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: 1, Troll) by tathra on Sunday March 22 2015, @03:35PM
how absurd. we've taken away your freedom to freely murder people with no consequences in order to give the people you would have murdered the freedom to live. taking away freedom to give freedom, no contradictions there at all, its just a matter of whose freedoms and the freedoms to do what. if restricting certain freedoms increases the amount of freedom available to more people then its a net gain, an overall increase in "freedom".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:20PM
how absurd. we've taken away your freedom to freely murder people with no consequences in order to give the people you would have murdered the freedom to live. taking away freedom to give freedom, no contradictions there at all, its just a matter of whose freedoms and the freedoms to do what.
You're a complete moron. I do not believe such a freedom would ever be legitimate to begin with, so you seemingly misinterpreting my position to score 'points.' So calling that a freedom when speaking to me is mistaken to begin with. Freedom isn't, to me, the same as the ability to do something.
Murder directly harms someone. You cannot make the same claim of someone who doesn't vote, unless you have a very illogical definition of "harm." And it is contradictory because if your goal is to maximize freedom, you have already failed, as there are certainly alternatives to forcing people to vote.
if restricting certain freedoms increases the amount of freedom available to more people then its a net gain, an overall increase in "freedom".
I speak of *real* freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, privacy, etc. And no, you cannot infringe upon such fundamental liberties in the name of more freedom. You might spew forth more straw men that has nothing to do with my actual position, but that will not help you.
You seem to be in the same crowd as those who say we need to surrender our liberties for security from the terrorist bogeyman, and even your example is extremely similar. In order to truly maximize freedom, we need to take measures that don't infringe upon our fundamental liberties to begin with, like, say, education.