Make it a three-day weekend and keep the polls open all three days.
There are some years when you really, really don’t want to vote sober.
I don’t see any real value in taking a statement made off the cuff like that as a serious policy proposal, and saying it would be “fun” is his inner policy wonk showing-- for some people it WOULD be fun.
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?
Are you suggesting that Obama couldn’t provide you with the details of his plan? Did you ask him, or do just assume that he can’t/won’t?
Obama was the one who brought this issue to the public’s attention. The news media ran with the story. Now the internet is talking about it. This isn’t rocket surgery, it’s Obama’s plan, ask Obama.
Since your offer of a bet ends with a period instead of a question mark, I’ll take your bet. I do not think Obama is hiding his plan on Hillary’s server. What did I win?
My interpretation of the statement as quoted is that it’s about the problem of money in politics, that mandatory voting rules would be a (partial) short-term solution, and that a Constitutional amendment would be a more effective long-term solution.
I’m sure that Obama is well aware of these two somewhat related problems as I cited in #157. Essentially, money in politics creates a misinformed constituency of voters, some of whom are motivated to activism (like the ones raging against Obamacare based on no actual knowledge and a whole pile of conveniently supplied industry talking points) – – if they’re going to march in demonstrations with idiotic signs they’re certainly going to bother to vote, and will do so with equal idiocy. Plus, the wealthy tend to be more deeply involved in political activism than the general population, but often have directly opposite interests. General voter apathy gives these motivated sectors much more leverage than they’re entitled to, in direct proportion to how low the turnout is, and the degree of apathy and low turnout in many elections is truly appalling.
It’s not complicated. The lower the turnout, the easier it is for motivated activists to steal elections.
The benefit of mandatory voting is that it would stop a lot of the Get-Out-the-Vote campaigning around Election Day. No more need for it.
No more right to vote either.
I call those “years divisible by four.”
Wouldn’t stop a thing.
Instead of the “go and vote” ads, we’d have the same "OH MY GOD THE WRONG GUY’S ABOUT TO GET IN!!! GO VOTE FOR THE RIGHT GUY! OUR GUY! GO VOTE, NOW NOW NOW!!
Same as always.
You could look at Australian elections for your answer. They’ve had compulsory voting for 90 years. But my off hand guess that you would get joke candidates at a pretty similar rate to voluntary voting.
That is truly fascinating logic. Considering that the right to vote is, and would remain, a right conferred based on citizenship, age, and residency.
Where I live we have universal health care. Which means that participation is mandatory. Next time I see my doctor I’ll have to remind him that, according to your awesome logic, I no longer have the right to health care.
As John Mace already put it quite nicely, “somewhere, a Professor of Logic is turning over in his grave.”
On a different note, I have to wonder why it’s predominantly the conservatives here who are opposed to mandating participation in what is indisputably the principal tool of democracy, the essential process in which low participation and voter apathy is anathema to democracy, and makes it easier for well-motivated special interests to usurp democracy by having disproportionate control over election outcomes. Why do conservatives support this? Or did I just answer my own question? 
Such movements don’t exist in Australia.
This is called normal campaigning.
The idea is clouded by people gnashing their teeth on the transition from non-mandy to mandy. If you’ve grown up knowing you are required to vote, as is everyone you know, your parents were, and your grandparents etc., you’d have a more relaxed attitude, just another societal norm.
Don’t be silly. American conservatives are generally against increased government intrusion which this most definitely is. Don’t twist all over trying to make it some kind of gotchya.
Btw, is there some reason to think mandatory voting Australia’s democracy is stronger than say Canada’s voluntary voting one?
And as I already posted, the Missouri Supreme Court agreed with me on that logic. I think that trumps wolfpup and John Mace.
What happened to the right not to vote. That’s freedom of speech, also. I currently have a right to make my voice heard by not voting, if I so chose.
Besides, Obama has admitted that he hears the non-voters. Who could ask for anything more?
So, to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.
One reason conservatives should like it is the possibility of raising revenue without the dreaded higher taxes, due to the fines you can collect from the millions, every year, who probably still won’t vote :eek:
The other reason is that the association between the young (who vote less) and the Democrats appears to be ending:
http://atr.rollcall.com/millennials-more-and-more-a-swing-group-survey-says/
Wouldn’t mandatory voting still help the Democrats? Today, yes. But by the time mandatory voting got underway, some years in the future, maybe not.
If you really want to improve the quality of voter decision making, what about putting on the web who voted for whom? If people thought they might have to justify their vote, they would feel a need to learn a bit more. An extremely unpopular proposal? Sure, but so is mandatory voting.
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”.
To have a non-vote officially count.
They made a reference to the right to vote in the Missouri Constitution and quite clearly stated that if you make it an obligation you destroy the right.
To repeat: “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?”
That’s not an “otherworldly interpretation”. This is a clear statement that when you make it an obligation, it is not a right anymore.
No, they do not. They have the obligation. Not the right.
Nothing has happened to my right not to vote. I currently have the freedom of speech to prove to the politicians that I reject their political candidates. If I so chose.
Of course, Obama can make a request that all of the States change their election laws to suit him. He could issue an Executive Order making voting mandatory. Maybe he’ll personally lead the effort pass an Amendment? But until then, I still have a right not to vote.