Mandatory Voting.

[doorhinge]

@Peremensoe

To have a non-vote officially count.

It did count. Obama knew that 2/3 didn’t vote.

[CarnalK]

@doorhinge

He could issue an Executive Order making voting mandatory.

IANAL but I don’t think that would likely be within the scope of an Executive Order. I dont get into the American politics threads much but you seem to have a real wild hair up your ass about Obama. Just sayin.

[Shodan]

@John_Mace

I don’t see any real value in taking a statement made off the cuff like that as a serious policy proposal…

I’m not taking it as such - he made an off hand statement, or series of statements, and I am listing off hand some of the obvious objections.

However, as I re-read that statement, his short term/long term distinction is puzzling. Since getting such an amendment passed would be a “long term” deal, how could it possibly be a “short term” solution to anything?

I think you misunderstood his statements. Mandatory voting is the short term solution, and a Constitutional amendment is the long term solution.

[QUOTE=doorhinge]

He could issue an Executive Order making voting mandatory.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe Obama thinks he could, but no, that would be un-Constitutional. Congress would have to act.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hector_St_Clare]

@doorhinge

Are you a Democrat or a Royalist?

Um, neither one?

[Hector_St_Clare]

@wolfpup

The only thing you posted was a link and your other-worldly interpretation of what the Missouri court said in 1896 and why they supposedly said it, at best with a narrow and literalist interpretation of the Missouri constitution only, which has never been tested elsewhere, and with which the Harvard Law Review respectfully disagrees, noting that even within those narrow limits the 19th century court never made any constitutional reference.

So once again, I would like you to explain to me how I “don’t have the right to health care” which by your logic I do not, since it’s a universal entitlement for all citizens and qualified residents here and hence mandatory. Be sure to also explain how you reconcile my allegedly having no rights to health care (because it’s mandatory!) considering that the very universality is rooted in a federal charter that guarantees the fundamental right to health care for all. See if you can work that through your remarkable logic.

And while you’re at it, perhaps you can also explain your other awesome statement about how Obama speculating that mandatory voting might be a good thing – considering how pathetically poor US voter turnout is – means that “Obama wants to take away the right to vote.” Really looking forward to that one, too.

Oh, and also please explain to Australians how they don’t have the right to vote.
Participating in democracy is both a right and a duty. It’s a duty because if enough people exercise this alleged “right” not to participate, then democracy ceases to exist. It’s that simple. Whatever vested interests were sufficiently motivated to dominate the ballot boxes now run things. And pretty soon you might have no rights left. At all. And your guns aren’t going to help you. That’s what happened to “the right not to vote”.

Where are you getting your idea that ‘participating in democracy is a right and a duty’?

I certainly don’t think it’s a ‘duty’, and American law agrees with me. I don’t think there is a moral right to vote either, but of course I live in a country which disagrees.

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

I think you misunderstood his statements. Mandatory voting is the short term solution, and a Constitutional amendment is the long term solution.

I think you’re right. It makes sense if he meant mandatory voting was a short term solution (Congress passes a law) and a constitutional amendment is the long term solution to limiting campaign spending.

Anyway, I’m taking any of this seriously. Obama likes to talk like an academic, and this is pie in the sky nonsense.

[Shodan]

@wolfpup

So once again, I would like you to explain to me how I “don’t have the right to health care” which by your logic I do not, since it’s a universal entitlement for all citizens and qualified residents here and hence mandatory.

Making something available does not make it mandatory. Voting is available for all citizens here, but it is not mandatory.

“Mandatory” health care would be if you were required by law to go to the doctor every six months for a checkup.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Where are you getting your idea that ‘participating in democracy is a right and a duty’?

Well, we’re speaking in an American context. So… Daniel Webster, maybe.

Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.

Or Rutherford B. Hayes.

To vote is like the payment of a debt, a duty never to be neglected, if its performance is possible.

Or maybe Emerson.

Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good: 'Tis but one step more to think one vote will do no harm.

Roosevelt?

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

Sounds like a good reason not to vote.

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

Participating in democracy is both a right and a duty. It’s a duty because if enough people exercise this alleged “right” not to participate, then democracy ceases to exist. It’s that simple. Whatever vested interests were sufficiently motivated to dominate the ballot boxes now run things. And pretty soon you might have no rights left. At all. And your guns aren’t going to help you. That’s what happened to “the right not to vote”.

If enough people exercise this right (nothing “alleged” about it), there is something deeply wrong with that democracy, and it probably shouldn’t exist.

