This is a simple/easy/enormous first step ... with the caveat that just because someone is registered to vote doesn't guarantee s/he will vote ~ but I support [almost] anything that will fight against the current wave of voter suppression ~ ~ Sooz

The Rachel Maddow Show 3/18/15
New state law is nation's first in years to make voting easier

Oregon Governor Kate Brown, formerly Oregon's secretary of state, talks with Rachel Maddow about a new law to use the DMV to automatically register citizens to vote, making the process more convenient, more accessible, and less partisan.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/oregon-leads-nation-in-facilitating-democracy-415192131612

While I strongly support easier/automatic voter registration, I need to think about supporting "mandatory" voting ~ my initial reaction is that the "right to vote" includes the "right not to vote" as well ~ personally, I see voting as a civic responsibility, but it's an individual choice to vote or not to vote ~ I understand what Obama is saying here ... but I need to think about it ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Obama talks up ‘transformative’ idea: mandatory voting
03/19/15 09:15 AM
By Steve Benen

In dozens of states, the recent push to curtail voting rights and block Americans’ access to the polls has been deeply discouraging. But there are still some leading officials pushing back in the other direction.

That includes Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D), who talked to Rachel last night about automatic voter registration, and it also includes President Obama, a longtime voting-rights champion who floated a provocative idea yesterday.


The president noted a detail that’s true, but not widely known: the voting public often does not reflect the American public at large. Those who exercise the franchise tend to be older, wealthier, and whiter than the broader national population. This is, of course, compounded by voter-suppression tactics, embraced by many Republican policymakers at the state level, which disproportionately affect young people, lower-income adults, and racial and ethnic minorities.

“There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” Obama told his audience yesterday.

Note, the president’s comments weren’t an explicit endorsement of a radical change to voting rights, but it wasn’t an offhand remark, either. Indeed, Obama seems to have given this some thought, reminding the Ohioans in attendance that Australia is one of many modern democracies to have embraced compulsory voting.

The likelihood of a dramatic change to American voting laws along these lines is remote, at least for now, but the president’s unexpected comments nevertheless raise a question worthy of debate: is mandatory voting an idea with merit?

Dylan Matthews took a look at the available evidence and noted that compulsory voting “works,” at least insofar as it dramatically increases voter turnout – people participate in order to avoid fines or the loss of government benefits – and helps ensure that the voting population more accurately reflects the national population.


Let the debate begin.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-talks-transformative-idea-mandatory-voting#break

I'm not convinced that mandatory voting would benefit the country.

More citizens voting does not necessarily mean "more Americans’ views are represented in government".

While it is certainly true that "it dramatically increases voter turnout", I don't believe we can say with certainty that it "helps ensure that the voting population more accurately reflects the national population."

Why? Because citizens don't always understand the candidate or issues about which they are voting.

There is simply too much money spent trying convince citizens how to vote and too much stretching of the truth as well as outright lies. Add to that a media that fails to provide unbiased news.

I would much prefer we take steps to limit the influence of the almighty dollar.

They have it in Australia.
I'd favour the idea.
Don't wanna vote? Pay an extra 10% in income tax for shirking your duty.

Why? Because citizens don't always understand the candidate or issues about which they are voting.

Exactly! There would just be a larger number of uninformed voters casting their votes. Those slogging to the voting booth because they must. At least most of the ones who choose to vote now are informed. Whether their information is good.....that is another thread.

Well, a couple of things.

Firstly "mandatory voting" (we call it "compulsory voting") is a misnomer. We don't have any such thing. We actually have is "compulsory getting your name crossed off the electoral list". What you do inside the voting booth is up to you. You can draw picture of Mickey Mouse on the ballot paper if you like or (this is probably more common) "F... you all". All that means is that if you want to exercise your "freedom not to vote" you just have to make a bit of an effort to do so, the same as if you exercise your "freedom to vote", so you really can't complain.

Secondly, the "punishments" for not "voting" aren't particular harsh - more symbolic than punitive - and you can come up with a pretty flimsy excuse and it will usually be accepted. The real aim isn't to force you to vote, just to make as inconvenient not to vote as it is to vote.

Whether it makes for a more democratic society is open to question though. It does tend to get a wider representation of the population. It might also seem to have some short-term benefits for one party. That's why it was instituted in Australia after all, but actually it didn't (preferential voting was far more significant). But that perception will probably mean you have zero chance of bringing it in.

But I think John is right. More and more I get the impression that Party support is more like the kind of support football teams get than any considered assessment of policy or performance. Its at that level the real problem lies.

All in all I think our Preferential Voting system is one that is really worth considering, even though its even less likely to be instituted. It was only brought in here because of a very particular set of circumstances.