# Mandatory Voting



## AWP (Mar 19, 2015)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html



> "Other countries have mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle class economics, and was asked about the issue during a town hall.
> 
> "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama said. *"There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."*


 
Seriously? This is the "leader" of the free world? More gov't is the solution? I guess voter intimidation doesn't count the Black Panther incidents?

I try to be neutral where politics are concerned, but is too much.

If you like the vote you cast you can keep the vote you cast...


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2015)

The demographics mentioned tend to vote liberal/democrat.

Guess he feels the only way to stay in power is by forcing (how?) people to vote.


----------



## mac21 (Mar 19, 2015)

I feel like Daffy Duck will win through write-in in quite a few elections if this happens.



DA SWO said:


> Guess he feels the only way to stay in power is by forcing *(how?)* people to vote.



Probably another fine/tax with tax returns like the ACA.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 19, 2015)

This feels like a silly push back to Republican's in conservative states trying to pass those dumb ass voter registration laws to bar some people from voting. For fucks sake, let people vote or not, it's their choice.


----------



## AKkeith (Mar 19, 2015)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> This feels like a silly push back to Republican's in conservative states trying to pass those dumb ass voter registration laws to bar some people from voting. For fucks sake, let people vote or not, it's their choice.


I'm all for letting citizens of the United States vote. The only way to prove that you are a legal citizen is to show a form of identification, which can be freely uptained.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 19, 2015)

mac21 said:


> I feel like Daffy Duck will win through write-in in quite a few elections if this happens.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably another fine/tax with tax returns like the ACA.



Daffy Duck would be a quantum leap ahead of what we have now.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 19, 2015)

AKkeith said:


> I'm all for letting citizens of the United States voting. The only way to prove that is to show a form of identification, which can be freely uptained.



That's not what was happening. The voter ID acts that were being passed were requiring two different forms of government ID. Most people only have one, and for those such as the elderly or those who don't drive, it isn't easy to get two different forms of ID. Even now the only reason I have two different types is because I have a VA card. Plus requiring two different forms of ID means paying for those forms of ID, which equates a poll tax, which is illegal. Hence why many of the voter ID acts have been struck down. Also the reasoning behind passing those acts, to cut down on voter fraud, is a bit of a farce since voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, with less than 100 cases of it reported in the last national election. I agree, ID to vote yes, but making it an undo burden to vote, no.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 19, 2015)

One of the greatest rights we have is...to "choose whether or not to exercise our rights."

That is our right...it isn't a right when we are forced to do something...it then becomes an order.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 19, 2015)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> That's not what was happening. The voter ID acts that were being passed were requiring two different forms of government ID. Most people only have one, and for those such as the elderly or those who don't drive, it isn't easy to get two different forms of ID. Even now the only reason I have two different types is because I have a VA card. Plus requiring two different forms of ID means paying for those forms of ID, which equates a poll tax, which is illegal. Hence why many of the voter ID acts have been struck down. Also the reasoning behind passing those acts, to cut down on voter fraud, is a bit of a farce since voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, with less than 100 cases of it reported in the last national election. I agree, ID to vote yes, but making it an undo burden to vote, no.



Could this be the prelude to a " National/Governmental Identification" card? Everyone gets one maybe using your SSN, or another ID number. Possibly having information such as DOB, race, gender, political party membership/ affiliation, this is a mandatory voter ID after all. It will be your picture ID issued by our National Government, aka:" your papers please". With big government growing bigger each year, mandatory voting, and mandatory national voter ID is the next step. This happening with a President running the nation my uncontested exucitive orders, after executive order, is not that far from possible.


----------



## AKkeith (Mar 19, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Could this be the prelude to a " National/Governmental Identification" card? Everyone gets one maybe using your SSN, or another ID number. Possibly having information such as DOB, race, gender, political party membership/ affiliation, this is a mandatory voter ID after all. It will be your picture ID issued by our National Government, aka:" your papers please"


We pretty much already have that, it's called your social security number. Then add your drivers license which requires a social security number and your voter registration card, which requires a social security number . Now I have all that information, you're just scared of having it in one place?
I'm not advocating that, but I don't think it is a bad thing to check to make sure you are legally able to vote, only once, for each election you choose to vote in.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2015)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> That's not what was happening. The voter ID acts that were being passed were requiring two different forms of government ID. Most people only have one, and for those such as the elderly or those who don't drive, it isn't easy to get two different forms of ID. Even now the only reason I have two different types is because I have a VA card. Plus requiring two different forms of ID means paying for those forms of ID, which equates a poll tax, which is illegal. Hence why many of the voter ID acts have been struck down. Also the reasoning behind passing those acts, to cut down on voter fraud, is a bit of a farce since voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, with less than 100 cases of it reported in the last national election. I agree, ID to vote yes, but making it an undo burden to vote, no.


Examples please.

Texas requires a single Photo I.D.

