Fox News Hosts Utterly Appalled at the Idea that Every American Might Vote (Video)

tantaros-mandatory-votingIt’s not exactly a shock to see various Fox News personalities “outraged” or “shocked” over something President Obama has said or done. After all, this is the network which tried to attack the president for buying his daughters sweaters – seriously.


So when I heard that President Obama mentioned that a way we might increase voter turnout might be to make voting mandatory, I knew instantly the folks over at America’s most watched conservative entertainment channel were going to lose their minds.

Take for instance the hosts on Outnumbered, who admitted that they don’t want every American to vote. In fact, they seemed almost disgusted at the idea of trying to find ways to make sure that we get as many people to vote as possible.

“Do we really want everybody voting?” co-host Andrea Tantaros asked. “I don’t think so!”

“If you’re not engaged enough to vote, please don’t,” co-host Melissa Francis also stated. “Stay home.”

Being that millions of Americans simply “straight-ticket vote,” I wonder how Ms. Francis feels about those particular voters. After all, wouldn’t someone simply voting for a party instead of each individual politician based upon where they stand on various issues be the ultimate sign that they’re “not engaged”? I’m willing to bet right now that quite a few voters (probably even a majority), on both the left and the right, couldn’t name their congressional representatives.

“I don’t understand where the president falls on this: Is he against freedom?” co-host Harris Faulkner asked.

This kind of nonsense is exactly what I expected from the likes of Fox News and the conservative media in general. Instead of taking his comments for what they were – simply a brainstormed suggestion to combat low voter turnout during elections – the hosts were quick to try to paint Obama as some kind of tyrant who hates freedom.

The Republican party has really become the anti-idea party. They take “traditional” to a whole other level. To even suggest something new, or even potentially groundbreaking, is tantamount to hating the Constitution and the United States.

But the bottom line is, Republicans don’t want more Americans voting. They’re well aware of the fact that when more Americans vote, the better it is for Democrats. The biggest advantage Republicans have is that their constituents are far more consistent voters, especially during midterms. I can guarantee you that just about every single time this nation experiences lower than normal voter turnout, that’s going to be good news for the GOP.

And you don’t have to look any further for an example of this than this past November when Republicans really didn’t “win” Democrats simply lost.


Though anytime the topic of voting comes up I can’t help but refer back to my belief that no American should ever support any politician, or political party, that’s either trying to make voting more difficult or discourage voters from trying to vote at all.

Sadly, that’s exactly what Republicans are trying to do.

Watch the segment below via Fox News:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Bailey Nix

    I WILL GO TO JAIL BEFORE I FOLLOW A LAW THAT DESTROYS MY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY AND MY CHOICE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A POLITICAL SHAM SHOULD I SO CHOOSE.WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE?FREEDOM OF SPEECH.SO CALLED LIBERALISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN OPPRESSION.STALIN WOULD BE PROUD RIGHT NOW AS SOON THE BLACK CLOTHED JACKBOOTS COME STORMING OUR DOORS SOON FOR NOT VOTING,OR GOING TO A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT IN SAN FRANSISCO,OR DRINKING A BIG SODA IN NEW YORK.THIS IS LIBERALISM

    • Andrew

      Yes, Stalin would be proud of…. requiring people to participate in their public election process?

      Are we thinking of a different Stalin? I’m thinking of the mass-murderer-dictator guy but I could be thinking of the wrong one.

      • Charles Vincent

        yay a broad generalization that has absolutely zero to do with bailey’s statement

      • Andrew

        I think you’re replying to the wrong person. I’m not the one who implied “BLACK CLOTHED JACKBOOTS” would be “STORMING OUR DOORS”(???) because of going to a fast food restaurant. :p

      • Bailey Nix

        It is what we are heading to.one step at a time.it is unhealthy therefore illegal.Demolition Man politics.Certain speech offends me let’s ban it.certain parties offend me let’s ban them.even in the Soviet Union there was voting.In China there is voting.In Iran there is voting.Voting does not make a free country.

      • Bailey Nix

        It is what we are heading to. Iran has voting.USSR had voting.China has voting.Does that make those free countries? Voting is not what makes a free country.when certain people decide that food that is fattening should be banned then what about speech we think is offensive?Then what about viewpoints that we think are offensive? It would never stop. It’s the politics made famous in Demolition Man.

