BREAKING: California Will Automatically Register Millions Of Voters

From George Soros' think Progress
BREAKING: California Will Automatically Register Millions Of Voters

BY ALICE OLLSTEIN OCT 10, 2015 3:10PM

On Saturday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that will allow the state to automatically register millions of residents to vote, using their DMV records.

Starting in 2016, every eligible California citizen who goes to a DMV office to get a driver’s license or renew one will be instantly registered to vote, unless he or she chooses to opt out.

“Citizens are currently forced to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote through registration,” said Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who wrote the bill and pushed for its passage. “We do not have to opt-in to other rights. We do not have to opt-in to free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different.”

In an interview earlier this year, Padilla told ThinkProgress the new law could help bring the 6.6 million California citizens who are eligible but not registered to vote into the democratic process.

Padilla’s office reported that on Election Day last year, more than 40,000 people logged on to the Secretary of State website trying to register to vote. “Unfortunately it was too late,” he said.

The new “motor voter” law is just one of several steps aimed at addressing California’s dismally low election participation rate — one of the worst in the nation. Just over 42 percent of eligible voters turned out in last fall’s election. In Los Angeles County, just 31 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.

Automatic registration is expected to particularly benefit voters of color. Currently, only 62.8 percent of Latino and 50.7 percent of Asian-American residents are registered in California. Latinos, who recently surpassed whites to become the largest demographic group in the state, have the lowest participation rate: just 28 percent of them cast ballots in 2014.

Cristóbal Alex, the president of the non-partisan group Latino Victory Project, wrote an op-ed that the new law “comes at a time when our voices are not being heard.”

“As we’ve seen, our country is at a crossroads, and the next election will present us with a choice between old-fashioned anti-immigrant bigotry and an opportunity to make this country more inclusive,” he wrote. “Imagine what would happen if we passed this law, registering 4 million California Latinos to vote in one fell swoop. That’s enough to dramatically change the landscape of the next election, forcing candidates to focus on issues that affect the Latino community.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ons-of-voters/

The reality?

California Demo-Communists Create Illegal Alien Automatic Voter Registration System, Just In Time For 2016

Posted on October 11, 2015
by Rick Wells

It seems like every day a new distortion of our laws, procedures, rules, policies or practices is imposed upon us by the Democrat Party in their incessant assault on the United States, our Constitution and our citizens. It’s time for a little honesty. We’ve reached the point where it is no longer sufficiently descriptive of this organization to refer to them as the Democrat Party. That’s who they used to be, before they were successfully hijacked by the anti-American Marxists. It’s become undeniable that they’ve morphed into the Communist Party, choosing to operate to a limited degree under cover, but increasingly blatantly exposing through their anti-American acts their true nature.

Calling them Democrats only provides a protective cover for those targeting our freedom and a means of deceiving those who don’t yet realize they’ve been had. They are corrupt, they are subversive, they are anti-American, they are Marxists and they are Fascists. We, the people are under attack, as most of us realize. Just as without properly identifying radical Islam we will be unable to be victorious against that enemy, the Democrats must similarly be identified for the Marxist subversives that they are.

In an attack which took place on Saturday’s, California Communist leader, Governor Jerry Brown, signed a bill that would automatically register millions of illegal aliens to vote in the state, including for the office of president, simply by virtue of the illegitimate driver’s licenses they have been granted. One subversive Demo-commie act is always built upon and followed by another, and another.

The premise is, as usual, one of fairness, equality and humanitarianism, the typical social justice based false justifications for their assaults. It’s only “fair” that every “California citizen” [aka resident] be registered to vote when they get their license. To require any effort or validation would be “discriminatory,” and “disenfranchising.” It’s much better to disenfranchise the American citizens, by negating our votes through government-sanctioned voter fraud.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who authored the corrupt anti-American legislation, made the announcement, saying, “Citizens are currently forced to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote through registration. We do not have to opt-in to other rights. We do not have to opt-in to free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different.”

Maybe in the commie utopia that “right” should be no different, but the Marxists have successfully infiltrated the United States population with foreigners who are not eligible to vote and provided them with the same documents which are virtually indistinguishable from those of citizens. They have deliberately compromised the integrity of the system and are now exploiting the vulnerabilities they created. This is no accidental occurrence.

