"Forced to Vote" doesn't really sound like individual citizens exercising their rights. It does, however, sound like one step above an American "Guilt you to Vote" campaign. Forcing people to vote (especially if they have no idea what they're voting for) sounds like a bad idea.

In Australia everyone is forced to vote over 18. I still can't make up my mind whether the Aussie or US system is better. Both have flaws and strengths.

Well, as Greg eloquently put it:
"You are the government.
You are jurisprudence.
You are the volition.
You are juridiction.
And I make a difference too."
It's your right to do as you choose.

I don't care what anyone says, i'm not voting. Why should I? I don't care for either candidate and i'm not ignorant of politics or lazy.

I changed my mind after watching hardball with chris mathews and the footage of all the crazy people mcpain has standing up at his rallys calling obama a terriorist,liar and traitor and oh yeah "arab". the republican party didn't scare me before but they want this so bad that even though my vote probably wont count because of the electoral college but at least I tried.

Sure, vote, to try and prevent McPalin from gettin in, but really, until we abolish the Electoral College, it really doesn't matter.

Again, I see your point. Unfortunately, the only quasi-legitimate chance of electing a 3rd party candidate that we've had in the last 80 years or so was in 1992 when Ross Perot got 19% (I think) of the popular vote (no electoral college votes though). It wasn't any grass roots organization that got him to that point...it was purely money.
The system is set-up for 2 parties. Not only that, the American people have alot of trouble when you give them more than 2 choices. Unfortunately (whether you want to be or not) you are part of the system. I understand your point about trying to educate people. However, "not playing" really isn't an option. Unless we have a violent overthrow of the government, the only way to change the government...is through the government.
I agree with you on most of your points. They are certainly what we want to strive for in order to attain long term change. The way to push for short term change (no matter how minute) is to vote. Again, just my opinion.

That has already happened: voting for 3rd Party "illegal" is almost illegal by legal obscurities in law, the ridiculously high bar to entry in being listed etc., in addition to the infection our culture with the absurd idea that 3rd Party will never win, thus creating a perpetual hole that 3rd Parties, who would probably actually help de-claw our ever increasingly police/welfare/warfare/corporatist state to it's constitutional republic roots, are useless.
Not Voting is the first step towards Not Playing, which means, Not Playing To Coercion; which means: individual freedom from an institution (as well as the members of said institution) that uses force to perpetuate itself, & monopolizes the daily maintenance of life & life's services, to trap individuals into using it & thus helping it exist further.
But yeah, I'm sure Obama (The Blue Team) & McCain (The Red Team) will be talking all about coercion at some point: you just gotta believe!

Not voting does not entail "doing nothing", although I'm sure there are plenty of apathetics who don't vote & do nothing else to help themselves or others.
Not voting is a mere gesture compared to what needs to be done, which is that more individuals need to realize that the lesser of evils is *not* the only choice, that endorsing the lesser evils & by proxy, the "system" is *not* the only choice, & that it is up to these individuals to help build the voluntary organizations & movements based on non-coercion (of which the state is based upon coercion).
"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal." (Emma Goldman).

You make a good point. I myself have those feelings as well. However, if you were faced with only 2 choices (both of them bad) and you could help choose the one that caused less damage, wouldn't it behoove you to do so? You'd still be a part of the problem and have to accept the consequences, but if 1 of the 2 options is going to happen anyway shouldn't you at least try to minimize the damage (from your point-of-view)?
I do see your point on not voting, though. It's a tough decision. Fortunately we have the right to vote...or not vote. Regardless which you choose we need to fight to keep all of our rights as Americans, World Citizens, and Human Beings in tact. I choose to do that by voting for the lesser of 2 evils. It's far from perfect, but it's better than doing nothing (in my opinion).

"If you’ve ever openly admitted to not voting, one classic refrain you’ve no doubt heard is “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain,” or “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,” or some variation thereof. The implication, of course, is that by not expressing your opinion via voting, you are implicitly accepting the consequences of your lack of participation in the electoral process."
http://rationalanimal.net/2008/05/08/if-you-vote-you-cant-complain/
Guess What? Not Voting is probably the only moral option, rather than playing the Electric Gradualist Slide with the Lesser of Two Evils. Think about it.

