2 ms·

>frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. What makes you think t

>frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. >Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries. You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. This isn't moving the goalposts; you simply haven't shown how the compulsory system actually produces better results. Australia isn't exactly known for picking great leadership. I'd say it does better than America, but that's an extremely low bar and easily explained by other factors.

lucubratory 3y ago
>What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. I don't think that at all. Any bourgeois democracy has fundamental failings. I just disagree with your characterisation of compulsory voting as being stupid. >You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. You haven't proven that they're just ticking a box randomly like you originally said. There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters. Yes, another responder here in this thread wrote a good post explaining how this works. It's the best argument I've seen yet for compulsory voting.

lucubratory 3y ago

>What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. I don't think that at all. Any bourgeois democracy has fundamental failings. I just disagree with your characterisation of compulsory voting as being stupid. >You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. You haven't proven that they're just ticking a box randomly like you originally said. There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters.

midoridensha 3y ago
>There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters. Yes, another responder here in this thread wrote a good post explaining how this works. It's the best argument I've seen yet for compulsory voting.