Obama wants mandatory voting

[Chef Ramsay]

President Obama gave support to mandatory voting today at a town hall event in Cleveland. The President claims the drastic move would reduce the importance of money in elections and stop alleged voter suppression.

The Washington Times reports on the President’s claim that mandatory voting would change everything:

“It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract [campaign] money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”

I wonder what the penalty would be for failing to vote?

More...http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/274408-obamas-solution-money-politics-completely-change-political-map/

Well, we all know those that don't vote, by and large, are the most intelligent in the populace rather than the other way around. Good move and idea by Prez Zero as it can only benefit the democrat party since the majority of boobs that don't vote, get their 'news' from the free msm stations. It's not likely gonna happen but even if not, you see the genius of where this concept will fall in favor of..

[bithodlr]

In Brazil there's mandatory voting, the penalty for not voting without justification can be losing the right to vote, losing the access to some public services, state loans, or even losing the passport.

I find the idea of mandatory voting quite appealing, the voter turnout is always so low, elections are always decided by a minority of the population, I wish more countries implement this.

I believe also India has mandatory voting.

[Vod]

These are the 11 countries that enforce compulsory voting (no India):

Argentina – Introduced in 1912.[21] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
Australia – Introduced in 1924.[21] Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be 'marked'. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.[22] At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine.[23]
Brazil[24] – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for Brazilian Youth age 16-17 or over 70 or illiterate citizens of any age. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
Cyprus - Introduced in 1960.[21]
Ecuador – Introduced in 1936.[21] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg - Voluntary for those over 70.
Nauru - Introduced in 1965.[21]
Peru[25] – Introduced in 1933.[21] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.
Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old on 1 January of the year of election
Uruguay - Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.[21]

In addition
Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland has compulsory voting - Introduced to Switzerland in 1904, but abolished in all other cantons by 1974.[21]

Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

[tee-rex]

In Brazil there's mandatory voting, the penalty for not voting without justification can be losing the right to vote, losing the access to some public services, state loans, or even losing the passport.

I find the idea of mandatory voting quite appealing, the voter turnout is always so low, elections are always decided by a minority of the population, I wish more countries implement this.

I believe also India has mandatory voting.

I think the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. By not voting you express your disagreement with the existing political system as such, since if most people ignore elections, the powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections.

[Snail2]

I think the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. By not voting you express your disagreement with the existing political system as such, since if most people ignore elections, the powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections.

Theoretically you are right, practically I've never seen such "powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections". Actually what I seen that was the opposite.

[Agestorzrxx]

He must be already losing faith in his new Democratic Voter Drive from the South….and realizes his base is not someone he can count on to get out and vote on their own.

[Raeg]

In Brazil there's mandatory voting, the penalty for not voting without justification can be losing the right to vote, losing the access to some public services, state loans, or even losing the passport.

I find the idea of mandatory voting quite appealing, the voter turnout is always so low, elections are always decided by a minority of the population, I wish more countries implement this.

I believe also India has mandatory voting.

I think the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. By not voting you express your disagreement with the existing political system as such, since if most people ignore elections, the powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections.

Yep. You should never be forced to do anything you don't want to. That's not democracy. Forcing people to vote is only going to make their choice meaningless. People usually don't vote for a good reason.

[tee-rex]

I think the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. By not voting you express your disagreement with the existing political system as such, since if most people ignore elections, the powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections.

Theoretically you are right, practically I've never seen such "powers that be are effectively losing their legitimacy even if they win the elections". Actually what I seen that was the opposite.

How come? Legitimacy is not something that you can endow yourself with on just your desire only. If most people don't vote, the government is not legitimate by definition. That's why all those countries force their citizens to vote (and then rig the results in their favor as they see appropriate).

[EcuaMobi]

I'm from Ecuador, one of the 11 countries with compulsory voting and I can say that's a terrible idea!
A lot of people just don't care about politics and don't get informed. The only result is that they make an almost random vote if they're forced too.
If somebody doesn't want to read candidate's proposals and other information they should be able not to vote and let decide those who do.

[Snail2]

How come? Legitimacy is not something that you can endow yourself with on just your desire only. If most people don't vote, the government is not legitimate by definition. That's why all those countries force their citizens to vote (and then rig the results in their favor as they see appropriate).

In practice legitimacy is something what is based on trust and credit given by the voters. If the voters believe that the voting was clear they will give credit (and legitimacy) to the results, even if they know that only 25% of the voters participated and even if they dislike those results.

[tee-rex]

How come? Legitimacy is not something that you can endow yourself with on just your desire only. If most people don't vote, the government is not legitimate by definition. That's why all those countries force their citizens to vote (and then rig the results in their favor as they see appropriate).

In practice legitimacy is something what is based on trust and credit given by the voters. If the voters believe that the voting was clear they will give credit (and legitimacy) to the results, even if they know that only 25% of the voters participated and even if they dislike those results.

