How Do You Feel About Mandatory Voting?

[Roadrunner]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

You think the poor would vote themselves off the plantation?

Dream on.

 

[Asclepias]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

You think the poor would vote themselves off the plantation?

Dream on.

Just because you are poor doesnt mean you cannot be educated. If you are voting for a system that keeps you poor you will stop doing so if you are educated on that.

 

[Pogo]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

 

[Roadrunner]

If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.

Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.

I disagree. Roughly half of the people who do vote couldn't name 3 Supreme Court justices, the Speaker of the House or their US Representative and I'd venture that 25% couldn't name the Vice President.
What makes you think those so apathetic that they don't even make it to the polls would be any better informed?

I can even understand not knowing the individuals in office.

But if a person cannot articulate the Executive Department, ie, the President and his Cabinet, carry out the law, and the Legislative Branch, the Congress, composed of a Senate representing each state equally, and a House, based on population of the state, makes the law, and that a Supreme Court, an Appeals Court and District courts administer and interpret the law, that person should not vote.

A basic knowledge of the system should be required of any voter.

 

[Asclepias]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

Again I hold up jury duty as the model. People are forced to think about the results of their actions even if they dont want to or didnt want to necessarily be there. While its not a direct apples to apples comparison it does have some interesting psychological parallels.

 

[Roadrunner]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

You think the poor would vote themselves off the plantation?

Dream on.

Just because you are poor doesnt mean you cannot be educated. If you are voting for a system that keeps you poor you will stop doing so if you are educated on that.

I ran into a former student who is now in her third year of teaching.

Came from NOTHING, probably first in her family to even finish high school.

Scholarships, grants and a teach in return for tuition policy got her through school, not family money.

Thing is, she didn't have babies in high school, or do drugs, get tattoos and many other things her peers did.

In short, she "acted white", as her loser peers always said.

 

[Pogo]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

It would get the money out of politics. But these pinheads here don't get that. They prefer for big money interests to call the shots in this country. They call that democracy.

Actually it would put more money into politics.

Imagine you're a special interest and you've just been given an enormous Christmas present: delivery of masses of unwashed hordes who either can't be bothered to ponder, or can't wade through the bullshit of, an organized ad campaign. All you have to do now is organize that ad campaign and you've got millions of votes -- because they're required to. Easy pickin's.

Imagine you're a fast food company and everybody was required to visit a fast food joint once a day...

 

[WelfareQueen]

If there were to be mandatory voting should we implement literacy tests and a poll tax as well?


What do you folks think?

 

[Asclepias]

If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.

Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.

I disagree. Roughly half of the people who do vote couldn't name 3 Supreme Court justices, the Speaker of the House or their US Representative and I'd venture that 25% couldn't name the Vice President.
What makes you think those so apathetic that they don't even make it to the polls would be any better informed?

I can even understand not knowing the individuals in office.

But if a person cannot articulate the Executive Department, ie, the President and his Cabinet, carry out the law, and the Legislative Branch, the Congress, composed of a Senate representing each state equally, and a House, based on population of the state, makes the law, and that a Supreme Court, an Appeals Court and District courts administer and interpret the law, that person should not vote.

A basic knowledge of the system should be required of any voter.

You get a basic knowledge of the system in grade school.

 

[mdk]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising

Interesting opinion piece on CNN discussing the merits of mandatory voting. I liken it to jury duty. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Midterms Should Americans be forced to vote Opinion - CNN.com

No, this is a terrible idea. The right NOT to vote is just as sacred as the right to vote in my veiw. I am not going to be compelled by law to vote for candidates that doesn't jive with my ideals. In every election there are several races for local, state, and sometimes national offices that I leave blank.

That would be your right but you would still have to participate in the process or pay a fine.

A reverse poll tax?! No thanks. I believe in the freedom to vote as much as I believe in the freedom to not to vote. The law shouldn't compel it's citizens to vote when they feel none of the candidates are worthy of their vote. This idea is affront to any person that values smaller government and freedom. Personally, I have voted in every election since I was 18. I never miss one but people should be forced by the government to vote when they do not to vote.

 

[Redfish]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

liberals would have the government dictate what people are allowed to think and punish anyone who dares not the think as the goverment tells them. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it, their books were fiction, but their fiction is becoming fact.

 

[Redfish]

If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.

Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.

I disagree. Roughly half of the people who do vote couldn't name 3 Supreme Court justices, the Speaker of the House or their US Representative and I'd venture that 25% couldn't name the Vice President.
What makes you think those so apathetic that they don't even make it to the polls would be any better informed?

I can even understand not knowing the individuals in office.

But if a person cannot articulate the Executive Department, ie, the President and his Cabinet, carry out the law, and the Legislative Branch, the Congress, composed of a Senate representing each state equally, and a House, based on population of the state, makes the law, and that a Supreme Court, an Appeals Court and District courts administer and interpret the law, that person should not vote.

A basic knowledge of the system should be required of any voter.

You get a basic knowledge of the system in grade school.

sadly, what many get in grade school is indoctrination via the teachers union

 

[Roadrunner]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

Again I hold up jury duty as the model. People are forced to think about the results of their actions even if they dont want to or didnt want to necessarily be there. While its not a direct apples to apples comparison it does have some interesting psychological parallels.

Jury duty is the average citizens highest call to duty.

Many do not register to vote just to avoid it.

I think it is an honor.

 

[Katzndogz]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

Very optimistic. It wouldn't happen though. There is no amount of force that could be applied to make someone care. Put the option of "I don't give a fuck" on the ballot and that would win.

