# Mandatory Voting.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 7, 2012, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189 "2012-11-07T09:09:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 8
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/141 "2015-03-19T18:09:28Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#):
>
> Most people who _do_ vote are the sort I’d rather not have voting.
Are you a Democrat or a Royalist?
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/142 "2015-03-19T18:11:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> The term _liberal voter_ suggests that the voter has some understanding of the issues. At least enough of an understanding that they identify themselves as liberal.
>
> Under the Obama plan, the non-voters who don’t give a shit what the government says, or does, as long as the government leaves them alone, will now be forced to the polls to vote. And they will do so with only the nations best interests in their hearts. :rolleyes:
Oh Jeebus, now it’s his _plan_?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/143 "2015-03-19T18:15:32Z")
Ah, Obama gets it right after all:
> [@](#):
>
> Mr. Obama said that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible “short-term” solution to the problem of money in politics. In the long-term, he said it’d be “fun” to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment.
---
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/144 "2015-03-19T18:19:59Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#):
>
> Oh Jeebus, now it’s his _plan_?
It could be the **Boyo Jim** -Obama plan, if you prefer. He may want top billing. You’ll probably have to arm wrestle Michelle for it?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/145 "2015-03-19T18:23:25Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> It could be the **Boyo Jim** -Obama plan, if you prefer. He may want top billing. You’ll probably have to arm wrestle Michelle for it?
So where do we find the details of this Obama plan? Bet he’s hiding it on Hillary’s server.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/146 "2015-03-19T18:41:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> So there appears to be nothing in our Constitution which prohibits such a move. The flip side is that there is nothing in our Constitution that authorizes it, either.
Doesn’t it all hinge on the meaning of the word “manner”? To me, "manner’ means “how voting is done”, not “whether a citizen votes”. So, the states are charged to set a “manner” of voting and Congress reserves the authority to change that “manner”. So, if a state says: “Pass this test, and you are allowed to vote”, Congress can say “Nuh-UH!”. From what hook in the constitution could Congress claim the authority to force citizens to vote? That has nothing to do with the “manner” that states set up for the voting process.
Can anyone argue that Congress can compel the states to compel each adult citizen to go to a certain place on a certain day and vote? Would we have to actually push the buttons, or would it be OK to simply enter the booth and then exit without doing anything?
Further, do you really think that “not voting” ISN’T a form of speech? That it CAN’T be a form or protesting, like flag burning? Sure, most people who don’t vote are not actually protesting, but certainly some are. Do we have to register as “legal vote protestors” in order to skip the mandatory voting law?
BTW, the income tax issue is a bad analogy since it’s now IN the Constitution.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/147 "2015-03-19T18:47:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Did the Missouri Supreme Court say that mandatory voting violated either the Missouri or the US Constitution? “That’s not the common understanding” is not the same thing.
Yes:
> [@](#):
>
> On the contrary, in the spirit of the construction we have placed upon this right, our organic act in another article declares that, “no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” Art. 2, sec. 9, Const. of Mo. How can a citizen be said to enjoy the free exercise of the right of suffrage who is constrained to such exercise, whether he will or not, by a penalty?
ETA: ninja’d by **Really Not All That Bright**!
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/148 "2015-03-19T18:47:54Z")
I imagine a tax credit (e.g. “free $20 for voting”) would be well within the constitution. But I think it’s clear now that the President was talking about a Constitutional Amendment.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/149 "2015-03-19T18:51:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Somewhere, a Professor of Logic is turning over in his grave.
Apparently (see post #147) the Missouri Supreme Court used the same logic.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/150 "2015-03-19T18:51:53Z")
John, you seem to be assuming that this would be done at the federal level. I’m not sure why that would be the case; civic duties are nearly wholly regulated and exercised at the state level.
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> From what hook in the constitution could Congress claim the authority to force citizens to vote? That has nothing to do with the “manner” that states set up for the voting process.
