I think voting by phone makes sense. I think Estonia allows that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon
There is already a precedent for voting without going to a voting booth. We also have a long history of absentee ballot use.

I think we could increase voting by changing election day to Sunday and increasing the modes by which we vote. If I can go into any Duane Reade and get money from my Chase account or vote for Chaz Bono by phone, why can't I be issued a voting PIN?

I am not in favor of mandatory voting - although I am sure the Supremes would consider the penalty a tax - I can imagine a slowly evolving Protestant theocracy/oligarchy with an extremely restrictive immigration policy and a minimally restrictive right to bear arms.

If we are concerned about increasing representation, why not allow one parent of each minor to vote as proxy for their kids?

As an afterthought, calling someone an idiot puts you in the same box as the poster who calls people retards.

:Quote:

Because then you let other people make decisions that could change or end your life, or those of your loved ones, without participating in choosing them. It doesn't get more basic.

This is why the voting franchise was extended to 18 year olds during the Vietnam war. They reasoned that if you were old enough to die for your country, you must be old enough to vote for the people sending you to your death.

Quote:

Why force people to the voting booth?

First, I think all local, state and national elections should take place in the same time frame. If possible give everyone a day or two off to vote.

Second, all campaigns should be publicly financed. The time frame for actual electioneering should be limited. All candidates should get equal access if not time in the news media. All of this can be overseen by a robust election commission. I would make it illegal for all profit making corporations from having any say in elections or the process. And make it illegal for them to setup non-profit groups for the sole purpose of influencing the elections.

Third, all people have to go to the voting booths. They can be given the option to press a button that says "do not care to vote".

That's what i would do.

Quote:

Why are you an idiot if you don't vote?

I'm torn, people SHOULD vote. But if they're idiot enough not to, it also means they're idiot enough not to bother learning anything about the candidates and issues. These types tend to be easily swayed by demagoguery, misinformation, and (at least in Hudson cty) cash.

Think about how recent presidential elections have revolved around campaign surrogates telling monstrous whoppers. Swift boats, birth certificates etc. Now add a whole bunch of ignorant people being forced to vote. Talk about 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'!

Voting should be mandatory, says columnist Ting

July 18, 2012, 8:01 PM - By The Jersey Journal -
By JAN TING - CAGLE CARTOONS NEWSPAPER SYNDICATE

Republicans are attempting to limit voter turnout in various states, including Pennsylvania, by requiring citizens to produce particular forms of photographic identification on election day in order to exercise their right to vote.

We should be doing just the opposite. In fact, we should be doing whatever we can to increase voter turnout on Election Day. The easiest way to do that would be to require all citizens to vote under penalty of paying a small, perhaps $3, fine for failing to vote, as is done in Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, and several other democracies.

Mandatory voting would insure that elected officials are truly representative of their electorates, and not just those most interested in and most able to vote on Election Day. In the U.S. we are experiencing political gridlock because both major political parties are dominated by their most extreme wings which are most likely to vote and be politically active. Mandatory voting would force both political parties and all candidates to pitch their campaigns towards the political center where the less politically attentive have been prone to not voting.

Mandatory voting will insure that even the least privileged segments of the electorate will have a say in the outcome of elections, and may to some extent mitigate the impact of money on elections, since "get out the vote" efforts will no longer be required. Citizens may be more attentive to political developments and issues knowing that they are required to vote on Election Day. Mandatory voting would also prevent efforts at voter suppression by employers or special interests or anyone else.

U.S. citizens have many obligations under our Constitution and laws. Citizens are required to pay taxes and to attend school up to a certain age. Citizens are required to show up for jury duty when summoned, and are subject to military conscription whenever Congress requires. Citizens who are financially able, we recently learned, can be compelled to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. In comparison, requiring citizens to vote would be a minor imposition, but with big, positive consequences for democracy.

Mandatory voting will not insure a 100 percent voter turnout. Exceptions will have to be made for those physically unable, or who otherwise have a good excuse. There will always be some who neglect or who deliberately choose not to vote. The fine for not voting may be difficult to collect.

But jurisdictions that have imposed the legal requirement of a small payment for every disposable grocery or merchandise bag, have seen a dramatic increase in customers bringing their own re-usable bags or alternatively juggling their purchases without a bag to avoid paying an extra nickel or dime. Most voters can be expected to make considerable effort to vote if it means avoiding a fine of even just a few dollars.

Functioning democracies require citizen participation. Higher participation by citizens gives legitimacy and respect to elected leaders and the electoral process. We should stop trying to restrict voting for citizens, and instead should do what is necessary to insure that every citizen votes.

Jan Ting
Ting is a Professor of Law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law and a former assistant commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index ... uld_be_mandatory_say.html