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: 2) by JNCF on Sunday March 22 2015, @04:04PM
Executive orders are trumped by the constitution.
I don't think anybody is going to be running for a third term any time soon. The proposal is downright ludicrous. That being said, invoking the constitution as a guideline for what the government can and cannot do is also ludicrous, perhaps even more so. Ever heard of Edward Snowden?
(Score: 2) by naubol on Thursday April 02 2015, @03:41PM
You're not arguing that the constitution is selectively enforced, which is my position, and seems to me to fit the facts.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday April 02 2015, @06:25PM
I guess that I don't see a meaningful distinction between selectively enforcing a legal document and not enforcing it. As soon as you're not enforcing large parts of it because they're inconvenient for your agenda the parts that you still happen to enforce seem like they just coincidentally have backing by the document.
I don't think that America's political power structure would allow Obama to seek a third term (assuming that he was crazy enough to try for it), but I think that most pundits' invocations of the Constitution in that discourse would be ad hoc arguments wrapped in legalize and patriotism. They could not be taken as genuine arguments about Constitutional law unless a given pundit also took firm Constitutional positions on the Second and Fourth amendments, not just the Twenty-second.
Strictly speaking I cannot disagree with the statement that the Constitution is selectively enforced.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday April 10 2015, @07:48PM
My invocation of the constitution was in context for refuting the idea that Obama would go for a third time.