Replacing a lost Military I.D. requires three government issued I.D.'s.

Drivers License, or State I.D. card (latter is usually free).
Same folks bitching about voter I.D. manage to produce an I.D. when buying a 6-pack of beer.


----------



## digrar (Mar 19, 2015)

My wallet has a drivers licence, high risk activity licence (fork lift/tele-handler), blasters licence, dangerous goods security card, dangerous goods drivers licence, DVA veterans affairs card, medicare (govt medical card) plus 4 bank cards that would also count towards a 100 point ID check. Add in my passport and I'm looking forward to the day when get one card/chip/tattoo barcode will replace the lot. 

 In this day and age I've never understood the ID being a barrier argument. Here at least, if you can't satisfy a 100 point ID check, you're most probably be homeless, in the clink or a child.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 19, 2015)

I am fine with voter ID, I think it should be mandatory for anyone voting. While I am a voting American, I am not on board with an obama mandated voting idea. The National ID, is exrtapolating the goernment 's next step with mandated voting, and that would be a National ID card. The idea of mandated National ID card has been batted around for quite some time, and I see that idea gaining some traction. It just seems like more government, and we have an overdose of that going on now. I am of the view, that we need to trim back governmental involvement. Mandatory voting is a step in the wrong direction. My $.02 on the matter.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 19, 2015)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...s/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

I agree with all before mentioned, a National ID does seem a bit excessive, but given that the govt already has my fingerprints, blood, urine, retinal scans, and skin samples already on file, I don't see what else they can really take to ID me short of copies of my brain waves (which I wouldn't be surprised if they had lol).



DA SWO said:


> Examples please.
> 
> Texas requires a single Photo I.D.
> 
> ...



Oh and I mis-spoke, I do apologize. I meant that they require two or more different kinds of ID to get a replacement of some forms of ID. The first link I posted up even mentions an instance where a woman produced three different kinds of ID and couldn't vote. I'm not saying have some sort of system in place to where we ensure people who are registered and legal to vote vote, that's just silly. However, given that the ID laws tend to disproportionately target those of low income, minorities, and the elderly, then we need to work on getting the kinks out of the system. I still am AGAINST mandatory voting. What are they gonna do, send the gestapo to my place and force me to the poll at gun point?


----------



## reed11b (Mar 19, 2015)

They also forward the voter ID laws close to election time in such a manner as to discourage that specific voting block. If it was done immediately after an election, with sufficient implementation time, I might be better convinced it was being proposed in good faith. Ugh, I really hate all forms of politics.
Reed


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2015)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Oh and I mis-spoke, I do apologize. I meant that they require two or more different kinds of ID to get a replacement of some forms of ID. The first link I posted up even mentions an instance where a woman produced three different kinds of ID and couldn't vote. I'm not saying have some sort of system in place to where we ensure people who are registered and legal to vote vote, that's just silly. However, given that the ID laws tend to disproportionately target those of low income, minorities, and the elderly, then we need to work on getting the kinks out of the system. I still am AGAINST mandatory voting. What are they gonna do, send the gestapo to my place and force me to the poll at gun point?


Minority voting increased in TX after Voter ID went into effect?
I don't buy the minorities are too stupid to get a free I.D. card argument.
Easy solution, make EBT/WIC/Welfare cards a photo id card, problem solved with the low intelligence community.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Mar 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Minority voting increased in TX after Voter ID went into effect?
> I don't buy the minorities are too stupid to get a free I.D. card argument.
> Easy solution, make EBT/WIC/Welfare cards a photo id card, problem solved with the low intelligence community.



Hmmm....I agree there. There is no excuse for stupidity.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 19, 2015)

Okay, I want everyone to take a deep breath and relax for a second.  Now that that's done, go and watch this video: 



It's only seven and a half minutes long and won't take up much of your day.  It's the entirety of Obama's response to a question presented at the City Club of Cleveland forum, which was intended to address middle class concerns in Ohio.  It was not about mandatory voting, and I will explain why.

The question, and Obama's response, was specifically about the effect of corporate financing of elections in the wake of the Supreme Court case of Citizen's United vs. FEC.  He argued, correctly, that the effect of outsized corporate spending on elections have alienated people who would otherwise vote.  This voter apathy led to the worst mid-term election turnout in over 72 years.  Part of the reason is one that has been espoused time and time again in this very forum: that the guy elected isn't serving the people's interests, but rather the interests of themselves and of their campaign donors.  These factors are especially apparent in districts with entrenched power blocs.  Long-serving politicians can raise campaign funds considerably easier than potential challengers, which is part of the reason why you have people like Charlie Rangel of New York able to stay in power despite massive House ethics violations.  It's part of the reason why Strom Thurmond was able to serve for somewhere close to 1000 years despite being a racist piece of shit.  Okay, maybe it was more like 49 years. Here's a great interview from a few years ago about why voter apathy is a shitty thing that tears at democracy: http://www.ibtimes.com/why-there-so-much-voter-apathy-us-elections-315494

