SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that when asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said Obama "It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly.
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."
At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans -- more than the population of Russia -- skipped out.
Critics of mandatory voting have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 22 2015, @12:43PM
I don't object to any kind of ballot, just forcing people to vote. Wiping your arse with a properly filled out paper ballot would be a fine form of protest, IMO.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday March 22 2015, @08:00PM
Hm. I think I see your point, but did you consider that forcing people to vote would also make it more difficult to fake results? If it turns out that millions of people are entitled to vote, but turn out to be dead for long-time when following up on their missing vote, those can be stricken from the records for the next election. Also it gives some hint on how to keep updated lists for the future. (I do understand that currently lots of those orphaned votes are suspected to be used to skew the results. But I expect it's not *all* of those orphaned votes, and following up on those not voting could close some of the gaps.
The other thing is that I heard, organisers in some districts make it intentionally difficult for some groups to vote and skew the election that way. If anyone has to vote anyway, there won't be much of a point to make it inconvenient for some groups.
Would you agree if there was a field on the ballot "[x] None of the above"? Or do you object to the fact you'd still have to show up there? Or did I miss (again) a third option?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 22 2015, @10:20PM
I personally wouldn't show up regardless of the consequences if they told me I had to vote. Hell with em. As it stands I vote regularly but I'll be damned if I'll be told I have to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.