Kemp signs restrictive GA voting bill; Dem lawmaker arrested for protesting

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-08-2021, 04:25 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Yes, voted for the winning candidate = decided who makes the rules.

Any non-felon American over the age of 18 is eligible to vote but must register. Not all are registered.

I'm not sure strictly "voted for the winning candidate = decided who makes the rules", because while the President gets to sign off on a law (unless a veto proof majority exists), he doesn't strictly "make" the rules, except in cases of executive orders. Congress makes rules (in the sense of laws other than executive orders), and in Congressional voting, you might see a lot more than 30% of registered voters picking the winning Congressman (EDIT: this obviously varies by the specific congressional seat being discussed END EDIT). But I'm veering off course in the discussion here. And I'm willing to concede this. Not trying to be grammar police, but your post was open to some interpretation so I thought I'd point it out.

But now that you've clarified what you mean, I will say based on your criteria of registered voters, even if all of them voted, assuming the same approximately half split as before (we should say like 47%, owing to third party candidates), we're talking about 47% deciding versus 30%. Not that much of a concern in my opinion.

However, what concerns me, and I had hoped this is what you meant originally, is that seeing how many voters are not registered to begin with, the actual percentage of eligible voters deciding elections is probably less than a fourth of the eligible population. And this must be changed. I agree with your larger point.

Still, mandating it is not something I agree with. Or at least I'm on the fence about. While, it might be comparable to filing taxes, I also can see that it could be comparable to everyone being forced to exercise their 2nd amendment right, and therefore, my opinion is not really formed, but leaning towards not mandating.