Posted on 03/19/2015 10:38:27 AM PDT by LeoMcNeil
Yesterday President Obama suggested that he might support a mandatory voting law. In Obama’s mind such a law would be “transformative” and it would reduce the power of money in politics. It would obviously be transformative in that tends of millions more people would be voting. There seem to be two sorts of people who don’t vote: People who view their failure to vote as a vote against everyone running and those who are completely disengaged from politics. Most fall into the latter category. It would certainly be transformative if tens of millions of disengaged citizens were forced to vote. We already have millions of voters who barely pay attention, Obama seems to add tens of millions more who have no idea what’s going on.
Obama’s proposal is little more than a reverse poll tax. Back before the Civil Rights movement’s successes, many southern states required voters to pay a poll tax. The tax was usually high enough and applied unfairly enough to keep poor blacks from voting. Obama’s proposal be the reverse, it would criminalize not voting. Presumably there would be a fine associated with not voting, which would act as a tax. How the government would go about collecting the tax is anyone’s guess. One imagines Obama hasn’t spent any time thinking about it. For example, if requiring an ID to vote is racist, how will the government be able to collect a tax on people who did not vote? This especially problematic in states with lax voter registration requirements.
Obama’s proposal is anti-freedom. Part of being a citizen in the United States is that all adults have the right to vote in Federal, state and local elections. Part of having a right to vote includes the right not to vote or otherwise participate. What Obama and the progressive left seek to do is control the behavior of citizens by setting up harsh consequences for not voting. They essentially want to legislate away the right of people to refuse to participate. This fits with Obama’s history, via Obamacare the President legislated away the right of people to refuse to purchase health insurance. If the government can force us to buy a product by “taxing” us if we refuse, then it can force us to vote in the same manner. In both cases, the state has denied citizens the right of refusal and the right to be left alone by the government.
It isn’t a popular position to take but there are legitimate conservative and Christian arguments against participating in our government by voting. From our founding Reformed Presbyterians objected to the Constitution for its failure to bow to Christ. As such, RP’s didn’t participate in government in any form until the 1960’s, many still don’t to this day. When our choices for President are a socialist who doesn’t bow to Christ and a barely qualifies as conservative, Mormon cultist, why should a conservative Christian participate by voting? Why shouldn’t we have the freedom to vote by refusing to participate?
Ultimately that is the question that Obama and the reverse poll taxers are going to have to answer. No doubt they’ll fill their time with flowery rhetoric about citizen participation in government. However at the end of the day they really need to explain why Americans shouldn’t have the right to refuse to vote. Why should we be forced to make an affirmative act and why should we be taxed, or even perhaps jailed, for refusing to act? Obama was probably speaking off the cuff or putting a feeler out on the matter. This isn’t an issue that he’s going to actively pursue, at least not while he’s President. However there is a movement out there within parts of academia (usually in the political science department) that seeks to require voting and in doing so seeks to deny our right to not participate. Don’t be shocked if we hear about this issue more and more in the next decade. Twenty years from now the progressive left will declare it a crisis that requires action. We conservatives need to think about this issue and counter it now.
The Democrats have to force their voters to the polls. That says quite a bit about them, doesn’t it?
Then I have a counter-proposal.
Only tax-paying, property-owning heads of household get to vote. Everyone else is barred.
Sounds good to me!
My Great-grand-parents were dyed in wool Democrats. So were my grand-parents and parents. Holding always to the Dem line!
Yet they NEVER registered to vote because they did not want to be called for Jury Duty.
I like to tell people that since they all are now deceased, they have never missed an election.
My uncle told me of his first time voting in 1932. He was 16 years old, working with builders on a house when the local sheriff pulled up. The sheriff called them over and asked if they were going to vote.
They looked at each other, then said maybe later. The Sheriff says “Well, let’s just go now!” So they all were put in the patrol car and hauled to the polls.
Once there, the poll worker asked..”ARE YOU BOYS OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE?”
The Sheriff took over and said “HELL YES these boys are old enough to vote, and they are going to vote for FDR, AREN’T YOU BOYS!” They all shook their heads yes, and they all voted.
So my uncle always joked how he only voted one time in his entire life and that was when he was 16 years old.
He’ll find a way to stick it to the normal people and reward the indolent slackers.
Just mandate it by presidential decree like everything else. And while you’re making voting mandatory, with allowing ANYONE the right to vote regardless if they are US citizens or barred by state law, have the “default democrat” vote for those who don’t vote. Because we all know that democrats have the best interest of the everyman.
It's also quite devious. If people had to vote, that would force them to sign up on a national registry at the address where they reside, updated each election. Wouldn't that make it easier for the gov to round up undesirables?
Why not just revive an old Democrat tradition of handing out a fifth of cheap booze to people that show up at the polls.
The topic came up during a question and answer session, it’s not like he gave a speech wherein he planned to discuss the topic.
Prohibition was still in force at that time, 1932. Nowdays they could hand them a bottle, and a joint, AFTER they prove they voted the “proper” way.
I wouldn’t have any objection so long as we limited voting to tax paying, property holding male heads of households who are trinitarian Calvinists.
I wish that were the law now.
There you go ensuring it won’t pass. Oh well.
And if a voter fails to show up at the polling place, a helpful government representative will enter a vote for the correct candidate on his or her behalf.
If that passes, the next law is that anyone who doesn’t vote will have theirs default to the Democrats.
And veterans.
The latest polls show us ahead.. I think we'll win again.
Welfare has made their voters too fat and lazy to get up and go to the polls, and they know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.