None. That’s why I said “there is nothing in our Constitution that authorizes it”. I will note that this narrow interpretation of “manner” is not the one generally drawn by the courts construing other constitutional clauses like the FF&C clause.
> [@](#):
>
> Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
> [@](#):
>
> Can anyone argue that Congress can compel the states to compel each adult citizen to go to a certain place on a certain day and vote? Would we have to actually push the buttons, or would it be OK to simply enter the booth and then exit without doing anything?
Congress can’t compel the states to compel their citizens to do much of anything. It can compel them to do some things directly. Again, though, I’m not really talking about the feds doing this.
> [@](#):
>
> Further, do you really think that “not voting” ISN’T a form of speech? That it CAN’T be a form or protesting, like flag burning? Sure, most people who don’t vote are not actually protesting, but certainly some are. Do we have to register as “legal vote protestors” in order to skip the mandatory voting law?
Dodging the draft or refusing to pay taxes is also a form of protest. The right to speak freely does not override the government’s right to compel you to do these things - assuming it initially has the power.
> [@](#):
>
> BTW, the income tax issue is a bad analogy since it’s now IN the Constitution.
Who said anything about income taxes? Lots of taxes are collected via tax return.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/151 "2015-03-19T18:52:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> I imagine a tax credit (e.g. “free $20 for voting”) would be well within the constitution.
But that wouldn’t make voting mandatory. You’d have to tax non-voting, which is not the same thing.
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/152 "2015-03-19T19:37:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> So where do we find the details of this Obama plan? Bet he’s hiding it on Hillary’s server.
There are no details because there are no plans. He talked about it as one possibility while answering a question after a speech. And suddenly, it’s become another of his eeevil plans.
But you know that.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/153 "2015-03-19T19:43:12Z")
Thanks to **Bricker** and **Not Really All That Bright**.
> [@](#):
>
> Mr. Obama said that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible “short-term” solution to the problem of money in politics. In the long-term, he said it’d be “fun” to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment.
I don’t see any way in which mandatory voting is a solution to the “problem” of money in politics. Parties and candidates would have to try to appeal to people who aren’t listening to the media they use now. That would seem to imply more advertising, not less.
And I hope our Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief is being ironic about it being “fun” to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. The process is deliberately set up to be a difficult one, requiring super majorities. Not fun, nor should it be.
And I would hope very much that Obama farms out the duty of wording the amendment to someone else. Given his record of “[I will not use signing statements to subvert the will of Congress](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/)” and [recess appointments](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/06/26/a-humiliating-supreme-court-loss-for-obama/) and “no it’s not a tax, I promise/OK, yes it is a tax” and '[the Supreme Court would never overturn a popular economic law](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/06/26/a-humiliating-supreme-court-loss-for-obama/)" and “[I don’t have the authority to use executive orders on immigration](http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/feb/23/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-22-times-barack-obama-said-he-cou/)”, his understanding of the role of the Constitution is not as reliable as it might be.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/154 "2015-03-19T19:46:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Thanks to **Bricker** and **Not Really All That Bright**.
> I don’t see any way in which mandatory voting is a solution to the “problem” of money in politics. Parties and candidates would have to try to appeal to people who aren’t listening to the media they use now. That would seem to imply more advertising, not less.
It’s a solution to the “problem” that the politicians that are elected are (often) the ones who are best funded, regardless of whether or not they are actually the preferred choice of the majority of the populace. If turnout were 100%, then every winner would _definitely_ be the preferred choice of the majority of the populace. They might also be the best funded, or they might not, but they would definitely have a popular mandate.
---
### Author:  [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/155 "2015-03-19T19:46:38Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#):
>
> The sort of people who can’t be bothered to go vote are the sort of people I’d rather not have voting. How very convenient that they already exclude themselves. It’s one of the few little elegant things in life that works itself out.
>
> What problem would forcing them back into the system solve?
How would “the people you’d rather not have voting” differ from the average FOX viewer in ability to objectively and intelligently consider the issues?