      • Bailey Nix

        And south la banned new fast food restaurants in 08 because they are deemed to contribute to obesity.it has already started.if someone wants to get fat it’s their choice.women always say they have the right to do what they want with their body.i agree.it is my choice if I wanna get fat.no one else should decide that for me.

    • Brian

      You could vote “abstain”.

      • Bailey Nix

        It doesn’t matter.Government should have no right to tell me what to do with my life outside of not harming others or paying my taxes.It is a personal liberty choice.I thought liberals stood up for Freedom and those that choose to live alternative lifestyles.We are actually selling our house buying some land and going to build a self sufficient organic farm,and basically wish to be left alone as much as possible.Solar power,grey water recycling system,green built earth bag house with recycled lumber when needed.
        If i wanted to vote it should be my choice.it harms no one if i choose not to

      • Bailey Nix

        And what do you propose as a penalty for not voting?Fines? that would hurt poor people that can’t or don’t get a photo id,because requiring that would be discriminatory.Using the IRS to enforce the law?They can’t unless you tax voting,which would again discriminate against poor people.And what happens if the nonvoting fines aren’t paid?Jail?Taking of property?leaving my analogy intact.

    • Smash_the_State

      And who are these “liberals?” Let me guess, you actually think Obama is a liberal lmao.

      • Bailey Nix

        Nope he’s not..not a true liberal.communists have taken over that term..true liberals would be constitutionalists Actually.equal rights,an individuals freedoms would be respected, free speech, no atheistic or christian morality laws, political correctness would not be promoted, tolerance for opposing views, not restricting or judging those that believe differently. .very few true liberals left.

      • Smash_the_State

        So what you’re saying is you have no idea what communism even is? You just use to label people ypu don’t like because you were taught it’s a dirty word?

        There’s also absolutely nothing in constitution that says you can’t be judged by others for your different beliefs.

      • Bailey Nix

        Plain English..U Cannot Legislate Against A Belief system.You cannot legislate against a person’s rights or belief system.You cannot legislate to enforce your “morals” upon another..That is Freedom and Liberty .That is equality.Anyone against that is not working for our people or our Constitution. .
        President a are supposed to uphold and defend the laws passed by Congress not make them or ignore them.He does both, ignoring the will of our people and congress..and yes he is a communist…trained and mentored by communists..proven fact..

  • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

    Profoundly Un-American

    • Bailey Nix

      Its ok I am used to being called all kinds of names from liberals,and called worse by right wingers.I am too true liberal to be conservative,too conservative to be liberal and too much of both to be moderate.Who believes in real civil liberties,right to choose,gay rights,Freedom of the church from Government and vice versa,freedom of speech,Constitutional gun carry rights,rights of private property,equal civil liberty protection for all races and religions and athiests,small government,fiscal responsibility,and Believes firmly in the truth of the Bible.Morality beliefs and code of law can coexist when the line is separated between the two in respective of a truly free society.

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        My comment was not intended for you. Besides I am a classic Liberal thinker. While it is true I would probably caucus with the Right, I would only do so because of the Statist viewpoints espoused by the Left.

      • Bailey Nix

        It came right after my comment.It is funny though when was true liberalism hi jacked? I might not agree with what you say but I will die for your right to say it.The message of tolerance has changed into intolerance

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Likewise and that was traditionally one of the drops of glue that held the two major political parties together.
        When was classic Liberalism hijacked? Hard to say. Just a guess, but perhaps in the 1920s, when the American Communist Party asked their members to not call themselves “Communists” but instead “Progressives.” Maybe “Liberal” is a spin off from that?

      • Bailey Nix

        Yeah I get slammed hard by both sides.there is intolerance everywhere.each claims freedom and liberty yet wants to ban this or that. To be free is to stand up for the equality and freedom of all, not just what you believe in

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        It used to be very easy to agree with that assertion. Now it is being twisted to mean that I must give up my birthright of independence to accommodate others.

      • Bailey Nix

        So true.we are heading for eventual totalitarian government whether it’s left or right.voting will be a farce it almost is now.To show patriotism is equated with evil.kids can’t wear U.S flag shirts to school, but you can wear other countries flags.this is tolerance?This is what freedom is? Jewish protestors are escorted away when they are assaulted by other violent protestors, instead of the violent ones being arrested and taken away.This is freedom?

