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 Runaway1956 on Sunday March 22 2015, @07:53PM
No, there are some subtle differences between authoritarianism, and a democratic libertarian government which enforces responsibility. With straight-up authoritarianism, the ruling class claims authority over all aspects of your life, and tells you how to live, without even trying to justify it.
The world which Heinlein described placed authority with the PEOPLE, much as the founding fathers of the US did. Those people who act responsibly retain authority, and those people who fail to act responsibly lose that authority. That is, your decisions have consequences. Act a criminal, lose your freedom. Merely act irresponsible, lose some benefits of citizenship. Act responsible, and you're a citizen in good standing. It all makes sense to me.
Better than our system today, in which the cops chase people down for possessing and/or using substances which mostly harm no one, or harm only the person using them. In a libertarian society, you could use any damned drug you care to use. Of course, if you OD on your chosen poison, you couldn't expect government or society to save your life for you. Dying is the logical result of over dosing on any drug, so if you overdose, it must be presumed that you INTENDED to die. A libertarian isn't going to interfere with your right to an undignified death, puking and shitting all over yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2015, @08:18PM
Never mind that tbe US was founded upon a bunch of people disobeying "the law". Maybe today's non-voters are patriots.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday March 22 2015, @09:24PM
No, there are some subtle differences between authoritarianism, and a democratic libertarian government which enforces responsibility.
Your "democratic libertarian government" would strip someone of their citizenship because they made choices you disagree with. It's your "responsibility" to do X, and you didn't do X, so now we'll get government thugs to punish you.
Nice small government you have there. Heinlein was a hardcore authoritarian; don't pretend otherwise. Even a democratic country can be authoritarian; it's why direct democracy is so frightening.
Better than our system today
Let's just stop doing the bad things, not adopt more bad policies.