Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Surprised I didn't see a thread on this. Maybe there is one and I missed it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sugge ... good-idea/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously he knows there's no way that's going to happen in the United States. But, at the same time, I suspect he really does like the idea.

Another indication of how insane it was to elect this guy President.

Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

It would be enforced the same way having health coverage is enforced...no proof of vote, you get a "fee"...and yet the majority of American will still pay that "fee" instead of voting.

How else would he be able to get 99% of the vote like the other wannabe dictators in the world

I could certainly see mandatory voting helping the Democratic party, but I chuckle at the idea of this abating the influence of money in politics. In fact, it will only make money far more important in elections because you have a lot more voters that can only be reached by TV and radio. In my mind those voters are worse than people that only look for the letter next to the candidate's name on their ballot. Better to have informed and biased voters than clueless and unbiased voters.

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

Every country? Really?

Are Belgium and Australia VERY weak democracies or totalitarian?

Pwns wrote:I could certainly see mandatory voting helping the Democratic party, but I chuckle at the idea of this abating the influence of money in politics. In fact, it will only make money far more important in elections because you have a lot more voters that can only be reached by TV and radio. In my mind those voters are worse than people that only look for the letter next to the candidate's name on their ballot. Better to have informed and biased voters than clueless and unbiased voters.

SDHornet wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

It would be enforced the same way having health coverage is enforced...no proof of vote, you get a "fee"...and yet the majority of American will still pay that "fee" instead of voting.

Well, when it comes to presidential elections the "majority" of Americans already vote.

The point of having every citizen vote (100% turnout) Is counter to the system that we use in America
Every citizen voting in an electoral college system is almost meaningless

Now if every citizens vote actually counted for ONE vote then sure... okay

Chizzang wrote:The point of having every citizen vote (100% turnout) Is counter to the system that we use in America
Every citizen voting in an electoral college system is almost meaningless

Now if every citizens vote actually counted for ONE vote then sure... okay

Presidential votes are just one out of a large number of offices to vote on.

But mandatory voting just runs completely counter to the freedom and liberty we're supposed to cherish in this country. If I or someone else doesn't want to vote, I have no problem with that.

Campaign finance reform must be too difficult for him to make any headway against.

Besides, just b/c everyone votes, doesn't mean the wealthy won't still have access to people in our government.

Ibanez wrote:Campaign finance reform must be too difficult for him to make any headway against.

Besides, just b/c everyone votes, doesn't mean the wealthy won't still have access to people in our government.

It isn't difficult, just make it crystal clear where the money is coming from - maximum transparency for campaign donations. The courts are never going to allow real limits on spending because you're never going to be able to convince them that you're not limiting speech. So forget that angle and just make the slickest and best system possible to track where all the money is coming from and the let the voters decide from there.

And yes, the wealthy will always have access to people in government - that will be the case no matter if we took money out of campaigns or not.

Tell me again- what subject did this clown supposedly teach in college?

The act of not voting is political speech in and of itself and therefore protected by the First amendment.

/fvcking thread

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

Australia.



Now you go to your room young lady or you'll get another spanking.

"So it is written, so it shall be done!"

Pwns wrote:I could certainly see mandatory voting helping the Democratic party, but I chuckle at the idea of this abating the influence of money in politics. In fact, it will only make money far more important in elections because you have a lot more voters that can only be reached by TV and radio. In my mind those voters are worse than people that only look for the letter next to the candidate's name on their ballot. Better to have informed and biased voters than clueless and unbiased voters.

He said it would be a nice short-term solution.

Longer term solution would be constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending.

CID1990 wrote:Tell me again- what subject did this clown supposedly teach in college?

The act of not voting is political speech in and of itself and therefore protected by the First amendment.

/fvcking thread

By "Not Voting" you mean Jill Stein, right..?

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

Australia is a very weak democracy?

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

What about Republics, like the United States?

FWIW, our voting public is so divested from the process that a 60% turn out for national elections is considered a "great year".

Ibanez wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

What about Republics, like the United States?

It's a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

Ibanez wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Every country that has installed mando voting is either a VERY weak democracy/republic, or else has a totalitarian government. This REALLY doesn't surprise me.

The problem with OUR society the way it is, though, is how such a concept would be enforced. Everything I could think of would leave the possibility that the "enforcers" would enforce a particular vote. I'm not sure I like that idea in our republic....

What about Republics, like the United States?

There are some people who actually believe that this country is still a republic.

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Tell me again- what subject did this clown supposedly teach in college?

The act of not voting is political speech in and of itself and therefore protected by the First amendment.

/fvcking thread

By "Not Voting" you mean Jill Stein, right..?

Well voting for Jill Stein would also be political speech, and equally as effective as not voting!



But I really don't know why this thread is still alive. It should have been titled "Constitutional Scholar Shows Blind Ignorance of the Consitution, Part XXXXXLMCVI"

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

By "Not Voting" you mean Jill Stein, right..?

Well voting for Jill Stein would also be political speech, and equally as effective as not voting!



But I really don't know why this thread is still alive. It should have been titled "Constitutional Scholar Shows Blind Ignorance of the Consitution, Part XXXXXLMCVI"

This. Plus, there's no logical connection between fining people who don't vote, and taking money out of politics.

Would "Present" be an option for mandatory voting?