Thank you.

All Boltzzman is suggesting is that people should know what they're voting for. Why does that make them ignorant? If anything it makes them the opposite.

Live and Let Live? You're yelling at me for expressing an opinion whilst not even commenting on the original question.
I'm NOT advocating a STANDARD that would PROHIBIT people from voting. You QUALIFY to vote when you turn 18 (no matter how intelligent you are). I'm simply saying that encouraging ignorant people to act on their ignorance is a bad idea. Education is the key. That's my opinion. You seem to be for encouraging ignorant people to vote. That's your opinion.
Greg Graffin: "I guess it might sound like a clich? but what makes me angry is simple ignorance... Today I think most of the problems in the world stem from ignorance and fear."
I agree with Greg. I guess he must be advocating "Oligarchy" as well. Please, just answer the question and stop saying Oligarchy...you sound like a parrot that only knows one word.

Live and let live is my main point. Secondary to that is that to have an intelligent standard on voting is dicriminatory and would create an biased oligarchy which I can't believe anyone would want to live in. Yes I take it personally because only petulent kids who do not understand what this government was founded on and what it has grown into would say something like having only those who qualify vote.
@Trumpy
I do think Boltzzman is inorant but not because he doesn't agree with me but because of his ideas. Also I'm just pressing random keys when I type my name, sorry I can't come up with anything as clever as Trumpy.
Just deal with the fact that there are people who are ignorant and are going to vote. In the end it will serve the greater good.

Boltzman, I wouldn't take this guy too seriously. Not only can he not identify himself with the same name twice, but he is calling you ignorant for not agreeing with him, which is exactly what he was saying you were doing. Don't waste your time.

You did take my comments personally.
For the last time, I'm not advocating depriving uninformed citizens from voting. Your reading skills are obviously lacking.
As for your comment stating "Also only the ignorant think that the only good opinions are the ones that agree with them."...you are truly not paying attention. The 3 people who commented before you all made their own separate points. They didn't take my comments personally and begin attacking me...they answered the question with their own opinions and I never attacked them (as you are doing to me) for expressing those comments. I'm sorry that you are unable to have a normal debate without taking it personally.

Also only the ignorant think that the only good opinions are the ones that agree with them.

Boltzzman should not be allowed to vote I've decided. On the grounds that he does not understand the United States goverment and its history and is therefore uninformed and uninformed people should not be allowed to vote according to him.
All you can do is continually prove my point. You proved that your ideal government is an oligarchy and now you have proved that although you don't want uninformed individuals to vote and have shown that you are in fact an uninformed individual. You wouldn't even be able to vote in you ideal government. I don't understand your views on things and I don;t think you do either. Feel free to prove what I just said even though I know you'll do it anyway.

You're obviously not paying attention to the question...or the discussion. You have no point. I don't see the word "informed" in the definition of Oligarchy. If you think informed voters are a "small elite segment of society" then I feel sorry for you.
You may not want to read my "uninformed rants"...but you still never answered the question.
Finally, it has nothing to do with me "determining" who votes. I asked if these voter registration schemes were POSITIVE. A coherent response with an actual point (i.e. Creighton, smarti22, or mrbenja) would have been far more appropriate. I think you are actually taking my comments personally. Relax. It's just a question. Do you have an actual opinion on the question, or just a bunch of whining based on obviously misconstrued comments?

"a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers...etc"
You want only the informed to vote, therfore you want a "small elite segment of society" to be the ones to make all the decisions. You proved my point while trying to disprove it. Second of all I'm not gonna read all your uninformed rants in order to anwer a question. That is irrelevent. The point I'm trying to make is that while you rail against the uninformed voters and their supposed ignorance you are not thinking that there is that there are people saying the exact same thing about you. Who are you to determine who votesad who does not when if there was a certain reuirement to vote you might very well not qualify. To answer the last part of your rant allowing everyone to vot prevets an oligarchy or aristocracy and potects everything this country stands for.

