|Quoting mham001 (Reply 12):|
This would probably require a Contitutional Amendment, that's not going to happen for several reasons.
Im not sure it would need an amendment. Legislation should suffice. But, i think it would need to be state-by-state, since it is the states that regulate elections. Now, that would be a mess. I guess the federal government could legislate mandatory appearance for presidential elections.
|Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):|
Rather than making voting mandatory, the US should fix the electoral college system, it should be the popular vote that decides the election.
Nope, the current system allows those states (remember, we reside in a federal system) with smaller populations to have the ability to affect the outcome. Moving to a strictly popular vote would concentrate power in the large cities and simplify the task of the candidate. He can simply ignore the smaller (population wise) cities, states and regions and tailor his platform to the larger areas.
|Quoting PHX787 (Reply 27):|
I think making voting mandatory would be a violation of free speech.
I'm not convinced of that. Assuming a law such as this passes, the government may be able to compel my presence at the polling place, but can they, while maintaining electoral secrecy, compel me to cast a vote for a candidate? That's where my freedom of speech resides: in the decision I make.
This is not to say I can't be swayed into the constitutional, freedom of speech argument; just that I don't see it yet.
|Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):|
i really do have to laugh at that type of comment, it always comes from an American, who I would bet got it from Rush or the like and who has never, not for a single hour, lived or worked in a dictatorship, they just come across as.....Oh heck, to abide by forum rules, let's say uninformed.
1) I never implied I live in a dictatorship
2) President Obama has established a track record of attempting to get what he wants through executive action and/or regulation when congress refuses to do his bidding
3) Rush is an entertainer. You really do put way too much stock into his ability to sway thinking, rational people. That's not to say there aren't folks out there, on both sides, but I believe the numbers are way too overstated.
4) I prefer Michael Medved, much more intelligent and thoughtful.
5) Even if I wanted to listen to Rush, he is on during my sleep period.