Should Voting be Mandatory

[Cephus]

I voted Yes. In Australia it is compulsory and I guess I am used to an idea I grew up with. As far as I am concerned it is the responsibility of every citizen of voting age to get off their backsides and vote. If you are a citizen, it is your civic responsibility. People who do not vote have no right to whinge about the results.

But if you force people to vote, what do you do about the people who just don't give a damn? The people who have no clue what they are voting about? It only works if everyone is actually educated on the issues, but we all know that's just not the case. So you get people going into the voting booth voting because they like how someone looks, or because they like their name, or because of a 5-second sound byte, is that how you want your country's future to be determined? By stupid people?

I'd rather they just stayed home.

 

[JANFU]

But if you force people to vote, what do you do about the people who just don't give a damn? The people who have no clue what they are voting about? It only works if everyone is actually educated on the issues, but we all know that's just not the case. So you get people going into the voting booth voting because they like how someone looks, or because they like their name, or because of a 5-second sound byte, is that how you want your country's future to be determined? By stupid people?

I'd rather they just stayed home.

Voting is a right- If you do not wish to exercise your right to vote, so be it.
There are numerous times where a person may choose not to exercise their rights.

 

[Cephus]

Voting is a right- If you do not wish to exercise your right to vote, so be it.
There are numerous times where a person may choose not to exercise their rights.

And one of those times is because you just don't care.

 

[JANFU]

And one of those times is because you just don't care.

Yep- Fed up with all the lying BS.

 

[Cephus]

Yep- Fed up with all the lying BS.

I agree with that part, but there are plenty of people for whom voting isn't even on their radar, they can't bring themselves to be interested in it in any way, shape or form. Those are not people we want casting ballots.

 

[radcen]

You can make somebody go in and cast a ballot. You cannot make them care enough to be knowledge on the candidates and/or issues.

 

[JANFU]

I agree with that part, but there are plenty of people for whom voting isn't even on their radar, they can't bring themselves to be interested in it in any way, shape or form. Those are not people we want casting ballots.

I can hardly blame folks that are fed up to the gills with the attacks, the disinformation, the lies and on and on.
Is all fault to be laid at their feet or does a good portion belong at the feet of politicians?

 

[Cephus]

I can hardly blame folks that are fed up to the gills with the attacks, the disinformation, the lies and on and on.
Is all fault to be laid at their feet or does a good portion belong at the feet of politicians?

You keep trying to spin this the entirely wrong way. I'm not talking about people who have carefully considered their position and decided to opt out, I'm talking about people who don't give a damn about politics in the first place, have no interest in voting, don't give a damn who represents them or what they do, they are simply and entirely disinterested in the entire process, period.

 

[Smeagol]

I've heard some people think this. I've never meet a single person who admit to voting for a black candidate because they feel guilty.



I'm not sure I'd call "the slightest connection to race." Lott basically said if we'd not desegregated the America the country wouldn't have the problem it has.

Case in point. He made no mention of segregation. But because he praised someone who was linked to it, hes run out of office. Juan Williams says hes uncomfortable with muslims on planes, and hes fired from NPR. This is how culture politics work. Say something innocuous and those who dont like you trump it up to a grave charge.[/QUOTE]

I supported Lott and can give the guy a break for saying things as a kind gesture that he really didn't think through but this is what the controversy was about.

Trent Lott spoke on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a long time conservative leader. Thurmond had run for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket. Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."[14]

Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit States' Rights platform that challenged the Civil Rights Movement and later, the Civil Rights Act as illegally overturning the Separation of powers under the United States Constitution and called for the preservation of racial segregation. The Washington Post reported that Lott had made similar comments about Thurmond's candidacy in a 1980 rally.[15] Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond's former views.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott

Lott essentially said he opposed civil rights for blacks. I don't think he meant it and was just trying give honor to colleague on his 100th birthday and I wish people were not so knee jerk reactive. However, if he did mean what he said, that would be a problem as a ranking member of the US Senate. Lott took extraordinary steps to explain that he didn't mean it and as I said was only trying to pay tribute to Thurmond. I wish that would have been good enough for his critics as well as those with his own party faerful they would be associated with pro-segregation for supporting him.

It still does not justify voter suppression of blacks.

 

[The Mark]

No.

It should be streamlined and easier though.

Registration too.

And hell, to please some you could incorporate voter ID cards into the registration process.

