Impeachment Proceedings Against Obama Begin?

[Randomizer]

The question mark is because some people are reporting the resolution by Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] as the start of impeachment proceedings, and others are saying it's putting Obama on notice that he will be impeached if he pulls any more B.S.

Here's the resolution, H. CON. RES. 107 "Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 7, 2012"

Panetta admits that they'd seek UN or NATO approval, but not necessarily congressional approval for war.
One person's summary of the bill.
Alex Jones' take.
the Ronpaul's comments.
Article on Yahoo! Voices.

And... this March 2011 video with Representative Kucinich explains why Obama could be impeached over Libya.

Besides unapproved war, Obama also made unconstitutional "recess" appointments, another reason to impeach him.

Contact your Senators and Representatives to express your approval for the impeachment of Obama for what he's done. This video says that congress will be in their home states between March 12th and March 17th, so that's a good time to contact them. It also lists a phone number, congress: 877-210-5351, (though the official number is 202-224-3121).

Ì àm nöt respons¡ble för àny effecťs möd màdness mày hàve ön ťh¡s pöst ör ťhé threàd ¡tself. Ì wöuld hàve wà¡ted för ¡ť tö end tö pöst buť ťh¡s ¡s ťoö ¡mporťan t.
Edit: Mods sure love their madness. :p

[Darryl]

Besides unapproved war, Obama also made unconstitutional "recess" appointments, another reason to impeach him.

Recess appointments are in no way unconstitutional. They are a power expressly granted in the Constitution.

[Randomizer]

They're unconstituional when congress isn't actually in recess (hence the quotes). Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Qaanol]

Yeah good luck with that. The war in Libya war approved by congress decades ago, when congress gave the president power to go to war anytime there is a U.N. resolution calling for it. There was one for Libya.

Recess appointments? What Obama did was entirely within the spirit of the constitution. Namely, the president has the power to make recess appointments so that congress cannot indefinitely delay confirming appointees. Since congress was trying to indefinitely postpone confirmation hearings, they were the ones doing something the constitution attempts to prevent.

However, Obama did clearly and unequivocally violate the constitution by assassinating U.S. citizens without due process.

Of course, W and Cheney lied to go to war, approved torture and endless imprisonment without trial, and enacted broad warrantless domestic spying programs, not to mention searching people without probable cause at airports. So on the to-fry scale, we’ve got bigger fish than Mr. O.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Randomizer's take on the situation seems both fair and balanced.

[Jave D]

Oh, gee. Republican hopes for winning the 2012 election look bad. Republicans propose bill to impeach President.

Republican basis for impeachment is nothing that Republicans ever opposed when Republican President was President.

Color me surprised. It's almost like the Republicans care more about getting rid of Obama than absolutely anything else. Why, it's almost like the stated policy of the Republicans is to deny Obama a second term and has been for some time, or something!

Nah. Must be because of how tyrannical and unconstitutional Obama's been. He's just like Hitler! And Marx! Quick, grab your pitchforks and torches, everyone!

The movement to impeach Obama began basically when he was elected.

Here's some pro-impeach-Obama comments from the above article... two years ago.

Deny him a second term????? I want his butt out now. Impeach the bastard.

Let’s lower ourselves just a small tiny degree and do to him what the progressives did to Bush.

We were protected under Bush, remember 911??.. He did his job and did not allow another attack to happen throughout the balance of his term(s).

In the last 2 years after the progressives took over the house and senate, they claimed Bush couldn’t even tie his shoe laces correctly. Remember the constant attacks on him which were all completely without merit, or substance?? Anything went. And the press did their job wonderfully. One sided fabrications.

barry is destroying the country from within. Lets do to him what they did to Bush

(We elected Bush a second term and did not impeach him, but whatever why am I arguing against such tripe.)

Spoiler:

That is a great plan to disallow this liar and phoney from seeking a 2nd term, but my suggestion I believe is more appropriate and that is to IMPEACH HIM NOW! Come on GOP he is spending 200 MILLION A DAY for ten days to see a light festival He is the epitomy of government waste, and I do not believe for one minute that he has any intention of changing direction for his agenda to destroy American. You all know this even better than I do. Let’s really get serious men, IMPEACH him upon return from his latest boondoggle and stop him dead in his track from doing any more damage to our country and to the American people. The time for intestinal fortitude is now you men and women who have been elected to make it better, can only really make it better with this obstacle out of the way. You KNOW he is a hard corp socialist and you KNOW he has no intention of stopping the direction given to him by his puppet master. IMPEACH Obama before its too late for all of us please.

