5 ms·
I do remember a few years ago reading (I think it was in freakonomics) that this isn't actually a guarantee. Some places that have postal voting as the primary
by anon98356 7y ago
I do remember a few years ago reading (I think it was in freakonomics) that this isn't actually a guarantee. Some places that have postal voting as the primary form of voting have actually seen a decrease in participation. After an initial boost based on novelty, it now being easier to do also makes it easier to put off. Having a week or two to fill in and then post the form allows for a lot of "I'll do it tomorrow" until you can't, you missed the cutoff. If it can increase turnout great, but making something easier doesn't inherently mean an uptake in participation.
As an extra method on top of existing options it would probably help, but then you lose a lot of the other suggested benefits around faster counting and etc. which require it to be the only form of voting.
- BostonFern 7y agoThere's a distinction between enfranchisement and motivation. The former is fundamental to democracy, proportional to its health, and in my opinion, a duty. The latter is a cultural and a political challenge. I don't think the two should be equated or conflated.
- anon98356 7y agoYes there is a distinction between the two, but in this scenario they both needed to be considered. If you are making it more accessible to vote and that leads to a decrease in voter turnout is that a good thing? The claim of the GP was that online voting would increase voter turnout. If you only consider enfranchisement sure it would, you are making it easier to vote. But put in the wider and cultural political context of a given country my argument is that the GP's claim, that more people would vote, isn't guaranteed.