There's days I just wonder if Obama could possibly do anything worse, and then you hear about stuff like this

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sugges...good-idea/

 

Let's be clear, compulsory voting isn't a new idea. It's been used before and almost immediately leads to a pure democracy. In a pure democracy there is no minority protection for starters and the uninformed rule the ballot box. Half of the country doesn't even know the names of their state reps and now we want to make voting mandatory!?

 

Hopefully this is just hot air and something mentioned in passing, if Obama is serious or there's a serious movement within government in general to make voting compulsory we're in real big trouble.

---

Wow.

---

I'm outraged

---

I'm outraged

 

I know you're being sarcastic but it is something to take note about. Compulsory voting is the best way to destroy any republic or any form of representative government and I'm pretty sure Obama knows that.

---

I know you're being sarcastic but it is something to take note about. Compulsory voting is the best way to destroy any republic or any form of representative government and I'm pretty sure Obama knows that.

 

It is certainly the most extreme way to increase voter turnout.

 

I like the idea of designating Election Day as a federal holiday. But when you have a political party hellbent on suppressing voter turnout, it will never happen.

---

Don't see a real problem here.


Obama isn't trying to pass a law to make voting mandatory.  He's just saying that it'd be a solution to low voter turnout.

 

I don't think mandatory voting would lead to any more of a 'rule by the uninformed' than we already have.  The fact is that we have Super Pac's now feeding people information, along with pundits.  And pundits and Super Pacsare all most voters listen to.  Most people who vote now are the uninformed.  Money has too much control in politics.  


Even the people who consider themselves 'informed' aren't really informed.  They listen blindly to their party, and go along with whatever they say.  They attack the opposing party for doing the same things their party did, and praise their party for things they attacked the opposing party for.


I'd say more than half the country doesn't know the name of their state reps.  I doubt most people can name them, even after they voted for them.  And do you know why that is?  Because a lot of candidates run unopposed.  That's right.  You have people who are running against nobody.  People ignore what they do most of the time.  That's because they tend to pass a lot of bills (as opposed to the federal government, which passes few by comparison)


I don't think voting should be mandatory, but I don't think it's a democracy killing idea.  I think it's a plutocracy killing idea.  It's not one that would necessarily work however.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Don't see a real problem here.


Obama isn't trying to pass a law to make voting mandatory.  He's just saying that it'd be a solution to low voter turnout.

 

I don't think mandatory voting would lead to any more of a 'rule by the uninformed' than we already have.  The fact is that we have Super Pac's now feeding people information, along with pundits.  And pundits and Super Pacsare all most voters listen to.  Most people who vote now are the uninformed.  Money has too much control in politics.  


Even the people who consider themselves 'informed' aren't really informed.  They listen blindly to their party, and go along with whatever they say.  They attack the opposing party for doing the same things their party did, and praise their party for things they attacked the opposing party for.

I'd say more than half the country doesn't know the name of their state reps.  I doubt most people can name them, even after they voted for them.  And do you know why that is?  Because a lot of candidates run unopposed.  That's right.  You have people who are running against nobody.  People ignore what they do most of the time.  That's because they tend to pass a lot of bills (as opposed to the federal government, which passes few by comparison)


I don't think voting should be mandatory, but I don't think it's a democracy killing idea.  I think it's a plutocracy killing idea.  It's not one that would necessarily work however.

 

No it's not a democracy killing idea, it's a democracy take over and democracies never last. We're a constitutional republic, the day we shift over completely to a democracy the countdown begins. In a democracy the mob rules, if we had compulsory voting you'd never have had the civil rights movements or women voting or heck even a declaration of independence.

 

History is full of examples where a mob rules democracy would've drastically hindered our ability to not only sustain but thrive. The reality is our founding fathers set up a system where the public is represented but not expected to participate in the day to day functions of government, nor was government meant to interact with our day to day functions. What compulsory voting does is take the responsibly uninformed voter and by force of government, making them choose from one of the above. Not voting is just as powerful of a voice as voting, sometimes non-compliance IS the solution, Obama is proposing to eliminate that option.

---

No it's not a democracy killing idea, it's a democracy take over and democracies never last. We're a constitutional republic, the day we shift over completely to a democracy the countdown begins. In a democracy the mob rules, if we had compulsory voting you'd never have had the civil rights movements or women voting or heck even a declaration of independence.

 

History is full of examples where a mob rules democracy would've drastically hindered our ability to not only sustain but thrive. The reality is our founding fathers set up a system where the public is represented but not expected to participate in the day to day functions of government, nor was government meant to interact with our day to day functions. What compulsory voting does is take the responsibly uninformed voter and by force of government, making them choose from one of the above. Not voting is just as powerful of a voice as voting, sometimes non-compliance IS the solution, Obama is proposing to eliminate that option.

 

I don't think mandatory voting would change the fact that we're a republic (representative democracy) though.  I don't see why you do.  It's not as if suddenly people are going to be voting to approve for example Obamacare.


Not Voting isn't as powerful as money.  Our republic is becoming a plutocracy.  And that is a big problem.  


Also would you be more okay with mandatory voting if "None of the Above" was an option?


<obamaism>Let me be clear</obamsim> I don't support the idea of mandatory voting.  I do however feel that voter apathy needs to be cured.  And we need to put an end to voter intimidation.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So we'll end up voting on, not who we want to win, but who who dislike the least.



You MUST choose either Ole Sparky or the 3 Drug Cocktail..