In theory you could have completely automated polling systems then - insert voter ID card, vote, remove card, go home. Or maybe even use it online, but that brings a whole other level of security issues into the mix.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

But if you force people to vote, what do you do about the people who just don't give a damn? The people who have no clue what they are voting about? It only works if everyone is actually educated on the issues, but we all know that's just not the case. So you get people going into the voting booth voting because they like how someone looks, or because they like their name, or because of a 5-second sound byte, is that how you want your country's future to be determined? By stupid people?

I'd rather they just stayed home.

I understand what you are saying. When the world sees an American president elected, the world thinks, for example President Obama, that the majority of Americans voted for him/his party. But that isn't true....when so many don't bother to get of their arses and vote, in reality only 40-60% vote and as not all of them vote for the same president/party, then really only a minority vote for someone who is supposed to represent America on the world stage. So can I assume that most Americans don't want Obama, or anyone else, as their President? People just let the minority vote rule them? Are they really that stupid? Scary!

 

[jonny5]

d can give the guy a break for saying things as a kind gesture that he really didn't think through but this is what the controversy was about.

Trent Lott spoke on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a long time conservative leader. Thurmond had run for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket. Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."[14]

Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit States' Rights platform that challenged the Civil Rights Movement and later, the Civil Rights Act as illegally overturning the Separation of powers under the United States Constitution and called for the preservation of racial segregation. The Washington Post reported that Lott had made similar comments about Thurmond's candidacy in a 1980 rally.[15] Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond's former views.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott

Lott essentially said he opposed civil rights for blacks. I don't think he meant it and was just trying give honor to colleague on his 100th birthday and I wish people were not so knee jerk reactive. However, if he did mean what he said, that would be a problem as a ranking member of the US Senate. Lott took extraordinary steps to explain that he didn't mean it and as I said was only trying to pay tribute to Thurmond. I wish that would have been good enough for his critics as well as those with his own party faerful they would be associated with pro-segregation for supporting him.

It still does not justify voter suppression of blacks.

Again, case in point. He makes a throwaway comment and he "essentially said he opposed civil rights for blacks." Youre doing exactly what I said people do.

 

[JANFU]

You keep trying to spin this the entirely wrong way. I'm not talking about people who have carefully considered their position and decided to opt out, I'm talking about people who don't give a damn about politics in the first place, have no interest in voting, don't give a damn who represents them or what they do, they are simply and entirely disinterested in the entire process, period.

I was referring to those that have reached their level of disgust with Politicians.
Not spin, not in error. There are many reasons why people do not vote.

 

[Smeagol]

Again, case in point. He makes a throwaway comment and he "essentially said he opposed civil rights for blacks." Youre doing exactly what I said people do.

What do you think it meant? I don't think he meant it, but if he did what would it mean?

 

[jonny5]

What do you think it meant? I don't think he meant it, but if he did what would it mean?

I think it was a throwaway comment that he didnt even think about. There was no substance behind it. You cant really defend this. Its a common thing that people like Sharpton take to the extreme. Use racial tension to gain power.

 

[Smeagol]

I think it was a throwaway comment that he didnt even think about. There was no substance behind it. You cant really defend this. Its a common thing that people like Sharpton take to the extreme. Use racial tension to gain power.

Just because someone has a bullhorn and is black doesn't mean blacks listen to them. Al Sharpton, for example, only got 1 out of 5 BLACK votes when he ran for president in the democrat primary.

I agree fully that the Lott statement was something he didn't mean. I also think many people, unlike us, were unsure as to whether he meant it. I don't think they were convinced he meant it, just unsure for a variety of reasons; mainly a lack of familiarity, lack of a long-standing alliance/working history with minorities and the race-related dog-whistle culture that makes blacks suspicious.

 

[blackjack50]

It already concerns me that my vote counts the same as these people

 

[jonny5]

Just because someone has a bullhorn and is black doesn't mean blacks listen to them. Al Sharpton, for example, only got 1 out of 5 BLACK votes when he ran for president in the democrat primary.

I agree fully that the Lott statement was something he didn't mean. I also think many people, unlike us, were unsure as to whether he meant it. I don't think they were convinced he meant it, just unsure for a variety of reasons; mainly a lack of familiarity, lack of a long-standing alliance/working history with minorities and the race-related dog-whistle culture that makes blacks suspicious.

Just because someone is influential doesnt mean people will vote for them. Rather they are successful at pushing a false narrative, like hands up, dont shoot.