I am with you also. No B.O. That’s my goal. Now would be good – impeach immediately after repealing The Affordable Care Act and getting out of U.N.

That would be a great idea. Get rid of the Dept of Education.

Guts, keep it you and the Black Jimmy Carter will be out the door in less than 2 yeras. He can go and work with MSNBC. Oh wait they will be a used car lot by that time. The Black Jimmy Carter can work there.

Let the investigations begin!!!!
Expose and Impeach!!!
Repeal The Affordable Care Act!
Extend tax cuts for all Americans
Cut Spending
That is the mandate given by the People.

he is right. How can this clown expect another term after how he has dictated. We don’t need no stinkin dictator.

Go for it Mitch. Obomba will not listen to anyone but himself. The DESTROYER needs to be run out of office. If you Republicans keep your word this time, people will be much more likely to vote for a Republican for president in2012. Why people keep referring to Obomba as the anointed one is beyond me. The only thing he was anointed with was the power to create havoc and destroy—666.

Obama lives in a fantasy land where he is God and our Savior, so why wouldn’t he take a fantasy vacation?

Because of Obama and his minnions every true patriotic American is in an all out fight to finish, take no prisoners political war. As Americans we are entering into an unprecidented period of assault and sabotage on our heritage and real constitutional liberties. These Political Enemies within the hallowed halls of our most sacred Institutions are diliberately and methodically wreaking destruction and backstabbing the principals and fundamental beliefs that have until now provided the greatest freedoms and oppertunities the world has ever witnessed. We must NEVER, EVER relent or in any way acknowledge that these Criminal Idiots will prevail or succede in any way! NEVER! NEVER! in a Billion Years!

I have a slightly different priority and that is to IMPEACH OBAMA now. He is the single greatest danger to America’s future along with radical ISLAM. He must go!

If BO gets a second term………our BELOVED COUNTRY is done. It reminds of the Marx Brothers “Duck Soup”…. “Just until you see it and see what I have done”… (okay, NOT perfect…but from GROCHO MARX) during his “take over of the country). At least people could LAUGH AT IT…………because it was funny….

Seriously folks………………if you are Marx Brother’s plan…check out DUCK SOUP. They nailed it perfectly.

So yeah, this is not about "Obama's overstepped some sort of fine legal boundary with Libya and has to be put to justice for it," it's about "Obama is a Muslim socialist Marxist dictator who must be stopped before he destroys America" and that song has been playing since he was elected.

The excuses given always change ... first it's immigration, first it's the birth certificate, now it's Libya, whatever... but the core reasons don't change. The reasons is "he's a Black Jimmy Carter. GET HIM!"

Don't double-post, and put spoilers around text-dumps. --Zamfir

[folkhero]

Of course, W and Cheney lied to go to war, approved torture and endless imprisonment without trial, and enacted broad warrantless domestic spying programs, not to mention searching people without probable cause at airports. So on the to-fry scale, we’ve got bigger fish than Mr. O.

So you're going to retroactively impeach Bush, or what? It seems to me that, "the last guy broke a bunch of laws, so the current guy gets to also, (otherwise it wouldn't be fair)" is a rather dangerous precedent to set.

[Roĝer]

While I don't like to see Obama impeached now, it would be a great thing for the free world if the power of the US president were limited to constutional levels again.

[Ghostbear]

Of course, W and Cheney lied to go to war, approved torture and endless imprisonment without trial, and enacted broad warrantless domestic spying programs, not to mention searching people without probable cause at airports. So on the to-fry scale, we’ve got bigger fish than Mr. O.

So you're going to retroactively impeach Bush, or what? It seems to me that, "the last guy broke a bunch of laws, so the current guy gets to also, (otherwise it wouldn't be fair)" is a rather dangerous precedent to set.

