Originally posted by whodey
Obama is saying that mandatory voting would fight all the "evil money" in politics and transform it.

Is this not an endorsement or does he like the "evil money", as he calls it?

No, it's not an "endorsement." If it was an endorsement, he would say he supported the measure. He didn't.

Here's a thought. Why not attack actual policy proposals and the actual record of the Obama administration? For a president as weak as Obama, this is not very difficult.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

(For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)

Voting is smoke and mirrors when the super rich present you with Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum.

Voting the US right now is little different than voting the USSR back in the 70's.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

(For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)

A "right" you must do or face government sanctions is a contradiction in terms.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A "right" you must do or face government sanctions is a contradiction in terms.

You mean like health care?

Originally posted by Phranny
How about starting by making voting easier. Why limit it to one weekday from 8am to 8pm? Make voting more accessible by extending it to perhaps a Thursday through Saturday. Another real issue is the extreme insurgence of money into politics. Are we a democracy or an oligarchy? Also, if a news agency or political campaign tells a blatant lie about a cand ...[text shortened]... get to the polls and the information we get on candidates is so spotty doesn't make sense to me.

Vote by mail is commonly available in the US and about a dozen other countries. All but six US states have it. Three states use it exclusively. It allows voting during a sizable time period and in the worst case you can drop your ballot off at the polling place on election day if you want to have up to date campaign information, or have someone drop it off for you.

Originally posted by Eladar
Voting is smoke and mirrors when the super rich present you with Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum.

Voting the US right now is little different than voting the USSR back in the 70's.

LOL yeah it's like choosing which toilet you want to drink from.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote?

Not as long as we have the electoral college.

Originally posted by JS357
Vote by mail is commonly available in the US and about a dozen other countries. All but six US states have it. Three states use it exclusively. It allows voting during a sizable time period and in the worst case you can drop your ballot off at the polling place on election day if you want to have up to date campaign information, or have someone drop it off for you.

Voting by mail still requires you contact city hall. Unfortunately many on this site are clueless as to what life is like for millions of U.S. citizens who are barely scraping by with multiple jobs. It is entirely possible to work 40 hours or more and still qualify for public assistance. Now with all the money pouring into the two top parties, many people feel it is just a toss up, which I do not think is really true, at least not yet.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

(For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)

Forcing people to vote is one of the dumbest political ideas I've ever heard. Just as the right to speak implies the right to remain silent, the right to vote implies the right to desist from voting. If a citizen, in protest, decides to make a political statement by not voting, how can it be the government's right or job to prevent that from occurring?

What an abhorrent and cynical attempt to gain a political advantage!

Originally posted by wittywonka
Is political participation (in the form of voting, in this case) so vital to the wellbeing of the country--or should it be so vital--that individuals should be required to vote? Or is voting a right that only those who would participate in the process in the first place, should get to exercise?

(For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that there woul ...[text shortened]... either major political party... even though in reality, that's a very questionable assumption.)

How, without some form of statist, dictatorial, tyranny could mandatory voting be accomplished?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I support a voting holiday so most people don't skip voting who are too busy working. If anyone should vote more it is those that work hard.

Mandatory voting is impractical. All it does is pressure uninformed people to vote. Those people will likely vote for the person they hear about most. That just insures the corporate news media will influence who people vote for to an increased degree.

I like the idea of a voting holiday, something like April 15th. Of course this would have little effect on local state and primary elections.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A "right" you must do or face government sanctions is a contradiction in terms.

Isn't that the truth?!

Originally posted by whodey
You mean like health care?

I've never asserted that health care is a right, so rant and rave at somebody else.

Originally posted by sh76
Forcing people to vote is one of the dumbest political ideas I've ever heard. Just as the right to speak implies the right to remain silent, the right to vote implies the right to desist from voting. If a citizen, in protest, decides to make a political statement by not voting, how can it be the government's right or job to prevent that from occurring?

What an abhorrent and cynical attempt to gain a political advantage!

Is it as "abhorrent and cynical" as the spate of Voter ID laws enacted by State legislatures controlled by one party?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is it as "abhorrent and cynical" as the spate of Voter ID laws enacted by State legislatures controlled by one party?

Yeah, we wouldn't have to make people prove they can vote before they vote. That is simply not the way it should be done. We all know people are supposed to vote early and vote often.