Obama: Mandatory voting to counteract BIG money

[BoberFett]

I just find it funny how conservatives freak out at the idea that everyone in America might vote. This is particularly funny considering their ideas of the agency of an individual.

Who's freaking out?

 

[fskimospy]

Who's freaking out?

Conservatives! Duh. Haha. Go look at the reactions in conservative media to obama's proposal.

For fun, imagine the meltdown that would occur if congress ever actually appeared likely to pass such a measure. You would see conservatives whip themselves into a frenzy to rival the ACA freak out.

 

[BoberFett]

Conservatives! Duh. Haha. Go look at the reactions in conservative media to obama's proposal.

For fun, imagine the meltdown that would occur if congress ever actually appeared likely to pass such a measure. You would see conservatives whip themselves into a frenzy to rival the ACA freak out.

I've been around a lot of people the last couple of days. Statistically speaking half of them would have been conservative. Not a single one even talked about this, much less was "freaking out" about it.

Oh, you mean freaks like you who live for outrage...

 

[lopri]

I did not read the thread but watched the speech. And CNN is deliberately misquoting it to make waves.

What Obama repeatedly stated is that if everyone voted, we can counteract the influence of big money in the politics. And it would be transformative. He said it in the context of voting rights and fighting against the efforts to disenfranchise voting.

He simply mentioned in passing that there is even a country where voting is mandatory. No more, no less. What he was trying to convey (at least from what I infer) is that voting is considered that important in some other democratic countries. In no way he "suggested" mandatory voting for the present day United States.

It is like someone talks about iPhone's popularity, and examples that in some countries there are people who sell their organs to get an iPhone. That person is not suggesting an "organ markets." I know the analogy is not the best, but it is good enough for pointing out the way CNN twists Obama's speech by quoting him out of context

 

[Sunburn74]

I think the solution is not improving the voter turnout but rather improving the quality of candidates available to be selected. The fact that there is no real qualification requirement to run for office, no measure on quality control, no real mechanism of feedback on job performance, no set of goals and targets to reach once in office, no real punishment for misconduct and no real measure for affecting the behavior of candidates once in office other than voting (which obviously is not working as it is) is likely the real reason for the issues that mandatory voting attempts to unsuccessfully address. I say this in reference to senate/House/gubernatorial/state rep races. The actual presidential race to me is of little consequence sans decisions to go to war or not and rare executive actions and those are things you really can't predict anyway.

More people voting between a choice of poop* or urine**, doesn't really affect the overall satisfaction post election result. I do however have slight favor to living with urine rather than poop all the time, but not by much.

*GOP
**Democratic party

 

[ivwshane]

I was going to post the actual transcript but didn't think it would add anything.

Good point though

I did not read the thread but watched the speech. And CNN is deliberately misquoting it to make waves.

What Obama repeatedly stated is that if everyone voted, we can counteract the influence of big money in the politics. And it would be transformative. He said it in the context of voting rights and fighting against the efforts to disenfranchise voting.

He simply mentioned in passing that there is even a country where voting is mandatory. No more, no less. What he was trying to convey (at least from what I infer) is that voting is considered that important in some other democratic countries. In no way he "suggested" mandatory voting for the present day United States.

It is like someone talks about iPhone's popularity, and examples that in some countries there are people who sell their organs to get an iPhone. That person is not suggesting an "organ markets." I know the analogy is not the best, but it is good enough for pointing out the way CNN twists Obama's speech by quoting him out of context

 

[fskimospy]

I've been around a lot of people the last couple of days. Statistically speaking half of them would have been conservative. Not a single one even talked about this, much less was "freaking out" about it.

Oh, you mean freaks like you who live for outrage...

oh well if the people you were around over the last few days didn't talk about it I guess that settles that. Haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the solution is not improving the voter turnout but rather improving the quality of candidates available to be selected. The fact that there is no real qualification requirement to run for office, no measure on quality control, no real mechanism of feedback on job performance, no set of goals and targets to reach once in office, no real punishment for misconduct and no real measure for affecting the behavior of candidates once in office other than voting (which obviously is not working as it is) is likely the real reason for the issues that mandatory voting attempts to unsuccessfully address. I say this in reference to senate/House/gubernatorial/state rep races. The actual presidential race to me is of little consequence sans decisions to go to war or not and rare executive actions and those are things you really can't predict anyway.