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Just last week a school wanted their students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic. Wow. It is true to there is no declaration of war, but the enemies we fight often speak Arabic as their mother tongue. I can’t imagine this would have happened in WWII, requesting our students recite it in German or Japanese.

  • Brewblaz

    Of course the foxes would be angrily wagging their tails, as a larger turnout of voters is detrimental for the fox catchers chances of winning elections where voter turnout is limited due to voter restrictions particularly in areas with larger groups of minorities.

  • Bailey Nix

    I do not agree with an outright ban on Abortion.As much as I wish to because of my Christian beliefs.But we are a nation founded on the basis of Liberty and freedom for all.If we enforce our Christian moral beliefs on a free society where does it end? God places no weight whatsoever of one sin over another.Abortion is murder therefore we must ban it.Adultery is a sin therefore we must ban it.Premarital sex is a sin therefore we must ban it.Lying is a sin therefore we must ban it.Being disrespectful is a sin we must ban itNot being a Christian is sin so we must ban it.The Bible says the wages of sin is death therefore anyone guilty must be put to death.
    That is slightly irrational but also points out the logic of this stance.At what point do we stop enforcing religious morality on society.Our Country was founded on the basis of Christianity but the founders also were aware of how Fanatics could use it for oppression therefore they instituded all the bill of rights rather than making the Biblical laws the law of the land.We wish to have our religious freedom and cry about Liberty Freedom And Justice for all, yet we must set the example of exactly what that means.

    Tell me I’m un- American.I do not believe in tyranny in any form.Be it from the left or right.I believe in Freedom and Justice for all peoples,and our right to choose how we live without interference from others as long as we harm no other person.
    I would be and will be crucified by right wingers ,tea party and other conservatives for this .I do not give a crap.

  • mcThinker

    Mandatory universal suffrage is a well thought out plan to destroy whatever is left of the People’s liberty. After all, if you can get those that are “fed” from the government coffers to vote for more, then you have successfully eliminated the voice of those that actually “fill” the coffers. It is an ingenious plan to bring in absolute tyranny and despotism disguised as doing “good”. A better plan would be to limit “suffrage” to those that contribute to the coffers. If one receives any type of assistance from public funds, they shouldn’t vote until they are self sufficient and contributing members of society. This plan is analogous to the typical family handing over the finances for their minor children to manage.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      Tell me about the tyranny and despotism that rule over Austrialia right now please. After all, I’m sure you wouldn’t just randomly make shit up and post it online, so you must have a factual basis for the claims you made in this post, right?

      Do you realize what you just proposed? What you’re essentially saying is that only property owners should be able to vote. Why not go all the way back to our roots, and say only white make property owners can vote? This country would be so much more better off, right?

      • strayaway

        Australia has mandatory voting and an elected center-right government proving that mandatory voting does not insure a leftist government.

      • mcThinker

        I didn’t mention Australia in my post. My post merely re-introduced a philosophy first introduced long ago by a “true” liberal, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) when discussing liberty. If property owners are the only ones to pay into the coffers, then, of course, they would be the only ones voting to spend that which they contributed. I’m not sure what skin color has to do with anything, but that is an issue better left between you and your mental health professional. Personally, I would also recommend that those desiring to vote also possess basic knowledge of the three branches of our government, be able to perform simple math, and be of sound mind and body.

      • mcThinker

        Since you brought up Australia, I must admit it is a poor analogy. Last time I checked a map of the world, Australia appears to be nothing more than a very large island. If one were able to push Central America up against the Australian coast, then open the border for all to flow in and take advantage of a lucrative social safety net along with universal suffrage, it wouldn’t take long for Australians to re-visit their voting laws.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      Or maybe you’re just proposing that all the people on welfare in the Old Confederacy (something like 70% of all welfare recipients live in the bible belt) who vote Republican should be banned from voting?

      • mcThinker

        It makes no difference what political party one associates themselves with; they’re both nearly identical anyway. It also makes no difference where one lives or where one was born. Only idiots would consider such insignificant trivialities. If one is on “the dole”, one doesn’t vote! If one is materially benefiting from the good will of others, they should simply be thankful for the charity. It is a “old” American concept known as “consent of the governed” rather than the “new” system of coercion at the point of a bayonet.

