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, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday March 22 2015, @01:58PM
"It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything"
Really? No. It wouldn't stop the absurd circus that goes on before the election, the ridiculous quantities of cash donations, and the wasted time. If you want to counteract money you set strict limits on compaign contributions, compaign duration, and the periods during which contributions can be made. You also curtail the powers of lobby groups to win influence through gifts and money. You have to stop the stupid pretence that blocking people from giving money is limiting their freedom of speech. However, all you have to do is say "freedom of speech" and all common sense seems to go out of the window.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @03:45PM
Only when that "speech" is money. You don't see anybody protesting the "free speech zones" [wikipedia.org] which literally restrict where "freedom of speech" exists.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:42PM
Nor do you see many people protesting the FCC's censorship of 'profanity', which is a blatant violation of the first amendment (that courts love to modify with invisible ink to give the government more power). Nor do you see many people protesting copyright laws which necessarily require censorship (perhaps of websites, for example) in order to enforce. Nor do you see people protesting other kinds of obscenity laws. There are many things that are ignored by the masses, and yet affect our fundamental liberties. Good luck getting the majority to care about those.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday March 22 2015, @04:14PM
It is arguable that limiting contributions limits speech but limiting contributions is not the only way to achieve the same thing.
1) Use public funds to match dollar for dollar, any fundraising achieved by any candidate.
2) Provide such funding to all parties who get 1% of the vote in the last election.
In this scenario, if a war monger like HRC raises $1B, that's fine, her supporters are free to give it to her. The green candidate, the libertarian candidate, eventually the pirate candidate, will ALSO get a billion dollars. This restricts no one's freedom to speak with their wallet, but it makes getting massive donations counterproductive.