What If Everyone In America Had To Vote?

[Veilex]

I'd like to see more incentives for voting... like perhaps a voting holiday or some similar equivalent.

Australia has near 100 percent turnout in its elections. How do the Aussies do it? They, like 25 other countries, require people to vote.

President Obama wondered aloud Wednesday whether it was time for the United States to consider a similar move.

"In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said at an economic event in Cleveland. "It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/19/394051742/what-if-everyone-in-america-had-to-vote

[brooklynite]

1. Don't forget, you're also requiring anti-Government conservatives to vote as well...

[Veilex]

3. True... but then, I don't really have a problem with that.

Particularly since most of the country disagrees with those anti-government individuals.

[BubbaFett]

2. Only if there is some way corporate america can make money from it

[NV Whino]

4. 30% of the people would still vote for idiots.

[Veilex]

6. True... but it'd become considerably harder to commit election fraud.

That'd be a big plus in my book.

[HereSince1628]

10. Just 30%??

THAT would greatly improve things in WI!

[dissentient]

5. National holiday, and the two parties have to release their stranglehold on the system

So other alternative parties like Greens and others can have a chance to get lots of votes. Public financing has to be int here too, for a level playing field.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Fine. Just as long as it has a "None of the above" box and write in line.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[Sherman A1]

8. I think it would be great

and am all for the idea.

[11 Bravo]

9. I'm not sure. Would the WHOLE 1st Amendment go down the shitter ...

or just part of it?

[LanternWaste]

12. Ask an Australian...

Ask an Australian...

[11 Bravo]

13. About what? The 1st Amendment that they don't have?

[Veilex]

15. While they don't have a explicit 1st Amendment, they do have this:

In 1992, however, the High Court of Australia held that a right to freedom of expression, in so far as public and political discussion were concerned, was implied in the Constitution.

&

There is however an implied freedom of speech that was recognised in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia

[11 Bravo]

22. Apparently Aussies feel that such wording is compatible ...

with compulsory voting. Would you care to attempt to try and make the case that the United States Constitution does the same thing?

[Veilex]

24. I don't think I could...at least, not in the manner you suggest.

I could point out the already existing limitations on free speech, such as not being able to yell "Fire" in a theater when there is no fire. Or being able to threaten the lives others (which I realize is done frequently, and people get away with it, but this is about the legalities of it rather than enforcement). There is also the issue of slander: the action of making a false statement, thereby damaging a person's reputation.

I could also point out that its not unheard of to be required to perform certain actions in this country. A few examples that come to mind: Pay taxes, get car insurance (if you drive a car), attend jury duty if summoned, and, more recently, get health insurance. I'm sure they're plenty more... but those are few quick examples.

Requiring voting would be like any other act passed by congress, in that accommodations and regulations would have to be established, and existing laws, modified.

[stone space]

31. "Falsly shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a euphemism...

...that was coined to refer to passing out leaflets against a military draft.

It's not about a real fire in a real theater.

It's about an act of free speech in a political protest.

See Schenck v. US.

The euphemism refers to expressing an opinion about the draft.

Just sayin'...

(Duplicate post above deleted. Don't know how that happened.)

[Veilex]

32. Didn't know that. Interesting.

Even so, the other examples are pertinent... and I'm sure there are plenty more besides.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. about the 1st Amendment?

about the 1st Amendment?

[Skittles]

47. I did ask an Aussie virtual coworker what he thought of their mandatory voting

he said:

I think it is nuts.

I only want people to vote who care enough to take the time to vote and think about it. I do not want swing voters to arrive at the booth with the last negative advert bouncing around their heads driving their choice.

Silly system.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Apparently it's "fuck the 1st Amendment Week" on DU

No one sent me the memo, again!

[KamaAina]

39. Not voting is speech?

That doesn't make a whole lot more sense to me than money being speech.

[11 Bravo]

49. No, just the opposite.

Compelled voting would be compelled speech. And that is my entire point.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. Mandatory voting wouldn't

make it go down the shitter. The 1st Amendment doesn't really exist anymore anyway. If you have to ask permission (get permission) to protest, then it is no longer a right but a privilege. If you get your head busted open for the shear audacity of protesting then it is no longer considered a right by those in power.

[valerief]

11. That means the wealthy would make sure (1) more people were in prison and (2) more people

were in the military.

Still, I think voting *should* be mandated. It's more important than taxes and that's mandated, well, for the 99% anyway.

[Veilex]

16. If such a voting requirement were passed without any accomidations whatsoever, you'de be right.

However, considering the available accommodations that currently, I would presume that additional accommodations and protections would be instituted along with such a mandate... IE: businesses could not legally prevent people from voting through scheduling or coercion. Or perhaps that businesses would be required to have "vote days" on the books, similar to "sick days", that people could use to get out of work and go vote. Kind of like a voter's holiday. There are plenty of ways we could get around punitive actions that the wealthy and/or corporations would try to institute... these are just several ideas off the top of my mind.

[Journeyman]

14. "Freedom of speech has no practical value if it does not include the right to remain silent." . . .

~ Dalton Trumbo

"Freedom is the right to say no." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

[Veilex]

17. Easy enough to address.

Add an option to abstain from voting upon the ballot itself. This allows people to choose to not choose.

