Californians who register to vote would be required to cast ballots under new bill

I think you are automatically registered when you renew or get a new driving license there.

 

Very well said

 

Why do they keep *****-footin' around and just go and invade Mexico and annex it.

 

Who benefits from unmotivated and uninformed voters?

Frankly, the uncaring, unthinking, and undisciplined mind shouldn't be voting.

 

Or perhaps it motivates people to research who they want to vote for?

How can more people voting be a bad thing?

 

Stupid is as Stupid does. - Forrest Gump.

 

Otherwise expressed as 'people who don't vote the way I think they should.' Who exactly gets to be the judge?

Alternately there is the old adage that while there may be no-one you might want to vote for in an election is always someone (or some thing) you want to vote against.

 

Why do you presume that people who currently don't vote are any less motivated or informed than those who do?

One thing I've always favoured is removing the party names and symbols from the ballots. That way, people who have to actually know the name of the candidate they want to vote for rather than blindly going along party lines. That might even push some people towards actually finding out about the candidates and thus push candidates to offer something more than blindly following party policies.

 

Have you ever heard of Miranda Rights? Do you think that only applies to when someone is arrested? Or do you think people have a Right to not speak if they do not wish to period?

You know, it really does amaze me.

On one hand liberals call anything that they don't like "hate speech" and demands that person shut up and be ostracized. Some even think people should go to prison for spouting "hate speech".

And now? Now they are demanding that people vote....or else.

So now combine the two, which would be the next logical step.

"You damn well better vote and you damn well better make sure it is not for someone that spouts hate speech!...or else" Of course "hate speech" is so broad that it can include anything that those in power want it to mean.

More people voting isn't a bad thing. FORCING people to vote IS.

 

Major government overreach that will be struck down by SCOTUS should it pass it.

What would be interesting in a Presidential election is to determine which side this would help the most. I could speculate it would help the GOP more because those people don't vote when there is nothing for them to vote for.

 

I understand your point, but ......

... those are the only ones who do vote. It's the intelligent ones who understand what is afoot, the lies, the propaganda, the misinformation, the disinformation, the media manipulation ... those are the ones who would rather not vote.

 

I've personally not voted on referendums that I wasn't up to speed on.

I think those that choose not to vote would define themselves as not involved enough to make a decision.

If you don't know, don't vote.

 

Forcing uninformed people who really don't give a crap to vote is smart why?

 

Uninformed dumbasses tend to vote democrat.

 

If the state of California is requiring individuals to either vote in elections or face punishment, can the united states hold that any votes cast in national elections from the state of California are no longer valid and do not have to be counted? Can the state of California be cut out of the equation entirely in response of their actions?

 

Statistically young people don't vote in large numbers.
Statistically young people are liberals.
Think there's any chance forcing them to vote has a liberal agenda behind it?

 

yeah, they went from democracy to totalitarian (commie) ... forcing unknowlegdeable, disinterested folk only makes them vote for whomever their friends vote for...

 

Democrats are totalitarians. Once they force people to vote they will force them to do another thing, then another...

 

Then they should be encouraged to get involved, and mandatory voted could play a part in that (though it’d certainly need to be part of a wider policy). Spoiling the paper always remains an option if you really can’t decide, though I’d favour the idea of a “none of the above” option in most circumstances too.

 

An excellent suggestion.

 

Bad Idea.

Good Idea.

 

When one says "working out ok" it means that a specific goal has been reached or at least an improvement towards that goal has been achieved. So what is the goal of forced voting? If it is simply to raise the number of votes then it is "working out ok" but if the goal is to improve the nation then it is a failure.

 

The establishment of the United States proves you wrong.

 

The way democrats run things, you'll probably be voting for the next 100 years.

 

As an Aussie I'm surprised so many here don't think more people participating in democracy means a more robust democracy.

Seems everyone is jumping to the conclusion that failing to vote will result in summary execution.

How about if it was done like this. You vote, you get $100 off some state tax. You don't vote you get a $100 fine.