We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 1. 2014
Is it any surprise the idea emanates from a Democratic Party Think Tank? No, not really. Force and coercion are their stock in trade.
Compulsory voting is a very bad idea. While there is sometimes more than one choice on any ballot, I have definitely felt the need to abstain from voting simply because I didn't like the choices. Furthermore, not voting is a 'vote'. It is an expression of either complacency (I'll accept whatever everyone else wants) or disgust (I have no use for anyone on the ballot). When I abstain, it's always out of disgust.
The right to vote is akin to a right of free expression. In fact, it is free expression. Compulsory voting, as a result, is a violation of your right to free speech.
Chalk this up to the two parties (because while the Republicans would likely oppose it, if it passed they would support it just like they are beginning to give up on repealing the ACA) wanting to make false claims of 'popular support' where none exists, and further increase their choke hold on the voting public.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Put "You gotta be jivin' me" or any WB cartoon character on the ballot and I'd be happy to compulsorily vote.
Funny.... I don't hear any violin music as the republic burns...
Seems like I need to re-read Rise\Fall again....
I'm against compulsory voting, but I'm all for listing the names of all those who didn't vote despite being legal to and disqualifying them from any government handouts or subsidies.
AND disallow them from signing or creating petitions or any other means of trying to influence the government.
After all, it's not their government, they rejected their ties with their country.
I think there is a problem in your theory. Since I don't support any handouts or subsidies, I am essentially ambivalent about the premise of denying non-voters handouts and subsidies. After all, if the government isn't doing that, then why should I care?
However, it seems your theory is that handouts and subsidies ARE a role of governance, and as such you must participate to be part of the candy store. Is that accurate?
In that case, the problem with your theory is that since handouts and subsidies are another form of coercion and force (they are often used to derive results politicians are fond of), then additional coercion and force in terms of voting management is the qualifying factor.
I'm not quite sure how two wrongs make a right, but that seems to be the premise upon which you've based your statement.
As a citizen of the US, whether I vote or not gives me no additional rights, nor should it deprive me of any. Voting is not a necessity, it's a responsibility (and if you choose to exercise that responsibility, it's a right). As such, it's also a right to choose not to vote.
Voting or not voting is not, nor should it be, a prerequisite to any part of society formation. You have no claims over me, I have none over you, and voting doesn't give either of us any claims on each other.
Technically speaking, if I voted for 'the other guy' then any government is "not my government" in exactly the same way it's not the government of anyone who didn't vote at all.
I was born and raised in this country and for 10 years of my life I stood watch when and where the Navy told me to and if I want to vote I'll vote and if I don't want to vote I won't vote and if you're "all for" trying to shame me because I'm exercising my constitutional rights or deny me the same, whatever I have to say to you is unbuckingprintable.
So let me get this straight. The Left says it is unconstitutional to require picture ID for voting, because it supposedly discriminates against some supposed minority that for whatever reason is unable to obtain a picture ID for economic reasons.
But they see no problem having everyone vote on their computers in "e-voting." Are they going to give free computers and internet service to those poor folks who are "unable" to do this also? I guess this is just the next step after Obamaphones.
It's all about baby steps. First it's compulsory voting, to get you ready for compulsory voting for the compulsory candidate.
Compelled to vote? Yeah, Man, I'm all over that. One thing though. Just one little thing.
Every race must...must...include the choice "None of the Above".
Every damned race. Every time.
Bring it. We are just about done here.
I'd be willing to make that trade.
That or no vote in a category gets counted, and if the no-votes are higher than the winner the office is simply removed, or if it's a constitutionally mandated office then the race is re-run with DIFFERENT candidates all the way down the slate.
I do think that withholding one's "just consent" is a right, but frankly if the bastards can punish me for not buying their utterly crap so-called "insurance" and a billion other violations and indignities then making me cast a ballot is not all that big a deal.
On the gripping hand, a rather intelligent (I say this because of the job she did) young lass in Australia (where they have mandatory voting) indicated that she vote for whomever she felt was better looking. Not the best way to choose.
FYI: The Libertarian party has been trying to establish "None of the above" for ballots for the past 25+ years. So far the process has been one step forward and two steps back.
I mention this to emphasize that this option has some considerable thought behind it. The basic thesis is that, should "None of the above" prevail, the office in question would be put on bureaucratic hold (i.e. operational but without a presiding officer or new regulations) for one more election cycle. Failing measures would remain in limbo. Both would then be presented for a second consideration come next full election. Should the office fail a second time, it would be dismantled at the end of the fiscal year in which the second vote took place. Failed measures would be removed from further consideration.
We might all remember that this option is not only a "bitch vote" (although it certainly is that), "None of the above" is also an effective means to stop the endless onslaught of rules and regulations which currently burden and stifle the living of our lives.
I have voted in every election over the past 30+ years for which I was able. Earlier this month i wrote my local election board and asked to be removed from their roles of eligible, registered voters.
I awoke last November in a land which I failed to recognize as that of my fathers. I was in foreign territory and now subject to a regime which I had absolutely nothing in common with... and an opposition party which seemed completely feckless, if not actually conscript in the moral vacuum of the popular movements.
This past October I witnessed a total collapse of backbone and worse, those for whom I had cast a ballot turn to eat their young who wouldn't get in line.
I know not where i am, but it is clearly not where i once was, nor frankly chose to be. I am a prisoner of time and ethics. I am an immigrant in the land of my birth.
I chose not to play in these absurd reindeer games. It's all static and background noise now. it means nothing. The system has slowly at first, then rapidly steered into and through the ditch and is so far off the road it's time for a new car entirely. Thank you, but I'm out.
One other thought...
Why are the decisions of men of my State over 100 years ago to participate in a federal system of government binding in perpetuity? Where is my "vote" on this issue? I'd love to see an amendment that would enable the living citizenry of a State the option once every 20 years to vote on their desire to continue to participate in the federal union, or to withdraw. We're stuck in a shell game not of our making without the means to escape. SK
The Civil War and Texas v. White say you don't have a choice. So deal with it. Your side lost big in '08 and '12, but if you don't screw it up, you should win in '14 and '16.
Anyway, if you think voting or the trappings of democracy matter, you're downing Blue Pills by the bottle.
Uh no Depeche Mood. You need to check with Morpheus on this unless you meant to say that "voting or the trappings of democracy" are actual, effective and just.
Take the Red pill, you continue the delusion. The Blue pill takes you down the rabbit hole and into the world as it actually is.