Wow. An oligarchy?
Oligarchy: a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers...etc
That has nothing to do with what the discussion was. The question was "Do you think encouraging people to vote (who probably wouldn't do so otherwise because of ignorance of politics, apathy, sheer laziness, etc...) makes a positive impact on our political environment?" I never advocated DISSUADING people from voting. I realize that this is a free society (which is a good thing). I was merely asking if these voting campaigns that guilt people into voting were a good thing for our political environment. Try reading the question before responding.
And, if not wanting to encourage uniformed people to vote puts me on a "high horse" to you, then please elaborate on why it is a POSITIVE thing to do...as the original question asks.

@Boltzzman
Are you sure you are not one of those who are not fully equipped to vote? Also it sound like you want to create an oligarchy. Which is not what America is about. You might want to get off your high horse and get used to the fact that in a free society there are going to be people less intelligent making decisions for better or for worse.

I never said "completely uninformed", I said "...voting when you aren't fully equipped to do so." and "...voting for something/someone they don't fully understand." A little knowledge can be dangerous, especially when incomplete or taken out of context.

I guess I just don't agree that everyone who doesn't vote regularly is completely uninformed.
Of course, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain...

I definitely agree about local issues being very important. However (to come back to the original point), you only see these huge "get out the vote" drives during a Presidential election. So, a bunch of apathetic/ignorant citizens are going to be guilted into voting for something/someone they don't fully understand (local issues included) and we are all going to be worse off for it. Then, these folks can just crawl back into their hole and not vote for another 4 years. Yes, there are some people who are informed who still don't vote...that's their right. My point is, the folks who truly care and are truly informed are constantly educating themselves and vote on a regular basis. The influx of ignorance every 4 years may explain some of our interesting decisions in who gets elected to office.

okey, but don't you think that the very first decision that puts you into doing independent research to make a responsible vote, is the decision of voting ?
i think the message is purposed to just be someone else pushing the conscience (or whatever its spelled) of those people who are like "i know i should do it" but they don't..
it's like telling a friend "hey man, you should do this..."
i agree with Creighton
i think it's worth 5 mins of brooks life, don't you ?
(i feel like i'm speaking english really bad)

BTW - even if you live in a state which clearly is going one way in the presidential race (i.e. California is hugely liberal), there's still state and local issues which need to be decided, which probably have a more direct impact on people's daily lives. Even if you think your vote won't change anything in the presidential race, you may have a huge impact on who your mayor is, or how much sales tax you pay.

I think for some people, you're correct, Boltzzman. But I also think there's lots of people who have reasoned opinions, but think they're too busy, or their votes don't really change anything. Those people might be guilted into registering and voting by celebrity PSA's.

I agree with Boltzzman and W!

@Boltzzman - i agree, i guess the only thing I would say is that they have to start somewhere. maybe next election they'll do their homework. after all, they've already waited this late to register...don't put too much pressure on them :)
@W! - just as you're name suggests, you obviously don't have all the facts. harsh man.

Question for purposes of discussion:
Do you think encouraging people to vote (who probably wouldn't do so otherwise because of ignorance of politics, apathy, sheer laziness, etc...) makes a positive impact on our political environment?
I personally think that if you don't care enough to do the research and constantly follow politics and issues that you are doing damage by voting when you aren't fully equipped to do so. Every time I hear some group (or moron celebrity) encouraging people to vote they seem to just be focusing on the actual act of voting. Never do I hear them encouraging people to do independent research culled from multiple sources in order to formulate a cogent position based on personal morays and cold hard facts. I'm all for people excersing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (that many have fought and died to defend), but if you don't know enough to cast an informed vote...you probably shouldn't.
What do you think?

You know what else takes 3 minutes? Recording a great song. Keep it simple, guys!

Taking advantage of early voting here in Ohio and will be checking out the Obama rally on Thursday.
Damn swing states.
Hope the Big O appreciates my vote.

Isn't it too late in a bunch of states already? Should have come out with that a couple of days ago.