4 ms·

> So, yes, one party has made it a mission to suppress turnout; yes, Election Day is a work day, which makes it harder for working people to vote; etc. -- we ca

> So, yes, one party has made it a mission to suppress turnout; yes, Election Day is a work day, which makes it harder for working people to vote; etc. -- we can change all that, but first we have to work in the system as it is today. This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most and enables those same people to influence the system further by making it difficult enough for others that they won't bother. When it's compulsory to vote, things like weekday voting stop happening because laws will be introduced making it illegal to prevent your employees from taking time off work to go vote, so naturally both employers and employees alike want weekend voting. Additionally, it incentivises the government to make voting accessible, because it is unreasonable for them to enforce voting via fines etc if it's not really possible for people to vote. When I moved to the US from Australia I heard stories from my new colleagues about people in poor neighbourhoods lining up literally all day just to maybe get to vote before the booth closed, while those in richer neighbourhoods had practically no line at their voting booths. This is not how democracy should work. Your "freedom to choose not to vote" only serves to hurt any other freedoms you may have had.

rauhl 8y ago
> This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most That doesn't sound unreasonable on the face of it, to be honest.
- roganartu 8y ago
  Until you realise that those who care the most often hold extreme views and are the most outspoken even when representing a relative minority. Deeply conservative fundamentalist Christians, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers are some examples that come to mind.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  A feature of current voting patterns because it takes place on a work day is that voting is dominated by 50+ people. The voice of those who are paid hourly or without flexible work schedules is not heard very proportionately. It's not that different from a poll tax or reading test or similar barriers to voting - those who care the most in order to spend time/money get to vote - are those reasonable as well? As someone who is over 50, I feel the current system is stupid. I vote from home using a mail in ballot but the ballot is several pages, often six pages long, and takes me an hour to fill out while I do research online, so someone doing it in person has to make a lot of time before or after work (polling places near their home).

rauhl 8y ago

> This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most That doesn't sound unreasonable on the face of it, to be honest.

roganartu 8y ago
Until you realise that those who care the most often hold extreme views and are the most outspoken even when representing a relative minority. Deeply conservative fundamentalist Christians, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers are some examples that come to mind.
stevenwoo 8y ago
A feature of current voting patterns because it takes place on a work day is that voting is dominated by 50+ people. The voice of those who are paid hourly or without flexible work schedules is not heard very proportionately. It's not that different from a poll tax or reading test or similar barriers to voting - those who care the most in order to spend time/money get to vote - are those reasonable as well? As someone who is over 50, I feel the current system is stupid. I vote from home using a mail in ballot but the ballot is several pages, often six pages long, and takes me an hour to fill out while I do research online, so someone doing it in person has to make a lot of time before or after work (polling places near their home).