    • Bailey Nix

      Then you would have the haves telling people they are the enlightened ones and they know what’s good for you.
      Oh wait that’s what all the rich politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties believe. We are enlightened you are sheep follow our party dogma forget liberty and freedom , just trust us we know what’s best for you.

      • mcThinker

        Yes, you have accurately articulated the status quo; a wonderfully despotic system, heh?

      • Bailey Nix

        Pretty much.Common sense would be to just be able to believe as you wish, live as you wish long as you harm no others, it is your choice to do so, eat drink, marry a goat if you want, I don’t care.government it is our minds, our bodies, our lives, our choice.period.morals are for each person to decide for ourselves.period.pay taxes, harm no others, have the right of self defense and live your life as you so desire.period.enforce equal employment.if an applicant is qualified you must hire them.if they do not perform fire them and hire another.period that’s simple.why can’t we live this way?

      • mcThinker

        To accept this radical ideology of yours, it would require one to be able to properly distinguish between right and wrong, to discriminate between truth and fiction, one would need to become judgmental. To think rationally, morally, decisively, and correctly, one would have to exercise their conscience, something the politically correct mantra has told us not to do. Most folks recently “educated” in academic institutions have been programmed in multiculturalism, pluralism, inclusion, tolerance, and political correctness. Critical thinking would be an enormous challenge. Long gone are the days when rhetoric and logic, when discrimination and good judgment, the tools needed for true freedom and liberalism, ruled our Republic. Therefore, today we are stuck having to succumb to our political elitists and progressive humanists to show us the way.

      • Bailey Nix

        No morals needed to simply say you cannot regulate anyone’s beliefs or moral code, long as you harm no other person .everyone has the right to say or do believe as they wish.

      • mcThinker

        I completely agree with the fundamental Jeffersonian principle of “if it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my arm” it’s okay. However, all societies require the ability to distinguish between “right” and “wrong”. Today, basic morality has gone awry. We readily murder the most vulnerable in society, we treat minorities as though they are a “lesser” human and must be “protected”, and fail to “treat” those that need it most, the mentally ill. We spike our water with carcinogens, and our food with dangerous hormones. All of this, done in the name of corporate profit and crony capitalism. No society will last long without a strong moral fiber. True “liberalism” relies on a strong moral foundation. I would never consider violating your liberty, because it is “wrong”.

      • mcThinker

        You are correct: One cannot “regulate or legislate” morality. It is up to each and every individual to understand the importance of good behavior within their respective communities. Each community develops their own sense of “right” and “wrong” and should never be coerced by an outside community. People naturally associate and live within a community that best represents and shares their individual morality.

  • Sam Brosenberg

    Are you people really so pathetic and childish that you freak out and have a tantrum whenever you see the word “mandatory” attached to anything? How much more of a baby can you be? If I told you that breathing was mandatory, would you stop doing it just out of spite?

    Voting is not only a right to which we are entitled, it is a responsibility which we are expected to perform. Voting is our civic duty, and the fact that over 50% of this country is just too lazy (or too poor) to do so, is a disgrace.

    I would only support Mandatory Voting if there was an option of “None of the Above” on every single ballot. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to vote for a candidate that they don’t like, but they SHOULD be required to vote because it is our DUTY as CITIZENS of the United States.

    • Kim Connell

      Nevada has “None of the Above” on it’s ballots, and I think like you it should be on every ballot.

    • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

      And where in the Constitution did the Founding Fathers mandate this?

      • jacjm313

        It was in between the parts about buying car insurance and not taking bombs on airplanes.

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        I didn’t realize it was mandatory to own a car or fly in an airplane. Lol

      • Andrew

        It’s not mandatory to own a car, it’s mandatory to own car insurance or pay a fine. I see nothing wrong with that, so why not just replace the word “car insurance with “vote”?

      • Charles Vincent

        Driving a car is a privileged not a right Andy.

      • Smash_the_State

        “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

        Thompson vs. Smith

      • Charles Vincent

        I am aware of that but until this is mainstream and accepted in every one of the 50 states its a privledge that the state can revoke.

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Because one makes the choice to purchase a car or buy a ticket to fly. Once one makes these purchases they are also responsible for the regulatory obligations. The birthright of a vote is just that–a guaranteed right. Since that concept is Constitutional, mandating it is un-American in my opinion.
        I am so tired of the government being so insidiously part of every element of my life …and wanting more.