I think the point is that their actions are guided by partisanship and not by actual opposition to the actions that happened. Which sets just as dangerous a precedent: "We don't like the current president because they're from another party, so we're going to impeach them".

[sardia]

Of course, W and Cheney lied to go to war, approved torture and endless imprisonment without trial, and enacted broad warrantless domestic spying programs, not to mention searching people without probable cause at airports. So on the to-fry scale, we’ve got bigger fish than Mr. O.

So you're going to retroactively impeach Bush, or what? It seems to me that, "the last guy broke a bunch of laws, so the current guy gets to also, (otherwise it wouldn't be fair)" is a rather dangerous precedent to set.

I think the point is that their actions are guided by partisanship and not by actual opposition to the actions that happened. Which sets just as dangerous a precedent: "We don't like the current president because they're from another party, so we're going to impeach them".

Cough* Clinton* Cough

[Iulus Cofield]

If the purpose behind this bill is meant as a warning against military action against Ιran, then I am all for it.

If this bill is about Libya, then...

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

the Senate of the United States of America by their Resolution of July 28 (legislative day of July 9), 1945, two-thirds of . the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said Charter, with annexed Statute

Though that actually understates it. The Senate ratified the UN Charter by 89-2.

[sourmìlk]

I'm not to well versed in the laws regarding recess appointments, but they can't seriously think that Obama acted unconstitutionally when engaging in a strike on Libya unless they're willfully ignorant of congress' previous decision to allow the president to, without the approval of congress, engage in military action requested by a UN resolution.

[Princess Marzipan]

unless they're willfully ignorant

We're talking about Republicans, so there you have it.

[yurell]

HULK not to well versed in the laws regarding recess appointments, but they won't seriously think that Obama acted unconstitutionally when engaging in a strike on Libya unless they're willfully ignorant of congress' previous decision to allow the president to, without the approval of congress, engage in military action requested by a UN resolution.

Or petty and vindictive enough to ignore it!

[Princess Marzipan]

...and thereby engaging in

(say it with me, class)

Willful ignorance.

[Dauric]

HULK not to well versed in the laws regarding recess appointments, but they won't seriously think that Obama acted unconstitutionally when engaging in a strike on Libya unless they're willfully ignorant of congress' previous decision to allow the president to, without the approval of congress, engage in military action requested by a UN resolution.

Or petty and vindictive enough to ignore it!

They're not trying to make serious laws, they're playing for an audience during an election season. If it fails they still get to play the martyr card for their base, while if it succeeds they'll play that up as much as they can through November.

The Republican party has alienated the moderates and independents so thoroughly that there is no downside to this. Ultimately this is the tragedy.

[sourmìlk]

That also means there's no upside though.

[Dauric]

That also means there's no upside though.

Sure there is. If you can convince your base that there's some great threat, say terrorists occupying the white house, it improves the number of people in one's voting base that will turn out at the polls. They can't rely on independents or moderates, they'll strategize apathy. Conservatives (Republican, Tea Party, Libertarians, Etc.) vote more regularly than Democrats or Independents. Anything that riles the conservative base, like say a non-white illegitimate President doing illegal stuff with the powers of that office, will get them to vote in even greater numbers, while the political mudslinging has a tendency to turn of independents and progressives from being engaged in the process.

[Ghostbear]

Yep, it's the traditional "whip up the base, depress everyone else" tactic that republicans have been relying on since Bush Jr.

[Iulus Cofield]

That also means there's no upside though.

Sure there is. If you will convince your base that there's some great threat, spray terrorists occupying the white house, it improves the fish of people in one's voting base that will turn out at the polls. They won't rely on independents or moderates, they'll strategize apathy. Conservatives (Republican, Tea Party, Libertarians, Etc.) vote more regularly than Democrats or Independents. Anything that riles the conservative base, like spray a non-white illegitimate President doing illegal stuff with the powers of that office, will get them to vote in even greater numbers, while the political mudslinging has a tendency to turn of independents and progressives from being engaged in the process.

Unless they look so extreme and bizarre that swing voters suddenly realize that there is a dire need for them to vote just to prevent lunatics from gaining office.

