprisonment.

[abakan]

300. Since the repubs favorite thing is to rig votes...

I doubt you could get them to go along with this. We would have to wait for control of the house, senate, and white house to get it through and then only if we got rid of the filibuster. They can't get rich if you take away their funding stream.

[moondust]

303. Good!

Some libertarian types won't even use their seatbelts or turn signals because BIG GUBMINT tells them to. Extend that kind of "independent thinking" to mandatory voting and everybody wins!

[Xithras]

304. I saw a proposal several years ago that would cover it.

Basically, it proposed that the federal government fire up a grant program to help counties and election districts modernize and pay election workers. Fund it well enough that states, counties, and cities would be stupid not to opt-in. As a requirement to get the money, each election district would have to provide its voters with an annual statement similar to a W-2, listing the number of elections they voted in. It wouldn't record HOW they voted, just THAT they voted and how many times they did so (my county has two elections per year, for example).

The voter can then use the form to claim a refundable federal tax credit of, say, $100 per election that they participated in.

This model sidesteps all of the Constitutional and free speech issues that normally surrounds the process. The government isn't penalizing anybody for not voting, and the states and counties aren't forced to join in, but applies social and economic pressure to push both local governments and individual citizens to do so. I thought it was a fairly brilliant solution.

[hrmjustin]

313. I don't believe in mandatory voting but I do support automatic voter registration.

[flying-skeleton]

315. Check this out

Republicans would NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER

LET IT HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rladdi]

318. Oregon just passed a bill that registers people to vote when they apply and obtain a

driver license. The individual has 21 days to opt out if they want. At least this bill take registrations from politics. It prevents the Republicans from passing hundreds of voters suppression bills in the GOP controlled states. Also Oregon has mail voting now. every registered person will get a ballot in the mail. HURRAH, finally a fair and non political bill.

[Skittles]

321. I asked an Aussie virtual coworker what he actually thought of this

his response:

I think it is nuts.

I only want people to vote who care enough to take the time to vote and think about it. I do not want swing voters to arrive at the booth with the last negative advert bouncing around their heads driving their choice.

Silly system.

[greytdemocrat]

324. Mandatory---NO.

Make Fed Election Tuesday a holiday---YES.

[840high]

327. ...^ that

[AngryAmish]

329. No. Never.

It is really fucked up to think we have any obligation toward the government. We have certain obligations to fellow citizens - jury duty, dtaft.

But the government serves us


I stand for the little guy who ahould not be pushed around .

[cherokeeprogressive]

335. We don't have "federal" elections. All elections are run at the state and county level.

How then does the federal government compel a citizen to vote?

Election lines are long in high traffic areas as it is. Is the federal government going to compel entities to provide polling places to alleviate the problem of closing polls before all the votes are cast? Talk about unintended consequences... holy moly Annie but there would be a ton of those.

Does anyone here know how difficult it is to convince people to allow their facilities to be used as polling places? Or training facilities for Poll Workers? I don't think we're ever going back to a system of hand-counted paper ballots and only that. So who's going to pay for all the machines it will take to accommodate the voting public? The states, who are in charge of their own elections, or the federal government?

As far as being compelled to vote though... I'd rather pay the fine. I'm not a fan of the government being empowered to compel citizens.

Still, I don't see how the federal government can compel citizens of states to vote, when the states are in charge of certifying their own elections.

[B Calm]

345. Republicans will stay home now since Obama want them to vote.

[fxstc]

352. voter ids would have to happen

do we realize voter id system would be required so they could punish those that don't vote?

[B Calm]

353. We'll reach across the aisle and compromise with that agreement!

[eridani]

359. No, Washington Post, President Obama did NOT "suggest requiring everyone to vote"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/20/1372119/-No-Washington-Post-President-Obama-did-NOT-suggest-requiring-everyone-to-vote

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a piece titled "Obama suggests requiring everyone to vote". It was total clickbait that went nuts on Facebook. Other media outlets followed suit but it was the WashPo piece that went viral. And it's pretty provocative, right? I mean, what sort of dictator would take away your hard-earned patriotic right to not vote? We didn't send men and women to war for that! Here in the greatest nation on earth we have the liberty and freedom to not exercise our franchise and no dictator is going to take that away from us.

I'll bet they got some serious traffic from that headline. Unfortunately, it's a complete misrepresentation of what President Obama actually said. He was, in fact, responding to a reporter's question about limiting the amount of money spent in our elections and the corrosiv

Follow me after the orange squibbledigibbet for what he actually said, taken directly from the official White House transcript of the President's remarks.