6 ms·

This is true of all remote voting. The all-postal ballots in Washington and Oregon are certainly subject to this, and there is a certain rate of voter coercion

This is true of all remote voting. The all-postal ballots in Washington and Oregon are certainly subject to this, and there is a certain rate of voter coercion that goes undetected, particularly within households. For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates. Democratic legitimacy can be very nuanced and delicate. A well-publicized example of voter coercion could destroy trust in the existing system, but then the well-publicized problems of lines and poor voting hours eroded trust in the previous system too.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates. It occurs to me that there's a fairly obvious way to get the benefits of both: require voting in person, but make voting mandatory.
- colmmacc 7y ago
  Australia has this and it gets turnout rates in the 90%+ range. In 2015, Obama threw out that maybe it was time for mandatory voting in the US: https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voti... But the idea has never gotten very far. In general, the idea of a collectivist state that is underpinned by citizen responsibilities has been subsumed by the idea of the state as service supplier, and the citizen consumer.
  - Teever 7y ago
    I'm only for mandatory voting if there is a 'none of the above' option and if the majority votes for that then the election is a do-over and the candidates on that ballot are forbidden from running in the next election and possibly more.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      > I'm only for mandatory voting if there is a 'none of the above' option You could write in a name, or hand in an empty ballot. Mind, nothing will come of this even if it's the majority pick, but you're never actually forced to choose a candidate.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Yea, mandatory voting is more of an assurance that everyone is given an opportunity to vote without encumbrance than that they actually express an opinion. I haven't seen a mandatory voting system that requires you to vote for a candidate out of a chosen list, that seems very dangerous. If voting is mandatory than any impediments to being able to vote (like not giving employees time off) is quite limited by the fact that such impediments are illegal, in the US voter suppression sort of skates by on BS and lots of talking heads explaining how unmotivated millennials are.
  - ska 7y ago
    I suspect an even bigger problem is that there are powerful players who seem to have have an interest in the opposite - that is, reducing the number of potential voters who actually vote. I can't imagine them letting mandatory voting go without a real fight.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      There is a whole alt-right idea of "Demographic shifting" as a tactic being used to suppress their opinion. Unfortunately Americans are really stupid and conspiracy theories have gotten a deep hold on society.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003606
- pulisse 7y ago
  > require voting in person, but make voting mandatory. This is only feasible if employers are legally required to allow employees time off to vote. In many countries, election days are holidays, but attempts to follow suit in the US haven't gone anywhere.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    You could also move voting to Saturday.
    - pulisse 7y ago
      That would require a constitutional amendment.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Nope! You could easily require states to offer a full week of voting as a minimum, this would also cut down on the tactic of making long lines at voting stations to reduce turn out.
        vageli 7y ago
        > Nope! You could easily require states to offer a full week of voting as a minimum, this would also cut down on the tactic of making long lines at voting stations to reduce turn out. How can you do that without an amendment? As I understand it, states are free to choose the methods for elections (which is why there is such variety in the US). From the whitehouse.gov site: > Federal elections are administered by state and local governments, although the specifics of how elections are conducted differ between the states. The Constitution and laws of the United States grant the states wide latitude in how they administer elections. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/elections-voting/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/elections-v...
  - munk-a 7y ago
    In Vermont there is a state holiday for "town hall day" it's statutory so everyone either is out of work or getting paid holiday overtime and it's meant to encourage people to participate in their local town's politics - it is awesome and everywhere in America should have it.
- chrisdhoover 7y ago
  And what would be the penalty for not voting. Me not voting is a vote of FU to the whole endeavor. Now police state thugs are going to what, no knock raid my house in the middle of night? Garnish my wages? Take away by constitutional rights? Oh or will it be tax by another name, you’ll get a tax credit with proof of voting. Its all too illiberal and un-American. Sure Australia requires voting but they also voted to remain a commonwealth. The US on the other rejected subjugation. Voting is a right. Rights can be freely exercised. That means either participating or not participating. Compare to the 1st and 2nd amendments. I can speak freely or own arms but I have to do neither. I can keep my mouth shut and remain unarmed.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    > And what would be the penalty for not voting. A ~US$1.3 (R$5) fine works very well in Brazil.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      And if you don't pay?
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        Same as if you don’t pay your taxes, or you don’t pay your speeding ticket, or any other fine.
        jakeogh 7y ago
        And... Take it to it's logical conclusion.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        If your point is that you'll eventually go to jail, after many years of warnings and chances to pay, I don't have an issue with this. There are many actions we require of citizens. You have to pay your taxes, you have to show up for jury duty, you have to sign up for the draft. Why is showing up to vote a less important civic responsibility than any of those things?