It is not about voters and whether they give credit and legitimacy to the results. They do this by definition (again), since if they didn't, they simply wouldn't come to vote. It is the population of a country as whole that matters, and if the majority of it didn't vote at all, there would be no legitimacy. As simple.

I'm really curious how this can even be an issue.

[Snail2]

It is not about voters and whether they give credit and legitimacy to the results. They do this by definition (again), since if they didn't, they simply wouldn't come to vote. It is the population of a country as whole that matters, and if the majority of it didn't vote at all, there would be no legitimacy. As simple.

I'm really curious how this can even be an issue.

Definition and practice in real life are two very different animals. That's why this could be an issue. In the past I've seen several elections on many different levels where only 25-45% of the voters turned up, but nobody questioned the legitimacy of the elected officials. The majority simply accepted the results. I also seen parties exploiting the apathy of the voters this way and making big gains with a small but enthusiastic, disciplined and well organized group of supporters.

[tee-rex]

It is not about voters and whether they give credit and legitimacy to the results. They do this by definition (again), since if they didn't, they simply wouldn't come to vote. It is the population of a country as whole that matters, and if the majority of it didn't vote at all, there would be no legitimacy. As simple.

I'm really curious how this can even be an issue.

Definition and practice in real life are two very different animals. That's why this could be an issue. In the past I've seen several elections on many different levels where only 25-45% of the voters turned up, but nobody questioned the legitimacy of the elected officials. The majority simply accepted the results. I also seen parties exploiting the apathy of the voters this way and making big gains with a small but enthusiastic, disciplined and well organized group of supporters.

I agree with you that some parties may be exploiting the apathy of the voters to their own advantage, but try to look at the issue from another angle. What does being legitimate mean for the authorities? It means that they can act on behalf of their citizens, right? But if they came to power in the result of the elections where only a small fraction of those entitled to vote came to vote, then anyone can question their legitimacy on the pretext that they can't actually act on behalf of the populace, since the majority didn't in fact vote for them.

They would have nothing to stand on.

[chmod755]

I'm from Ecuador, one of the 11 countries with compulsory voting and I can say that's a terrible idea!
A lot of people just don't care about politics and don't get informed. The only result is that they make an almost random vote if they're forced too.
If somebody doesn't want to read candidate's proposals and other information they should be able not to vote and let decide those who do.

Most people in Australia seem to hate Tony Abbott, so it's not just a terrible idea in Ecuador.

[MegaFall]

A lot of people just don't care about politics and don't get informed. The only result is that they make an almost random vote if they're forced too.

This happens anyway... in the US people vote for a certain candidate because the politician is affiliated with the party they are affiliated with, not because they've actually paid attention to what each candidate wants to do. People that are born into a Democrat household tend to vote Democrat for life, and those born into a Republican household tend to vote Republican for life. It really has nothing to do with being informed.

[thejaytiesto]

There are some positives and negatives of this. People take for granted the fact we are free to vote, but then again, forcing people to vote just sounds not right to me.

[stevegreer]

Doesn't seem surprising that he would propose something like this. As Americans, we have a RIGHT to vote. We are free to choose to exercise that right. It should NEVER be made mandatory with threat of repercussions. It is typical, though, that he would try to call out the supposed voter-suppression caused by states wanting voter ID laws. I will never understand how anyone can believe that making it mandatory to show a picture ID is racist. Are we to believe that minorities are incapable of obtaining a valid picture ID or show proof of residence?

Honestly, I think that his saying things like that and also that making voting mandatory will counteract campaigns being bought is laughable. You want to make elections fair, legitimate and not bought and paid for? Then get rid of the electoral college and allow the offices of President and Vice-President be decided by the popular vote instead. Let We The People actually decide instead of They The Elite.

[(oYo)]

Forcing people to vote is wrong, but having to choose one of the candidates (if you do vote) is also wrong. There should be a 'none of the above' choice for those who wish to make a clear statement, rather than just abstain from voting. Not that it would necessarily make any difference, since they can rig elections to go whichever way they want. Perhaps the intention here is simply data mining, whereby (through forcing people to vote) they can obtain a clearer understanding of your political stance.

[okthen]

I agree with compulsory voting. If you have rights that the state must concede you, you also have duties. Voting should probably be easier though, not oblige anyone to go somewhere to do it. And you have the power to put a blank vote, which is a much stronger move than not voting.

[Chef Ramsay]

I'm definitely of the mind that forcing anything is wrong but in this case, Obama wants to force the parasites and low info voters out in a large swath to as he said, "make life easier for him". Things worked out well for him in '08 because he was new, black (which brought out inner city folks in force as well as younger people), and people thought McCain was a douche (which he was and is). Then, Obama turned out to be a disappointment and his base, who typically aren't very intelligent or are apathetic, went back to sleep and that was only two years later. Plus, this issue is just a way for the republicans to cast more hate on Obama and the left and  a way for Obama to turn the tables and have something meaningless like this to be discussed and sensationalized to keep other more pressing issues on the back burner for a while.