Earlier, I mentioned that Barack Obama had floated the idea of mandatory voting. At that time I promised to show you his exact words on the subject.
Well, here they are….in rust, with my thoughts in blue:
Idon\’t think I\’ve ever said this publicly but I\’m going to go aheadand say it now. We shouldn\’t, we shouldn\’t be making harder to vote,we should be making it easier to vote. And, uh, what I haven\’t, Ihave said that publicly before. So my Justice Department is going tobe vigorous in terms of trying to invoke, enforce voting rights. Ifby making it easier to vote you meant enforcing the law so that everylegal voter has full opportunity to do so, we are in 100% agreement. But, you being you, that of course is not at all what you are saying: more on your real intentions further on. And, importantly, what is this crap about YOUR Justice Department? It is not YOUR Justice Department, it is OUR Justice Department. Why do you think everything is about you?
Igave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary, itwas incredibly moving for me, and my daughters againyou make this about you and yours. Hint: the speeches were not aprivate screening, they were made to the rest of us also, andthe notion that, in this day and age, we would be deliberately tryingto restrict the franchise makes no sense, and at the state and locallevels you could push back against that and make sure that we\’reexpanding the franchise, not restricting it. “Restrict the franchise”? How? You don\’t say (though anyone who knows a thing about you realizes this is an attack on Voter ID). And “expanding”the franchise? Uh oh, here it comes? Get ready, here it comes….
“InAustralia and some other countries, there\’s mandatory voting It wouldbe transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract moneymore than anything. I don\’t know or care aboutAustralia. But I do know that, while mandatory voting is a greatrah-rah line for your supporters, it would not counteract money atall. Instead of the money being spent to get people to the polls, it would be spent by various advocacy groups, companies,individuals, etc. to get as many people on their side of the issue aspossible. I find it impossible to believe you don\’t know that. Whatworries me, though, is the “transformative” part – which, it seems to me,communicates that you figure mandatory voting results in moving more people who would vote theway you want into the process. I do not at all believe you\’d be talking about mandatory voting if it were the other way around.
Ifeverybody voted, then it would completely change the political map inthis country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young,they\’re lower income, they\’re skewed more heavily towards immigrantgroups and minority groups and, y\’know, they\’re often the folks whoare, they\’re scratching and climbing to get into the middle class,and they\’re working hard, there\’s a reason why some folks try to keepthem away from the polls, we should want to get them into the polls.” Ahhh,there\’s the hammer. Based on past voting, every one of the groups you mentioned is more likely to vote for people, and legislation, which promote the nanny state you crave so deeply. Nosurprise there at all. Incidentally, it was a nice touch to throw in that “somefolks try to keep them away from the polls” lie. If they are LEGALVOTERS, no one is trying to keep them from the polls. LEGAL VOTERS. Got that? You know, like the kind who could legitimately produce aVoter ID…which is the real problem you have.