The fact is that America ranks lower than other industrialized nations in voter turnout.  Yes, part of it we owe to the fact that our "winner-take-all" style of voting means that people who are in the political-minority (for example, Republicans in California or Democrats in Vermont) simply don't vote.  In other countries, particularly those with parliamentary systems, voter turnout is high because even if your party doesn't win, you will still get some proportional representation in parliament.  It's one of those self-licking ice cream cones: people don't vote because they don't see the point, which keeps the current party in power, which makes people not vote because they don't see the point, which keeps the current party in power, and on and on and on.  Barring some radical change in demographics or ideology, these blocs can stay entrenched for years.  As the President also said, Gerrymandering is another one of those processes that reinforces the status quo.  Interestingly enough, two states on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, California and Arizona, have voted to take redistricting power away from state legislatures and entrust them to independent citizen commissions.  These present their own set of challenges, but are a MUCH better alternative to the politically-charged legislative redistricting process.

The President also talked about the voter identification issue.  Here I disagree with Obama.  While at least one landmark study has shown that certain types of voter ID laws can disenfranchise poor and minority voters, I believe that, as a compromise, free voter IDs would be a good solution.  Some commentators on predominantly-liberal networks and websites have taken this to mean that conservative governments are enacting these laws to purposely suppress minority vote.  I do not agree.  While racism is not a dead issue, I don't agree that it's the driving force behind ID laws.  I don't believe that we have enough data to conclusively prove that any type of voter ID laws will have the deleterious effect that some claim.  However, I think that some states are taking a wrong-headed approach to the actual voting process, ostensibly to combat voter fraud.  Several states that lessened early voting, or eliminated same-day registration and have made the voting process more burdensome for low-income voters.  That's not just minority voters, mind you: many of the states that have significant impoverished white populations have restricted either early voting and absentee voting, or a combination of the two.  This graphic provides a good overview of the national situation, and when cross-referenced with intersectional data on race and poverty provided <here>, shows us that fully 10 of the 25 states that restrict early or absentee voting have an impoverished white population at or above the national average.  So while the correlation is not especially strong, it refutes the earlier assertions that this is only about enfranchising minorities or liberals.

Now, everyone is getting fixated on the Australia comment.  It certainly stands out.  But when taken in context of the overarching theme of Obama's message (voter enfranchisement), and the central thrust of the original question (campaign finance), I firmly believe that the Obama was using it merely as an example to bolster his central argument, rather than as an actual solution.  He just kind of threw it out there as an idealized, best-case example, rather than as an actual solution.  The fact the refers to a constitutional amendment process to counteract the Citizen's United decision immediately afterward gives you an insight to his thought process.    I suppose that you could view that statement through a particular lens if you already don't like Obama and come up with the conclusion that he's tyrannical or power-hungry or whatever.  But again, if you ignore the almost six minutes he spoke about getting people to vote and instead focus on a comment that took less than thirty seconds to say (including verbal pauses), then I suppose you could draw out any interpretation.  All that the President wants is for people to fucking vote!  And to make that happen, he wants wants future administrations to take steps to enfranchise voters, not force them.

Personally, I believe that voting is one of the greatest rights that we have in America, and is an end in itself.  Everyone who is capable ought to express that right.  I do not believe that mandatory voting is the answer, and I don't think that the President does either.  It runs contrary to our values and culture.  What I do believe is that we ought to uphold the spirit of the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments by removing removing unreasonable barriers to voting.  That doesn't mean all barriers.  As I said before, I am not against voter ID laws per se.  What I am against is measures that make it more difficult for an already-apathetic or disenfranchised group to vote.  The fewer people we have voting, the less democratic representation we have.  And the less representation we have, the more influence that corporate interests and lobbyists have on the political process.


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 19, 2015)

JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> Also the reasoning behind passing those acts, to cut down on voter fraud, is a bit of a farce since voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, with less than 100 cases of it reported in the last national election.



Actually a study by Old Dominion University says that non-citizen voting most likely played a pivotal role in some electoral college votes and congressional elections because of low margins of victory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

http://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf


----------



## AWP (Mar 19, 2015)

@Deathy McDeath I understand your post and tend to agree with it, but my problem is that he said it at all. He didn't just bring it up, he used certain demographics to illustrate his point, demographics which, and I'll bet you a dollar, tend to vote Democrat and not Republican.

We've had health care jammed down our throats and now he's even bringing up the topic of more gov't mandated actions for the good of the people? He shouldn't have gone down that path and my cynical side (which is to say almost all of me) doesn't see this as a gaff or slip of the tongue, but something very calculated and a topic he or his staff have clearly given consideration.

We shouldn't have this thread because this shouldn't even be a topic, but he made it one.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Minority voting increased in TX after Voter ID went into effect?
> I don't buy the minorities are too stupid to get a free I.D. card argument.
> Easy solution, make EBT/WIC/Welfare cards a photo id card, problem solved with the low intelligence community.