      • Andrew

        Well, look at it this way. You(I assume) and I are citizens of the United States. Why should we be allowed to just sit by and let other people(voters) decide for us? In my opinion, as American citizens, we need to be involved in our government. If someone can’t take the time to vote, why are they here? To me, it’s essentially freeloading.

      • Bailey Nix

        Freeloading? We used to make 100k a year until my health deteriorated last two years.I refused to vote in 08 because it was Obama or a floppy fished idiot. i vote if there’s a candidate I agree with. I pay my taxes other than that govt get out of my life.

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Yes, I am a citizen of the United States and have also served in the military. I swore an oath to defend our Constitution. I wholeheartedly agree that American citizens should indeed be involved. However, mandating civic duty, to me, is as ironic as mandating volunteerism.

      • Wolfen00

        Yea also respect your commander in chief.
        Never mind the fact that Obama just stated a comparison between us and Australia, which has mandatory voting. He did not propose a bill nor did he say he was going to. Grow up. I served in our military as well. Navy, Missile Tech.

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        I respect the rank, not the man. The latter is earned and he has not done a single thing to earn it. By the way, I’ve known plenty of idiots in the military and I think you are all are certainly entitled to your opinions.

      • jacjm313

        Obamacare, anyone??

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Exactly

      • Brian

        They didn’t mandate that slavery was illegal. You realize the constitution can be changed?

      • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

        Nor did the Constitution mandate slavery was legal. So what?
        Yes I realize that amendments can be added to the Constitution (not changed, it is amended). Do you know how the Constitution is amended? A Constitutional Convention and Obama does not have the authority to order one. Besides, it is a stupid idea to begin with that runs contrary to the freedom it is supposed to represent.
        On the subject of Constitutional Amendments, I am looking forward to the Article Five convention that will be coming soon. Do you “realize” how that works?

    • mcThinker

      Sam wrote, “I don’t believe anyone should be forced to vote…but they SHOULD be required to vote because it is our
      DUTY…” This is an excellent example of what has happened to the citizenry as a direct result of government compulsory education. Truly free citizens have NO DUTY to government or their useless polls. It is government’s duty to serve the Citizen, not vice versa. If you put communist A and communist B on the ballot, Sam will dutifully and mindlessly waste his time, energy, and ability to “think” to perform his government “duty”. It is a shame to see what has happened to America’s once “rugged individualism”. It has obviously died with everything else that used to be America.

  • Pipercat

    Typical Fox straw man based on contextomy. The premise of the President’s argument was about: not making it harder to vote, but easier. The rest of his comments were in support of that premise.

    • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

      Spin

      • Pipercat

        Spin what?

    • Charles Vincent

      Still a dumb idea IMHO. Do we really what dementia patients and people with mental handicaps voting etcetera. What about children. His statement contains a gross sophism.

      • Pipercat

        Did you see the entire two minutes of speech segment?

      • Charles Vincent

        yes
        Not really sold on it for reasons I mentioned to Andrew

      • Pipercat

        It was a political speech, not a policy one. Andrew was pulling straw too. He wasn’t advocating mandatory voting. He was motivating his base to get up off their asses and vote. This whole mandatory thing is completely made up.

      • Charles Vincent

        Then why even posit “mandatory voting? and perhaps i got a cut version of the speech.

      • Pipercat

        In regards to voter turnout. The premise was: expanding the vote and not making it harder. That Australia reference was sandwiched between the premise and the proposition which was: imagine if everyone voted. He then went on to say who is not voting: the young, immigrant groups, minority groups and busy people. Political speech to a friendly crowd. Voter participation during the midterms was dismal for Democrats (they knew it too) and as leader of the party, he’s doing part of his job to motivate the base.

      • Charles Vincent

        See now that makes more sense.

      • Pipercat

        Yeah, nothing really new here. Especially with next year’s election cycle. Partisan machinations in the year prior to a Presidential election by an outgoing President.

      • TruthBtold

        What reasons? Because dementia patients and the mentally handicapped might vote? How many dementia patients do you think there are in America? Mentally handicapped? It’s like saying we shouldn’t have the sun, because I could get a sun burn.
        It really seems like you haven’t thought about it for longer than, maybe, 1 second.

