Obama floats idea of mandatory voting

ebia said:

Yeh, 4 years. but as absolute dictator of the supremely powerful United states, he can change the length of a year.

Click to expand...

Heh heh heh.

Only in the befuddled minds of conspiracy theorists and a few folk who repeat their craziness.

parousia70 said:

So when Obama "allows" the next elected president to take office, you'll drop your charge of "dictator"??

Click to expand...

not unless his wife runs and wins. then all bets are off.

so what happens if they make it mandatory and you don't vote?

what is your punishment for not taking part in the charade of liberty?

of course it would be a lot of uninformed people who don't care about politics who are forced to vote, so yes they would vote democrat but the degree of uninformedness is relative. I mean there's that stage where you know absolutely nothing, then there's that stage where you think you know something because you've bothered listening to all the lies they tell you. Then there's that stage above that where you realize they are all lying all the time about everything and it doesn't really matter.

MoreCoffee said:

Presidential terms are of fixed length. Right?

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that, and I don't think Obama's going to "give himself a third term". He's not Vladimir Putin.

He CAN, however, do a lot with his executive orders and such, usually involving making America more left. I'm actually looking forward to Hilary's presidency (and she's sort of inevitably going to win) and hope that she'll maybe undo some of Obama's shenanigans.

StupidMike said:

so what happens if they make it mandatory and you don't vote?

what is your punishment for not taking part in the charade of liberty?

Click to expand...

About $20

of course it would be a lot of uninformed people who don't care about politics who are forced to vote,

Click to expand...

As particpation approaches 90% you find all groups are well represented among those voting. One might think that the remaining 5 or 10% would include over representation of certain groups but that doesn't tend to be the case. When particpation is around 50% or less some groups are much less well represented than others. So if democracy and representation are worth anything at all, high particpation is important. And it does force people into thinking a bit more about it.

I'm totally convinced that most politicians (without the murder aspect) are very much like Frank Underwood on House of Cards.

Most Democrats could care less about women, about minorities, about abortion, about the environment, unions, etc. Those are just "their base" that they chose to use as their power broker lobbysts to aid their cause for power.

Most Republicans don't care about gun rights, right to life, homosexuals, small businesses, or freedom. They chose those groups as their power broker lobbyist $$$$ purses.

In the end, the country club rich 1%er Republican CEO type doesn't shoot guns, doesn't have anything to do with abortion, doesn't go to church regularly, could care less about gays (heck, a lot of these GOP guys have been caught in gay trysts!), and they have no idea what a small business is because they deal in tens and hundreds of millions. The country club rich 1%er Republican finds the Tea Party to be ignorant red neck morons. They don't watch Duck Dynasty and could care less if ammunition or guns get banned. These guys jet-set on Greek islands, drive six-digit Italian sports cars, have yachts, etc. They haven't the first clue how to be a red neck anti-Obama whiner. But they DO know they need this uneducated base for voting! Because if you're going to get the red neck Tea Party guy on your side, you have to throw him some meat and puhtayters! Get him riled up about guns, Obama is going to make his teenager gay, tell everyone Obama wants your daughter to killer her baby in the womb, make a boogie man about Muslims, and play to your base.

Then the Democrat....again, mostly rich people. John Kerry's wife Heinz ring a bell? Most Dems are LOADED! They're often richer than the GOP candidates! They have no clue about blue collar stuff. They haven't a clue what it's like to be black. AND THEY DON'T CARE! They don't care about women and abortions or guns or environmental issues. They need to get someone riled up to support their power quests. So they tap into the angry black guy who thinks white America is obsessed with his downfall. They rile up women to think not giving them contraception as "health care" makes "the man" out to get them. They convince Americans that everything is racist, sexist, you can't survive without government. Then they have to scare you with the "we need gun control" tripe.

Both sides use fear effectively. They throw out stuff to scare the other side with.

I often think the Democrats and Republicans meet once a year in a board room. The Dems throw out the gun control threat to help the GOP. The GOP throws out the "end of Roe v. Wade" to help the Dems. The GOP throws out the "we'll get rid of Social Security" thing to help the left, while the Left throws out the "we'll start socialized medicine" to help the Right.

They both work on our fears.

They get us to think that if we vote for the other side, Armageddon will occur.

The Right Wing hates Obama and thinks he's soft and wimpy on terrorism despite the fact that:

a) he's tortured more terrorists than Bush
b) he said he'd shut down Guantanamo and yet kept it open
c) he has killed more terrorists easily than Bush
d) caught Bin Laden when Bush couldn't
e) has run far more drone strikes on terrorists than Bush
f) never followed through on transparency with this terror stuff
g) mostly kept the Bush tax cuts in place
h) did "Fast and Furious" in a similar manner to Bush's gun tracking schemes
I) put a Monsanto pro-GMO goon in charge of our food! Sounds pretty conservative to me!

The Left hated Bush even though Bush

a) spent more money on Medicare than anyone
b) spent more money in stimulus for the middle and lower classes than the Left
c) expanded government WAY more than any Democrat could ever dream!
d) didn't do a thing to stop illegal immigration like tea partiers would like
e) created an unprecedented government spy program to spy on American citizens!
f) has violated people's religious liberties by spying on places of worship
g) Bush abused executive orders just like Obama is

Look, are these guys in the end THAT different?