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

> For the proponents of all-postal voting, this trade-off is worth it for the sake of the increased participation rates. It occurs to me that there's a fairly obvious way to get the benefits of both: require voting in person, but make voting mandatory.

colmmacc 7y ago
Australia has this and it gets turnout rates in the 90%+ range. In 2015, Obama threw out that maybe it was time for mandatory voting in the US: https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voti... But the idea has never gotten very far. In general, the idea of a collectivist state that is underpinned by citizen responsibilities has been subsumed by the idea of the state as service supplier, and the citizen consumer.
- Teever 7y ago
  I'm only for mandatory voting if there is a 'none of the above' option and if the majority votes for that then the election is a do-over and the candidates on that ballot are forbidden from running in the next election and possibly more.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > I'm only for mandatory voting if there is a 'none of the above' option You could write in a name, or hand in an empty ballot. Mind, nothing will come of this even if it's the majority pick, but you're never actually forced to choose a candidate.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Yea, mandatory voting is more of an assurance that everyone is given an opportunity to vote without encumbrance than that they actually express an opinion. I haven't seen a mandatory voting system that requires you to vote for a candidate out of a chosen list, that seems very dangerous. If voting is mandatory than any impediments to being able to vote (like not giving employees time off) is quite limited by the fact that such impediments are illegal, in the US voter suppression sort of skates by on BS and lots of talking heads explaining how unmotivated millennials are.
- ska 7y ago
  I suspect an even bigger problem is that there are powerful players who seem to have have an interest in the opposite - that is, reducing the number of potential voters who actually vote. I can't imagine them letting mandatory voting go without a real fight.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    There is a whole alt-right idea of "Demographic shifting" as a tactic being used to suppress their opinion. Unfortunately Americans are really stupid and conspiracy theories have gotten a deep hold on society.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003606
pulisse 7y ago
> require voting in person, but make voting mandatory. This is only feasible if employers are legally required to allow employees time off to vote. In many countries, election days are holidays, but attempts to follow suit in the US haven't gone anywhere.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  You could also move voting to Saturday.
  - pulisse 7y ago
    That would require a constitutional amendment.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Nope! You could easily require states to offer a full week of voting as a minimum, this would also cut down on the tactic of making long lines at voting stations to reduce turn out.
      - vageli 7y ago
        > Nope! You could easily require states to offer a full week of voting as a minimum, this would also cut down on the tactic of making long lines at voting stations to reduce turn out. How can you do that without an amendment? As I understand it, states are free to choose the methods for elections (which is why there is such variety in the US). From the whitehouse.gov site: > Federal elections are administered by state and local governments, although the specifics of how elections are conducted differ between the states. The Constitution and laws of the United States grant the states wide latitude in how they administer elections. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/elections-voting/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/elections-v...
- munk-a 7y ago
  In Vermont there is a state holiday for "town hall day" it's statutory so everyone either is out of work or getting paid holiday overtime and it's meant to encourage people to participate in their local town's politics - it is awesome and everywhere in America should have it.
chrisdhoover 7y ago
And what would be the penalty for not voting. Me not voting is a vote of FU to the whole endeavor. Now police state thugs are going to what, no knock raid my house in the middle of night? Garnish my wages? Take away by constitutional rights? Oh or will it be tax by another name, you’ll get a tax credit with proof of voting. Its all too illiberal and un-American. Sure Australia requires voting but they also voted to remain a commonwealth. The US on the other rejected subjugation. Voting is a right. Rights can be freely exercised. That means either participating or not participating. Compare to the 1st and 2nd amendments. I can speak freely or own arms but I have to do neither. I can keep my mouth shut and remain unarmed.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  > And what would be the penalty for not voting. A ~US$1.3 (R$5) fine works very well in Brazil.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    And if you don't pay?
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      Same as if you don’t pay your taxes, or you don’t pay your speeding ticket, or any other fine.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        And... Take it to it's logical conclusion.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        If your point is that you'll eventually go to jail, after many years of warnings and chances to pay, I don't have an issue with this. There are many actions we require of citizens. You have to pay your taxes, you have to show up for jury duty, you have to sign up for the draft. Why is showing up to vote a less important civic responsibility than any of those things?