Implying that the only way you would be on WIC/EBT/Welfare is if you have low intelligence is pretty damn ignorant.


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2015)

Funny how requiring an ID to vote places too heavy of a burden on the electorate however requiring an ID to purchase alcohol or cigarettes isn't?

Anyone get medical care now without a valid picture ID?  "No tickey...no laundry!"

I watched exactly 36 seconds of his bumbling BS and stopped when he mentioned decision making based on facts. If Obama won't follow his own advice, I won't either.

THAT is what disenfranchises voters: bullshit.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 19, 2015)

Considering that MC was the only one with a steady job when she got preggers thanks to an early morning ambush, and that her work once informed literally started paper trailing her to fire her... we've been on WIC before.

Hell, up until recently we've qualified for all of the above, we only did WIC because it was of the most useful benefit (food help, we don't need money since my disability pays all the bills. Fresh fruit is nice for the midget.) and also the least amount of hassle. Welfare and other stuff I have no clue how these people make eleventy billion bucks doing it.

It was a stopgap measure, that's what I always looked at the stuff as. Wasn't something I was happy about doing, but I figure I paid into the shit for enough years prior that a couple years of it was getting my dividend of investment.


----------



## Rapid (Mar 19, 2015)

Fucking hell, I'd rather start by taking the vote away from more people.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 19, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> @Deathy McDeath I understand your post and tend to agree with it, but my problem is that he said it at all. He didn't just bring it up, he used certain demographics to illustrate his point, demographics which, and I'll bet you a dollar, tend to vote Democrat and not Republican.



Thanks for taking the time to read it all.

I see your point and understand your reasoning. You are right; the groups the Obama cited tend to lean Democrat.  At least, youth and minorities do.  There's a good amount of intersection between impoverished groups and minorities, but that doesn't paint the whole picture.  It's fairly well-known that that 9 out of the 10 most impoverished states (as measured by levels of federal assistance AND median income adjusted for cost of living) went red in the last few Presidential elections.  Though, as Politifact freely admits, the Presidential election is not a complete barometer for a state's party identity.  Arkansas, for example, flipped between Democratic and Republican governors in the last few election cycles.  Likewise, Mississippi has had a democratic governor since 2001.  So as a general measure of accuracy, the Presidential results are pretty good, if inexact.  What this tells us is that voters below the poverty line are not a single block, and encouraging them to vote is a bi-partisan measure.  Anyone who cares about democracy should be able to get behind it.  It should also be noted that a number of those states are listed in that graphic that I previously linked who restrict either early or absentee voting.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 19, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Implying that the only way you would be on WIC/EBT/Welfare is if you have low intelligence is pretty damn ignorant.



I didn't take it that way.  After all, the last time I had to go on some form of public assistance, I was required to provide photographic identification at the enrollment office.  This requirement is often lost on the sycophants who are screaming about all voter ID laws disenfranchising poverty stricken minorities, and those sycophants are pretty fucking stupid. By allowing an EBT ID card (is there one?  It's been a few years) to function as allowable identification to vote, you eliminate the platform that the low information community loves to harp from.  They will, however, just move on to the next platform, as lemmings with voices are prone to do.

He could have phrased it differently, but I most certainly didn't get the same meaning from @DA SWO 's post that you did.  Hmmmm...


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 19, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> I didn't take it that way.  After all, the last time I had to go on some form of public assistance, I was required to provide photographic identification at the enrollment office.  This requirement is often lost on the sycophants who are screaming about all voter ID laws disenfranchising poverty stricken minorities, and those sycophants are pretty fucking stupid. By allowing an EBT ID card (is there one?  It's been a few years) to function as allowable identification to vote, you eliminate the platform that the low information community loves to harp from.  They will, however, just move on to the next platform, as lemmings with voices are prone to do.
> 
> He could have phrased it differently, but I most certainly didn't get the same meaning from @DA SWO 's post that you did.  Hmmmm...


After reading your post and re-reading what @DA SWO posted, I'm inclined to see your interpretation of it.  It could do without the inflammatory language, but I see that his point was to address the ideologues, rather than the welfare recipients themselves.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2015)

No, not everyone on EBT etc is low intelligence, my point was/is, those claiming that going to get a photo I.D. is too difficult won't have that problem if you make the cards a photo I.D.

My experience with the EBT crowd was damn unpleasant, getting bitched at because they couldn't use it to buy a slurpee for example. I've seen enough fraud to know the government doesn't care.

The temp recipients tend to use it the way it was designed, the long-term recipients act as if it's a paycheck.
YMMV.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 20, 2015)

AKkeith said:


> I'm all for letting citizens of the United States vote. The only way to prove that you are a legal citizen is to show a form of identification, which can be freely uptained.



