UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

are very addictive and refused to be used by politicians for these politicians own personal gain. Loving politics and hating politics both are both human nature, just like loving football and hating football both are human nature. You can't force people to love what they hate or hate what they love. That would be naked authoritarianism otherwise.

of society.

For her. It's worse than dictatorship. At least other dictatorships don't pretend. What your party did is a kind of dictatorship that makes you a fool, a fucking fool.

option wasn’t Orange. The thought of someone like you posting on an ND forum makes me ill.

You never post on the footy thank God. Just go away.

Yes, I doubt you ever truly voted for anyone because you're such a negative person, always complaining, always whining.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

and what we want. When almost half of the voting public chooses him, we are circling the bowl. When even a much larger % of his own party nominates him over much more qualified people, the speed of the circling is even faster. I am concerned for my little granddaughter and what our future society and govt will look like.

If you have to be put under threat of force to vote, you should not be voting.

Voting should always be voluntary.

I can't believe anyone would think mandatory voting is a good idea. It is absolutely an atrocious idea. Let's force people to vote who don't want to vote...that's how we get the best leaders of the country. Totally insane.

(no message)

(no message)

---------------------
A. Is the Vote a Privilege or a Duty?

Delegates at Progressive Era conventions often disagreed about the nature of suffrage. One fight proved core to the debate over compulsory voting: Is the vote a “privilege” (or “right”101), or a “duty” (or “trust”)?102 If voting is a privilege, the choice of whether to exercise it might seem personal; but if voting is a duty, it might be required. In other words, the “real question . . . goes down to the roots of the theory of the electoral process.”103 This section traces these competing conceptions.

1. Pro: The Vote Is a Duty. — Many advocates viewed voting as a duty, echoing Mill’s argument. One delegate argued that “[t]his vote is not a thing in which [a person] has an option; . . . [i]t is strictly a matter of duty.”104 On this view, the “real nature of the vote” is “entirely outside” any individual voter; far from “personal property” one could dispose at will, the vote conferred a “trust” which voters had an obligation to use “for the benefit of every person.”105

This duty/privilege distinction was core to the case for compulsory voting: if voting is a “mere privilege,” it cannot be compelled, but if it is a “trust or obligation,” then neglecting it can “seriously affect the whole course and progress of a state” — justifying state compulsion.106 The privilege to vote thus required using it well: those who “accept the blessings of democracy” should “assume the burdens of democracy.”107 This argument was supported by limitations on suffrage at the time: since all of “we the people” were sovereign, yet only some could vote, that “delegated portion” must use the vote on behalf of the “rest.”108 Only then would the “best men” be elected and the full electorate democratically represented.109

2. Con: The Vote Is a Privilege (or Is Not a Legal Duty). — Opponents of compulsory voting saw voting as a “privilege” (or, relatedly, a “right”). This privilege “to be allowed to vote”110 was a “priceless gift”111 not to be exercised by rote requirement.112 Some cited the fact that suffrage was not universal to show it could not be a duty for all.113 More broadly, opponents believed compelling the vote violated the “general spirit of our laws”114 and the nature of the right to vote, which included a right not to vote: “[I]f suffrage is a sovereign right of the citizen, he must be as free . . . not to exercise it as to exercise it . . . .”115 Because the “whole theory of a democracy . . . exists by virtue of the consent of the governed,”116 voters must get to choose how they exercise consent, not be forced “to the polls like cattle to the slaughter.”117
Other opponents conceded that voting was a duty but one that could not be compelled. Even if the vote is a “trust,” voters retain a separate “duty” and “right” of “discriminating as to when [they] shall” vote.118 And, even if voting “should be performed,” that did not mean it must be performed.119 It was especially important to protect the right not to vote to protest a lack of candidates “entitled to our suffrage.”120 This view of the vote emphasized that voting was a personal act, not a public one.
-----------------

What catches my eye is the emboldened section of the "Con's"...i.e. How is the "Consent to be Governed" established, if not for VOTING?...ergo, how can let's say, 2 out of three voters decide what's a right or privilege for 100, or more, other citizens?...anyone sense a bit of "Taxation Without Representation"?

Thoughts?...

We either have a free country or we don't.

Responsibility. There are many examples of this...for instance, you can purchase a car and freely drive to wherever you'd like, but you must be a responsible driver, with a government issued license and follow legally imposed rules that were decided upon by Representatives who were Voted into office.

Since the very basis of this nation's founding was the concept of allowing all citizens to vote, it has been argued (see the Harvard Law Review paper) that in order to ensure that ALL citizens are able to enjoy their freedoms, then ALL citizens should be required to exercise their right to express their opinion on governance through Voting.

We've all heard the term "Responsible Adult" and perceive it to represent a good thing...even though it implies extra effort on such people's part. Let's ALL act like Responsible Adults and accept the Responsibility of Voting.

...helps his party, or he wouldn't be pushing this.

Voting should be felt as a personal duty. If a person does not feel that duty from within himself/herself, then that person should definitely not be forced, or even encouraged, to vote. Their choices would not be motivated by the good of all society.

consistently fails to expend any effort toward understanding issues...case in point right here on this Forum...a poster lividly expressed the belief that the high price of eggs was the fault of Joe Biden...would not accept any other explanation...yet all he had to do was Google "Why are egg prices so high?" and he would have found that it's because of an epidemic of Avian Flu that has caused egg producers to kill over 20M chickens...i.e. the epitome of Laziness.

As for those who you see as "Looking for a handout"...we should dig deeper into WHY such assistance is a discussion point...are you up for that debate?...btw, be sure to include Mark Harman, who has been very appreciative of his "Handout" (Child Tax Credit), along with many millions of other Americans who keep coming up short thanks to the ever expanding Wealth Gap that the GOP drives with its Tax Breaks for the Wealthy.

Feel free to deny this statement. I won't hold my breath, though.

And, I'm always up for genuine debate. That is why I don't spend much time talking to you. Sorry, but you don't debate. Genuine debate is a search for truth, but you are an internet lobbyist, not a truth seeker.

(no message)

That improve the incentives all around.

Or an 18 year old college student?

Or an 85 year old living in a nursing home?

Perhaps best to think before you post?

be addressed...but you'd be in favor of "Compulsory Voting" as opposed to the status quo...Y/N

(no message)

arguments say and use them to frame your response...

You said "force to vote." He said "allowed to vote." You said, "So you agree." Only a moron or a gaslighting partisan would say that. So, explain to us why you are not a gaslighting partisan.

Voting age should be 21 unless you can show a military ID at the polling place. Proof of paying income taxes or property taxes is another good proxy for determining who should be allowed to vote. Although, one suspects that blue states will hand out one cent property tax certificates to get people who don't otherwise contribute to society to the polling places.