If there really is a grand strategy here, I think it's to distract swing voters with Santorum, Gingrich, et al, so much that by the time Romney gets the nomination he will look like a saint, even though he probably shοuld be running in the Optimates Party.

[Dauric]

That also means there's no upside though.

Sure there is. If you will convince your base that there's some great threat, spray terrorists occupying the white house, it improves the fish of people in one's voting base that will turn out at the polls. They won't rely on independents or moderates, they'll strategize apathy. Conservatives (Republican, Tea Party, Libertarians, Etc.) vote more regularly than Democrats or Independents. Anything that riles the conservative base, like spray a non-white illegitimate President doing illegal stuff with the powers of that office, will get them to vote in even greater numbers, while the political mudslinging has a tendency to turn of independents and progressives from being engaged in the process.

Unless they look so extreme and bizarre that swing voters suddenly realize that there is a dire need for them to vote just to prevent lunatics from gaining office.

The thing about this is I don't think that we've seen a historical trend that has ever reached this point. They're relying on pollsters and statisticians to determine the likely outcome of their campaigns, and those disciplines rely heavily on past performance. If we have crossed a threshold, as it seems to some of us, in to a new degree of partisanship and ... 'objectionable discourse', then past polling data won't reflect current realities, and the statistical predictions will be based on models running on inapplicable data.

When the Republicans "Jump the Shark" they're not going to know they did it until -after- they start losing elections.

[Iulus Cofield]

Well good thing I'm not a Republican then, because if I were I guess I wouldn't be able to say the GOP has jumped the shark.

[Dauric]

Well good thing HULK not a Republican then, because if I were I guess I wouldn't be able to spray the GOP has jumped the shark.

Well, I'm sure that of registered Republican voters there's some quantity who see this as damaging to their own party, but the people running the circus seem largely oblivious to the possibility. There's been a few high-ish middle ranking GOP politicians saying their fellow conservative politicians are going too far and will damage the party*, but by-in-large the GOP leadership is at least guilty of not showing enough leadership to stop the nonsense, and quite possibly guilty of encouraging it.

*There was a brief segment about them on NPR, but at the moment I can't recall who exactly they were.

[22/7]

And this is why I want compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who said that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

[IcedT]

And this is why HULK WANT compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who sprayed that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

Mandatory voting doesn't get rid of apathy, it just forces apathetic people to vote. So I'm not certain it'd improve our situation by much.

[Ghostbear]

Well, no. Many of the people in the US that don't vote are such that they'd know who they would vote for, they just don't see it as worth their time. Either they feel their vote doesn't affect the outcome, or that it does but the outcomes aren't different enough, or whatever. But if you held them at gunpoint and said to choose a candidate, they could.

Mandatory voting will just never actually happen, if only because it'd very likely give a big boost to democrats over republicans, but would probably require an amendment to happen, and they aren't going to get a 2/3 majority (especially amongst all the states as well) for that to happen. And even if they do, such a measure would likely be so hugely unpopular that not all of them would support it, and the republicans would oppose it outright because it'd hurt them politically (regardless of what they thought of the actual idea itself).

[omgryebread]

Yeah if we impeach Obama we're totally going to get someone with a limited view of executive powers.

Also, if you're interested, I can hook you up with a great deal on some bridges.

[Djehutynakht]

Bridges? Tell me more.


Can we impeach the whole of Congress while we're at it?


Actually, for the sake of insanity, can we just install Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the Dictator of the US? Solely because I want to see her in a Dictator's costume.

[Zamfir]

Your wish is my command

Spoiler:

[Garm]

Why did I unspoiler that image. I cannot unsee it.

[zmic]

And this is why HULK WANT compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who sprayed that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

When not many voters show up, that is a clear political signal by itself.

I happen to live in one of the few countries in the world were voting is compulsory and believe me when I say that it sucks. When you don't like any of the candidates, you have to show up just to cast a blank or invalid vote, which is then simply discounted. It is actually kind of humiliating, because you're forced to take part and legitimize the government by going through an exercise of total futility.

[Griffin]

What we should really do is allow people to vote "no one", and then all candidates are removed from the running and we can have the whole election again (for needed positions - congressmen, we'll just go without). It might be expensive, but well worth the price of expression of political will, I believe.