Ignoring the point that voter fraud isn't even near a real issue.  In Minnesota we had 3 elections in a row for state wide office that went to recounts.  Conservative like to say Franken stole the election because of fraud but in the end they had about 70 cases of voter fraud in 3.6 million votes cast.  Nearly all those cases of fraud were felons who voted before they were eligible to vote again.

First problem with some voter ID laws is not all states provide free ID.  Second many people don't have access to get ID's.  I have several very large retirement communities by my house and those residents don't drive themselves any more and almost everything they do is contained in that community.  Voter ID laws would block the vast majority of those people from voting.

I haven't produced an ID since the early 80's in a liqueur store.  About the only time I have to produce a drivers license is doing an in store  pickup of something I bought online.  Beyond that I rarely use my driver license.

Personally, I can tell you if voter ID only was the law I would have lost my right to vote twice in my life.  First time I was 20 and lost my wallet and only had a paper driver license.  If my roommate couldn't have vouched for me I would have been screwed.  The second time I had just moved and got a new license because of the change of address.  Even though I had the paper renewal and my old license, which was clipped, it still wasn't "legal" and I had to have a roommate vouch for me again.

In the end not all laws are created equal.  When one party is pushing an idea you can be sure that party stands to gain from that idea.  Neither party is out to do what is in the nations best interest.  Motor voter registration was about getting more young people to vote with the majority of those voters going Democrat and that's why they pushed it.  Voter ID laws by any measure reduces participation and that is the intended consequence as well.  Purging voter registrations is another way to limit participation especially in states that don't have same day registration procedures.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 20, 2015)

It's my belief that the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda, the empowerment of liberal causes at the expense of more conservative views is at the core of everything this president says or does, and if the Constitution gets in the way he's prepared to go around it.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 20, 2015)

Ocoka One said:


> It's my belief that the liberal/socialist/progressive agenda, the empowerment of liberal causes at the expense of more conservative views is at the core of everything this president says or does, and if the Constitution gets in the way he's prepared to go around it.


The right to vote is enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution more often than any other right.  At least four amendments deal directly with voting rights, with others indirectly addressing it.  How is he going around the Constitution if he wants to, as he said, use the amendment process to Constitutionally remove barriers to the usage of the most Constitutional of rights?  That's so Constitutional that I'm surprised a giant bald eagle wearing a tri-corner hat didn't fly into the room, perch on the flag, and shed a single tear while everyone said the pledge of allegiance!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 20, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The right to vote is enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution more often than any other right.  At least four amendments deal directly with voting rights, with others indirectly addressing it.  How is he going around the Constitution if he wants to, as he said, use the amendment process to Constitutionally remove barriers to the usage of the most Constitutional of rights?  That's so Constitutional that I'm surprised a giant bald eagle wearing a tri-corner hat didn't fly into the room, perch on the flag, and shed a single tear while everyone said the pledge of allegiance!


 
Deathly, my brother, I think you've done your research into this and you're a really smart guy. Admittedly I am biased against this man's politics (and others like him who hold similar views), and my statement that you quoted is my general impression of his presidency. I won't debate you on this because you and I will expend thousands of words and you'll probably win the battle. Suffice it to say I'm suspicious of most everything this man proposes and nothing you say, no matter how logical or rational, is going to change my mind.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 20, 2015)

I am not ready to stick my toe into Deathy's debate right now, just wanted to share something:

My 12 year old son brought this topic up to me last night.  Considering he spends more time on his XBox than he does watching Fox/CNN, I was compelled to ask how he became aware of the story.  Josh to me that his Social Studies teachers told the class about it during "current events".  His 6th grade class had a discussion about it and he said most kids were against it.  I asked what he thought and he said, "dad, we are supposed to be a free country and voting is supposed to be a right..  How can we be free if we can be fined for not using our rights?" 

Maybe I'm doing something right after all.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I am not ready to stick my toe into Deathy's debate right now, just wanted to share something:
> 
> My 12 year old son brought this topic up to me last night.  Considering he spends more time on his XBox than he does watching Fox/CNN, I was compelled to ask how he became aware of the story.  Josh to me that his Social Studies teachers told the class about it during "current events".  His 6th grade class had a discussion about it and he said most kids were against it.  I asked what he thought and he said, "dad, we are supposed to be a free country and voting is supposed to be a right..  How can we be free if we can be fined for not using our rights?"
> 
> Maybe I'm doing something right after all.



Your 12 year old should run for congress!


----------



## Brill (Mar 20, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Second many people don't have access to get ID's.  I have several very large retirement communities by my house and those residents don't drive themselves any more and almost everything they do is contained in that community.  *Voter ID laws would block the vast majority of those people from voting.*
> 
> *Voter ID laws by any measure reduces participation* and that is the intended consequence as well.  Purging voter registrations is another way to limit participation especially in states that don't have same day registration procedures.



How do those residents vote?

Where is the data to support the idea that voter ID laws reduce participation?


----------



## Scotth (Mar 20, 2015)

lindy said:


> How do those residents vote?