More people voting between a choice of poop* or urine**, doesn't really affect the overall satisfaction post election result. I do however have slight favor to living with urine rather than poop all the time, but not by much.

*GOP
**Democratic party

Heh. I really don't think we want to use corporate standards or even the structure of corporate standards as you suggest. I think it's important that anybody can run for office.

It's also quite remarkable how "qualifications" are one thing on paper, another in real life, like this guy-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Gohmert

 

[fskimospy]

I think the solution is not improving the voter turnout but rather improving the quality of candidates available to be selected. The fact that there is no real qualification requirement to run for office, no measure on quality control, no real mechanism of feedback on job performance, no set of goals and targets to reach once in office, no real punishment for misconduct and no real measure for affecting the behavior of candidates once in office other than voting (which obviously is not working as it is) is likely the real reason for the issues that mandatory voting attempts to unsuccessfully address. I say this in reference to senate/House/gubernatorial/state rep races. The actual presidential race to me is of little consequence sans decisions to go to war or not and rare executive actions and those are things you really can't predict anyway.

More people voting between a choice of poop* or urine**, doesn't really affect the overall satisfaction post election result. I do however have slight favor to living with urine rather than poop all the time, but not by much.

*GOP
**Democratic party

What would that even look like though?

 

[Subyman]

I've been around a lot of people the last couple of days. Statistically speaking half of them would have been conservative. Not a single one even talked about this, much less was "freaking out" about it.

Oh, you mean freaks like you who live for outrage...

Pundits and "fox alert" are freaking out?

I think a better description could be:

"Oh, you mean freaks that make a living off of outrage..."

The ones that are freaking out for free are outrage sluts, you don't even have to pay them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pundits and "fox alert" are freaking out?

I think a better description could be:

"Oh, you mean freaks that make a living off of outrage..."

The ones that are freaking out for free are outrage sluts, you don't even have to pay them.

"Outrage addicts" is the term you're looking for. Having a black President seems to have brought on a lot of it & willing suppliers to fill the desire. It defines the Teahad.

Sekrit Mooslim!

Sharia Law!

Invasion of the brown people!

Birth Certificate!

Not grabbing your guns to... Grab your guns!

BATFE arming Mexican Cartels!

Billionaires persecuted by the IRS!

Gay Marriage!

Reefer Madness!

Selling us out to Iranian Mullahs & their nuclear weapons!

BENGHAZI! The ultimate conspiracy theory!

I could go on, but I think it's clear that the vast majority of outrage freaks go with Fox News, the American Stinker, Newsmax, Drudge, any of the Examiner series, & anything that pushes their self righteous button...

They're all Dana Carvey's Church Lady, one way or the other.

 

[Griffinhart]

A couple of points.... First, I think mandatory voting would not be to the detriment of the right. I believe demographics have shown that the majority of US citizens tend to lean right. At least in news station choices and religious affiliation.

Nor would it really counter money being spent on political campaigns. If anything, I can see political messages getting more and more divisive and emotional to influence the apathetic and those easily swayed by emotion.

More importantly, Under the constitution as it stands now, It would likely be a violation of the 1st amendment where refusing to vote could be considered a political statement.

 

[BoberFett]

oh well if the people you were around over the last few days didn't talk about it I guess that settles that. Haha.

If the people you are around were freaking out, you need new friends.

 

[Jhhnn]

A couple of points.... First, I think mandatory voting would not be to the detriment of the right. I believe demographics have shown that the majority of US citizens tend to lean right. At least in news station choices and religious affiliation.

Nor would it really counter money being spent on political campaigns. If anything, I can see political messages getting more and more divisive and emotional to influence the apathetic and those easily swayed by emotion.

More importantly, Under the constitution as it stands now, It would likely be a violation of the 1st amendment where refusing to vote could be considered a political statement.

That's borderline delusional. The most under represented groups at the polls are working class & poor people. Leaning Right is entirely different than the current position of Repubs, which is reactionary, an attempt to make permanent our new Gilded Age. It's still all trickle down all the time, even though they avoid that particular phrase. Their only traction is wrt guns, abortion & dishonest regressive tax stances, not to mention the cloaked racism.

We might see more money spent to influence the apathetic, but Repubs already have those easily swayed by emotion right where they want 'em- nicely irrational in various levels of Denial.

 

[SMOGZINN]

More importantly, Under the constitution as it stands now, It would likely be a violation of the 1st amendment where refusing to vote could be considered a political statement.

