Mandatory voting in the U.S.

See this thread, which I started a little over four years ago:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136721

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

There's absolutely no evidence that Voter ID laws do anything but repress and intimidate actual legal voters which is what they are intended to do.

Originally posted by Phranny
Even if we had a voting day designated as a national holiday, some people are going to have to work.

I know. That is why I used the word "most".

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's absolutely no evidence that Voter ID laws do anything but repress and intimidate actual legal voters which is what they are intended to do.

What's worse is they repress illegal voters as well.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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.

Here's a thought, stop smok'in the pipe.

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!

But a "democracy" that has a low voter turn out is an embarrassment to that said democracy. It shows a great amount of dysfunction, especially one that only has a 10% approval rating for Congress for the past couple of decades.

I think that is what drives the "get the vote out" campaigns. It's an attempt to try and legitimize the broken system.

Originally posted by whodey
But a "democracy" that has a low voter turn out is an embarrassment to that said democracy. It shows a great amount of dysfunction, especially one that only has a 10% approval rating for Congress for the past couple of decades.

I think that is what drives the "get the vote out" campaigns. It's an attempt to try and legitimize the broken system.

Anyone who has to be forced to vote is probably not making a thought out decision. Quantity will lessen the quality of voters in a nation where people are already swayed by stupid reasons to vote (like the best zingers in a debate, or celebrity endorsements).

Forcing votes week end up causing apathetic people to vote by party and nothing else. This would result in elections being decided merely by which party had more members in a given region. This would then make our democracy a farce. Or at least more of one than it already is.

In Australia we have compulsory voting, and we're happy with it. There are some individuals who choose not to register, and therefore "fly under the radar". There are some individuals who choose not to appear to get their names crossed off, and they can get a huge $4 fine if someone bothers to enforce it. But when I look at the rackets surrounding voting in some countries, ranging from driving groups of people to a voting station to actual ballot-box stuffing, I think we're doing a whole lot better than most of you.

It's compulsory attendance, by the way, not compulsory voting. You're handed a couple of ballot papers, and if you drop them straight in the trash bin there is no consequence, it's not a breach of the rules. By doing that you're saying clearly that you don't want to have a say in your own democracy.

Apart from voting day, which is always a Saturday, there is postal voting for everyone who will not be able to attend a polling booth (and they're everywhere, I'm in remote country and I have about 6 within walking distance). Then there's pre-poll voting, for the 2 weeks prior to each election, for anyone who dislikes queues at polling booths, at a number of official voting centres. You can even have an aide if you're disabled in some way, or they'll come to you.

The argument that the ignorant and criminal will vote for XXXXX isn't really relevant. That group tends to spoil their papers, which is why we have a high informal vote count in some electorates. But our people know that every one of us has a real say in our own democracy, we don't have electoral colleges or big money lobbying.

Originally posted by Phranny
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.

Those are different, admittedly serious issues. But a call to the (usually county) registrar is enough the get on the rolls of those to receive ballots by mail. (For what it is worth.) Admittedly as well, one must have a stable mailing address, or keep it up to date. But I am with you on the flaws of the system.

Originally posted by whodey
What's worse is they repress illegal voters as well.

Please present evidence that that is true.

I know you've never bothered to check, so I'll give you the punch line: there is none. Republican state legislators are not enacting these laws to prevent the mythical person who would actually show up at a voting station and give a phony name (who would bother? I know there are a tiny number of cases where someone used their sister's name or some such but this isn't a serious concern). They know that poorer people and/or those of color have a much greater chance of A) Not having a photo ID and B) Voting Democratic. Anyone who claims differently is either being willfully ignorant or a liar.

Originally posted by whodey
What's worse is they repress illegal voters as well.

All three of them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please present evidence that that is true

I know you've never bothered to check, so I'll give a tiny number of cases where someone used their sister's name or some such but this isn't a serious concern). They know that poorer people and/or those of color have a much greater chance of A) Not having a photo ID and B) Voting Democratic. Anyone who claims differently is either being willfully ignorant or a liar.

That there is voter fraud is not contested by any legitimate facts. It is worse some places than others. Chicago and Louisiana are notorious for pets, and dead people voting. In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any infringement on the voter's rights. A single fraudulent vote steals the franchise of one legal, legitimate voter. By far, the great majority of Americans have or can get some form of picture ID without much problem.

In essence voter registration is a small form of identification. A driver's license or State ID is available in most States. Arguing financial hardship is probably the most disingenuous notions I've ever heard.

The notion of Black Panthers scaring away white conservatives around Philly is ludicrous as well. Why? They are so rare, their votes would change nothing. If one thing is missing, it is respect for the right to vote, and it is a right not a duty. When I decide it is not in my interest to vote, I don't want government telling me I must.

Originally posted by normbenign
That there is voter fraud is not contested by any legitimate facts. It is worse some places than others. Chicago and Louisiana are notorious for pets, and dead people voting. In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any i ...[text shortened]... duty. When I decide it is not in my interest to vote, I don't want government telling me I must.

You've made such assertions before and I've shown that they are incorrect; obtaining the type of photo IDs that these laws require is often quite burdensome esp. when the State deliberately excludes certain types of photo IDs (like college IDs) and makes access to places where other IDs can be obtained difficult (as in rural counties where DMV offices are rarely open). Any burden on a right should be minimal and these aren't.

Of course there is voter fraud but not of the type that is addressed by voter ID laws. These laws have only one purpose i.e. to suppress turnout among groups likely to vote for a political party opposite to the one supporting such legislation.

EDIT: In 1966, Mississippi's $2 poll tax was found unconstitutional. The cost of the various measures needed in many States to obtain the IDs required is far in excess of that and thus financial hardship arguments are far from "disingenuous" in these cases.

Originally posted by normbenign
In a nation where only a small percentage of registered voters bothers to exercise the franchise, and there is some evidence of fraud, requiring evidence of identity seems not any infringement on the voter's rights. A single fraudulent vote steals the franchise of one legal, legitimate voter. By far, the great majority of Americans have or can get some form of picture ID without much problem.

I like that you're acknowledging the trade-off inherent to these laws. But I still don't understand how you ultimately reach the conclusion that the added benefit of preventing ineligible votes outweighs the detrimental consequence of preventing otherwise perfectly valid votes.

Studies have found that voter ID laws potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible voters. Let's say, just for argument, that only 10% of those hundreds of thousands would REALLY face a hardship if they were required to obtain voter ID, whereas the other 90% would face obstacles but not insurmountable ones. To me, for that kind of a policy to be anywhere near acceptable, it should also prevent at least as many ineligible voters from voting. Do you have any evidence to suggest that voter ID laws will successfully prevent tens of thousands of otherwise ineligible voters from voting? Do you have any evidence to suggest that tens of thousands of otherwise ineligible votes are regularly cast in elections? The largest number of voter fraud cases I've ever heard about in a single election is never more than a handful.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's absolutely no evidence that Voter ID laws do anything but repress and intimidate actual legal voters which is what they are intended to do.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. You want to see what you want to see.