I would call you argument here a slippery slope, and of the kind where no slope actually exists. We’ve had 250 years of democracy in the US and there is no indication that we are in danger of slipping down to some small minority of citizens voting. If you want to champion mandatory voting, you need to come up with a better argument. That is, assuming you are actually championing that as opposed to making some other point not directly related to mandatory voting.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define “small minority”. ~40% of eligible voters turn out for midterm elections. If you are counting turnout among “citizens”, the number is much smaller.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define “small minority”. ~40% of eligible voters turn out for midterm elections. If you are counting turnout among “citizens”, the number is much smaller.

40% is, by any reasonable definition, a “larger minority”. But what you are pointing out is more a problem (if it is a problem) with the structure of elections in the US. Voting for president brings out the voters, so if we want to increase participation, we should align the elections accordingly. Of course, that would also take a constitutional amendment, but maybe it’s time to rethink the whole 2-year term for Congresscritters and 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. Make all those posts 4 year posts, with one election every four years. “Problem” solved, and no one’s rights are trampled.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

IANAL but I don’t think that would likely be within the scope of an Executive Order. I dont get into the American politics threads much but you seem to have a real wild hair up your ass about Obama. Just sayin.

Talking about Obama in an Obama thread. What will they think of next? :smack:

[doorhinge]

@Shodan

I’m not taking it as such - he made an off hand statement, or series of statements, and I am listing off hand some of the obvious objections.

I think you misunderstood his statements. Mandatory voting is the short term solution, and a Constitutional amendment is the long term solution.
Maybe Obama thinks he could, but no, that would be un-Constitutional. Congress would have to act.

Regards,
Shodan

Obama doesn’t think he needs Congress. He has a pen and a phone.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Calling a thread which doesn’t mention Obama in its first two pages (or first three years, for that matter) “an Obama thread” kind of confirms the wild hair theory. Just sayin’.

[doorhinge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, we’re speaking in an American context. So… Daniel Webster, maybe.

Or Rutherford B. Hayes.

Or maybe Emerson.

Roosevelt?

People should vote. I always vote. People should want to participate in their government. Voluntarily participate.

People have a right to freely disparage their government. People have a right to bear arms. The government should not require people to trashtalk the government nor should it require everybody to own a tomahawk, sword, or firearm.

[doorhinge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Calling a thread which doesn’t mention Obama in its first two pages (or first three years, for that matter) “an Obama thread” kind of confirms the wild hair theory. Just sayin’.

Obama is the most senior executive suggesting mandatory voting. I defer to his senior position.

[CarnalK]

@John_Mace

40% is, by any reasonable definition, a “larger minority”. But what you are pointing out is more a problem (if it is a problem) with the structure of elections in the US. Voting for president brings out the voters, so if we want to increase participation, we should align the elections accordingly. Of course, that would also take a constitutional amendment, but maybe it’s time to rethink the whole 2-year term for Congresscritters and 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. Make all those posts 4 year posts, with one election every four years. “Problem” solved, and no one’s rights are trampled.

Not sure you are seriously suggesting this but it would also help with the problem of never-ending campaigning and voter fatigue. I bet you’d get better turnout compared to past Presidential year elections. I wouldn’t want to guess how massive the list of ballot initiatives would be if they got clumled every 4 years though.

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

Not sure you are seriously suggesting this but it would also help with the problem of never-ending campaigning and voter fatigue. I bet you’d get better turnout compared to past Presidential year elections. I wouldn’t want to guess how massive the list of ballot initiatives would be if they got clumled every 4 years though.

Firstly, I’m not concerned about low voter turnout. It’s not hard to vote in the US if you want to, so I’m happy that people who don’t want to vote, don’t vote. Makes my vote count more. I’m not trying to fix the “problem” of low voter turnout. However, if you WANT to do that, then eliminating midterm elections would be a good way to go. I do think that in this day and age, a 2-year election cycle for the House is too short, so I can see killing two birds with one stone there. As for the Senate, I don’t see why a 6-year term is particularly magical. We have 2-year, 4-year and 6-year terms for the House, President and Senate, respectively, but 4-years for everyone would be fine.

States can have off year elections to deal with ballot initiatives if they like, but those would probably get even lower turn out.

[CarnalK]

But at least people could concentrate on the initiatives.

I kind of agree that voter turnout isn’t the problem.Mandatory voting is trying to cure a symptom, not the disease of political apathy. Maybe you don’t think thats a problem either though.