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:
I don’t think I’ve ever said this publicly but I’m going to go ahead and 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, I have said that publicly before. So my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to invoke, enforce voting rights. If by making it easier to vote you meant enforcing the law so that every legal 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?
I gave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary, it was incredibly moving for me, and my daughters again you make this about you and yours. Hint: the speeches were not a private screening, they were made to the rest of us also, and the notion that, in this day and age, we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense, and at the state and local levels you could push back against that and make sure that we’re expanding 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….
“In Australia and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything. I don’t know or care about Australia. But I do know that, while mandatory voting is a great rah-rah line for your supporters, it would not counteract money at all. 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 as possible. I find it impossible to believe you don’t know that. What worries 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 the way 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.
If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups and, y’know, they’re often the folks who are, 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 keep them 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. No surprise there at all. Incidentally, it was a nice touch to throw in that “some folks try to keep them away from the polls” lie. If they are LEGAL VOTERS, no one is trying to keep them from the polls. LEGAL VOTERS. Got that? You know, like the kind who could legitimately produce a Voter ID…which is the real problem you have.
