"potentially transformative"

[t_host1]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't know there was anything wrong with Mr. Daves' maps. The color thing is confusing enough for the leisure inhabitant as it is, and now, he expects more will help, who? Why? He was elected twice, what could possibly be the problem with the way things are now?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/19/obama-floats-making-voting-mandatory-calling-it-potentially-transformative/

MAYBE, he's thinking of using this incentive. oh wait, I see that word mandatory, hum... What "is" universal voting?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm sure there would be a large increase in votes for Howard Stern's appendage.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Zioneer]

Honestly we should just do what Oregon did, and automatically register all eligible voters to vote. And allow non-violent felons to vote.

[Boston Bread]

Fundamentally transforming the nation, one observation at a time.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Honestly we should just do what Oregon did, and automatically register all eligible voters to vote. And allow non-violent felons to vote.

This is a decent idea.

Coercive voting is a terrible one.

[kohler]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

[kohler]

With the National Popular Vote bill, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 63 million of 314 million Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah, keep up this happy talk and throw in the trash the nice framework we were given by the Founding Fathers.  That will really solve our nations problems...

[Indy Texas]

I would be okay with mandatory voting if people had the option to simply leave the ballot blank.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I would be okay with mandatory voting if people had the option to simply leave the ballot blank.

Mandatory voting is okay is we have a 2.5 party system.  Not sure about leaving ballots blanks.