I support the government making lists of all eligible voters & voter ID… IF

Crickets?

Some people just don't vote, period. Or they take long breaks in between voting, or maybe move, etc. and don't update their registration.

If the above is all accompanied by a manual re-registration every few years (we have to do it with drivers' license, concealed carry permit, etc., so precedent is already established) then I'm fine with it.

Make it so.

If you're going to automatically register someone to vote, then it should be on a "use it or lose it" basis thereafter. Of course "losing it" would only be a temporary inconvenience, and re-registration is free, but we still need checks and balances.

quote:

---

Some people just don't vote, period. Or they take long breaks in between voting, or maybe move, etc. and don't update their registration. If the above is all accompanied by a manual re-registration every few years (we have to do it with drivers' license, concealed carry permit, etc., so precedent is already established) then I'm fine with it. Make it so.

---

100% let’s do it. And for the compulsory aspect just do it like Australia where you can still submit a blank ballot, just have to submit one in certain elections even if blank.

Also like Australia where the penalty is just a $20 fine until repeat offenses where it increases. They have 90% turnout.

General and mid-terms should include voting holidays.

quote:

---

Most states automatically register to vote when getting their ID. I have no problem making lists as it seems like anytime someone does something stupid they run to see what party they’re registered to, regardless of actual voting information.

---

Register everyone as unaffiliated until/unless they manually elect party affiliation.

quote:

---

Cynical Publius
@CynicalPublius
18h
This gentleman wrote the most precisely accurate and well-reasoned legal argument regarding Trump's recent EO on voting that I have seen ANYWHERE

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Wrong.

The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “manner” broadly to include “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices,” etc.

The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants (“requirements payments”) explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding.

The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls (“list maintenance”), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy.

Trump’s EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS’s SAVE program).

Moreover, Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive.

- HAVA already does exactly this—grants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards.

- The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding “federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law.” This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes.

Finally, Trump’s EO’s core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures:

- USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable “Official Election Mail” envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processes—they simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service.

This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds.

Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections.

The democrats are toast.

---

non x users: https://xcancel.com/theprofsrecord/status/2039175508131532936

quote:

---

 compulsory voting

---

Ummmm....

quote:

---

One last shameless bump attempt here. Guess I’ll try another day.

---

It’s a silly premise is why it’s not gaining any traction. Dems don’t want it because we’ll know who is actually voting.

Padding voter rolls with illegals, triple votes etc isn’t something Dems want to lose.

So my question to Dems: Why are you against transparency?

quote:

---

It’s a silly premise

---

What exactly is silly about it?

quote:

---

Why? I’d understand if you said “I want more voter security”, but “less eligible voters voting” is literally an explicit argument for voter disenfranchisement lmao

---

I’m very knowledgeable of the issues, and understand the second and third order effects of what will happen from policies.

My vote is equal to the homeless man. Think about that. If a homeless man who provides absolutely nothing to our civilization has as much say in the trajectory as a service member, how can that not lead to bad decisions.

There is a reason our politics is a popularity contest, and it’s not because we don’t have enough people voting.

quote:

---

…it comes with compulsory voting and automatic registration of eligible parties at age 18.

---

Would much prefer eligible voters to be required to pass a civics class before being allowed to vote.

Way to many stupid people voting.