Liberals are disappointed in Obama because he has been too much like Bush! Bush's base started the Tea Party mad that Bush was too liberal!

What does that tell us!?

This team sport stuff....it's so hilarious. Playing right into the hands of the country club rich fat cats hoping you'll choose up a side and get all bent out of shape. AND IT'S WORKIN'!

Watch the BBC House of Cards from the 1990s. It has Francis Urquhart as main protagonist. Very witty rather playful and very good entertainment. The USA edition lost much of the wit and charm and made it seem rather mean and nasty.

The BBC program is available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEc96E9j18

MoreCoffee said:

Watch the BBC House of Cards from the 1990s. It has Francis Urquhart as main protagonist. Very witty rather playful and very good entertainment. The USA edition lost much of the wit and charm and made it seem rather mean and nasty.

The BBC program is available on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEc96E9j18

Click to expand...

Something I've always said I should get around to watching.
Much appreciated.

Forcing people to vote would be unjust and destructive. Do we really want people, who in normal circumstances are too lazy or uncaring to vote deciding the direction of our country?

football5680 said:

Forcing people to vote would be unjust and destructive. Do we really want people, who in normal circumstances are too lazy or uncaring to vote deciding the direction of our country?

Click to expand...

The reason given for not making voting compulsory sounds very elitist doesn't it? "Keep the stupid and ignorant from voting because if they do vote they will do it all wrong anyway!" is a very bad reason for saying no to compulsory voting.

MoreCoffee said:

The reason given for not making voting compulsory sounds very elitist doesn't it? "Keep the stupid and ignorant from voting because if they do vote they will do it all wrong anyway!" is a very bad reason for saying no to compulsory voting.

Click to expand...

True to an extent, but likewise compulsory voting can be framed similarly; "The ignorant would take an interest and educate themselves about voting if only they were obligated to do so."

I find most sides of numerous arguments can be framed as elitist, it's generally not productive.

Genersis said:

True to an extent, but likewise compulsory voting can be framed similarly; "The ignorant would take an interest and educate themselves about voting if only they were obligated to do so."

I find most sides of numerous arguments can be framed as elitist, it's generally not productive.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it works like that. Folk vote for what they want no matter how smart they are.

MoreCoffee said:

The reason given for not making voting compulsory sounds very elitist doesn't it? "Keep the stupid and ignorant from voting because if they do vote they will do it all wrong anyway!" is a very bad reason for saying no to compulsory voting.

Click to expand...

They have the right to vote if they want but if they don't care then they should not be forced to vote for anybody. Currently we have many ignorant people who vote and smart people who don't. Forcing people to vote turns voting from being a right into an obligation. If they have no interest in politics then what good would randomly picking a candidate do?

football5680 said:

They have the right to vote if they want but if they don't care then they should not be forced to vote for anybody. Currently we have many ignorant people who vote and smart people who don't. Forcing people to vote turns voting from being a right into an obligation. If they have no interest in politics then what good would randomly picking a candidate do?

Click to expand...

If Jury duty is compulsory then why not voting?

subcribing. I will get back to this when the crisis is over

Fantine said:

And in Miami and other places in 2012, black voters stood in line for many, many hours because Governor Scott wanted to prevent them from voting by having an inadequate number of machines.

If our nation is going to err, I would rather have them err by enacting penalties for not going than to err by passing voter suppression legislation laws which are often just 'poll taxes' in disguise--aimed against people who don't have drivers' licenses, hourly and shift workers, workers who aren't allowed time off to vote and don't have paid vacation or sick time, etc.

If you don't drive and take a bus to work, you can easily lose half a day's pay taking a bus to the polls, another bus (or two) to work, etc.

Click to expand...

Fantine, how would mandatory voting fix any of this? If anything, it would make these things worse. Now if you cannot vote for whatever reason, you simply did not cast a vote. With mandatory voting you would be committing a crime.

And if you already think that people are intentionally suppressing the vote, why would that stop with mandatory voting? If anything, the techniques that you describe would become more frequent, since voter suppression could no longer be aimed at making people unwilling to vote, but only to making them unable to vote.

football5680 said:

They have the right to vote if they want but if they don't care then they should not be forced to vote for anybody. Currently we have many ignorant people who vote and smart people who don't. Forcing people to vote turns voting from being a right into an obligation. If they have no interest in politics then what good would randomly picking a candidate do?

Click to expand...

Jury service is an obligation. Voting seems to me quite similar. I see no reason for not saying it's also an obligation.

ebia said:

Jury service is an obligation. Voting seems to me quite similar. I see no reason for not saying it's also an obligation.

Click to expand...

Jury service in only an obligation on the infrequent occasions that you are called, and even then it's not difficult to get out of.

MoreCoffee said:

The reason given for not making voting compulsory sounds very elitist doesn't it? "Keep the stupid and ignorant from voting because if they do vote they will do it all wrong anyway!" is a very bad reason for saying no to compulsory voting.

Click to expand...

It sounds like a pretty good reason to me. Do you think the stupid and ignorant voting is a good thing? The idea that more people voting is inherently better makes nosense to me.

Catholics have holy days of obligation. Just look at this whole thing as a holy day of political obligation.