I think jury duty is a great model for this. Most people hate jury duty. However, once they are engaged in the process they actually participate.

The people who really hate jury duty don't serve on juries. They show up when called and spend the day sitting in the jury room. They just don't get selected to actually sit on a jury unless they are willing to sit on a jury.

I get called every year. I have never sat on a jury. I burn the day wasting my time in the jury room then go home when I have been dutifully rejected.

 

[Kondor3]

You know, Obama could have brought Jesus to the White House and eliminated unemployment to 0% and I can guarantee you that the narrative the right would have in 2014 would be "fail". ...

Obumble had his chance. He muffed it. Starting with the 2010 mid-term 'shellacking' when he lost the House. And continuing into the present day and beyond.

A first-term rookie junior Senator and former community organizer with zero credentials in governance and leadership was not a good match for the Senior Varsity Team Captain, anyway, despite all the manufactured rock-star glitter.

Stop making excuses for him... it's over... although it will drag on until January 20, 2017, like some sort of B-string Zombie movie.

...You are a Mitch No-Chin McConnell tool.

Hardly. I merely hold a political viewpoint that differs from yours.

I find your attack-dog tactics to be symptomatic of The Left when it is facing the prospect of huge setbacks, and when it cannot admit to itself that it, alone, is responsible for its lackluster performance in recent years, after being entrusted with the reins of power and the public good.

Repeat after me: "We (The Left) blew it. We had it all, and we couldn't deliver as promised. The People are preparing to pass judgment upon us. We must now stand up, take our lumps like Men (and Women), and learn from our mistakes, and resolve to do much better in the future." - that should help you to survive tomorrow.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.

Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.

I disagree. Roughly half of the people who do vote couldn't name 3 Supreme Court justices, the Speaker of the House or their US Representative and I'd venture that 25% couldn't name the Vice President.
What makes you think those so apathetic that they don't even make it to the polls would be any better informed?

I can even understand not knowing the individuals in office.

But if a person cannot articulate the Executive Department, ie, the President and his Cabinet, carry out the law, and the Legislative Branch, the Congress, composed of a Senate representing each state equally, and a House, based on population of the state, makes the law, and that a Supreme Court, an Appeals Court and District courts administer and interpret the law, that person should not vote.

A basic knowledge of the system should be required of any voter.

You get a basic knowledge of the system in grade school.

I seen studies where 60% of Americans do not know who wrote the Declaration of Independence or understand we have a Bill of Rights.

Most people are idiots....at least when it comes to basic civics.

 

[martybegan]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

It would get the money out of politics. But these pinheads here don't get that. They prefer for big money interests to call the shots in this country. They call that democracy.

LOL.

 

[Roadrunner]

Bad idea. You'd get hordes just going through the motions, voting based on whatever bullshit fallacy advertising campaign got to them first.

We already have that now -- mandatory would just intensify it.

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

Again I hold up jury duty as the model. People are forced to think about the results of their actions even if they dont want to or didnt want to necessarily be there. While its not a direct apples to apples comparison it does have some interesting psychological parallels.

I was on a jury that voted 11-1 to acquit a guy obviously being railroaded by a rogue cop.

The one vote was a low information voter; when asked why she voted guilty, she said "I thought that was what I was supposed to do."

We do not need people like that voting or on juries.

 

[Roadrunner]

If people are too lazy to go to the polls once a year, I don't WANT them voting.

Youre only one person. If forced to vote then they would also be forced to actually take a look at what they are voting on. The idea has some merit.

I disagree. Roughly half of the people who do vote couldn't name 3 Supreme Court justices, the Speaker of the House or their US Representative and I'd venture that 25% couldn't name the Vice President.
What makes you think those so apathetic that they don't even make it to the polls would be any better informed?

I can even understand not knowing the individuals in office.

But if a person cannot articulate the Executive Department, ie, the President and his Cabinet, carry out the law, and the Legislative Branch, the Congress, composed of a Senate representing each state equally, and a House, based on population of the state, makes the law, and that a Supreme Court, an Appeals Court and District courts administer and interpret the law, that person should not vote.

A basic knowledge of the system should be required of any voter.

You get a basic knowledge of the system in grade school.

I seen studies where 60% of Americans do not know who wrote the Declaration of Independence or understand we have a Bill of Rights.

Most people are idiots....at least when it comes to basic civics.

Then they should not be allowed to vote.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think that if forced to vote, more people would actually take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I think it would be harder if each party had to do more than sway their core supporters.

No they wouldn't; there's no incentive to do so. All you've done is made it mandatory to cast a vote. You go in and vote for Zippy the Pinhead, literally or figuratively, and you've served that requirement. Doesn't require any education at all to do that.

That would be their right. However, I think that more people would automatically become more engaged in the process and would stop voting against their best interests.

Again -- there is no reason that should follow. To get more people to think more deeply, you'd have to pass some sort of -- something -- that requires people to think. You can't legislate that any more than you can legislate morality.

Again I hold up jury duty as the model. People are forced to think about the results of their actions even if they dont want to or didnt want to necessarily be there. While its not a direct apples to apples comparison it does have some interesting psychological parallels.

I was on a jury that voted 11-1 to acquit a guy obviously being railroaded by a rogue cop.

The one vote was a low information voter; when asked why she voted guilty, she said "I thought that was what I was supposed to do".

We do not need people like that voting or on juries.

You should have gotten someone really pissy who said "I may be forced to be here but you can't stop me from fucking with the whole trial. "

That's why jurors are questioned and so many are eliminated. Jurors must be willing to be jurors.