3 ms·
> you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show u
by yesenadam 5y ago
> you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you.
> You win elections by convincing your side to show up.
Well, in my country and many others, voting is compulsory, so we don't have this problem.
- Sanzig 5y agoI think I've changed my stance on compulsory voting over the years. My old view was that voting should be as easy as possible (advance polling days, no advance registration requirement, mail-in ballot options), but at the same time it shouldn't be mandatory. I used to view compulsory voting as an impediment to the democratic process: if you aren't motivated enough to vote, why should you get to weigh in? These days, I think compulsory voting may have a whole lot of value as an effective countermeasure to polarization. Political campaigns would be forced to shift from whipping up furor among existing supporters to reaching across partisan divides in order to convince independents and persuadable individuals in the other camps to vote for you. Have there been any studies done in this regard?