By Steve Byas

President Obama's recent statement that it would be great to make everyone vote, or in the president's words, "transformative."

I bet it would be transformative, and it would be a huge boost to those who want to increase the size, scope, and power of the government. That is what Obama means when he says that it would be "transformative." Of course, Obama knows that. That is why he is for everyone voting. Do you really think he would be for it, if it would help turn us back into a limited, constitutional republic?

What is the point of voting, Mr. President? The people of California enacted Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and a federal judge, with your full support, I might add, said that their votes did not matter. The voters turned Congress over after your ObamaCare was enacted, and yet John Roberts and four more members of the Supreme Court said our votes did not matter.

I voted in a city council election here in Norman on the day that I wrote this column. After I cast my vote, they handed me a little sticker, which reads, "I voted." Like I had stormed the beaches of Normandy. I guess I deserve a medal for that?

OSU political science professor, Rebekah Herrick, writing in an op-ed in the Oklahoman newspaper, asked, "Did you vote last fall? If so, give yourself a pat on the back." So, a sticker, a pat on the back, for what?

What is really weird about all of this crowd that is always worried about low voter turn-out, it is my contention that they actually diminish the importance of voting. For years, I have heard local TV news anchors say inane things like, "Tomorrow is election day. It doesn't matter who you vote for, but please go vote." Really? If it doesn't matter who I vote for, why should it matter that I even vote?

The truth is that it does matter. Voting is a serious matter, for serious people. If you have to be shamed into voting, or given a pat on the back, or a sticker, or whatever just for voting, I wish you would just stay home.

Professor Herrick probably means well, but I cannot understand how a political science professor would think the problem is that not enough people vote. I consider it a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Her whole op-ed is a lament about folks not voting, and how to get them to vote. Her solutions are worse than the disease. One way to increase voter turnout, she says, is to "encourage people who haven't voted in the past to go to the polls." She really does not address why we should want them to vote. Among her solutions is online registration, and same-day registration. That's right. Professor Herrick thinks someone should just be able to stroll into the voting place on election day, having never voted before, and register right there. This is an open invitation to vote fraud.

I would like to examine the reasons that folks do not vote, and finish by asking a question.

One group does not vote because they are satisfied. They believe things are just fine in this country. A person in this group looks at candidates like Obama and Romney and thinks, "We are so lucky to have two such fine men running for president." This satisfied person believes that no matter which one wins the election, we are going to be OK. They thought the same thing about Obama vs. McCain, and Bush vs. Kerry. Now, seriously, do you want a person who has this attitude to vote?

Another group does not vote because they are alienated. They think their vote does not matter, that whichever person that they vote for is bad, that the system is rigged, that however the election turns out, things are going to continue as they are now -- bad. Now, the solution here is to convince them they are wrong, by offering a candidate who will make a difference. Same-day registration is not going to encourage this person to vote. That is not what is keeping them from voting.

Included in this group would be those do not vote as a matter of principle. Now, I really do not agree with these folks, who are often anarchists, but if liberty means anything at all, should we really force them, under penalty of law if they don't, to vote? When Australia went to this mandatory voting scheme, I understand that many folks thus forced to vote wrote in Mickey Mouse. I don't blame them. A person should no more be forced to vote than one should be forced to contribute to a political party, a church, or a charity. Besides that, Mickey Mouse would probably be better than most of our choices, anyway.

Another group does not vote because they simply cannot make up their mind whom to vote for. They are conflicted. Maybe their church group says vote for one guy, while their union says vote for another. Do we really want this guy to vote, if he is so weak-minded that he lets others do his thinking for him?

As I said, Professor Herrick really does not say why we should care that someone fails to vote. I think the problem is deeper than that. If we really believe that the election is a serious matter, then why should we be wanting folks to go vote who are not serious about it?

I think there are serious matters at stake in elections. That is why I do try to get some folks to go vote. Which folks? Well, since I think that it does matter who wins, I have made phone calls, sent out post cards and letters, distributed literature, held up signs, displayed car stickers, and the like, mightily trying to get others to vote for the candidate I am for. What about those who are going to vote for the guy I am opposed to? I hope they do not vote. After all, why should I want someone to vote for someone who is going to raise my taxes, take away my liberty on this or that issue, increase the power of the government, destroy the institutions of society, and adversely affect me and my family?

Most of the folks who do not vote, if they did vote, would vote to do the things I just mentioned. And you know what the dirty little secret is? For most of those who bemoan the low voting turnout, their goal is to get more folks voting for bigger government and less freedom.

Like Obama.

"Transformative," he said. Yes, just like he said in 2008, he wanted to "fundamentally transform America." That is why he and most of these other folks want to increase the number of voters, because more uninformed voters means more votes for candidates like Obama.