Why not MANDATORY voting?

I've had this argument with my some of my fellow American citizens hundreds of times. This country will never be a true democracy unless voting becomes MANDATORY.
Boy, would we have a different picture today and a much more SOCIALLY AWARE population. I still haven't heard a single credible argument why we can't have this in America. Just like we are OBLIGATED to pay taxes, we should be obligated as citizens to vote and participate in the democracy...even if we choose to cast blank ballots, everyone should make a showing at the polls on Election Day.

What we have is pure bullshit, giving the votes exclusively to the rich and educated. What kind of democracy is that?

And why not? Most 'democratized' nations in the world have it. I lived in Greece for many years, where voting is mandatory. I have Brazilian and Argentine friends who I know are obligated to report to their respective embassies on their election days.
I know this also applies to Switzerland, Belgium, Venezuela...

Any thoughts on this?

no, i would rather have people who actually care and want to voluntarily vote to take part in the election process...if you force everyone to vote, especially ones who dont care or dont know about the candidates, they can easily just go in and push whatever buttons they want just to hurry up and leave...not the best way to run a democracy, IMO

Hey if we're obligated to vote and not obligated to pay taxes that works for me.

:)

Quote:

---

giving the votes exclusively to the rich and educated.

---

Apparently you've never had to spend any period of time in a long line waiting to cast your own.


:lol :lol

Quote:

---

I still haven't heard a single credible argument why we can't have this in America.

---

If God meant for us all to vote, he would give us all candidates!

Quote:

---

even if we choose to cast blank ballots

---

I'm all for a "none of the above" on my ballot, but people who vote oppose this.

Mandatory Voting is antipathetic to Liberty.

Saddam Hussein had mandatory voting in Iraq and, whaddayaknow, he consistently garnered 99% of the vote.

A more reasonable solution is to revert to the Constitutional principle of allowing the general population select their representative in Congress, by popular vote, within a district; repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution and allow State Legislatures (representing the States) to select the two Senators to represent them; and, finally, somehow, magically cause everyone to realize they don't really vote for President when they cast a vote for President -- they're voting for a slate of electors that will cast a vote for President sometime in December.

Education, education, education...

:lol

If eveyone was made to vote the Democrats would never lose and election.

So if I'm not voting for president on November 2?
Who am I voting for?

You're voting for the slate of electors.

If you were voting for President, the popular vote would be the deciding factor. As it stands, you're voting so your state can fulfill it's Constitutional obligation of choosing it's electors for the Electoral College vote in December.

Here, a little lesson on the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Article II, Section 1, clause 2 says, in pertinent part:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

---

What that means is that the State Legislatures pick, in whatever manner they choose, the electors that will cast the vote for President and Vice President. It just so happens, all states have chosen a method that involves taking a popular vote.

By the way, as a little aside, this clause, the Constitutional prohibition on ex-post facto law, and the equal protection clause of the 5th amendement are the underlying reasons why the Florida Supremes were smacked down by the U.S. Supremes.

Questions?

No? Then, class dismissed.

Can we all just STFU about the 2000 election now and know that when you pull the lever for President/Vice President, in November, you're actually voting for some favored Constituent in your Congressional District who will show up in Austin sometime in December and cast a vote for President/Vice President on your behalf?

You have no class. :p

Quote:

---

If you were voting for President, the popular vote would be the deciding factor.

---

Shouldn't it be that way?

Quote:

---

It just so happens, all states have chosen a method that involves taking a popular vote.

---

That's true in the sense that nominating electors is based on the results of popular voting, but I'm fairly certain that the prevailing winner-take-all scheme is not universally applied.

I once read a fairly compelling argument for retooling the electoral college by encouraging (or requiring) states to award electoral votes on a district-by-district basis, with 2 at-large electors. Since the number of electors = number of Representatives + 2 (number of Senators), the theory goes that States would award a single electoral vote to whoever garnered the most votes in each Congressional (Representative's) district. The winner of the statewide popular vote would then receive the additional 2 electoral votes. In theory, it seems to be a logical revision, if there ever were to be a revision. I've not even thought about trying to figure out if it would have made any difference in any recent election, but in the vague realm of the electoral college and the broad-based misunderstandings of its purpose and workings, the idea is an interesting one. In theory, it might encourage a more wide-spread popular vote from the minority party in certain states that tend to normally go one way or the other.

Quote:

---

"Shouldn't it be that way?"

---

No.

Well, not unless you want the 5 most populous states deciding every election; with little or no regard for the other 45.

Quote:

---

"That's true in the sense that nominating electors is based on the results of popular voting, but I'm fairly certain that the prevailing winner-take-all scheme is not universally applied."

---

You're absolutely right. Of the top of my head, I think Maine splits its electors according to a proportional vote or by some kind of district scheme. Colorado currently has a referendum before it to change their winner-take-all into a proportional scheme.

But, in reality, the State Legislature could pass a law to select their electors by watching the direction an ant crawls out of its mound and that would be perfectly satisfactory to the Constitution...so long as they don't try to change the law in the middle of an election (as Florida did.).

I don't think it should matter.

My vote for president shoud be based on my having the right to vote and shouldn't depend on what state I'm in.

If the popular votes means that the candidate with the majority of the votes wins then it makes sense to me.

Are we not all Americans? Or am I a Texan-American, or a Ohio-American or a Missouri-American?

Except you forget the purpose of the office of President as executive of the federal government -- not a representative of the people.

I thought it was for the people, by the people...

Well then what the hell is Dubya and Kerry doing spending all the time talking to the people?

Shouldnt' they just stay in Washington and campaign amongst themselves?

Quote:

---

Shouldnt' they just stay in Washington and campaign amongst themselves?

---

Well, they have to pander to us to win popular votes so that they can garner electors and win the election. Other than that, you're right.

Quote:

---

"I thought it was for the people, by the people..."

---

Then why aren't you writing the laws? Policies?

Your Congressman is the "people" and the underpinning of all legislation and spending.

Quote:

---

"Well then what the hell is Dubya and Kerry doing spending all the time talking to the people?"

---

Because it's been turned into a popularity contest by the States.

Quote:

---

"Shouldnt' they just stay in Washington and campaign amongst themselves?"

---

They should be pandering to the State legislatures instead of the population.

Something else occurred to me that I think also has a bearing on this discussion.

In states where a candidate is clearly ahead, voter turnout tends to be low. Therefore, the popular vote nationwide is skewed by those states. If, for instance, the turnout in "red" states -- guaranteed Bush states -- had been 5% more, the resulting electoral college vote would have been the same but the popular vote would have, in all likelihood been reversed.

The election is about winning one state at a time. In states where a victory is assured, voter turnout tends to be lower and you lose in overall popular vote counts. In battleground states, both parties try to bring out the vote and you end up with a high turnout and a close vote.

This is another reason the popular vote count is irrelevant...voter turnout may vary from 30% to 70%.

==============================================This country will never be a true democracy unless voting becomes MANDATORY.
==============================================

er-ahh.....we live in a Republic, not a democracy. And
voting is not mandatory because, to vote or not vote
is a privilege. Sometime by not voting you are voting.
You figure that out. You do know what a Republic is,
don't you?

So if nobody voted at all?

For President? That'd mean a 0 to 0 tie.

Ties are thrown to the U.S. House of Representatives where your elected representative steps up and picks for you.