Pages


Tuesday, December 20, 2022

The Conservative Case for Compulsory Voting

A terrible idea whose time has come. 

Figuring out how to save the nation is obviously a high priority for conservatives. But however we plan to save it, we can’t make much progress until we start winning more elections than we lose. One of the most interesting debates currently playing out on the Right is how to respond to the mail-in/absentee/early voting ploys that the Democrats have now perfected—tactics that gave a somnambulant Joe Biden the Oval Office in 2020, neutralized a “red wave” in the 2022 midterm elections, and which seem sufficient to ensure Democratic rule well into the future.

27 comments:

  1. I wish we had a Party that was Right. Both DC Parties (if there are actually two) appear to want to rule us from DC instead of being limited by The Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's right, Bill589.
    The Uniparty will not relinquish control as long as they're still getting rich off our backs.
    There's only one solution and we all know what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe what we need IS HONEST voting management!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me start by saying I don't thing the "Nation" can or should be saved at this point. It is beyond saving and is a mortal threat to every one of us.
    Now if we entertain the idea put forth in this post for a moment, we are stuck at first by how un-American the proposal is. In fact, forcing people to do things that is against their rational self interest would more than likely result in the "forced" to vote voters doing some things that are unexpected and detrimental to both established parties.
    For the Democrats, the paper work of enforcement of mandatory voting is in essence the same thing as the national voter ID they are so deathly afraid of. If you are going to make sure everybody votes by enforcing some kind of penalty, you need an accurate paper trail to prove that the ballot was cast. that same paper trail would severely undermine the system of ballot box stuffing they have perfected in the last few years.
    For Republican wing of the Uniparty, the likelyhood of nominal Republican voters rebelling against the establishment in light of such a law is a real risk. These disgruntled former Republicans might just insist of voting for 3rd party candidates instead in large enough numbers to at least destroy the Republican chances. It would be far easier for alt party candidates to convince the "voted under duress" class to vote for them instead of the typical protest vote write in selections of Mickey Mouse or Taylor Swift, ect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In person voting with ID, absentee ballots only under strict scrutiny. Purple ink fingers or thumbs, just like in Iraq. Voting should not be easy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fair elections no longer exist in this country. As long as (1) people can vote without showing ID and (2) mail-in ballots without any signature verification/cross reference with voter rolls are accepted as valid and (3) voter rolls are not kept up to date and (4) precincts accept (continue to "find") ballots for days or weeks after election day, the winner will always be the one that cheats the most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. The "tactics" mentioned above are simply CHEATING! You've nailed in on the head Pea. the voting laws need to be followed and enforced. if the Repubs did what the dems did, they'd prosecute the repubs. I always hold out hope, but the "final option" is always in the back of my mind.

      Delete
  7. I get the impression that certain people don't care about how many people vote, because their printing machines will always give them the winning edge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Same situation in England, many of have come to the realisation voting is pointless when both parties are the same give or take a few irrelevant views.
    If you go visit a store or shop and they have nothing worth buying you simply don't buy, same with voting, if there's no one worth voting for what good could possibly come from being forced to vote apart from the unipraty being able to claim more people voted for it.

    What should happen is there should be another contender, called None of The Above, if NOTA wins then all candidates should be disqualified from standing and another election held until NOTA doesn't win.

    In England we've come to the conclusion both parties are dead and need burying, we're in exactly the same boat as yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't care what voting schemes either side dreams up. The left has the ability to commit vote fraud at an epic almost unimaginable scale....and to do so with total impunity. TINVOWOOT. The left will never be removed from power peacefully...ever.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe voting should be limited to 1) land owners only 2) in person (unless military deployed elsewhere) and 3) one day only.

    ReplyDelete
  11. They are All PolyTicks. after the last few shiite-shows, voting is useless and "counting" only counts. If, President Trump runs, I will vote for him as a big BFUTY to all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Conservatives fixing literally anything. Lol. Vote harder! Lol.

    In a rigged game the only winning move is not to play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In a rigged game the only winning move is not to play."

      Yes. Thank you for that reminder.

      Delete
  13. How is it that we can put serial numbers on dollar bills but we can't put them on ballots?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Australia has everything y'all demand of "free and fair elections" compulsory voting, on the weekend, with identification papers and limited, difficult to obtain, mail in voting.. the CIA have been controlling our elections since 11-11-1975. when they pulled their first Australian coup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never supported compulsory voting, I believe rather otherwise. I am completely ignorant of what happened in .AU in '75, please advise?

      Delete
  15. Holy crap! My brother! I would expand just a tiny bit though...land owners of at least 10 but no more than 1000 contiguous acres, small business owners with gross earnings between $100K and $10MM. That would be my addendum. Also a minimum age of 25. That should protect the core of any nation and all would be well represented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I guess the working stiffs who live in a house or apartment but don't own a business or acreage, "would be well represented" by who? I'm sure you, as "massa" will look out after the interests of your serfs.

      Delete
  16. In Australia we have compulsory voting. With the person name being signed off by an AEC officer. If after the voting day the name appears at more than one location, an infringement notice is mailed and if you do not pay the fine court action will be taken against you. The only problem we have is that almost all local, state and federal elections have preferential voting applied which means that minor parties can get elected with minimal votes. Preferential voting is really bad because candidates will use their voting numbers to allocate to different candidates if they do not get a majority. First past the post is the only real way. Along with voter id and no mail in ballots. All electorate districts have out of state or town voting allowed and marked off on the computer rolls. Rolls are updated annually and the dead are removed off the rolls as the AEC checks the state death notices regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As long as the votes are "counted" using machines tied to the internet whose "software" is proprietary and not allowed to be audited by the controlling election authorities in each state and a unaudited thumb drive is required to be mounted in the machine in order for it to work, elections will never again be free and fair.

    "it's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." - Joseph Stalin

    Nemo

    ReplyDelete
  18. There they done it again. Getting people to argue about the best way for everyone to vote and elect someone to rule over us. Think I'll pass...again! Someone, anyone, please provide historical evidence of any government that has ever been good for the populace first over themselves...I'm waiting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look up the words "Necessary Evil" and see what you get. Unfortunately, that's the facts Jack. Now the amount of say we have in that necessary evil is subject to "your mileage may vary". All depends on the society at the time. And lets be honest here, the society we live in now is not conducive to electing "good" leaders.

      Delete
  19. Compulsory voting already exists, just ask all those dead people.

    Voting, it's what's for dinner except it eats you alive.

    ReplyDelete
  20. democrats have already put their compulsory voting plan into action. If you dont vote, they will vote for you.

    ReplyDelete

All comments are moderated due to spam, drunks and trolls.
Keep 'em civil, coherent, short, and on topic.