I Hereby Declare Godwin's Law Null and Void

[Kulindahr]

No, they aren't government employees, and primaries aren't real elections. It is a vetting process for the internal affairs of the major parties.

There is in fact a law that prohibits voter intimidation - the Hatch Act - violations of which are virtually never prosecuted. I have to guess because gaining new exceptions to the First Amendment is nigh impossible.

Electioneers have free reign to challenge voters, purge registration rolls, issue robocalls, issue misleading mailers, and lie in person.

Anyone accused of intimidating voters is escorted by police away from voting sites, or rather were before Oregon went to all-mail balloting. Those who resisted were charged with creating a public disturbance, or harassment, which I suspect was because prosecution under the Hatch Act would be a total pain.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Wow. Things are so different up here. Not only are there campaign limits (candidates who exceed the limits face jail time), simply paying someone to do something for the campaign which exceeds the limit makes the party and/or politician responsible. In fact, the former MP for my riding spent time in jail for overspending, even though he claims he did not receive the full services paid for. He was also involved with the Conservative 'Robocall Scandal' in which computers called Liberal supporters at all hours of the day (even the middle of the night). As election day drew closer, the computers began to inform the Liberal supporters that their voting station had moved when it hadn't. Elections Canada received a volume of complaints from voters who went to a voting station which didn't exist.

Del Mastro spent a month in jail, 4 months of house arrest, and, I believe, paid fines for his part in the campaign overspending. Elections Canada couldn't find enough evidence to lay charges for the Robocall scandal.

With the Supreme Court equating money to speech, spending limits keep getting tossed -- despite the fact that it's blatantly obvious that declaring money to be speech is establishing the very unpalatable position that some are more equal than others.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^

Criminal prosecution needs to happen here. At least in recent years I haven't seen jail time for voter intimidation despite there being a rather extensive Justice Department manual on the subject.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf

Australia has some good ideas as well, such as compulsory voting.

Compulsory voting kills it as a right -- a "right" to do something is meaningless unless it entails the right not to do it.

Perhaps link it to the individual income tax standard deduction: if you didn't vote, you only get what you can itemize.

 

[Kulindahr]

Political culture is not something easily remedied. It's impossible for us in America to solve it if we don't even have the nuts and bolts of democracy tightened up.

Shades of Lawrence Lessig, who insists (quite correctly) that unless we retrieve the Republic, fixing anything else is impossible.

 

[Kulindahr]

The GOP is paternalistic and they like assholes.

I think a guy on OPB yesterday or the day before was more accurate: GOP voters prefer someone who doesn't come across like a used car salesman, a description that covers pretty much all 'professional' politicians, because the are, in fact, trying to sell us something while putting one over on us. That the Democratic Party gave us the most imperial president ever, just what the Constitution was meant to prevent according to Jonathon Turley, pretty much proves that.

 

[Alnitak]

Compulsory voting kills it as a right -- a "right" to do something is meaningless unless it entails the right not to do it.

Perhaps link it to the individual income tax standard deduction: if you didn't vote, you only get what you can itemize.

Viewing the franchise as a right is lethal to a republic. It implies that our duty to participate in civic life is an option to turn down, that it can be regarded casually if one so chooses. No! Voting is a civic duty! Compulsory voting guarantees that government represents the true cross section of society. So it is incumbent upon other people like us make sure that our choices are represented. Thus, those who decline are really saying in essence that they have no business being part of civilization and they are not our neighbors.

Read Theodore Roosevelt, The Duties of American Citizenship

 

[gsdx]

Voting is a civic duty! Compulsory voting guarantees that government represents the true cross section of society. So it is incumbent upon other people like us make sure that our choices are represented.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people NOT like us who have no interest in politics, nor do they have any interest concerning how the government is run or how to change it. They may bitch and complain, but simply don't make the effort to make a decision about who to vote for let alone bother to go out and do it.

Compulsory voting may do nothing more than to force a lot of people to grudgingly go to the voting station and either ruin their ballot or simply vote randomly.

It's a civic duty, sure, but forcing it upon people takes away the 'duty' part and a lot of people will do their best not to do it. Remember 'draft dodgers'?

 

[jbrown329]

With the Supreme Court equating money to speech, spending limits keep getting tossed -- despite the fact that it's blatantly obvious that declaring money to be speech is establishing the very unpalatable position that some are more equal than others.

"The prevailing myth in America has been that the rich have a right to buy more homes, more cars, more gizmos, vacations and leisure. But they don't have the right to buy more democracy. The Supreme Court has just laid that myth to rest, and the new gilded age roars in triumph."
~ Bill Moyers

 

[Kulindahr]

Viewing the franchise as a right is lethal to a republic. It implies that our duty to participate in civic life is an option to turn down, that it can be regarded casually if one so chooses. No! Voting is a civic duty! Compulsory voting guarantees that government represents the true cross section of society. So it is incumbent upon other people like us make sure that our choices are represented. Thus, those who decline are really saying in essence that they have no business being part of civilization and they are not our neighbors.

Read Theodore Roosevelt, The Duties of American Citizenship

Except when we only have the choices the 0.1% (fewer, actually) who control the real campaign money allow us to have, we no longer have a republic. Most people I know who don't vote have the same view of politicians they do of TV channels: all the "choices", and nothing worth picking.

The two-party system has to go, along with political rights for anyone (or thing) not a citizen or legal resident, or all that compulsory voting would do is vastly increase the number of blank ballots. And we need a "None of the Above" option for saying "Fuck you!" to the system that provides us with candidates.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unfortunately, there are millions of people NOT like us who have no interest in politics, nor do they have any interest concerning how the government is run or how to change it. They may bitch and complain, but simply don't make the effort to make a decision about who to vote for let alone bother to go out and do it.