      • Charles Vincent

        You seem to think dementia patients are the only mentally handicapped there are. You also either overlooked the part about it being mandatory which by Andrews definition includ s all voting age adults. Moreover I am sure you don’t want the mentally ill to vote just like you don’t want them having guns. You haven’t thought this through truthbtold.

      • TruthBtold

        You really aren’t that great at reading comprehension are you? Do you honestly think that the total number of dementia and mentally handicapped people in America could sway an election? Even so, you assume there wouldn’t be some deferment for the mentally ill? The issue is the same as with voter ID. The GOP don’t want high voter turnout. Because if everyone voted, the GOP would never win another election. Their goal is to keep as many people away from the polls as possible. Please, cite me one instance of the recent GOP pushing a policy of getting out the vote. I’ll wait…
        I’m all for compulsory voting. I think it would force our govt to respond to popular support. As it stands, if any policy has mass popular support, it goes nowhere. Take for instance, national healthcare. It’s had a popular support of over 75% for decades, but it can’t even be mentioned in our congress. Even an attempt at reforming healthcare, the ACA, saw massive misinformation and vitriol, which actually worked, in that it even brought the support for national healthcare down- so to summarize, over 75% of Americans were for national healthcare until the GOP started their misinformation campaign, and it worked, they got their base all in a fuss, and they will be the ones that suffer for it. The ACA works, nothing the GOP had predicted has come true, and everything the ACA attempted to do, it’s done. But that won’t even have an effect on the GOP base. When facts and history won’t change your opinion, you are ill informed. It’s patheitc.

      • Charles Vincent

        If memory serve that last election was decided by about 5 million votes. Moreover all the data I can find suggests that there are ~5 million people in the US with dementia. That’s enough by itself to swing an election. Furthermore 1 in 5 Americans has some form of mental illness according to this article;
        http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608

        “Every year, about 42.5 million American
        adults (or 18.2 percent of the total adult population in the United
        States) suffers from some mental illness, enduring conditions such as
        depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, statistics released
        Friday reveal.
        The data, compiled by the Substance Abuse and
        Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), also indicate that
        approximately 9.3 million adults, or about 4 percent of those Americans ages 18 and up, experience “serious mental illness” – that is, their condition impedes day-to-day activities, such as going to work.”

        42 million total suffer from mental illness, 9.2 million are considered seriously mentally ill, more than enough to sway an election. There were ~130 million votes cast last election and 42 million is ~32% of the total votes. Where do you plan to draw the line chief enlighten us with your boundless wisdom.

  • Jim Bean

    Before making up your mind whether you wish everyone should vote you should view a couple editions of Watter’s World Dumbest.

    • Andrew

      Doesn’t matter. Whether we like it or not, we all live in the same country. Everyone, and I mean everyone(who can legally vote) should have a say in our country’s leadership.

      We’re a republic. But if the majority of the people aren’t being accurately represented, how can we truly call ourselves that?

      • Charles Vincent

        Counter question; Do you want dementia paitients, and mentally handicapped etcetera voting on things they may not comprehend?

      • Andrew

        Most mentally handicapped people are perfectly capable of voting intelligently.

        However, people who are mentally ill(or their caretakers) could apply for a voting waiver, which would make them exempt from voting.

        Or people could be restricted from voting; but honestly, to me, that is a scarier thought than mandatory voting…

      • Charles Vincent

        Or less scrupulous people cast in 2(or more) votes instead of one. Mentally ill and or in-firmed can be easily swayed or manipulated.
        A dementia patient is by definition mentally handicapped yet they can’t remember their own name. Seriously I dont think you or Obama has given this any real thought.

      • Jim Bean

        And everybody should have a gun?

  • Congero

    Obama elected twice by low information voters. No surprise he wants more of them.

    This is a guy who missed 300 roll call votes in his 4 years in the Senate. Wanting it mandatory for everyone evelse to vote. Seems abiut right for him.

  • Smash_the_State

    “Is he against freedom?” Hilarious coming from a supporter of the party actively trying to make it harder for people to vote.

    • Bailey Nix

      Enforcing laws to prevent dead people’s voting and providing identity is not making it harder, it is preventing fraud..which actually protects our citizens hips rights, not limiting it..Voting fraud is criminal..in 08 in Indiana 4000 voting registrations were thrown out after finding information that matched dead people and in the same handwriting..by who ? Acorn..which had supported the democrats..and many other instances..no wonder democrats are against I’d laws..apparently they love fraud..