Obama floats making voting mandatory, calling it 'potentially transformative'
Published March 19, 2015· Associated Press
WASHINGTON – 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 influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier 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."
Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states.
Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.
At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.
At issue, Obama said, is the sway that those with money can have on U.S. elections, where low overall turnout often gives an advantage to the party best able to turn out its base. Obama has opposed Citizens United and other court rulings that cleared the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending, but embraced such groups in his 2012 re-election campaign out of fear he'd be outspent.
Obama said he thought it would be "fun" for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don't hold your breath.
"Realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition," he said.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
.Compulsory voting in Australia was adopted in the state of Queensland in 1915 and subsequently adopted nationwide in 1924. With Australia's compulsory voting system comes additional flexibility for the voter - elections are held on Saturdays, absent voters can vote in any state polling place, and voters in remote areas can vote before an election (at pre-poll voting centers) or via mail. .Voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47% prior to the 1924 compulsory voting law. In the decades since 1924, voter turnout has hovered around 94% to 96%. .In 1924, Australian officials felt
that compulsory voting would eliminate voter apathy. However, compulsory voting now has its detractors. In their Fact Sheet on Voting, the Australian Electoral Commission provides some arguments in favor and against compulsory voting. .
Arguments used in favor of compulsory voting: •Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform (e.g. taxation, compulsory education, or jury duty). •Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate." •Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management. •Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll. •The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.
Arguments used against compulsory voting: •Some suggest that it is undemocratic to force people to vote and is an infringement of liberty. •The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls. •It may increase the number of "donkey votes" (votes for a random candidate by people who feel that they are required to vote by law). •It may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules for voting). •It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates. •Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Elimination of the electoral college would be a better start to representative "will of the electorate." voting. How many votes are thrown in the trash because of a state’s overwhelming red/blue status. The “winner takes all” approach is no longer a good representation of the peoples will. I fully believe it acts as a deterrent among upstate NY residents from voting because the assignment of our 29 electoral votes is virtually guaranteed by votes cast in the heavily democrat southern part of the state, so as Cicero would say why bother.
This could also compel a Presidential candidate to focus on needs of ALL the people. Not just those of a specific state(s) needed to win. The states with the most electoral vote ultimately determine the outcome so the focus is on these and undecided swing states ignoring the others who are historically and incalculably against them. NY was not far off from voting in a (IMHO questionable) Republican candidate as Governor short by 500K+ votes with only 29% turn out.
That's a lot of red that is never counted in a presidential election.
The problems have hit both parties recently….elections are very close (R)Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote. (not a win for Romney, but certainly a disparity) (R)George Bush (electoral vote winner) vs. (D)Al Gore in 2000: Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,816 votes (who knows what the world would look like today Iraq? Afghanistan? ISIS? Discussion of Warming? Fracking? Katrina and New Orleans? Economy? Healthcare/ObamaCare?)
If Al Gore had been elected president: The extremist Muslim terrorists would still have attacked us on 9/11/01 -- but Gore would have responded as Clinton did after the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 ... absolutely nothing. Hurricane Katrina would still have hit the Gulf Coast -- why? because although extremist liberals believe that their presidents are messiahs with superhuman powers , the fact is that presidents can NOT stop natural disasters.
Finally, I believe that the Electoral College has worked well over the past 2 1/4 centuries. It requires candidates to campaign in ALL of the regions of the country. If, we eliminated the Electoral College than extremist liberal candidates would only need to campaign on 2 of the US's three coasts and promise "free goodies" and unlimited access to drugs and abortions to win the White House.
Mandatory voting - not a good thing .. but an incentive to vote -- say a tax deduction [i]might not[/i] be a bad thing. I'd have to think about it some more.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the 'duties to community' mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn't elected into power.
Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacy because they result in high voter turnout.[5] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[6]
Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.
If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.
Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).
Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[6]
There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.[7]
we'll NEVER be able to think outside the box again.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
It requires candidates to campaign in ALL of the regions of the country.
That is not the case at all, presidential candidates rarely appear in a state that are guaranteed to carry, and if they show in such a state its only to stump for a lesser candidate of the same party Especially during a second and final term run. The red and blue map is very static and its why they all fight so hard for the swing states.
“We don’t care about national polls,” White House senior adviser David Plouffe explained. Why? Because while the campaign expresses “deep respect for voters in New York and Alabama” it says most states simply do not matter because “they’re red or blue.” In the pivotal swing states necessary for a victory in the contest that really matters – the race to 270 electoral votes http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/electoral-college-is-not-about-everybody%E2%80%99s-vote
Hurricane Katrina would still have hit the Gulf Coast -- why? because although extremist liberals believe that their presidents are messiahs with superhuman powers , the fact is that presidents can NOT stop natural disasters.
You really like to twist things....I was referring to the response by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the event. I am the furthest thing from a liberal.
That is not the case at all, presidential candidates rarely appear in a state that are guaranteed to carry, and if they show in such a state its only to stump for a lesser candidate of the same party Especially during a second and final term run. The red and blue map is very static and its why they all fight so hard for the swing states.
“We don’t care about national polls,” White House senior adviser David Plouffe explained. Why? Because while the campaign expresses “deep respect for voters in New York and Alabama” it says most states simply do not matter because “they’re red or blue.” In the pivotal swing states necessary for a victory in the contest that really matters – the race to 270 electoral votes http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/electoral-college-is-not-about-everybody%E2%80%99s-vote
You really like to twist things....I was referring to the response by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the event. I am the furthest thing from a liberal.
Actually, it DOES force candidates to campaign in different REGIONS -- I didn't say states -- and if the Electoral College were eliminated than it would be possible to win by only campaigning and carrying a majority of the vote on the west and east coasts while ignoring "fly over country" in the middle.
I don't base my opinions on public opinion polls. I base my opinions on years of studying the subject. I believe that our founders had the right idea when they established the Electoral College. It has worked very well for over 225 years. It still works and I apologize to no one for believing it should not be tampered with.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Voting should be allowed MANDATED for anyone who can fill out a ballot.
Kids included.
there....now it reads more like our government MANDATES!! wonder what the penalty will be for NOT voting?
it appears that GOV ALMIGHTY is finally seeing the 'vote of NO confidence' with historically low voter turn out. i'm sure it a bit of an embarrassment to say the least.
so now they'll just TRY to FORCE you!!!
All voting will 'eventually' go to 'internet voting'....in all countries. THEN we can vote for our GLOBAL leader. Perhaps not in our lifetime....but it will end up that way eventually.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