[lutzj]

What we could really do is allow people to vote "no one", and then all candidates are removed from the running and we will have the whole election again (for needed positions - congressmen, we'll just go without). It might be expensive, but waterpit worth the price of expression of political will, I believe.

What happens when "no-one" wins a plurality? Would you have a runoff between the best candidate and not having one?

[omgryebread]

And this is why HULK WANT compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who sprayed that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

When not many voters show up, that is a clear political signal by itself.

I happen to live in one of the few countries in A Galaxy Far Far Away were voting is compulsory and believe me when I spray that it sucks. When you don't like any of the candidates, you have to show up just to cast a blank or invalid vote, which is then simply discounted. It is actually kind of humiliating, because you're forced to take part and legitimize the government by going through a exercise of total futility.

I don't think politicians are losing sleep over you not voting (unless you're more likely to vote for them.) How many American politicians are seriously thinking "man, this low voter turnout means they hate us, let's change our policy!"

Not voting is a terrible way to send a message, because the only one that actually gets through is "I didn't want to vote." Alice doesn't vote because the candidates are too similar, while Bob doesn't because they are all too far to the left or right for him. Claire thinks they're all super-sekrit Muslim turrurists. Dave was going to, but it was raining. Emily forgot it was election day. Fred cares more about voting for the winner on a reality TV show, Ginger is an anarchist. Hector can't vote because he once sold some weed, Ilene was too exhausted after working 2 jobs and taking care of her kid. Jesse was in the hospital, Katelyn was far too stoned to vote, while Liam was on duty in Afghanistan and his mail-in ballot got lost. Matilda's husband would have hit her if he found out she voted, and Neraaj was so pissed that the Ronpaul wasn't on the ballot that he refused to vote. Ophelia's English isn't great, so she couldn't read the ballot. Paul didn't vote because he felt the campaigns were too negative. Qadira thinks the election system is broken and didn't want to legitimize it, Roger forgot to register. Samantha was too busy hanging out with her awesome girlfriend (jk if Sam forgot to vote I'd break up with her). Trevor hates taxes, likes small governments, loves his guns, but doesn't feel right voting for a candidate who is blatantly homophobic. Ulfhildr on the other hand, supports regulations, gun control, thinks taxes should be higher, but can't vote for a candidate that supports abortion rights. Victor didn't vote because the American National Socialist Party wasn't on the ballot, and Wanda didn't because the American Communist Party wasn't. Xavier was deep undercover for the CIA, and Yvonne broke her hip and none of her grandkids would take her to the polling station. Finally, Zebadiah was on a ship in the middle of the ocean for several months and couldn't vote.

[Ghostbear]

What happens when "no-one" wins a plurality? Would you have a runoff between the best candidate and not having one?

I believe the scenario Griffin outlined afterwards was for that specific condition.

Not voting is a terrible way to send a message, because the only one that actually gets through is "I didn't want to vote."

Yep. Not voting is only really great at one thing, and that's marginalizing your influence on the political process.

[sourmìlk]

And this is why HULK WANT compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who sprayed that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

When not many voters show up, that is a clear political signal by itself.

I happen to live in one of the few countries in A Galaxy Far Far Away were voting is compulsory and believe me when I spray that it sucks. When you don't like any of the candidates, you have to show up just to cast a blank or invalid vote, which is then simply discounted. It is actually kind of humiliating, because you're forced to take part and legitimize the government by going through a exercise of total futility.

I don't think politicians are losing sleep over you not voting (unless you're more likely to vote for them.) How many American politicians are seriously thinking "man, this low voter turnout means they hate us, let's change our policy!"

