Posted on 03/20/2015 7:04:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
At an event in Cleveland on Wednesday, President Obama endorsed a system of mandatory voting, a policy that would penalize eligible voters who don't make it to the polls on Election Day. The idea is not universally embraced, though it has significantly boosted turnout in Australia, where it's in place.
It's very easy to see why Obama likes the idea. He spoke longingly of increased turnout during the 50th anniversary ceremony in Selma, Ala., earlier this month. There's value in getting more people involved in the democratic process that doesn't tie directly to the success of his party, but it's clear that that's a motivation. During last year's election — an election in which non-white voters comprised only 25 percent of the vote, according to exit poll data — Obama's party was routed. Increasing turnout would almost certainly have helped.
We can actually run a thought experiment that looks at an alternate 2012 universe in which voting was mandatory. If every citizen of voting age had come out to vote during Obama's reelection race, the results would have been the same (that is, he would have won), but the electoral map would have looked much different.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Definitely shows you where Texas is headed.
You can bet your Donkey that the Obama camp knows these figures to a tee.
That map makes little sense. PA a Red state with WA and OR, but the south turns blue w/ Florida staying there?
If he wants to force everyone to practice the RIGHT to vote does he also agree with forcing everyone to practice other rights such as the RIGHT to bear arms?
Throw in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina to that statement. Demographics is destiny. It may take another 3 to 4 election cycles, but the trend is towards a shade of purple.
The problem with these what if scenarios is that it ignores the reasons for those of voting age that are not voting and assuming that if they were forced to vote they’d favor Democrats. I do believe Democrats would have an increased edge in many places with full turnout but there is one thing that is ignored in these projections and that is that those voters who do turn out are vastly more ideological than those who don’t which automatically provides a larger skewing of the projections. A better measure would be polling all voting age adults and while polls tend to show an edge to Democrats when all eligible voters are considered it is nothing like what is shown in these projections.
He’s using Census Bureau data which counts illegal aliens the same as citizens and legal residents. So, he’s including eight or ten or more million voting age illegal aliens.
Plus, he’d be including legal residents who are not yet citizens. Mentions no adjustments for these factors that I noticed.
Washington Post huh? They sat there and screamed, well cried violently after the 2014 Senate race that the south is once again being Nixonized.
And in only two years that changed from the south being all blue?
I think not.
They’re basing the map on demographics. If all the blacks and hispanics in the South got out to vote, and voted Democrat in the same numbers they usually do, they could easily turn the South blue.
That more voters likely to vote democrat rather than republican were the larger percentage who didn't vote. That voters that traditionally vote democratic would have continued to vote democratic. Or that the ballot stuffing by democrats wouldn't become more exposed. I'm sure others here can come up with more examples.
Illegals vote, even though they aren’t supposed to.
Another side effect - in order to enforce everyone voting, you have to know who is voting, ie, voter ID.
This isn’t true. The actual voting results have shown Texas move from Blue to bright red and each election it has gotten redder even as Democrats have increased efforts to move it left. The only state I have concern about is Georgia but even so we are assuming static voting patterns as Demographics change which historically has never been the case. As demographic majorities change so do attitudes. Also 2012 and even 2014 are not as good a measure given that those years are very likely outliers even the unique racial overtones caused by the novelty of the ‘first black President’. There is no need for hand wringing. What is needed is we need to fragment the Democrat coalition drive by race baiting and dependency and the best way to do that is to increase opportunities across the board.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/
Some do, but since only around 50% of eligible voters actually vote, then the percentage of illegal aliens not voting would be very high, probably 90% or more.
We’re definitely headed to uncharted waters - most baby boomers are white and will be using a significant amount of the budget via Social Security , etc. Now when all these racialized young people find out their taxes are going to support ‘Whitey,’ what do thinks gonna happen ...
Not sure where you’d get that conclusion from. Look at Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina which are also dark blue on this map...
Based on that map, the Dems would have control of the House by 10-20 members and the Senate by 12 (supermajority)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.