The Right Not To Vote

First, President Obama and his political party subtly told the poorest and least welfare addicted to "vote for us and we will keep those entitlement checks and programs coming" and now there is the overt declaration in  a recent speech by Obama that it might be right to make every citizen over the age of 18 vote. That would be the large pool of uneducated, uninterested and more often supported by checks from the government voting for ...guess who? Obama and his party who have used the welfare check for vote campaign rom the day the president took office.

 Mandatory voting is not just unfair, it's probably unconstitutional in the U.S. to force a person to vote under the penalty of fines for not doing so. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said the president in that speech, Australia being the most prominent example of the very few that do. "It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything, (at present, the democrats of Obama and the opposition Republicans raise about the same amount of money for their campaigns).  In fact, most countries that require voting are the dictatorial ones, places where it really doesn't matter who votes because the elections have already been fixed for the dictator to win. Obama's we should do it because other people do it remark is similar to the small boy telling his mom that he wants to jump off the roof of their house because other kids do it.

Court cases in the U.S. have consistently upheld the right to be free from forced speech, and voting or not voting is the most basic form of speech? Someone should tell Obama what democracy is, for he claims to not understand it is as much about deciding to not participate fully as it is about full participation. Not voting can certainly communicate a variety of messages to Obama and his political foes, such as dissatisfaction with them, being fed-up with the two party system or even being an anarchist who wants no part of Obama's democrats or the republicans who oppose him.  A vote for a candidate in an election could either indicate a begrudging acceptance or a whole-hearted endorsement for the candidates and their parties or it could also just communicate that you hate one or the other.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution covers the right not to vote. Moreover, Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass a law mandating voting, particularly in presidential elections. Obama knows that. It would take a constitutional change to "make" a citizen of the United Sates vote. Even if it were possible to garner the support to  amend the Constitution to allow for compulsory voting, it would still be unwise to do so.

Many people don't vote because they don't care enough or know enough to get involved, and there is no evidence from anywhere that making people vote increases their knowledge or interest in voting.  Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who don't. I would rather have an informed person vote than one who is not informed. The chances of  getting it right rests more with the informed.  It is worth asking why Americans would want low and no information citizens voting in the first place. Just so they're "involved" even if they're trudging to the polls to avoid a fine? Is Obama kidding? No.... sadly, wanna be dictators like Obama don't kid, they manipulate public opinion for their own advantage.

When the ignorant and uncaring don't vote I say thank goodness we are saved from their ignorant votes. At present they most often vote simply because a candidate promises them goodies if they vote for him or her. It's their only motivation. There is a very good argument to be made that those with extremely low information have a moral obligation NOT to vote, as the incompetent pilot has a moral obligation to not fly the plane.. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the possible consequences of their ignorance?

In Obama's paradise....Australia, where they have mandatory voting. They have something called a preference voting system in which the voters rank candidates in order of preference. But doing it that way has brought about the co called "donkey voters".  The donkeys are some of those people who are forced to vote against their inclination to  vote. What do they do? They simply vote by ranking the candidates in the same order in which their names are printed on the ballot.  It's easier that way.  It is a small amount of voters who do so, but it has been enough to decide a number of close elections.  Is that a fair way to decide an election?

Ultimately, compulsory voting does not solve the problem Obama insincerely says it will solve, that of low voter engagement and knowledge. It will only help the candidate and party who bribes that voter the most get elected more often, and this is bad for democracy. Let the non voters not vote, stay home, do whatever else they think is more important than being a responsible citizen, and let those who want to vote, vote. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him vote responsibly.