---

How's that fair to people like me who don't participate in politics? I have no dog at all in those fights and I ain't about to either

---

How's that fair to people like me who don't participate in politics? I have no dog at all in those fights and I ain't about to either

Then you start voting for the guy who has the hotter wife, the coolest name for a dog, who listens to the same music as you or watches the same TV program... See how stupid that is? And thats the reason why this idiotic idea would never work. Consider the source of the idiocy.

---

Compulsory voting is silly and not a good thing, not because mob rule but because you end up having people vote for clowns or celebs are w/e just because the must vote. I don't think a none of the above is a good option either.

 

A national holiday for voting day on the other hand might be a better idea. Some people do have a problem getting to the polls to vote. Either that or do mail in ballots like Oregon does. Also we just started automatic voter registration tied with getting a driver's license. Easy Peasy.  

---

Compulsory voting is silly and not a good thing, not because mob rule but because you end up having people vote for clowns or celebs are w/e just because the must vote. I don't think a none of the above is a good option either.

 

A national holiday for voting day on the other hand might be a better idea. Some people do have a problem getting to the polls to vote. Either that or do mail in ballots like Oregon does. Also we just started automatic voter registration tied with getting a driver's license. Easy Peasy.  

 

My wife helps all of her students register to vote if they're going to be 18 before the next election.  (Government is one of the classes she teaches).  I'm not sure if all schools do that though.


A national holiday for voting actually makes sense.  The Federal Government only tends to give 59 minutes so people can go vote.  Other places expect workers to vote during lunch.  


Honestly though the real problem with mandatory voting isn't that we'd get celebrities, or whatever as our presidents.  (That's what we do anyway!)  The real problem with mandatory voting is:  It doesn't solve the problem of voter apathy.  Most people would still get their news from pundits and from Super Pacs.  Money would still be powerful, and maybe even more powerful than it is now.  Voters still wouldn't fact check.  They'd stick to one or two sources, or only agree with the people who share their viewpoint.  


Most elections are Alien vs Predator anyway.  Whoever wins, we lose.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

My wife helps all of her students register to vote if they're going to be 18 before the next election.  (Government is one of the classes she teaches).  I'm not sure if all schools do that though.


A national holiday for voting actually makes sense.  The Federal Government only tends to give 59 minutes so people can go vote.  Other places expect workers to vote during lunch.  


Honestly though the real problem with mandatory voting isn't that we'd get celebrities, or whatever as our presidents.  (That's what we do anyway!)  The real problem with mandatory voting is:  It doesn't solve the problem of voter apathy.  Most people would still get their news from pundits and from Super Pacs.  Money would still be powerful, and maybe even more powerful than it is now.  Voters still wouldn't fact check.  They'd stick to one or two sources, or only agree with the people who share their viewpoint.  

Most elections are Alien vs Predator anyway.  Whoever wins, we lose.  

Let's be honest nobody loses when the Predator is involved. 

 

Seriously though, you are right voter apathy is a huge problem. My girlfriend doesn't give a lick about politics and that's fine but I know plenty of people that complain constantly about the right or the left but don't vote because "it doesn't matter"

 

I think just having the day off paid would give people a more personal interest in politics and the voting process in general. It would not effect everyone that way but it would give people who do care a much easier time voting.

 

Or again, just do mail in votes. It's stupidly simply but does not come with a day off

---

Voter Apathy, I believe, is caused the the polarization of the two parties.  Too many people identify as Republican and Democrat, which means each election is essentially a repeat.  Only with different actors.  Kind of like Doctor Who.  Candidates just regenerate.  They say things differently like "Allons-y!" or eating fish and custard.  They also have different companions to help keep things a little interesting.  


You hear the same attack ads just about all the time.


"Hey America!  This conservative guy doesn't care about women's reproductive rights!"


"Hey America!  This Liberal wants to take your guns away from you!"

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Voter Apathy, I believe, is caused the the polarization of the two parties.  Too many people identify as Republican and Democrat, which means each election is essentially a repeat.  Only with different actors.  Kind of like Doctor Who.  Candidates just regenerate.  They say things differently like "Allons-y!" or eating fish and custard.  They also have different companions to help keep things a little interesting.  


You hear the same attack ads just about all the time.


"Hey America!  This conservative guy doesn't care about women's reproductive rights!"


"Hey America!  This Liberal wants to take your guns away from you!"

If David Tennant was running there would be an epic turn out

---

This one's a brain teaser...


The goal is to increase voter turn our, right?


If you don't vote you are not free, because you are not participating in the democracy and are thus slave to those who are voting and making the decisions.


Mandating voting is opposite of freedom...


It's a tough nut to crack, that's for sure

---

If David Tennant was running there would be an epic turn out

"Show me your birth certificate."


"Well, alright then Here you go."


"Wow!  It says here you were born in the United States, and are related to all of the founding fathers.  Very impressive.  Sorry for questioning you."


"No problem," (to his companion) "Psychic paper.  Gets them every time.  Well, gotta go!  Allons-y!"

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

There's days I just wonder if Obama could possibly do anything worse, and then you hear about stuff like this

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sugges...good-idea/

 

Let's be clear, compulsory voting isn't a new idea. It's been used before and almost immediately leads to a pure democracy. In a pure democracy there is no minority protection for starters and the uninformed rule the ballot box. Half of the country doesn't even know the names of their state reps and now we want to make voting mandatory!?

 

Hopefully this is just hot air and something mentioned in passing, if Obama is serious or there's a serious movement within government in general to make voting compulsory we're in real big trouble.

The ironic thing about all this; is that forcing people to vote is technically unconstitutional in and of itself. The Government cannot force anyone to do anything. That's why the war on drugs has been such a colossal failure. It's like ancient Athens all over again with this " Pure Democracy" garbage.

---

I'm pretty sure the government can, and does, force you to do alot of things...

---