You're viewing a single thread.
Because it's a terrible idea? Elections are already heavily weighted towards name recognition. What are people who can't even be bothered to go out to vote going to offer to the process?
That's true, you can require them to vote, but you can't require them to be informed.
Bad news though. Almost none of today's voters are properly informed either.
And this is the real heart of the problem. I would love to see a ban on all political advertising while providing an easily accessible source to read the policies of each party. Without the branding and cults of personality we could have a system that actually makes decision based on policy
But at least with volunteer voting, you get some correlation between someone being informed and their likelihood of voting.
I disagree. You would see a correlation between those people who think they are informed and those who vote.
And unfortunately, people who are smart enough to know they aren't informed are probably the ones who should be voting. Forcing them to do so will cause some portion to read.
People who are SURE they are informed are either the very well informed, or the idiots who don't know any better, but who will happily vote for whoever they are told.
That’s a very good argument.
The alternative is voter suppression, which leads to unequal access. Also, given that more passionate individuals are gonna seek out a ballot vs. others, the result is going to be skewed in favor of those passionate people regardless of their understanding of reality or truthfullness.
I admit it might help the current problem, since people less passionate about the issues might be less inclined to vote for reactionaries, but I don't think the result would be better representation. Most likely the result would be a system that leans even heavier on marketing to get brand recognition for the party to the most people
We already have a system like that in the US. Whoever has a wider reach and/or higher budget gets more turnout. A big reason why Obama won was because of his presence on social media, and Trump won because of the insane amount of media coverage he has. The current system gives prederence to voters who treat elections like simple popularity contests, whereas mandatory voting would force people who somewhat pay attention to current events and not to campaigns to be counted.
I'm pretty sure in Australia you can just turn in a blank ballot. But yeah, compulsory voting is kind of odd.
It's the simplest solution to fight voter disenfranchisement. It stops parties from trying to play that particular stupid game.
We get the option to vote by mail for free weeks in advance.
You don't even have to get off your fat arse.
It forces politics to the centre. Parties put a huge amount of effort into 'bringing out the vote', and do things to appeal to the fringe which is how you get characters like Trump finding success. When this isn't a concern, parties can focus on policies that appeal to the majority of people rather than fringe groups that they can use to guarantee voter turnout.
Motivating people to vote, in the US at least, seems like a process of whipping up fear and anger. I would argue that taking away the need to motivate people in tbis way is a positive for everyone. It also results in a more representative and legitimate government.
The fear and anger is to get people to vote for them. That wouldn't go away under mandatory voting. Unfortunately, unless we can find a way to resolve the culture war that has spread globally now, that will always be an easy exploit