[salin]

18. Hard to tell the difference between apathy and assertion of right to silence...

there should be an option for "no candidate". Then it is a clear assertion of disproval - I participated by asserting my silence on the candidate.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. Apathy is due to disapproval. Why blame the voter for apathy? Mandatory voting does not address the

problem that it is the system that is the problem, not the voter.

[belcffub]

44. I frequently write in none

when voting... I refuse to vote for a republican/democratic/conservative/working family candidate... anyone who shows up on lines that are polar opposites I will not vote for... bugs the crap out of me...

[salin]

45. In doing so, you are participating and giving a voice

which is different than just not voting.

I have done the same as you, over the years.

[liberal_at_heart]

46. Just because it is different than what you would do does not make it wrong.

[belcffub]

50. normally these are local elections

many times for judges... seems like many in our area are endorsed by all the parties... never really liked the idea of someone liberal republican democratic conservative...

[KT2000]

19. my guess is the third party

would be write-in votes for Mickey Mouse.
This country is too messed up for mandatory voting.

[rock]

21. Here's what the added population would comprise

1) those who have no interest in politics and whose vote would be random;
2) those who are pissed at being forced into something they have no interest in;
3) Abraham Lincoln supporters.

These are just a few. I'm sure you can think of a few. Great way to dilute the voting pool. Shall we additionally stop at the insane asylums and get theirs as well?

[bluesbassman]

23. Interesting read on this subject...

Advocates of compulsory voting argue that decisions made by democratically elected governments are more legitimate when higher proportions of the population participate. They argue further that voting, voluntarily or otherwise, has an educational effect upon the citizens. Political parties can derive financial benefits from compulsory voting, since they do not have to spend resources convincing the electorate that it should in general turn out to vote. Lastly, if democracy is government by the people, presumably this includes all people, then it is every citizen's responsibility to elect their representatives.

The leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy. Voting is not an intrinsic obligation and the enforcement of the law would be an infringement of the citizens' freedom associated with democratic elections. It may discourage the political education of the electorate because people forced to participate will react against the perceived source of oppression. Is a government really more legitimate if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? Many countries with limited financial capacity may not be able to justify the expenditures of maintaining and enforcing compulsory voting laws. It has been proved that forcing the population to vote results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws.

Another consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Voters who are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random, particularly the top candidate on the ballot. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty. What effect does this immeasureable category of random votes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government?

Complete article: http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm

[Veilex]

26. Interesting indeed.

Personally, I doubt that random votes would have much impact compared to decided votes. But then, that's all guess work...just as the notion that random votes would have dramatic impact is also just guess work.

[cwydro]

25. If we had a more intelligent

populace...

[LeftishBrit]

27. OTOH, if many people don't vote, democracy does not function...

OTOH, Australia isn't that great an advertisement for compulsory voting right now, with Tony bloody Abbott ('the Mad Monk') as Prime Minister.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. More voters voting does not necessarily equate to more liberals in office. That is for sure.

It also does not necessarily equate to getting rid of corruption. We need publicly funded elections. That's what we need.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Why doesn't it?

The goal of democracy is to provide a government that not too many people are too unhappy about.

If not many people are bothering to vote, arguably that's a sign that the system is working, not that it's failing.

Democracy is a means to an end - government that is both consensual and sensible. It is not an end in itself.

[Mosby]

29. Republicans will never allow it

So it's a pointless discussion.

Everything I have read about the idea says that mandatory voting would kill the Republican party, they depend on low turnouts to win, always have.

[DeSwiss]

35. It assumes that one supports the system.

Which I find to be the epitome of ARROGANCE.

Who the fuck is anyone to tell me I HAVE TO VOTE?

America is a warmongering police state. And this simply proves it. Why would I want to support this shit?

It is a system that totally ignores the majority (70%) of its people. So why would anyone accept the idea of being forced to vote in a system that doesn't give a shit if they exist?

This has got to be the dumbest piece crap idea I have ever heard.

- All I'll say is this : No one MAKES me vote, goddammit! And particularly not in this bullshit system.




I'm with George

[liberal_at_heart]

48. Well said! I'm with you.

[Politicalboi]

36. Voting holiday will be one of those holidays

Where most people still have to work while government workers get the day off with pay. President's day is still a working day for most. We should be able to vote for 2 or 3 weeks prior to election day. We need more mail in ballots so nobody has to wait in line or drive 20 miles or more to vote. With a mail in ballot, you can choose to vote or not. Just send it out by due date is all. No taking of anyone's freedom of speech. Just leave your unmarked ballot in the mailbox and let the postal worker collect it back after 7 days of no pick up.

[Trillo]

37. Will it help the Prison Industrial Complex?

Will this just be another set of punishments loaded on top of all the others? Right now, if someone doesn't want to vote, say, because they hate the U.S. (perhaps like that rapper Banks), not voting is a release valve for them. But if they are required to vote under some kind of penalty, then malicious voting might become an option, as well as unthinking voting. Just fill in the circles, any circles, and be done with it.

[Vic Prell]

40. One sure fire way to get more people to vote voluntarily

Quit using the voter registration rolls to harvest names for jury duty.

When I lived in Florida, it was routine to get called for jury duty every 12-18 months. I knew several people who never registered because they couldn't take the chance of weeks off work while getting paid $1.85 an hour to sit on a jury.

[B Calm]

42. Republicans would stay home because Obama thought of it.

[Throd]

43. President Kardashian