Compulsory voting may do nothing more than to force a lot of people to grudgingly go to the voting station and either ruin their ballot or simply vote randomly.

It's a civic duty, sure, but forcing it upon people takes away the 'duty' part and a lot of people will do their best not to do it. Remember 'draft dodgers'?

I remember when in college a certain professor required his students to vote in order to pass, the returns showed a spike in write-ins, mostly for people who don't exist, are dead, or were ineligible for the office. It was reported that one entire ballot voted for Peter Pan, for everything.

When there is no choice, forcing people to make a choice results in deepened cynicism.

 

[luckynumbah7]

It's a civic duty, sure, but forcing it upon people takes away the 'duty' part and a lot of people will do their best not to do it. Remember 'draft dodgers'?

You rang?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFOUkipI4U

 

[Kulindahr]

"The prevailing myth in America has been that the rich have a right to buy more homes, more cars, more gizmos, vacations and leisure. But they don't have the right to buy more democracy. The Supreme Court has just laid that myth to rest, and the new gilded age roars in triumph."
~ Bill Moyers

Yes, in what has been accurately called the most irrationally reasoned correct decision in the annals of law.

 

[jbrown329]

Unfortunately, there are millions of people NOT like us who have no interest in politics, nor do they have any interest concerning how the government is run or how to change it. They may bitch and complain, but simply don't make the effort to make a decision about who to vote for let alone bother to go out and do it.

Compulsory voting may do nothing more than to force a lot of people to grudgingly go to the voting station and either ruin their ballot or simply vote randomly.

It's a civic duty, sure, but forcing it upon people takes away the 'duty' part and a lot of people will do their best not to do it. Remember 'draft dodgers'?

There's a big difference between a draft dodger and a non-voter. Maybe if we went vote by mail nationwide, the amount of people voting would go up. It's a whole lot easier voting that way. Fill your ballot out, put a stamp on it and mail it. That's the way we do it here (Washington state). There are also drop boxes, many located at public libraries.

For those that don't vote, don't bitch about government to me. If you don't vote, you (in my opinion) have no right to bitch.

 

[Keeland]

Maybe if we went vote by mail nationwide, the amount of people voting would go up.

It wouldn't be by mail. It would be by internet, falling-down-drunk easy to rig.

 

[Alnitak]

Unfortunately, there are millions of people NOT like us who have no interest in politics, nor do they have any interest concerning how the government is run or how to change it. They may bitch and complain, but simply don't make the effort to make a decision about who to vote for let alone bother to go out and do it.

Everyone has a will. Politics is the brokerage of negotiating power. A lot more people would be interested in politics if it were more personal.

"We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote." -MLK, I Have a Dream

Compulsory voting may do nothing more than to force a lot of people to grudgingly go to the voting station and either ruin their ballot or simply vote randomly.

Then such people do indeed represent the anti-social minority who want nothing to do with civilization. Remember if you do not vote, your proportion of the electorate is taken up by those who do allowing others to speak for you, e.g. those who want to take away your rights and property. In other words, your vote counts even if you do not vote.

It's a civic duty, sure, but forcing it upon people takes away the 'duty' part and a lot of people will do their best not to do it. Remember 'draft dodgers'?

Being forced to do one's duty changes only the motivation to do one's duty, in this case an extrinsic rather than intrinsic force. I'd even say the character of voting changes depending on one's circumstance, it can either be a chore, duty, right, or privilege, or a combination of the aforementioned.

Draft dodging is a very good analogy, but the Vietnam War arguably was not a cause that furthered practical interests.

 

[Alnitak]

Except when we only have the choices the 0.1% (fewer, actually) who control the real campaign money allow us to have, we no longer have a republic. Most people I know who don't vote have the same view of politicians they do of TV channels: all the "choices", and nothing worth picking.

The two-party system has to go, along with political rights for anyone (or thing) not a citizen or legal resident, or all that compulsory voting would do is vastly increase the number of blank ballots. And we need a "None of the Above" option for saying "Fuck you!" to the system that provides us with candidates.

Some of this I addressed in my response to gsdx.

I don't disagree. Nonetheless, they have a will, and we are seeing these type of people support Trump and Bernie. So why aren't more people motivated to participate? It's a good question. Perhaps there are cynics who don't see how political revolution is possible or any way in which government is a means for them to improve their lives. Thus, compulsory voting would probably overturn the state of affairs causing such people to be apathetic - a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[gsdx]

There's a big difference between a draft dodger and a non-voter.

I wasn't comparing draft dodgers with non-voters. I was comparing the idea of not giving them a choice. If they don't have a choice, they will find a way out of doing what they're told.

 

[Alnitak]

I wasn't comparing draft dodgers with non-voters.

I would. Those who shirk their duties are cadgers.

I was comparing the idea of not giving them a choice. If they don't have a choice, they will find a way out of doing what they're told.

It's a cruel irony to cut off your nose to spite your face, but people do it all the time, and that's their choice.

At least the inconvenience of having to face that choice is removed.

 

[gsdx]

^ I used draft dodgers as an example. I could have used any example of people who shirk their duties: income tax evaders or cheats, deadbeat parents (with the added 'moral' duty to care for their children), people who drive without insurance or with a suspended licence...

Like I said, many people will find a way not to do something they're told to do if they don't want to do it.

 

[Alnitak]

^ I used draft dodgers as an example. I could have used any example of people who shirk their duties: income tax evaders or cheats, deadbeat parents (with the added 'moral' duty to care for their children), people who drive without insurance or with a suspended licence...

Like I said, many people will find a way not to do something they're told to do if they don't want to do it.

Well there were thousands of contentious objectors, who were famously pardoned by President Carter, and I suppose that any compulsory law will have exemptions.