In our state the retirement home staff can vouch that the people live in the residence.  In most cases these homes end up taking the people in bus loads to these types of events.  You also see them bus loads of people to the grocery store weekly to allow the residents shop.



> Where is the data to support the idea that voter ID laws reduce participation?



Here a pretty good non-biased piece that has links to studies and addresses both sides.  11% of voting age citizens don't have picture ID's.  That's 21 million people.

http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

The funny thing most people will fail to know.  The first picture ID requirement didn't happen anywhere in the nation until 2006.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 20, 2015)

We have the right to vote, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to all citizens of legal age, not in prison - in order to elect our representatives.  If a right is turned into a taxable obligation, how much of the Constitution will that leave open t oammendment by Executive order, until one day, "Everything not forbidden is mandatory, Everything not mandatory is forbidden." (Thank you TH White,  from "The Once and Future King").

What makes it a right is the ability to choose whether or not an individual wishes to exercise it, if one is taxed for not choosing to exercise a right, it becomes an edict.

Will the next step be allowing any resident, legally or illegally entered into the country the obligation to vote?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 20, 2015)

I have to show ID--unexpired, government issued ID--to get on a plane, drive a car, or buy over-the-counter medicine.  Most members on this board have to show an unexpired government document to exercise their right to bear arms.  Hell, some have to do that just to possess arms.

On the 2nd Amendment issue, we accept (begrudgingly, in some cases) that the right is not absolute and can be regulated.  So too, free speech and assembly.  In comparison to free speech, you can successfully argue that voting is a civic duty to be discharged by qualified persons where free speech (except insofar as voting is an expression of political bent) is a right one can  choose to exercise or not as one sees fit.  To suggest that requiring one to show a valid ID to elect someone to the highest office of the land is to somehow disenfranchise a certain demographic is to demonstrate a lack of ability reason properly.

Voter fraud is not uncommon in this country; it's simply not reported and aggregated as well as we would like.  In this way, it's similar to rape (which is interesting, since voter fraud rapes the electorate).  If you doubt this, just search youtube for videos of people proudly claiming to have voted for Obama (just to pick a  recent national contest) more than once.  In fact, a very few minutes with the search engine of your choice will yield multiple instances of voter fraud surrounding the past two presidential elections.

If we as a country do not take affirmative steps to ensure that the person who is physically in the voting booth is qualified to cast a (single) ballot we may as well as remove any bar to voting because we have completely given up control.  It is not unreasonable to require a legal form of ID that proves one is who one says they are and that they are a qualified elector.


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 20, 2015)

I oppose voting all together as voting leads to the destruction of freedom. Why? Lets say you have radical Muslims who use the freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote to get rid of both. It leads to collectivism. If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed. Voluntarism day is more effective and people have more power over the state than ever before. The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state. The money is an indication on how the leader is managing the money. If he is doing horrible, then they simply boycott the leader until the council pick a better alternative.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 20, 2015)

@Shredder477 ....

You are trying to lecture people that have actually done country building on the evils of democratic process.  You are 16 and have read about what you are spouting from revised textbooks with a bent toward leftism, and are trying to put a right handed spin on it.



Shredder477 said:


> If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed.



This is a fallacious statement as you are employing a socio-anarchic model that has failed multiple times in the past, and is untenable in use.  How does a state enforce what it is pledged and beholden to exempt, for who will protect those freedoms if the state cannot be involved.  Circular logic.



Shredder477 said:


> The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state.



You have no understanding of economics, in a best case scenario the model you describe would last at most a year if people had to pony up to join your supposed state.  If a state has no resources, it fails, period.  Taxes are not voluntary, as they provide the services that allow the populace to create the goods that will then generate the revenues to pay for those protections. 

All governments/states are collectives, there is no escaping that point.  You must have just finished a course on comparative politics, and the parts that stuck were anarchism and socialism. 

Your last 2 sentences are the epitome of tribal culture...  and.... a tribal leader taxes his populace more heavily than an elected government.

You have a lot more studying to do...   You need to read Locke, Smith, Machiavelli, Aquinas, Mao, Jefferson, Mills and de Toqueville's treatises on government and political economics as a start.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 20, 2015)

I can't be the only one who thought this thread was going to be about mod elections.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 20, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> I oppose voting all together as voting leads to the destruction of freedom. Why? Lets say you have radical Muslims who use the freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote to get rid of both. It leads to collectivism. If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed. Voluntarism day is more effective and people have more power over the state than ever before. The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state. The money is an indication on how the leader is managing the money. If he is doing horrible, then they simply boycott the leader until the council pick a better alternative.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 21, 2015)

Australia has mandatory voting. @digrar and @CQB , what do you guys think from the Aussie POV? I'm not a fan of it, personally, and I've had discussions with Aussies who don't seem to like it much, either. 
Comma lyfe.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Mar 21, 2015)

We have mandatory voter enrollment (with proof of identification needed).  I'm not keen on mandatory voting but I'm all about not having 300 dead guys and 600 underage kids vote for a bent politician.


