Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

Thread: Mandated voting

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Mandated voting

    Since the left is always on 'fire' when people suggest we need Voter ID's to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen, i am struggling to see why Obama is putting the idea out there that maybe we need to go to Compulsory voting.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...datory-voting/

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politi...ing/index.html

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-su...e-a-good-idea/

    Now YES i do find it sad that less than 40% of the eligible voters were out last cycle (according to the figures in those articles), but i don't think that should be a reason to mandate it.
    Especially if you are not also then mandating Voter IDs.

    What say you all?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    I didn't vote in 2004. That was me exercising my right to express my views on the candidates at the time.

    However... if I was legally required to vote that year, I wouldn't be upset about it. We already "have to" pay taxes as it is, and if we fight a big enough war... some people may "have to" be in the military and be put in combat. So a mandate that will cost us neither our money nor our lives is hardly anything for anyone to lose their minds over.

    In truth, we have so much "freedom" here in America that we're spoiled by it.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #3
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    If I was mandated to vote, I'd probably write in Homer Simpson or something.

    What's funny is that the suggestion of this mandate, as stated by the President himself, is to get the low income, the minorities, etc (the voters most likely to vote Democrat) to the polls.

    Here's my question. What happens, if voting was to become mandatory, when the people who this is intended to get to the voting booths still don't go? The suggestion is that they would be fined. So now these low income people who, in the words of the Democrats, can't make it to the polls because it's too difficult to get there, are going to end up paying money because they "couldn't" make it. This creates more financial hardship for those who are probably already receiving government assistance. Is everyone else (as happens with Obamacare) going to end up paying these fines for those who can't afford it?

    I know it was just a random thought expressed in words during this interview but I have a feeling there wasn't much thought put into it by the President.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    If I was mandated to vote, I'd probably write in Homer Simpson or something.

    What's funny is that the suggestion of this mandate, as stated by the President himself, is to get the low income, the minorities, etc (the voters most likely to vote Democrat) to the polls.

    Here's my question. What happens, if voting was to become mandatory, when the people who this is intended to get to the voting booths still don't go? The suggestion is that they would be fined. So now these low income people who, in the words of the Democrats, can't make it to the polls because it's too difficult to get there, are going to end up paying money because they "couldn't" make it. This creates more financial hardship for those who are probably already receiving government assistance. Is everyone else (as happens with Obamacare) going to end up paying these fines for those who can't afford it?

    I know it was just a random thought expressed in words during this interview but I have a feeling there wasn't much thought put into it by the President.
    I'm sure this would be accommodated by setting up more polling sites. There'd have to be more in order to account the for the fact that there'd be almost twice as many voters. It would only stand to reason that the new polling sites would be in places that are more accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to vote.

    Here's another idea I thought of: Pay everybody $30 for voting. That'll get people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't have come. That's what you get for a plasma donation, and it only takes half the time doesn't involve needles!
    Last edited by Rusty Jones; 03-20-2015 at 12:14 PM.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  5. #5
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Here's another idea I thought of: Pay everybody $30 for voting. That'll get people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't have come. That's what you get for a plasma donation, and it only takes half the time doesn't involve needles!
    So who pays for this? In reality, this would be funded by the "rich Republican voters" in order to get the "poor Democrat voters" to the polls. That makes sense.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    So who pays for this? In reality, this would be funded by the "rich Republican voters" in order to get the "poor Democrat voters" to the polls. That makes sense.
    Remember back when Bush gave everybody $800? Twice? Yeah, giving everybody $30 ain't shit.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  7. #7
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rusty is correct that more polling places would be needed. SJ is right that this would cost money. Rusty is wrong in his assertion that polling places are now located in places inconvenient to any large group of people. This is an old and well worn strawman argument about voter turnout. People who don't vote generally don't because they don't want to. They may cite inconvenience (time off from work, travel to polling location, etc) but the fact is they just don't vote.

    If you want to know why Obama said what he did read this over. http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/...f-nonvoters-2/


    As always when hypocrisy become evident I chuckle at a Democrat suggesting mandatory voting laws with a straight face while condemning any voter ID law passed by a GOP controlled state legislature, crying nefarious motivations.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  8. #8
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Remember back when Bush gave everybody $800? Twice? Yeah, giving everybody $30 ain't shit.
    Putting aside the huge difference between $800 and $30 what is your point in this comparison? I get that you were being sarcastic but I missed the point.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    Putting aside the huge difference between $800 and $30 what is your point in this comparison? I get that you were being sarcastic but I missed the point.


    This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

    OR

    They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  10. #10
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

    OR

    They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.
    Either way, the government needs to quit mandating that we do shit. The purpose of laws is to deter people from doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, not to insist that people do the things others think they should be doing. It would be like instituting a law that says that everyone MUST own a gun, because it is a right and those without one are somehow shirking their responsibilities.

    What they need to do, if they want people to vote, is run viable campaigns and produce tangible results. Give us someone we want to vote for.

    If a voting mandate was to be implemented, what's next? Mandate that people attend closed circuit broadcasts of debates, campaign ads, etc, to ensure the voters are, at least, minimally aware of who and what they are voting for?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •