Voter Fraud: Lightning that always strikes more than once

[_Res Ipsa]

As long as we did it like Mexico, I'd have no objection:

Mexico's voter ID has some key elements that make them acceptable to the public, say officials here. They cost nothing to obtain and the issuing agency operates hundreds of service centers nationwide, making requests relatively easy.

If you make it free and accessible for everyone, I'd be fine with it.

The article also mentioned that the card has morphed into a national ID card -- something that has been anathema to conservatives during my lifetime.

[_Kevin Graham]

I say take it a step further and make it like Brazil, where eligible voters are required by law to vote.

Of course Republicans hate that idea because it would mean the end of their party. They'd never win another election if everyone voted.

[_EAllusion]

Abstaining from an election is a form of exercising a political voice. Forcing people to participate in an election is anathema to political freedom. On top of that, the electorate is poorly educated and disinterested as it is, we don't need to flood the process with people so disinterested in it that they have to be forced to participate.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, you have a hypersensitive view of freedom which the Founders didn't share. I see nothing wrong with making it a requirement that people enjoying the fruits of a Democratic society, actually take part in it. If it makes you happier, voting "neither" could be an option, and their political voice is heard. If we can make laws forcing people to own firearms (as George Washington mandated, and that law still stands in places like Kennesaw, Georgia), then I see nothing particularly oppressive about requiring eligible voters to cast a friggin vote. Especially if we got around to doing the only sensible thing by making the process easier as it is in most other countries.

As far as disinterested people voting, so what? This would make them more interested, and who knows, they may even decide to educate themselves before voting. As it is now, do you really think most voters have a basic grasp of the facts relating to the candidates? No, nor do they care. Their voting is more a result of group think, just following the lead of a cult.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, you have a hypersensitive view of freedom which the Founders didn't share.

Which is why they pushed laws that required all Americans to vote? Surely you are aware that early-post revolutionary political views tended to prefer voting be done by a smaller elite viewed to be more competent and the result was all manner of insulating bodies and laws to prevent the masses from direct voting?

I see nothing wrong with making it a requirement that people enjoying the fruits of a Democratic society, actually take part in it.

One of the fruits of a free, Democratic society is not being forced by men with guns to cast votes.

If it makes you happier, voting "neither" could be an option, and their political voice is heard.

Where is the option that says, "I don't believe in this election and will not participate in it?"

This would make them more interested, and who knows, they may even decide to educate themselves before voting.

The vast majority of people who take the time to vote don't do that. You're guaranteeing a less interested, educated electorate making political decisions if you force involuntary participation.

[_Kevin Graham]

Which is why they pushed laws that required all Americans to vote? Surely you are aware that early-post revolutionary political views tended to prefer voting be done by a smaller elite viewed to be more competent and the result was all manner of insulating bodies and laws to prevent the masses from direct voting?

I didn't say they forced people to vote. Hell they didn't even allow women to vote. I'm saying your view of freedom goes well beyond what they envisioned, as evidenced by the example I gave (and you ignored). Hell, do we even need to bring up selective services?

One of the fruits of a free, Democratic society is not being forced by men with guns to cast votes.

That makes no sense. A fruit of something is what it doesn't produce? A truly free society wouldn't put a man in jail for simply committing a crime either. Or, as is the case, for being convicted of a crime whether he or she is really guilty or not. A truly free society would allow a person to commit suicide too. I suspect this is why so many self proclaimed Libertarians are borderline Anarchists.

Where is the option that says, "I don't believe in this election and will not participate in it?"

Where was the option for people not to own guns? Or to not be drafted for war? It didn't exist. Hence, you're talking of extreme principles of freedom that never existed. In my view, these two examples go well beyond the infringement of freedom, than merely requiring someone to cast a vote!

The vast majority of people who take the time to vote don't do that.

That's what I said.

You're guaranteeing a less interested, educated electorate making political decisions if you force involuntary participation.

You don't know that. I suspect the more people who get involved, will choose to get more information about who they're voting for. But even if you're right, so what? We still need to move towards a system than makes anachronisms of these silly bitch sessions about supposed voting fraud, and votes that haven't been counted correctly. We need to digitize the system based on social security numbers and everyone needs to be accounted for so they don't later complain about how their vote wasn't counted.

[_EAllusion]

I didn't say they forced people to vote. Hell they didn't even allow women to vote. I'm saying your view of freedom goes well beyond what they envisioned, as evidenced by the example I gave (and you ignored). Hell, do we even need to bring up selective services?

My views on freedom are more expansive in some cases than the founding fathers - for instance, I'm opposed to slavery - and more restrictive in a few other areas. Unless you are arguing the founding fathers sometimes disparate views should always be deferred to, your aren't making much of a point here.

That makes no sense. A fruit of something is what it doesn't produce? A truly free society wouldn't put a man in jail for simply committing a crime either.

I was pointing out the irony in you arguing that people should be forced at gunpoint to vote to "earn" being part of a the benefits of our Democratic society when the main fruit is its robust respect for people's liberties. I guess you get points for being slightly less fascist than those that would require military/civil service. Hey, other countries do that!

No one is seriously arguing that all things should be legal. Even anarcho-capitalists that you seem to be vaguely aware of don't do that.

A truly free society would allow a person to commit suicide too.

People should be allowed to commit suicide.

Where was the option for people not to own guns? Or to not be drafted for war? It didn't exist.

There shouldn't be a draft. People shouldn't be required to own guns. You argument here seems to reduce into a sheer assertion of power. You aren't interested in arguing why people's political liberty should be stripped or acknowledging its value. You are interested in arguing that it can be because, hey, it's just like the draft.

You don't know that.

We have every reason to think that is the case. Non-voters are disproportionately made up of people who lack the educational groundwork to have any chance of becoming coherently informed. It's without question the informed ideologue pool will dilute. You're better off arguing for a wisdom of crowds effect where people rely on marketing heuristics that appeal to their interests. Democratic representation of interests would be more broad based, but there's no reason to suspect that's an inherently good thing. The founding fathers, since you brought them up, were right to be suspicious of tyranny of the majority.

But even if you're right, so what? We still need to move towards a system than makes anachronisms of these silly bitch sessions about supposed voting fraud, and votes that haven't been counted correctly.

Mandatory voting wouldn't end problems with electoral corruption. It would narrow down, but not eliminate, one type of fraud being discussed that already is incredibly rare as it is. Stripping people's basic political liberty to shut some Republicans up over a non-issue seems awfully inconsiderate. You're just the mirror equivalent of Republicans who want to use that non-issue to game the system in their favor in a way that suppresses people's political freedom. Two sides of the same authoritarian coin.