----------



## digrar (Mar 21, 2015)

They still only ask for our name and address at the booths, so easy enough to commit voter fraud.
Having to rock up to the local school and vote every other year (state and federal) is just one of those things, I don't think about it much and most of the country must feel the same as we generally get 94-96% registered voter turn out.


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/x-sf-med.54/

I am more of a rightist because it needs a hierarchy in government. Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy. 

Basically in order to be in the ballot you must have years of experience through the right rhetoric. 

Who will protect their freedoms? The people. You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.

I'm no economist by any stretch of the imagination Sir, but I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises. My point being is that the state will have no power over the individual, and should be held at a moral standard so high that we must not corrupt it by voting.


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/policemedic.250/

Nice rebuttal.


----------



## x SF med (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/x-sf-med.54/
> 
> I am more of a rightist because it needs a hierarchy in government. Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.
> 
> ...




Kid, you are a troll.  You are ungrounded in reality and are wishing to enact a pie-in-the sky ideal that has been espoused since Plato.  Morality will always fall to the greed of those who have evil in their hearts and arms at their side...  a government is not inherently evil, but many of the people that join it are.

Consider yourself put on ignore.


----------



## AWP (Mar 21, 2015)

All I can think of is...


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 21, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> All I can think of is...


The argument wasn't even backed up by history. Just ridiculous idealism.


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Kid, you are a troll.  You are ungrounded in reality and are wishing to enact a pie-in-the sky ideal that has been espoused since Plato.  Morality will always fall to the greed of those who have evil in their hearts and arms at their side...  a government is not inherently evil, but many of the people that join it are.
> 
> Consider yourself put on ignore.


 You can't deny that capitalism works it is the only system that truly benefits us. If we achieve it, then why change it? Why vote for politicians who would want to change it? I believe that state and business should be separate, both serve a purpose. The state was created to protect, and preserve free will, the safe haven of freedom which is the free market. I only want to enact the true intent of the law, and preserve the law the best way it can be done.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises



LOL!  I"m sorry, but I love this kid!


----------



## AWP (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> I believe that state and business *should* be separate, both serve a purpose.


 
War should be illegal.
Crime shouldn't happen.
The strong should protect the weak.

"Should" is utopia and thousands of years' worth of human history tells us "should" is a dream, not reality. You can't deny human nature so why base your argument on something that doesn't exist?


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?


----------



## AWP (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?


 
No, no we cannot agree. You are overlooking or discarding what man does. Forget the state or the business or the church or whatever, MANKIND will not allow your ideas to exist. There will always be those who are strong, those who are weak, those who prey on the weak, those who protect the weak, the greedy, the saints, the devils, the anything we can imagine because that is our history and your dreams are irrelevant against historical reality.

Take a "perfect" system. Men/ women run it, and we expect zero corruption to exist? No one would use their influence or take a bribe EVER? You're kidding yourself.


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> No, no we cannot agree. You are overlooking or discarding what man does. Forget the state or the business or the church or whatever, MANKIND will not allow your ideas to exist. There will always be those who are strong, those who are weak, those who prey on the weak, those who protect the weak, the greedy, the saints, the devils, the anything we can imagine because that is our history and your dreams are irrelevant against historical reality.
> 
> Take a "perfect" system. Men/ women run it, and we expect zero corruption to exist? No one would use their influence or take a bribe EVER? You're kidding yourself.


 Of course and I realize this but name ONE system that man let it happen? None. I am saying what works best. I guess I'm having to branch out here even further.. But we both can agree on less government. The bigger the state the more corrupt. Correct?


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 21, 2015)

Keep in mind, this is just a theory. I realize it has kinks. But I also realize no government will ever be perfect.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 21, 2015)

"What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic, if you can keep it."

IMO, Franklin was on the right track, and forcing people to vote (legal issues of compulsion set aside for a minute) is a really good way to push our country in an unsustainable direction.

I really don't see how anything positive can result from compelling people to vote.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> Keep in mind, this is just a theory. I realize it has kinks. But I also realize no government will ever be perfect.


Yeah it's a theory... a theory that you've been spoon fed, to which you've clearly applied zero critical thinking and demonstrate zero original thought.  This is exactly the kind of thing that I'd expect from someone who took a one-semester survey course and now thinks that he's an expert in both comparative politics and American politics.  You're mashing up a bunch of buzzwords from different schools of thought and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks.  That's not going to fly here.



> Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.


What does that even mean?  The left might hate the patriarchy, but it LOVES hierarchy.  The left is all about big government, and you can't have big government without a massive bureaucracy to manage it and an hierarchy to oversee it.



> Who will protect their freedoms?


The same people who always have, since before the beginning of our country:  men with guns who know their rights and are willing to resort to violence to ensure them.



> You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.


