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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:13PM
Nice try, but you won't get fined if you never even bothered to get on the electoral roll in the first place.
So mandatory voting doesn't exist, then? One needn't do anything at all?
What principle would that be?
All of your examples are absurd and completely offtopic.
Your freedoms should end where they infringe on mine.
You do not have a freedom to take away other people's freedom not to vote, or at least, you shouldn't.
That's infringing on my freedoms right there.
Nope. The dictator would be infringing upon your freedoms, not people who vote/don't vote in a way that you like. You seem to be the wannabe dictator here, pal.
This freedom thing is a bit more complicated than you seem to think!
It's really not, but I expected a response like yours; you're completely transparent. Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end, which we've seen with the war on 'terror'. You're in such good company.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Sunday March 22 2015, @11:07PM
Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end,
Oh please; while this is often true, it is not *always* true.
Should you have the freedom to carry an M60 at all times, and be free to gun down whoever you like?
No?
I shouldn't be free to murder you in your home? That's fascist man. You're infringing on my liberties! Help, Help! I'm being oppressed!
I gave you a chance to explain your "principle", but the best you could do was complain I was being off-topic. Foolishly I was hoping for an interesting discourse...
What your "principle" appears to be, is anarchy. (I should be able to do, or not do, anything I want, rest of the world be damned).
This was supposed to be a discussion about democracy, not anarchy. You can't be completely free in a democracy to do anything you damn well please.
There are laws and such, that (oh no) reduce your freedom, for the overall benefit of society. This is part of the democratic system. One of the main roles of the elected is to work on improving that body of law (in principle, anyway).
Ensuring that the citizens take part in the democratic process is (supposed to be) for the overall benefit of society.
Go live in your anarchist utopia with the rest of your anonymous troll friends and see how free you are three weeks later when some other anarchists with bigger guns move in...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @02:00AM
Should you have the freedom to carry an M60 at all times, and be free to gun down whoever you like?
Jesus, you're ridiculously stupid. Your notion of freedom is so broken that talking to you is a waste of time, because whenever I mentioned the word "freedom", you seem to assume I think it's a natural right to murder people.
Fuck off if you're going to be this dishonest.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RobotMonster on Monday March 23 2015, @09:19AM
You're the anarchist who keeps insisting "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end", without caveat,
*Finally* you've admitted that you don't think that directly harming others should be included in your freedom.
But you know, keep arguing your "principled stance" without actually explaining your principles...
Your notion of freedom is so broken that talking to you is a waste of time
I was trying to find out what your notion of freedom was, as you kept declaring that you can't "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties". This is a blanket statement that is clearly not correct (and not one you agree with, if you're going to outlaw 'directly' harming others, whatever that might mean.). You're spouting catchphrases that don't actually reflect what you're thinking.
Jesus, you're ridiculously stupid.
You're the fucking moron here, dumb-ass. Talking to you is like talking to an eleven year old.
You mentioned earlier in the thread that you valued critical thinking. You might want to invest in learning how to do it. And actually communicating your point, instead of calling everybody stupid, that would be a small improvement.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @01:45PM
You're the anarchist who keeps insisting "Infringing upon liberties to save liberties is a dead end", without caveat,
Not an anarchist. Straw man.
You mentioned earlier in the thread that you valued critical thinking. You might want to invest in learning how to do it.
I say it is you who needs to learn how to think critically; your straw men and random assumptions are seemingly endless. Furthermore, you resort to pointless pedantry. Because of that, I have no real desire to waste my time explaining my exact positions (which would likely be intentionally misinterpreted anyway), and you've already revealed yourself as an authoritarian anyway.
Here's how a conversation with someone who supports the NSA's mass surveillance sometimes turns out:
Me: We should value freedom over safety.
Them: Aha! You didn't specify *exactly* what freedom means! That must mean you support the freedom to murder! Checkmate, anarchist!
You're resembling them right now. I could pick at many statements you've made in the exact same way, since language isn't always exact or literal.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2015, @02:03AM
I gave you a chance to explain your "principle"
Freedom does not include the ability to directly harm others without consequence.
Go live in your anarchist utopia
Not forcing people to vote != anarchy. I am actually a liberal, so nice try there.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Monday March 23 2015, @09:11AM
Freedom does not include the ability to directly harm others without consequence.
It does for some people. But, finally, you've said something instead of throwing around insults and one-eyed nonsense. Hoorah!
So, do you have the freedom to not pay your taxes?
Doesn't directly harm anyone.