Would Democrats Benefit From Compulsory Voting?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout

Ok, it was an interesting article from them (the Economist), but it really talks more about Voter ID laws than the idea of compulsory voting.

One quote I'd like to post is about how Democrats look at the issue:

Ouch! Just shoot yourself in the foot, why don't ya!

Another interesting comment:

I just love it when Republican politicians speak their mind. It's such interesting fodder to wade through lol


The author of the article contacted Mr. Metcalfe, and provided a quote of his in the article. It ends with this:

Sound familiar? It shouldn't, not since the opposite is the argument from the right.

The author then surmised:

All very interesting.

His final words:

Thanks, Republicans! I knew you could do it!

A related article is titled, "The art of voter turnout: A mandate of slackers", which ends with this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout-0
Only if we actually want to work at solving the problems America faces.

 

Voter suppression is the goal of the Right. All the claims of voter fraud they are supposed to be trying to eliminate can't be explained by limiting the number of days to vote and limiting polling places only in inner city districts, having more days to vote in only Republican leaning counties in a certain state, and why it is only Republicans pushing this nonsense while not being able to demonstrate a problem in the first place. These are the last deperate tactics of a dying party and they are nothing if not just a continuation of the southern strategy well documented as part of the Right-wing playbook. n

 

I need a photo ID to vote, here in Michigan. That's not an issue for me personally 'cause I need to have a Driver's license anyway, 'cause I gotta drive, 'cause I live in the boonies. If I hadn't met my girlfriend all those years ago though, I would be living in town, and I may very well NOT have a Driver's License today, and would very likely never get a photo ID, for financial reasons (you can call it "managing finances" if you want). I also would probably never even consider voting, since it would now be yet one more burden I couldn't afford.

I understand why half the people reading this are not going to be able to understand it, but that's not my issue, it's theirs. It's hard for them to understand something they've had no personal experience in.

For example: When I was about 18, a young woman I was friends with came to visit my apartment. She wasn't rich, but when she saw me sweeping my living room rug with a broom she asked why I didn't buy a vacuum. My job at the time didn't pay enough to pay rent and food, and that's just the way it was, and I considered myself lucky compared to the throngs of friends doing worse.

People think $20 is nothing. It's something when you have nothing else. IMO, people are too damn spoiled to understand this issue properly.

 

I am not for compulsory voting. The government should not be able to tell me, or you, that you have to vote. AS far as voter fraud, sure it should be reduced as much as possible. But is that the biggest problem in our election system? I would say not even close...unlimited money, closed debates, and rigged ballot access are much more likely to lead to our eventual demise as a democracy than voter fraud.

 

If it comes up again, you ought to watch John Stossel's report on Fox, of course, showing how to present a candidate (I am sorry, but I did not catch the actual title.) He was not partisan, but showed what it took to present a candidate at a local theater (for instance). It starts weeks in advance and covers everything from signs, sign positions, camera positions and angles, and on and on and on. Surprising how much is really done. It covered debate prep and who did what to win or lose the campaign, how seemingly innocuous statement can be thrown back at you, etc. I found it surprisingly interesting.