Bwahahahaha good one.  Oh wait, you were serious? 



> Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises


Ooh!  Can I play this game too?  I'll take "names I'll look up on Wikipedia and then toss out to make me look educated" for $500, Alex! 
What, no Piketty?  I thought that was the guy all of you young people were told to champion these days.  Maybe we need to save him for Final Jeopardy.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 21, 2015)

Minimum wage is for minimally skilled, minimally trained, minimal expectations work. This isn't a living wage, this is something you do to get somewhere else or in the interim while you DO something else (like education). In some cases it's a training wage until you get certifications inherent, such as if you're an apprentice or the like.  Cranking it up so it's equatable to a living wage is ludicrous. There's no reason you should be paying the worthless douchenozzle running the stand at Walmart anything more than 8 an hour at best, when all they are doing is sliding things across a counter and barely bagging things (usually incorrectly why yes I like my ammonia with my perishable fruits thank you very much could I have canned motor oil with my bread please)

Long story short, your bayou graduate credentials are showing significantly in how retarded you've put together your understanding of how things work, should work, and will work in reality.


----------



## pardus (Mar 21, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> *Well... I guess professionalism is out of the window..* :-"
> 
> You're a senior member, I'm sure you are well aware of the communtity rules. In fact, I believe I have seen you enforce them? But hey, even senior members such as yourself need a brush up here and there. No tip is required, but thank you notes are encouraged: http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/pages/info/
> 
> ...



Well I guess you're out the window now. Smart assed little $%#@*!


----------



## x SF med (Mar 22, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?



the best response I can think of here....







Oh, the minimum wage thing?   It's run 15% of small business out of Seattle by ruining their abilty to stay in business.  And, it was enacted by an avowed Socialist with connections to the Communist party...  it's not about wage equality, it's about the increase in government control over the population.  It was not enacted by the people, it was enacted by a government through the use of rhetoric and hiding the economics of the decision from the uninformed.   Nobody told the minimum wage workers "if you vote for this there is a 40% chance you will lose your job."


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 22, 2015)

Now that Shredder is sorted, the grownups can talk again.

A couple of blog posts on the original subject:
http://www.havokjournal.com/politics/a-colloquy-on-compulsory-voting/
http://www.havokjournal.com/politics/what-president-obama-really-said-about-compulsory-voting/


----------



## Brill (Mar 23, 2015)

Interesting non-ruling on voter ID laws in WI.  Seems like it's not yet ripe for the Court...again.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-wisconsin-voter-id-law/?intcmp=latestnews


----------



## Shredder477 (Mar 29, 2015)

@RangerPsych
I concur. Increasing the minimum wage to livable wage not only is ridiculous, it's impossible as the cost of living will rise with it. People really should be focusing on reducing the cost of living, not weakening the dollar as the government will simply combat the increased unemployment with inflation, which is counterproductive.

Frankly, what Walmart pay's their employees is really none of mine, or your business. They can pay them $7 an hour, or $20 an hour. It's a private company and none of our business. 

@x SF med
For a Special Forces soldier, I would of expected better situation awareness from you, because I agree with you as well. I want to abolish minimum wage laws, NOT increase them. I find it ironic that the left hates big corporations and the 1%, and then goes onto support minimum wage increases that cut jobs, close small businesses, and put more money into the hands of the 1% due to lack of competition. 

@pardus 
Understood. I'll be sure to report back here when everyone finishes their menstrual cycle.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 29, 2015)

Well hell @Shredder477 ...I thought your silly ass was banned last week?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 29, 2015)

Shredder477 said:


> @RangerPsych
> I concur. Increasing the minimum wage to livable wage not only is ridiculous, it's impossible as the cost of living will rise with it. People really should be focusing on reducing the cost of living, not weakening the dollar as the government will simply combat the increased unemployment with inflation, which is counterproductive.
> 
> Frankly, what Walmart pay's their employees is really none of mine, or your business. They can pay them $7 an hour, or $20 an hour. It's a private company and none of our business.
> ...



Shredder, any points that you could possibly have made have been well and thoroughly negated through your frankly shitty conduct and blatant disrespect.  Just because the internet allows you the hallucination of anonymity does not give you free reign to treat others on here like twice baked dog shit.  Your comment about members on menstrual cycles has just earned you a ban from the board, but I don't expect you to really care.  After all, this is only the internet, and it's not like the other members on here are professionals, many of them with various graduate level degrees and more years of experience in their respected fields than you have walking this planet.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2015)

Shredder's been shredded. His last post...sigh. Kids these days. "Menstrual cycle." Geographically Induced Consequences indeed...

Back to the discussion. (hint, hint)


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 29, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> A couple of blog posts on the original subject:
> http://www.havokjournal.com/politics/what-president-obama-really-said-about-compulsory-voting/


This dude is a terrible writer and probably smells bad


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 29, 2015)

I disagree with mandatory voting.  It is your right to exercise or not.


----------