I think that it could be argued that for that to be true someone would have to show up to the polling place and make a conscientious decision to not vote. It would be easy to add a 'No Vote' to the form that would take care of any constitutional right to protest by not voting.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. The important part is to think about what it would mean, what would change if everybody voted.

The whole idea scares Repub strategists shitless, as well it should. Their pitch & ideology are only designed to gather the low hanging fruit- they already have all of that.

 

[HomerJS]

$100 tax credit would incentify people to come and vote.

That way it's not a penalty and free speech remains

 

[Jhhnn]

$100 tax credit would incentify people to come and vote.

That way it's not a penalty and free speech remains

True. Hell, a person wouldn't have to actually cast any votes at all, either. Sign in, get the ballot, just hand it in blank.

Better make it $50- no point in over spending.

 

[Fern]

Meh. The important part is to think about what it would mean, what would change if everybody voted.

The whole idea scares Repub strategists shitless, as well it should. Their pitch & ideology are only designed to gather the low hanging fruit- they already have all of that.

If building a political party based upon the promise of handing out more free shizz than the other guy isn't the epitome of "low hanging fruit" nothing is.

--------------

The only real change I see if the absolute mess that voting would become. We already have horrible wait times and huge lines to vote in many place. This would be a disaster without a huge investment in voting machines etc. Sounds like an idea that the voting machine lobby scrawled on the back of the envelope of their last donation to Obama. It's exactly that well thought out.

Most elections are within shot of 50/50. People just seem to line up that way. Candidates that are virtually identical except for their hair styles come in close to 50/50. Candidates that complete opposite come in close 50/50. I don't much see prospect for that changing.

And things go in cycles. When one party has been in charge for a while voters seem to tire of them and elect the other party in. This happens all over the world where there are free elections.

-------------

Kinda of funny that Dems seem convinced that they are the ones who can't even be bothered vote and are somehow proud of that.

Fern

 

[SandEagle]

if i can vote from my tv, computer, or ps4, then im ok with this.
i dont bother voting anymore though; both parties are the same.

 

[BoberFett]

Meh. The important part is to think about what it would mean, what would change if everybody voted.

The whole idea scares Repub strategists shitless, as well it should. Their pitch & ideology are only designed to gather the low hanging fruit- they already have all of that.

You don't think the Democrat pitch "Vote for us and the government will give you free shit" is designed to gather low hanging fruit?

 

[Jhhnn]

If building a political party based upon the promise of handing out more free shizz than the other guy isn't the epitome of "low hanging fruit" nothing is.

--------------

The only real change I see if the absolute mess that voting would become. We already have horrible wait times and huge lines to vote in many place. This would be a disaster without a huge investment in voting machines etc. Sounds like an idea that the voting machine lobby scrawled on the back of the envelope of their last donation to Obama. It's exactly that well thought out.

Most elections are within shot of 50/50. People just seem to line up that way. Candidates that are virtually identical except for their hair styles come in close to 50/50. Candidates that complete opposite come in close 50/50. I don't much see prospect for that changing.

And things go in cycles. When one party has been in charge for a while voters seem to tire of them and elect the other party in. This happens all over the world where there are free elections.

-------------

Kinda of funny that Dems seem convinced that they are the ones who can't even be bothered vote and are somehow proud of that.

Fern

Pure denial.

I do love the lameness of claiming that it would cost sooo much if everybody voted. It's undoubtedly cheaper that F35's, huh? Oh! oh! oh! it'd be so messy, too!

The reference to free shit is classic, of course. Mortgage deductions are free shit, aren't they? HSA's? The employer's share of 401K's? Automobile business expenses & a lot of other deductions?

Oh, wait- you need a middle class job to get that free stuff, huh?

I'm willing to bet that most people who only get free shit would gladly trade that for a middle class job, huh?

Job Creators! Job Creators! Wherefore art thou, Job Creators?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Mortgage deductions are free shit, aren't they?

Of course they aren't. I actually pay my mortgage interest.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't think the Democrat pitch "Vote for us and the government will give you free shit" is designed to gather low hanging fruit?

I do love the derogatory characterizations as opposed to, you know, reality. It's easy enough to ride that smug high horse when you've got yours, huh?

We barely escaped another Great Depression brought on by Repub policy. The beat down on the working & middle class was severe, but the Repub answer is more of the same, harder & deeper. Maybe it'll trickle down someplace other than your dreams.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course they aren't. I actually pay my mortgage interest.

Fern

So dishonest.