---
### Author:  [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/156 "2015-03-19T19:50:27Z")
I’ll say what I pretty much always say in mandatory voting discussions; I support it _if_ there is an option along the lines of “I don’t care, but I am expressing my opinion that I don’t care, as opposed to just not getting around to voting.” This is similar to the “none of the above” somebody mentioned in the early part of the thread, except that “none of the above” isn’t counted as a separate candidate (although I don’t see a problem with having both “I vote for anybody other than these candidates” and “I just don’t care” on the same ballot).
As far as I am concerned, the right to vote should include the right not to vote.
I wonder how many elections would have candidates running solely as a “vote for me if you don’t care who wins and want to make your dissent of mandatory voting heard” option.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/157 "2015-03-19T19:58:52Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#):
>
> The sort of people who can’t be bothered to go vote are the sort of people I’d rather not have voting. How very convenient that they already exclude themselves.
That’s a common argument and you’re not the only one making it. It’s also based on a completely false assumption and misses a far bigger problem.
It assumes that those who voluntarily vote are the most informed demographic. No, those who vote are the most _ **motivated** _ demographic, which is not at all the same thing. You can be motivated based on being fiercely partisan, based on believing a shitwagon full of misinformation (typical Fox viewers are both of those things), or based on having strong vested interests. A good example of the latter is that the wealthy are statistically more politically active than their less wealthy counterparts, and you can bet that their interests are not the same as that of the rest of the population.
Those concerned about low-information voters should concern themselves with the state of public discourse in this country, and its domination by the wealthy special interests who pretty much own the channels of information, the mechanisms of PR spin, the fake astroturf front groups, and most of the media. How can democracy function when voters are being told what to think, facts are being spun like cotton, and voters repeatedly repudiate their own best interests? Hyperbole, you say? Check out _Deadly Spin_, by Wendell Potter, or _Merchants of Doubt_, by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. There are many other well-documented case histories.
> [@SenorBeef](#):
>
> What problem would forcing them back into the system solve?
It would solve [this problem](http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/):
_ **The last time voter turnout was this low, the U.S. was fighting WWII** _
The last time voter turnout for a national election was as low as it was on Nov.4, Hitler was still in power, and Mitch McConnell was only nine months old. **Only 36.4% of eligible voters** voted in this year’s midterm elections, down from 40.9% who voted in 2010, according to preliminary analysis by Michael McDonald at the University of Florida.
More specifically, it would solve the problem of grossly disproportional representation by motivated special interests and their gullible followers when voter turnout by apathetic voters is incredibly low, as it is routinely, and especially so during elections that get relatively less media hype, like Congressional midterms. Basically when turnout is this low, every voter who bothers to show up is exercising an incredible almost 3-for-1 multiplier in his influence over the outcome.
ETA:
> [@rsa](#):
>
> How would “the people you’d rather not have voting” differ from the average FOX viewer in ability to objectively and intelligently consider the issues?
Yes, exactly this!
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/158 "2015-03-19T20:13:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> It’s a solution to the “problem” that the politicians that are elected are (often) the ones who are best funded, regardless of whether or not they are actually the preferred choice of the majority of the populace.
Steven Leavitt in _Freakonomics_ discusses this. It is more the other way around - winning politicians attract more money than losing ones, not politicians who attract money win.
ETA - [cite](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/money-politics-freakonomics-author-gives-big-fat-no-182648515.html).
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/159 "2015-03-19T20:14:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Steven Leavitt in _Freakonomics_ discusses this. It is more the other way around - winning policiticans attract more money than losing ones, not politicians who attract money win.
>
> ETA - [cite](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/money-politics-freakonomics-author-gives-big-fat-no-182648515.html).
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Presumably this is based on voting returns from previous elections? Kind of like horse handicapping?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189/160 "2015-03-19T20:16:22Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#):
>
> Presumably this is based on voting returns from previous elections? Kind of like horse handicapping?
Not IIRC. More from who is ahead in the polls.
Read the book - it’s quite interesting.
Regards,
Shodan
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-voting/640189.md?page=9)