3 ms·
Another unpopular opinion (that I don't strongly hold but often think about) - but isn't a little voter friction a good thing? Voting friction (a little, not a
by umvi 5y ago
Another unpopular opinion (that I don't strongly hold but often think about) - but isn't a little voter friction a good thing? Voting friction (a little, not a lot) acts like a filter. It filters for voters who want to participate in democracy and make an effort to do so. In other words, I question the assumption that the more frictionless the voting, the healthier the democracy.
For example, if commenting on a website were truly frictionless (i.e. anonymous users could post without an account), the quality of the discussion would go to pot and the signal-to-noise ratio would dramatically deteriorate. A small barrier to entry (sign-in required) increases the quality/signal-to-noise by a large factor even if it "disenfranchises" some people that would have otherwise commented but couldn't because they didn't have time to create an account.
In that same vein, I think that if you make voting too easy you'll increase "noise" of the ballots, since lots of people that otherwise wouldn't have voted are now submitting low-effort ballots with essentially random bubbles filled in (other than perhaps the most prominent candidate). If it's not unreasonable to require users of websites to create an account before they can participate, why is it unreasonable to essentially require the same thing before contributing to the government of a nation?
- _dark_matter_ 5y agoIt's reasonable to have a discussion about voter friction and whether it can be advantageous to democracy. The point of the parent though is that changes to voter laws discriminate in friction; that is, some groups are more affected than others. When friction is applied unevenly, it becomes disenfranchisement.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- XorNot 5y agoAny voter friction is an attack on democracy. What you deem "adequate" friction is just your opinion that only "the right people" can vote. Maybe that's an opinion that people should have to put on clothes to go vote, but then, if this was actually a lot of people, don't they deserve a societal voice? Democracy is only democracy when everyone has the vote, because otherwise it's just another variant of the King asking his small council.
- tbrownaw 5y agoIs having a constitution an attack on democracy? It does after all mean that there are times the will of the majority won't be respected.
- poutrathor 5y agoFuck it, babies should vote, the ballot they try to eat is their choice. Fight me XorNot
- ipython 5y agoWhat would you consider to be “enough” friction? Equating voting to commenting on Internet forums is a bit disingenuous IMO. I mean, if you had to register at your local government internet commenter office at least a few days or even months before commenting, then show up on a given day to comment long hand in person after waiting in line, perhaps you would have a point. My point is that we already have significant friction built into the process of voting. I think a more interesting thought experiment is around compulsory voting. Making the incentives work the other way- where you’re expected to participate in the process. I wonder if people would take it more seriously if you had penalties for not participating?
- tbrownaw 5y agoVoting isn't and can't be free in the "throwaway internet comment" sense, since there's always the cost of having to live with whoever wins for however long there term is.