I’m sympathetic to the argument that this is a solution in search of a problem – turnout is low now, but it’s a more than adequate sample size, albeit possibly not an unbiased sample (in which case that bias is the problem this solves.)
I’m more confused by the freedom argument, unless it’s the libertarian belief that the existence of society is intolerable oppression.
Better yet, extend it over several days, though that migh cause problems with early returns affecting turnout later
Obviously you didn’t read the article in the Harvard Law Review that I linked. Yes, they did make such a statement, an asinine interpretation of a straightforward voting-rights provision, which asinine interpretation has never been tested or made anywhere else. And they made it in 1896, in a context that was quite different from today’s electoral environment and information age – barely more than 30 years earlier, slavery had still been rampant, and women would not have the right to vote for almost another quarter-century. I very much doubt that any sane judicial body would make such an interpretation today.
I’m not particularly championing it, but I can see the need for it where turnout is appallingly low. And I personally dislike slippery slope arguments on principle, but I would argue that in this case it’s not a slippery slope we’re talking about but an existing situation, namely that any relatively close election with a low turnout could very likely have turned out differently if a significant majority had voted, and therefore reflected the will of the most determined rather than the will of the majority. It’s odd that few seem concerned that this is actually happening.
Nope. The point is that it’s mandatory that everyone have health insurance. There is no way for me to not have it. And that’s because universal health coverage is considered to be a fundamental right.
Rights and obligations are entirely separate, orthogonal concepts. Usually something that is a right is not obligatory, and vice versa. But there’s no reason something can’t be both, as in my health care example. Or some of the more extreme gun nuts who think there’s no better way to bolster gun rights than to make ownership mandatory; there have been examples in terms of proposed gun-nut communes, or this place which is actually real. Are you going to tell me that in this town of gun nuts, you no longer have the “right” to own a gun? The whole argument is absolutely ludicrous wordplay, nothing more.
The bias is really at the core of the mandatory voting argument.
There’s a reason that most libertarian values are perilously close to anarchy. 
Still incorrect. It is mandatory that everyone in the US have voting rights. Voting is not mandatory nevertheless.
Having access to something is not the same as a mandate that you exercise that access.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting that the same people who argued that voting is not a right in the voter ID threads are now taking what appears to be a sharply different tack.
That’s not even close to being correct. It is not mandatory “that everyone in the US have voting rights” and never has been. Voting in state and federal elections is a right granted only to US citizens who are over the age of 18, constrained by state residency, and subject to felony disenfranchisement to different extents in different states. Additionally, other restrictions like “Voter ID” laws can apply. Moreover, until 1870 blacks could not vote under any circumstances, and often couldn’t in practice for generations more. Women couldn’t vote until 1920.
Whatever conditions exist for establishing a qualified right to vote are unaffected by also making it mandatory for those who are so qualified. The two things are unrelated and pretending that they are is just ridiculous semantic wordplay. There are arguments that might be made against mandatory voting but that nonsense isn’t such an argument. The only one that I can think of is just the philosophical one against excessive government intrusion, and whether the benefits justify such intrusion. I’d say when fewer than half of eligible voters bother to show up you have a pretty good case for it.
I never said it was.
You’re missing the point. You claimed that you had mandatory health care even when someone made no use of the system. In that sense, the US has mandatory voting, because people can vote even if they never do.
Changing use of a system from optional to mandatory changes it from a right to an obligation.
If I am pregnant and I can decide whether or not to have an abortion, I have the right to have an abortion. If I am pregnant and the government decides that I will have an abortion whether I want to or not, I no longer have the right to have an abortion - I have an obligation . They are not the same thing.
Regards,
Shodan
Can I give up my right to be free in the USA by signing something that makes me someone’s personal property as a slave for the rest of my life?
Can I give up my right to due process? Can I give up my right to have a judge impose a sentence if I confess to a crime? As far as I can tell, certain parts of due process are obligatory. Does that mean it’s not actually a right?
I’m not missing the point, and you never had one.
How does the fact that some idiots want to take away the right to bear arms and replace it with an obligation to do so help to prove your point of view?