No, Washington Post, President Obama did NOT "suggest requiring everyone to vote"

[DonViejo]

FRI MAR 20, 2015 AT 05:26 AM PDT

Ya gotta admit, it's terrific clickbait, though, right?

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a piece titled "Obama suggests requiring everyone to vote". It was total clickbait that went nuts on Facebook. Other media outlets followed suit but it was the WashPo piece that went viral. And it's pretty provocative, right? I mean, what sort of dictator would take away your hard-earned patriotic right to not vote? We didn't send men and women to war for that! Here in the greatest nation on earth we have the liberty and freedom to not exercise our franchise and no dictator is going to take that away from us.

I'll bet they got some serious traffic from that headline. Unfortunately, it's a complete misrepresentation of what President Obama actually said. He was, in fact, responding to a reporter's question about limiting the amount of money spent in our elections and the corrosiv

Follow me after the orange squibbledigibbet for what he actually said, taken directly from the official White House transcript of the President's remarks.

REPORTER: Hi, Mr. President. You speak about the dysfunction in Washington, partly because people are trying to be reelected every so often. What about Citizens United, and overturning that, and getting some limits on campaign spending so that we bring some reality back to this situation?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there’s no doubt that among advanced democracies, we are unique in the length of our campaigns, the almost unlimited amounts of money that are now spent. And I think it's bad for our democracy. (Applause.)

And I speak as somebody who has raised a lot of money. I'm very good at it. I'm proud of the fact that part of the reason I was really good at it is because we were the first sort of out of the gate to -- not the first, but we really refined using the Internet for small donations, and to be able to pool a lot of ordinary folk’s resources to amplify our message. But I also got checks from wealthy people, too. So it's not that I'm not good at it. I just don’t think it's a good way for our democracy to work.

I think, first of all, it makes life miserable on members of Congress, particularly those in competitive districts. There is no doubt that it has an impact on how legislation moves forward, or doesn’t move forward in Congress. It’s not straightforward, I'm writing the check and here’s my position. But there’s a reason why special interests and lobbyists have undue influence in Washington, and a lot of it has to do with the fundraising that they do. And the degree to which it’s spent on TV and the nature of just the blitzkrieg -- you guys here in Ohio, you just feel it, right? It’s just -- every election season, you just got to turn off the TV. It’s depressing. And it’s all negative because we know -- the science has shown that people are more prone to believe the negative than the positive. And it just degrades our democracy, generally.

Now, here’s the problem. Citizens United was a Supreme Court ruling based on the First Amendment, so it can't be overturned by statute. It could be overturned by a new Court, or it could be overturned by constitutional amendment. And those are extraordinarily challenging processes. So I think we have to think about what are other creative ways to reduce the influence of money, given that in the short term we not going to be able to overturn Citizens United.

And I think there are other ways for us to think creatively, and we’ve got to have a better debate about how we make this democracy and encourage participation -- how we make our democracy better and encourage more participation.

For example, the process of political gerrymandering I think is damaging the Congress. I don't think the insiders should draw the lines and decide who their voters are. (Applause.) And Democrats and Republicans do this, and it’s great for incumbents. But it means, over time, that people aren’t competing for the center because they know that if they win a Democratic primary or a Republican primary, they’ve won. So they just -- it pushes parties away from compromise in the center.

I think that -- now, I don't think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I’m going to go ahead and say it now. We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote. We should be making it easier to vote. (Applause.)

And what I haven’t said -- I’ve said that publicly before. (Laughter.) So my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights. I gave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters, and the notion that this day and age we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense. And at the state and local levels, that's -- you can push back against that, and make sure that we're expanding the franchise, not restricting it.

In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young; they're lower income; they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups; and they're often the folks who are -- they're scratching and climbing to get into the middle class. And they're working hard, and there’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. We should want to get them into the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term.

Long term, I think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process about how our financial system works. (Applause.) But, realistically, given the requirements of that process that would be a long-term proposition.

Nowhere in his discussion of mandatory voting does he suggest that we should adopt Australia's policy (which, by the way, is that you are fined around $20 - about $15.75 in U.S. dollars - for not voting.) He saying (a) it would be "transformative" if everybody voted, (b) if everybody voted, it would change our political map, and (c) the best way in the short term to get money out of politics isn't to pass laws changing campaign finance rules but to make it easier for people to vote instead of harder. That's what he meant when he said, "So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term."

more
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/20/1372119/-No-Washington-Post-President-Obama-did-NOT-suggest-requiring-everyone-to-vote?

[Cha]

1. "We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote. We should be making it easier to vote." Mahalo Don!

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Holy crap. They completely misrepresented what he said.

"I think that -- now, I don't think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I’m going to go ahead and say it now. We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote. We should be making it easier to vote. (Applause.)"

[DonViejo]

3. On my job, during Clinton's second term...

I learned the Washington Post cannot be relied upon for truth. Woodward and Bernstein gave the paper a credibility it has proven to be unworthy of.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Journalism in America is as bad as the military sponsored garbage that used to

be spouted on the Spanish channels back when I lived in Panama. At least the people KNEW it was propaganda. Americans don't seem to have that level of awareness.

[TheProgressive]

5. What's wrong with requiring everyone to vote?

Sounds like a good idea to me...

[rhett o rick]

6. LOL. Sorry but you understand that we don't even let everyone vote that wants to vote.

How would we "require everyone to vote" when we go way out of our way to prevent everyone to vote.

And if we did "require everyone to vote" would they be using voting machines that are corrupt?

[TheProgressive]

7. If by 'we' you mean republicans - you are correct...

Progressives, liberals, and real Democrats want everyone to vote. It is what a Democracy is all about...!

[rhett o rick]

8. My point was that before we "require" everyone to vote, we need to fix the voting procedures.

If "we" can't fix the problems we have today, there is no use even discussing "forcing" people to vote.

Having automatic voter registration might be some thing to work on.

And I am curious as to how making voting mandatory would actually work. Would there be some department that would keep track and met out punishment? And are we just speaking of voting for president?

Mandatory voting makes no sense to me.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. What's wrong is that people should have the freedom to vote or not

At least IMO.

[Flying Squirrel]

10. Sounds a lot like people arguing against seat belts.

If it were unconstitutional to fine a person for not wearing a seat belt, there would be no seat belt laws. What's the big deal over a $20 fine for not voting? If it means that much to you not to vote, you'll gladly pay the $20 fine. The poorer you are, the more that $20 would mean to you.. So we get more poor people voting, how can that be a bad thing? It’s not like someone is suggesting jailing people for not voting. You would still have a choice, but now there would be an adverse effect to your pocketbook for one of the possible choices. That's it.

And since there would be an adverse effect, the Government would be obliged to make it easier to vote, thus avoiding the penalty. Same as making it easier to get health insurance, avoiding the penalty for not having it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. Voting and wearing a seat belt are nowhere close to the same thing n/t

I vote every election, so it wouldn't affect me, but I'm 100% against making it mandatory. No one should be punished, even if it's a small punishment, for choosing not to engage in a Constitutional right.

You have a Constitutional right to own a gun - would you like to be fined for refusing to own one?

I take comfort in the fact that there is no way this would ever pass as a Constitutional amendment, which is what would be required in order for it to be instituted.