moonbattery logo

Mar 19 2015

Obama Is Considering Mandatory Voting

According to statist ideology, that which isn’t forbidden ought to be mandatory. Consequently,

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. …

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it “potentially transformative.”

The point would be the same as with Democrat efforts to facilitate voting by felons and illegal aliens. It is assumed that most people who are too lazy to vote unless forced to would vote for the Free Handouts at Someone Else’s Expense party.

Obama has experience in manipulating the voting process so as to secure victories for Democrats. Way back in 1995, he sued on behalf of ACORN regarding implementation of the Motor Voter law in Illinois.

Naturally the proposal is framed within neo-Marxist ideology:

Obama said he thought it would be “fun” for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system.

People of Obama’s caliber having fun by amending the Constitution will horrify any patriotic American.

Rendering elections ever more farcical.

On tips from Henry, Wiggins, Petterssonp, Varla, Dragon’s Lair, and Mr. Mentalo.

  • Henry

    Mandatory voting would require some kind of ID in order to tack who has voted and who has not…


  • The right of a free person to vote also includes the right to abstain, a right Obama enjoyed in his public capacities, but doesn’t think it’s a right you need. Freedom means the right to choose or not. Isn’t the right of choice a fundamental tenet of progressives?

  • John Rolodex

    I remeber this picture. rumor was that a voter pointe dou tthe poster should not be visible during election day…and they were basically told to STFU. they had to get the news involved before it was covered up. Anyone else know details about it?

  • TED

    He just MIGHT be surprised if he did that, he’s believing his own lies that there are more leftist voters than right. WITHOUT all the lefty’s voting 2,3,4 times he could be SHATING in his own nest. OR does that mean ALL the lazy-ass leftists have to get up and multi-vote?!

  • TED

    I’m thinking he’s intending of having one of those middle-east elections where a candidate get 100% of the vote…

  • hiram

    Dear Democrat flunkie at the DMV:

    Is there a party you hate more than the GOP? If so, sign me up for that

  • 762×51

    Brilliant point!

  • MAS

    Isn’t that RACIST!?

  • 762×51

    Poor little totalitarian prick. He just can’t help himself.
    If he keeps this up long enough, he will have drawn a line in the sand that even the laziest, weakest, most ignorant slob on Earth would not cross.

  • Why should voting be mandatory? North Korea regularly achieves 99.9% turn out without it. What are they doing right?

  • I like the ID part, but my other condition for adopting “mandatory” is “transparent” (i.e. no more secret ballot). That way I can more freely mock the morons voting Dem just because they were told to do so on the bus ride to the polling place.

  • Karin_A

    I know, funny! Someone said that on Twitter and it took off like wildfire. Moonbats just never think things through.

  • Mr. Mentalo

    (a) Mandatory voting.

    (b) Mandatory outcome.

    Either America has given up and figures that there is no stopping the communist freight train, or there will be a response…both to the progressive Dems, and to the traitor Repubs who showed the voters total contempt after November. “Thanks for the votes, suckers. Now shut the f*** up. We won, and we’re doing just what we want.”

    We have never been more on the brink, and I’m afraid there is no pulling it back this time. Obama (and Boehner and McConnell et. al.) insist.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Mr. Mentalo

    Letting people know what will happen if they are that .1 percent. Just like Obama will do. First a nudge, then a push, then a shove…however much it takes, but you WILL do what he says.

  • Mr. Mentalo

    When there is only one candidate on the ballot, “transparent” is pretty much built in. After the sham this November (with us thinking that voting in a GOP majority would change ANYTHING), we’re basically there now.

  • The Auburn Tomahawk

    They don’t actually mean for every person to show up to the polls and vote. What they mean is that they want every vote CAST.

    How much fraud do you think would happen as a result of this?

  • The Auburn Tomahawk

    “Obama said he thought it would be “fun” for the U.S. to consider
    amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the
    electoral system.”