This deliberate act by the Democrat communists to corrupt our system and hijack our nation is undeniable. It’s time to recognize these criminal subversives for who they are. None of these abuses, from the lawless Obama executive branch to the Congressional Black or Hispanic Caucus, to associated labor unions to pro-invasion immigration groups, the UN, CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood, none of them are honorable Americans who happen to have different political views. They are anti-Americans traitors with political views that call for the elimination of our freedoms and self-governance. They are the enemy within and it’s time we understand that they seek our destruction.

There are surely plenty of useful idiots within their ranks who are providing them with their perverted power base, but their leadership and many of their members know exactly what they’re doing and towards what objectives. They are intent on our national destruction and working tirelessly in the shadows, under the guise of Americans who simply have a more liberal viewpoint, towards that end. They’re much more than that.

http://rickwells.us/california-demo-...time-for-2016/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newmexican

. . . 6.6 million California citizens are eligible but not registered to vote . . .

42 percent of eligible voters turned out in last fall’s election. In Los Angeles County, just 31 percent of registered voters cast a ballot . . .

Latinos have the lowest participation rate: just 28 percent of them cast ballots in 2014. . .

---

That's a lot of people not interested in voting.

It's not going to make much difference unless they are also forced to opt out of voting.

Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...voting.svg.png

  Compulsory voting, enforced.
  Compulsory voting, not enforced.
  Compulsory voting, enforced (only men).
  Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men).
  Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

Part of the Politics series
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_icon.svg.png Voting
Absentee ballot Abstention Ballot Ballot box Ballot stuffing Caging Coattail Compulsory voting Donkey vote Early voting Election boycott Election Day voter registration Election ink Electorate Electoral fraud Instant-runoff voting Issue voting None of the above Paradox of voting Passive electioneering Polling place Postal voting Precinct Preference vote Protest vote Provisional ballot Refused ballot Secret ballot Spoilt vote Slate Straight-ticket voting Tactical voting Tally Ticket Vote center Vote pairing Voter apathy Voter fatigue Voter registration Voter suppression Voter turnout Voting booth Voting machine
Politics portal
v t e

Compulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines or community service. As of August 2013, 22 countries have laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries enforce these laws in practice.^[1]

Contents

[hide]

• 1 History
• 2 Arguments for
• 3 Arguments against
• 4 Current use by countries
  
  • 4.1 Enforced
  • 4.2 Not enforced
  
  
• 5 Past use by countries
• 6 Measures to encourage voting
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 External links

History[edit]

Athenian democracy held that it was everycitizen's duty to participate in decision making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating. For example, Aristophanes's comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.^[2]

This usually happened if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue. In fact, tools that enforced assembly attendance may have been inspired bySolon's law against neutrality^{[clarification needed]} and acted as a precedent of ostracism; like with ostracism, the obligation to participate was generally aimed at preventing the subversion of democratic politics by oligarchic or tyrannical forces.^[3]

Arguments for[edit]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the 'duties to community' mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[4] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn't elected to power.

Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacy because they result in high voter turnout.^[5] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.^[6]

Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers.^{[citation needed]} If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.^{[citation needed]}

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish.^{[citation needed]} In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.^{[citation needed]}

Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process.^{[citation needed]} The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.^[6]

There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.^[7]

Arguments against[edit]

Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights (free speech, right to an attorney, etc.) they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses^[8] and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events.^{[citation needed]} Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah's Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

Similarly, compulsory voting may be seen as an infringement of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of political opinion and thus the right of citizens to believe in a political system other than a democratic one, such as an absolute monarchy. However, it may also be argued that citizens may legitimately be required to vote since the right to believe in a different political system does not conflict with the obligation to conform with legal requirements of the system in place.^{[citation needed]}

Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak.^[9]

Some do not support the idea of voters being compelled to vote for candidates they have no interest in or knowledge of. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, or may have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. In compulsory voting areas, such people often vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so-called donkey vote may account for 1–2% of votes in these systems^{[citation needed]}, although due to the law of large numbers, this should have no effect on the result. Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process or disrupt the election.

The Australian system of preferential voting means a person's vote usually ends up favouring one of the two main political parties, even though the voter may not wish to advantage either. Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.^[10] At the 2013 federal election, despite the threat of a non-voting fine of up to $170,^[11] there was a turnout of only 92%,^[12] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.^[13] In the corresponding Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,^[14] legitimate manipulation of the group voting tickets and single transferable vote routing resulted in the election of one senator, Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had initially received only 0.5% of first-preference support.^[15] The system was accused of undermining the entitlement of voters "to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for."^[16]

Current use by countries[edit]

As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.^[1] Of these, only 10 countries (additionally one Swiss canton and one Indian state) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.<sup>[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting</sup>