> He did this via speech. Free speech is a good thing even when the speech is bad, even when spoken by foreigners, even when it's illegal. I'm not sure you've

> He did this via speech. Free speech is a good thing even when the speech is bad, even when spoken by foreigners, even when it's illegal. I'm not sure you've thought this through. There's no line whatsoever? Speech is good even when it's, say, fraudulent? If I send mailers to voters registered with the opposite party that look like they're from the board of elections but give the wrong date for the election, or the wrong polling place, that's a good thing? How? What value is served? > That would seem to improve the overall quality of the voting pool The drive to get everyone to vote seems to be more about justifying the result than improving it. You're assuming that the value of democracy is as a means of arriving at optimal policy. A lot of people think there are normative aspects of democratic participation, such as ensuring that government actions reflect the values and desires of those governed. And even sticking with the sort of instrumental frame you're operating with, your analysis is too static. Bringing people into the political process improves voter quality, as those who start out apathetic become less so through participation, and those who are less informed become more so.