Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:24PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:24PM (#162559)

    Great. More uncreative multiple choice tests that test only for mindless rote memorization. This time, though, the stakes are much, much higher; a fundamental liberty is at stake.

    I don't care how 'simple' you think the questions are; they will only be used to oppress the poor and uneducated (and the poor are often uneducated simply because their situation makes it hard to become more educated), who will then have no means to try to improve their situation because you've taken away one of the biggest means to do so. Maybe you think they 'deserve' it, and I'm sure racists thought the same way in the past. The idea of an unbiased test that will determine whether or not someone is eligible to vote being ultimately beneficial or moral is a joke. You're giving far too much power to the government, and it simply does not deserve and *will* abuse it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2