Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

Can you vote none of the above in the US...?

purp

a reply to: coldkidc

Australia has this, we find it weird as hell that you don't have to take the time to vote your leaders and government in. Just reserve the right to Whinge and Whine about who gets in later...

2 issues I see...
1) forceing one to do anything to me is against the idea of freedom
2) how on earth do you enforce it?

a reply to: coldkidc

I tend to think that the opposite is what we have to do.

In protest of the absence of any viable candidates, no one should vote.

They cannot claim legitimacy under such circumstances and it rolls nicely into impeachments and recalls.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

a reply to: coldkidc

The real question is why don't people vote...

Mostly because the choices are so limited as to appear alien and useless to their day to day lives IMO.

I don't think I have issue with mandatory voting, but it would have to be hand in hand with an overhaul of the system so that it afforded more choice, whether that be limiting campaign spending so that 3rd parties have an equal voice, or limiting televised debates to a certain number and then not permitting television outlets to exclude 3rd party candidates that have met some bar of public support.

People feel "disenfranchised" across the political spectrum. Being forced to choose between another Bush or Clinton doesn't seem the solution as much as figuring out how to give them more choices that might engage them.

a reply to: coldkidc

Forcing people to participate in a "vote" is pretty absurd, escpecially when you hav ethe electoral college and a artificially imposed selection set of 2 parties.

It's a ploy to get your biometrics as you come through the door. I guess the it would take some uncertainty away from the reported voter turnout numbers.

They just call it 100% every time, instead of spinning some wheel.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..


www.people-press.org...

a reply to: Indigo5

People feel "disenfranchised" across the political spectrum. Being forced to choose between another Bush or Clinton doesn't seem the solution as much as figuring out how to give them more choices that might engage them.

This is by design. They want you confused and brain dead. They want people worshipping technocrats that spoon feed you your opinions. Saves on the PR budget.

a reply to: coldkidc

It would be a joke, just like everything else Obama and his cabinet has done. For example of course Cash for Clunkers, and Obamacare.

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: coldkidc

He allowed 10 millions illegals to stay, now he wants all 10 million votes. Not-a-1-missing.

Yep.



Man, for a group that gives lip service to "freedom of choice" the Democrats certainly like making lots of stuff mandatory.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..

www.people-press.org...

ha.

I would be willing to go all in with my hand.

If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?

a reply to: coldkidc

Just another form of control over people that the Govt is wanting to rule over.

a reply to: coldkidc

I read about this yesterday, what a man, Obama got away with mandating health care and now he wants to exploit that door with mandatory voting, the word mandatory should open the minds and eyes to people when it comes to how dictatorships works.

Voting is a privilege and a duty, but never should be forced into the population, because then it becomes the epitome of fear mongering and what totalitarian governments do.

There are too many things that are mandatory today.
A poster above replied to me saying that we can be drafted into the military.... anyone been drafted lately? Has there ever been a draft where EVERYONE has to go to the military? Hell, I don't believe that a woman has ever been drafted.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ahhhhh, results from a Pew Poll in 2011 is your example of "current "?

Okay then.
And with no info for that graph, for sampling rates or anything else.

Yeah, I buy it. I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I just purchased as well.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I don't see why, people should complain about the fact that YOU - TinfoilTP - didn't cast a vote ...

So you are ok with people ending up in a dungeon for not having the same views as you.....it's ok to come out of the dark ages the light won't burn your retinas.

a reply to: coldkidc

That's just it - he does want to "fix" the voting system. Do you think he doesn't have demographics on just exactly who doesn't vote and what their likely voting proclivities would be?

He'll fix the system all right. It would shortly be one party rule nation wide.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: coldkidc

That's just it - he does want to "fix" the voting system. Do you think he doesn't have demographics on just exactly who doesn't vote and what their likely voting proclivities would be?

He'll fix the system all right. It would shortly be one party rule nation wide.

'Fix'. That's good.