Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 22 2015, @11:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the but-but-it's-raining! dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday March 22 2015, @03:22PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday March 22 2015, @03:22PM (#161138) Journal

    Voting is not the only way to participate. Nor should it be.

    You want change? Get in politician's faces. You can move city hall. The thing about just telling them what you want is not to go it alone, you have to be in a group, the larger the better. If 5% of a city's citizens march to city hall, they will listen, and they will respond. Another way is to sue them. But there, you have to have something. Even if the judges are sympathetic, they need something to work with, some evidence that the city violated a law, didn't follow procedure, something. Also helps if the issue is something that the majority supports. Most governments are not very scrupulous or competent. There will be things to work with, the trouble is to find out about them.

    All the time, politicians are trying to use their power for personal gain. They have to be watched constantly, and reined in whenever they try it. If the people don't do anything, the politicians' relatives and friends will get rich off the city. They provide service just good enough to keep the grumbling to a minimum, and collect overly large pay, some of which is kicked back to the politician who handed them the favor. Be feisty, so that they understand the people will not put up with corruption. For example, our humble city of about 40,000 was once involved in a scheme with a religious organization, think it was the Maharishis, to build the world's tallest building in the city. A city of only 40,000 is going to host the world's tallest building, WTF? What is clear is that the mayor flipped the site for a tidy profit for himself. He recused himself from the vote to rezone the land, but of course it was rezoned for high rise. It wasn't much longer before most of the citizens got wind of this scheme and started asking some hard questions. That mayor was voted out the next election, in favor of someone who would never have made it in otherwise, as she was one of those overzealous social conservatives who immediately embarked upon her own crusade to rid the city of alcohol, which was a good bit of our tax base. Pulled every move she could think of to shut down all the liquor stores in the city. They fought back and sued her and the individual council members who had supported her crusade, and won. One interesting remnant of that fight is that one store was found to be straddling the border. Only half the store can be used to sell liquor, and they have added a blue line to the floor to show that boundary. She was herself voted out the next election, in favor of a diseased drug addict who spent most of her tenure in the hospital-- got a liver transplant as I recall. She also got the boot after one term, in favor of a saner, more levelheaded guy who had no history of corruption or drug use. Finally!

    One trouble with many local elections is that they try very hard not to tell the public anything at all. Too often, I've been presented with a choice between 2 candidates for which there has been no coverage at all of their positions, party affiliations, or anything. The only info I had was photos and their ages. Not seeing anything to work with on the photos, like a big old Christian cross dangling from a necklace, or anything else that looked like the mark of a social conservative, I went with age. I voted for the younger candidate, reasoning that that there may be a weak correlation between old age and corruption, and maybe the younger person would be less corrupt. Also, that the younger person would be more in tune with technology.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @07:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @07:08PM (#161633)

    who had no history of corruption or drug use.

    Not everyone who uses drugs is corrupt or a scumbag. Sure, theres a lot of corrupt scumbags that use drugs, but then there's also lots of people you never hear about who use drugs reasonably and don't use it as an excuse to inflict harm on others. Drug use doesn't make people into scumbags, they're scumbags to begin with; the biggest scumbag junkies will still be scumbags even when they're sober.who had no history of corruption or drug clean.