You're viewing a single thread.
- They don't get to complain because they refused to do the bare minimum.
- Contribute to the many reasons I had to leave my home country. Not sure it would be different otherwise, but going immigrant without a fallback plan wasn't pleasant.
- Mandatory voting - I'm for it as long as it's Australian style - no severe punishment, just light fines. Enough to quietly annoy people into voting.
As an Australian I do have a bit of a problem with mandatory voting. Mostly because it forces the uninformed to go vote too, so we get the same breed of fearmongering and sensationalist headlines on the newspaper front pages that are all owned by the same billionaires and the same idiots on social security voting for the party that would abolish social security because Facebook told them the other party wanted to let muslims rape their girlfriend.
But the voting on the weekend and the democracy sausage we definitely got right.
How is it better if someone just goes and circles a random name on the list because its mandatory? If someone doesn't follow politics and isn't educated enough to pick a good candidate, or motivated enough to research them, I think it's better to not vote at all than to give it up to either chance or a superficial gut feeling based on constant propaganda barrage. A person that votes like that just makes your vote less impactful, statistically speaking.
Because they won't do it randomly. Being forced to participate will make people think: "If I have to do it I might as well choose X". If you ever participated in a mandatory school activity you might know the feeling. You might not have chosen to do it of your own free will, but now that you're there let's think what to make of it.
Also politics is not just voting. Politics is almost every choice you make every day. If I have to drag someone kicking and screaming until they understand it so be it.
Also also, voting randomly is not useless. Keeping the political system functional is preferable to forever pining for a perfect candidate. A "perfect glorious leader" doesn't exist, random votes make those emotionally swayed by charismatic leaders less likely to gain a majority.
That's a lot of assumptions that I can't agree are inherently true. Forcing people to participate might not make them think at all beyond fulfilling the duty and not paying a fine, and random votes might not balance out the charismatic leaders at all - if anything the charismatic populist leaders that focus on good PR over substance will probably gather up more of these uneducated "just circle something" voters than the others. It is where/why marketing and commercials work so well in the first place and I'd rather not give even more power to this type of brainwashing, it is a popularity contest enough as it is.
If anything, I'd make it so in order for people's votes to count they need to show at least a very basic understanding of what they are voting for and what are the implications of it.
One of you depends on people wanting aganecy in their own lives and a fair world, the other depends on everyone being literally too dumb and selfish to do the bare minimum to keep society from collapsing without a gun held to their head.
I know which world I would rather be living in
Which one is which that's the big question
Not hard for anyone paying attention
How is it better if someone just goes and circles a random name on the list because its mandatory?
Statistically, if a large population being "forced" to vote were voting names randomly on ballots that had their own order randomly assigned, then their votes would be evenly distributed and not end up affecting the results.
Not necessarily true, I think most of those votes would go to the most popular populist candidate or the one with a better PR team, it wouldn't be truly random distribution.
They don’t get to complain because they refused to do the bare minimum.
So you only vote in order to complain?
It's a factor. I'm aware my political opinions are in the minority and unlikely to be implemented. Being able to demonstrate that I tried to do something gives legitimacy to my criticism.
Being able to demonstrate that I tried to do something
Participating in a glorified spectacle that simply exists to rubberstamp elite rule qualifies as "doing something" to you?