4 ms·

Of all the ways to make politics less crazy, forced participation doesn't seem like a great one.

by yosito 5y ago

ngngngng 5y ago
Why?
- yosito 5y ago
  Well, for one, a lot of people abstain from voting on issues that they are uninformed about. Forcing people to vote even if they aren't well informed is a recipe for tribalized group think.
  - crmrc114 5y ago
    The real barrier is a two-party system that only serves the extremes on each side, in the United States at least.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    This is not what actually happens. Instead people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side, and choose to vote. When they vote, there are a dozen+ other elections going (most of which a voter doesn't know/care about). Forcing them to choose (ie, they have to opt-out by writing in blank or mickey mouse) would lead to more participation and involvement. Groupthink is already here. Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US.
    - yosito 5y ago
      > people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side Yes, in other words, they get manipulated into tribalized group think. > Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US. There could be many reasons for this other than voting being compulsory.
  - dathos 5y ago
    Being able to vote “nothing” might solve that, with the benefit of serving as an indicator whether the subject is clear enough. Wishful thinking though
  - atomicnumber3 5y ago
    I can't imagine what tribalized group think in american politics could possibly look like. Sorry. Couldn't resists. Snide aside, they could have it work how corporate voting works, wherein each share gets a vote and each voting session you log in and look at the issues to be voted on, and you are given the choices, alongside which choice is the Board's recommendation, along with the rationale behind it. This could help. Let each party pitch why their choice is the best for each candidate/issue. This doesn't fix the problem of parties lying here, but it's not like we don't already have that problem. That way people can cold-vote and at least have... something to go on. Whereas right now I think people generally just vote R or D. Perfect is the enemy of good here, I think, since what we currently have is fairly pitiful, at least in my opinion. Most voters are uninformed, or perhaps worse, primarily informed by paid advertising and/or Reddit/4chan.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  Compulsory voting would just make politics even more about money. Whoever advertised the most would receive a large boost from the voters who normally choose not to vote.
Guest42 5y ago
I feel as though viable 3rd/4th parties in the US would create a more balanced environment. There are times that I abstain from voting because candidates aren’t aligned enough with my viewpoints.
- pm90 5y ago
  Forced participation would not create another party. Party infrastructure is something that needs to be built up, from local level all the way to the National level. Not impossible but it would require a lot of money, people and drive.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  We would need election/ballot reform to make that happen. A 2 party system is the expected outcome with FPTP/simple plurality voting. Proportional elections or some flavor of preference voting would allow a 3rd party. In the US, this has led to a literal 2-party system. In the UK and Canada, only the 2 largest/most popular parties of a given time period are typically able to form governments.

Of all the ways to make politics less crazy, forced participation doesn't seem like a great one.

by yosito 5y ago

Of all the ways to make politics less crazy, forced participation doesn't seem like a great one.

ngngngng 5y ago

Why?

yosito 5y ago
Well, for one, a lot of people abstain from voting on issues that they are uninformed about. Forcing people to vote even if they aren't well informed is a recipe for tribalized group think.
- crmrc114 5y ago
  The real barrier is a two-party system that only serves the extremes on each side, in the United States at least.
- r00fus 5y ago
  This is not what actually happens. Instead people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side, and choose to vote. When they vote, there are a dozen+ other elections going (most of which a voter doesn't know/care about). Forcing them to choose (ie, they have to opt-out by writing in blank or mickey mouse) would lead to more participation and involvement. Groupthink is already here. Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US.
  - yosito 5y ago
    > people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side Yes, in other words, they get manipulated into tribalized group think. > Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US. There could be many reasons for this other than voting being compulsory.
- dathos 5y ago
  Being able to vote “nothing” might solve that, with the benefit of serving as an indicator whether the subject is clear enough. Wishful thinking though
- atomicnumber3 5y ago
  I can't imagine what tribalized group think in american politics could possibly look like. Sorry. Couldn't resists. Snide aside, they could have it work how corporate voting works, wherein each share gets a vote and each voting session you log in and look at the issues to be voted on, and you are given the choices, alongside which choice is the Board's recommendation, along with the rationale behind it. This could help. Let each party pitch why their choice is the best for each candidate/issue. This doesn't fix the problem of parties lying here, but it's not like we don't already have that problem. That way people can cold-vote and at least have... something to go on. Whereas right now I think people generally just vote R or D. Perfect is the enemy of good here, I think, since what we currently have is fairly pitiful, at least in my opinion. Most voters are uninformed, or perhaps worse, primarily informed by paid advertising and/or Reddit/4chan.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Compulsory voting would just make politics even more about money. Whoever advertised the most would receive a large boost from the voters who normally choose not to vote.

Guest42 5y ago

I feel as though viable 3rd/4th parties in the US would create a more balanced environment. There are times that I abstain from voting because candidates aren’t aligned enough with my viewpoints.

pm90 5y ago
Forced participation would not create another party. Party infrastructure is something that needs to be built up, from local level all the way to the National level. Not impossible but it would require a lot of money, people and drive.
alistairSH 5y ago
We would need election/ballot reform to make that happen. A 2 party system is the expected outcome with FPTP/simple plurality voting. Proportional elections or some flavor of preference voting would allow a 3rd party. In the US, this has led to a literal 2-party system. In the UK and Canada, only the 2 largest/most popular parties of a given time period are typically able to form governments.