4 ms·

And that’s fantastic. It provides impetus to the government to make it as frictionless as possible. It means I can be in and out within 5 minutes.

by NamTaf 5y ago

jolux 5y ago
> It provides impetus to the government to make it as frictionless as possible. Ahahahaha. Have you tried dealing with American bureaucracy? None of it is frictionless, it’s all horribly inefficient and fragmented, and one party is steadfastly committed to keeping it that way, and the other party only vaguely recognizes how big of a problem it is. Voting needs to be made easier, but making it compulsory would not automatically do that. edit: besides which, voting already takes me only about 5 minutes. The problem is that that experience, which I have as a wealthy white person in a liberal suburb of a blue state, is not universal.
- NamTaf 5y ago
  I was talking about Australian voting, given the post to which I replied talked about Australian voting. Specifically, I was pointing out that in Australia, compulsory voting is great. I don’t really know about the US’s ghoulish pantomime that is government, but at least here, the understanding that one can be fined for not voting comes with the societal expectation that the roadblocks to doing so will be cleared as much as possible by them, across the board, to everyone. That way, people who fail to vote fail to do so by their own choice and thus the fine is not farcical. Australia’s government understands and honours that.
  - jolux 5y ago
    It’s possible it could be a good idea, I suppose I’m just cynical that it could be implemented in a way that doesn’t end up further alienating those who don’t vote — mostly poor people. I’m also somewhat worried in this political climate that such a measure could start another civil war, for one thing, and that at minimum there would need to be federal military intervention to enforce it in southern states, as in the 1960s. The Supreme Court would also need to be packed, because the justices currently holding the majority would never support it (they gutted the Voting Rights Act with no pretense of legal argument eight years ago merely because it was an ideological goal).
- sidlls 5y ago
  > one party is steadfastly committed to keeping it that way, and the other party only vaguely recognizes how big of a problem it is. Not quite: the other party is committed to keeping it that way, too, but is also content to let the first party be the fall-guy for its efforts. The two parties both play for the same team. They're in a big club you might say, and we're not in it (apologies to Carlin for my poor rendition of his skit).
  - jolux 5y ago
    It’s pretty clear this isn’t the case. It was more true 20 years ago, but polarization has been increasing rapidly. How are they playing for the same team if they can’t agree on anything anymore?
    - sidlls 5y ago
      You’re mistaking appearances for reality. The rhetoric is different today, but the substance isn’t much different from 20 or even 30 years ago.
      - jolux 5y ago
        This isn’t just rhetoric. They literally can’t get bills passed except through budget reconciliation, and Republicans will not confirm any Democratic judicial appointments while they hold the senate. Legislative gridlock has fully set in.

And that’s fantastic. It provides impetus to the government to make it as frictionless as possible. It means I can be in and out within 5 minutes.

by NamTaf 5y ago

And that’s fantastic. It provides impetus to the government to make it as frictionless as possible. It means I can be in and out within 5 minutes.

jolux 5y ago

> It provides impetus to the government to make it as frictionless as possible. Ahahahaha. Have you tried dealing with American bureaucracy? None of it is frictionless, it’s all horribly inefficient and fragmented, and one party is steadfastly committed to keeping it that way, and the other party only vaguely recognizes how big of a problem it is. Voting needs to be made easier, but making it compulsory would not automatically do that. edit: besides which, voting already takes me only about 5 minutes. The problem is that that experience, which I have as a wealthy white person in a liberal suburb of a blue state, is not universal.

NamTaf 5y ago
I was talking about Australian voting, given the post to which I replied talked about Australian voting. Specifically, I was pointing out that in Australia, compulsory voting is great. I don’t really know about the US’s ghoulish pantomime that is government, but at least here, the understanding that one can be fined for not voting comes with the societal expectation that the roadblocks to doing so will be cleared as much as possible by them, across the board, to everyone. That way, people who fail to vote fail to do so by their own choice and thus the fine is not farcical. Australia’s government understands and honours that.
- jolux 5y ago
  It’s possible it could be a good idea, I suppose I’m just cynical that it could be implemented in a way that doesn’t end up further alienating those who don’t vote — mostly poor people. I’m also somewhat worried in this political climate that such a measure could start another civil war, for one thing, and that at minimum there would need to be federal military intervention to enforce it in southern states, as in the 1960s. The Supreme Court would also need to be packed, because the justices currently holding the majority would never support it (they gutted the Voting Rights Act with no pretense of legal argument eight years ago merely because it was an ideological goal).
sidlls 5y ago
> one party is steadfastly committed to keeping it that way, and the other party only vaguely recognizes how big of a problem it is. Not quite: the other party is committed to keeping it that way, too, but is also content to let the first party be the fall-guy for its efforts. The two parties both play for the same team. They're in a big club you might say, and we're not in it (apologies to Carlin for my poor rendition of his skit).
- jolux 5y ago
  It’s pretty clear this isn’t the case. It was more true 20 years ago, but polarization has been increasing rapidly. How are they playing for the same team if they can’t agree on anything anymore?
  - sidlls 5y ago
    You’re mistaking appearances for reality. The rhetoric is different today, but the substance isn’t much different from 20 or even 30 years ago.
    - jolux 5y ago
      This isn’t just rhetoric. They literally can’t get bills passed except through budget reconciliation, and Republicans will not confirm any Democratic judicial appointments while they hold the senate. Legislative gridlock has fully set in.