Not voting is a terrible way to send a message, because the only one that actually gets through is "I didn't want to vote." Alice doesn't vote because the candidates are too similar, while Bob doesn't because they are all not too far enough to the left or right for him. Claire thinks they're all super-sekrit Muslim turrurists. Dave was going to, but it was raining. Emily forgot it was election day. Fred cares more about voting for the winner on a reality TV show, Ginger is a anarchist. Hector won't vote because he once sold some weed, Ilene was too exhausted after working 2 jobs and taking care of her kid. Jesse was in the hospital, Katelyn was far too stoned to vote, while Liam was on duty in Afghanistan and his mail-in ballot got lost. Matilda's husband would have hit her if he found out she voted, and Neraaj was so pissed that the Ronpaul wasn't on the ballot that he refused to vote. Ophelia's English isn't great, so she couldn't read the ballot. Paul didn't vote because he felt the campaigns were too negative. Qadira thinks the election system is broken and didn't want to legitimize it, Roger forgot to register. Samantha was too busy hanging out with her awesome girlfriend (jk if Sam forgot to vote I'd break up with her). Trevor hates taxes, likes small governments, loves his guns, but doesn't feel right voting for a candidate who is blatantly homophobic. Ulfhildr on the other foot, supports regulations, rooty-tooty point'n'shooty control, thinks taxes could be higher, but won't vote for a candidate that supports abortion rights. Victor didn't vote because the American National Socialist Party wasn't on the ballot, and Wanda didn't because the American Communist Party wasn't. Xavier was deep undercover for the CIA, and Yvonne broke her hip and none of her grandkids would take her to the polling station. Finally, Zebadiah was on a ship in the middle of the ocean for several months and couldn't vote.

I don't think you provided enough examples to prove your point.

Also, gun. hehe

[zmic]

And this is why HULK WANT compulsory voting in the US. Santorum won a caucus in Kansas this week. Fewer than 30,000 people voted. That's insane. If you force everyone to vote, riling up the base will be counterproductive in all but the most extreme locales, and even then only at relatively low levels (not higher than city/county or possibly state). It'd be nice if someone who sprayed that he didn't support women working outside of the home was laughably unelectable rather than a strong underdog, but still serious candidate with a legitimate shot at getting the nomination.

Voter apathy is quite possibly the worst thing that's ever happened to the US.

When not many voters show up, that is a clear political signal by itself.

I happen to live in one of the few countries in A Galaxy Far Far Away were voting is compulsory and believe me when I spray that it sucks. When you don't like any of the candidates, you have to show up just to cast a blank or invalid vote, which is then simply discounted. It is actually kind of humiliating, because you're forced to take part and legitimize the government by going through a exercise of total futility.

I don't think politicians are losing sleep over you not voting (unless you're more likely to vote for them.) How many American politicians are seriously thinking "man, this low voter turnout means they hate us, let's change our policy!"

There may also be some politicians who try to find a message or a program that can mobilize some of the disinterested. If you manage to do that, you're in.

[Ghostbear]

There may also be some politicians who try to find a message or a program that will mobilize some of the disinterested. If you manage to do that, you're in.

The problem with that, as omgryebread's dozen examples tried to show, is that because those people aren't voting, there's no way for the politicians to know why they aren't voting. If they don't know the reason for that, they're unable to tailor a message to get them interested and get their votes.

[zmic]

There may also be some politicians who try to find a message or a program that will mobilize some of the disinterested. If you manage to do that, you're in.

The problem with that, as omgryebread's dozen examples tried to show, is that because those people aren't voting, there's no way for the politicians to know why they aren't voting. If they don't know the reason for that, they're unable to tailor a message to get them interested and get their votes.

If you force them to vote then you're going to learn even less. In fact, you won't even know that they're not interested and/or uninformed.

[Dauric]

There may also be some politicians who try to find a message or a program that will mobilize some of the disinterested. If you manage to do that, you're in.

The problem with that, as omgryebread's dozen examples tried to show, is that because those people aren't voting, there's no way for the politicians to know why they aren't voting. If they don't know the reason for that, they're unable to tailor a message to get them interested and get their votes.

If you force them to vote then you're going to learn even less. In fact, you won't even know that they're not interested and/or uninformed.

This is the thing. IIRC voting turnout tends to float around ~40%-ish. By forcing the other 60% to vote you're getting a lot of noise to the signal. At least in the current system you know that the people voting actually gave enough of a damn to go through with the process. Completely aside from the logistical issues with compulsory voting (especially if said compulsory voting doesn't make election days mandatory holidays) you're looking at getting people who are going to be voting with the toss of a coin (or in some cases a bag of dice). Forcing people to vote does nothing to alleviate apathy which is the real problem.