    Ah, and this bit. Why is it Democrats are so eager to take “money” (a.k.a. individual campaign contributions) out of the system? Is it because they have the wealthiest candidates, and the most wealthy candidates, who can afford to take time off, hire professional aides, and spend spend spend on their own campaigns? Is it because they’d like to see more ordinary folks–also known as “the competition” and “those conservative peasants”–locked out of the race?

    I suppose it’s better than whacking us in the heads with polo mallets as we try to struggle up the ladder, though.

  • BaronHilted

    Persons who own property and have stake in the game should be only those allowed to vote. Just like long ago.

  • ramrodd

    he is onboard with Levin

  • ramrodd

    how long have many been saying


  • Cameraman

    Should there not be Mandatory Impeachment First?

  • MicahStone

    Batgirl is here the symbol for America….

  • JacksonPearson

    He can think all he wants. However, Hussein Obama DOES NOT HAVE enumerated, Constitutional powers, granting him that authority.

  • Americangirl5

    Never think period!

  • reeko

    I wrote this a couple years ago: that a court opinion “mandating” elections to be counted by the registration rolls (by party) and therefore negating any and all actual count of early/absentee and in-person votes. as a bonus to the collectivists, this would be in disregard of whether anybody has any ID at all. BET ON IT, that such a draconian court opinion has already been written. all such a future court opinion needed, was the appropriate set up. here it is. AND SO IT BEGINS…

  • Steven Yarnell

    Can you say failed Democracy? Clearly, people have forgotten that this nation was founded upon law, not the whim of socialists like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Obama!

  • Son_of_Taz

    OK, let Herr Obama have an amendment requiring everyone to vote, but as part of that amendment, federal elections must be held within one day after tax day, April 15. Also, withholding taxes are to be made illegal; every working person must save and pay their taxes on that day.

    Any guesses how the elections will turn out?

  • Pyrran

    One man, one vote, one time.

  • TED
  • TED

    And THAT is what this is meant to start…

  • TED


  • TED


  • TheDude

    His off-teleprompter stupidity has no bounds.

  • jarhead

    Time to Impeach this Communist SOB!

  • cam_jobs

    Land owners and/or those with military service – only.

    Receive any government assistance of any kind? Ineligible.

  • 762×51

    There is no way to avoid civil war now, I have known it and said that for some time now. I was intended as a warning to people to rise up and stop this before it was too ;late. That time is passed now and bloodshed is inevitable.
    What I don’t know is whether the police and, God forbid, the military will side with the tyrant If they do, the body count will be massive. I agree that the RINO’s should pay the same price for their collaboration with the enemy.

  • Bodhisattva

    The author here seems possibly to be a bit of a moonbat himself, but he’s basically right about the first part of this, though where he starts talking about intolerance and bigotry he’s just displaying his own:

    Democrats are not united in their moral and political outlooks. High information Democrats have systematically different policy preferences from low information Democrats. Rich and poor Democrats have systematically different policy preferences. Compulsory voting gets more poor Democrats to the polls. But poor Democrats tend to be low information, while affluent Democrats tend to be high information voters. The poor more approved more strongly of invading Iraq in 2003. They more strongly favor the Patriot Act, of invasions of civil liberty, and torture, of protectionism, and of restricting abortion rights and access to birth control. They are less tolerant of homosexuals and more opposed to gay rights. In general, compared to the rich, the poor—including poor Democrats—are intolerant, economically innumerate, hawkish bigots. If compulsory voting were to help Democrats at all, it would probably help the bad Democrats. The Democrats would end up running and electing more intolerant, innumerate, hawkish candidates.

  • Michael Smith

    He (O’Bama) can have fun THINKING about it all he wants. He just can’t ever have fun DOING it. It can’t be done by presidential decree, but ONLY by a Constitutional Amendment. Even THAT would only affect eligible voters.

  • Jim

    Nut jobs the lot of you. Australia has mandatory voting with out having to present an ID. They also recently voted in a right wing government, so they are far from communists.

    Mandatory voting does not mean your vote has to be valid. A donkey vote is a legitimate option.

  • Jim

    Surely anyone who pays taxes, employees staff or uses governments services also has a stake in the game?

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy