President Obama believes big money has too much influence in determining who gets elected.
I agree with him.
He also suggests that mandatory voting is a constructive reform that would counteract big money’s pervasive idea.
I disagree with that idea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/
The president spoke at a town hall and pitched the idea of requiring citizens to vote to an audience. He said other countries require it. He cited Australia as one example.
Allow me to argue that one of the many aspects of “American exceptionalism” is the notion that Americans are free to vote or not vote. We proclaim our love of liberty and while I bemoan constantly the hideous voter turnouts — particularly in state and local elections — I remain enough of an optimist to think we can browbeat complacent citizens to get off their duffs and vote.
We elect presidents with, say, 60 percent turnouts. Political scientists are happy to see that kind of turnout. I find it disgraceful. That means 40 percent of the eligible population doesn’t care enough to vote for those seeking to lead the greatest nation on Earth.
But should we force people to vote?
I’m dubious of that requirement. The freedoms we enjoy should include the freedom to be apathetic. It’s individuals’ call.
Besides, requiring people to vote removes the great political putdown that many Americans — myself included — are proud to utter when the situation presents itself: If you haven’t voted, then keep your trap shut.
But, yes, the president is correct about one aspect of his remarks. Big money wields way too much power.