4 ms·

I get you are being sarcastic, but the real problem is people don't vote and you see this at every level of government office. Other than the president, it's ha

I get you are being sarcastic, but the real problem is people don't vote and you see this at every level of government office. Other than the president, it's hard to engage people (which I don't really fault them for) and so you end up with politicians - all across the field - who do nothing but pander to the most extreme voters.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
That's not what he's saying in the quote though, he's mad that the people who are engaged are people that don't agree with him and dismisses voters as "crazy" He even goes as far to call this "broken" — it's literally democracy.
- Zak 3y ago
  A political and electoral system can have elections that are fair in principle but tend to produce results few are happy with in practice even when they voted for the winner. Is that democracy? Well, maybe, but I'd argue it's not doing democracy very well. US presidential elections come to mind; the likely nominees of both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority in polls, but one of them is almost certainly going to win.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    US presidential elections aren't "really" democracy IMO, we've had a long string of presidents that didn't even win the popular vote
- rstuart4133 3y ago
  > it's literally democracy. I guess it is the formal definition. In Australia we have a slightly different version. We don't prevent the crazies from voting. Instead we insist everyone must vote, including the crazies. Turns out when you do that the non-crazy voters outnumber the rest by a considerable margin. A weird thing happens when you make voting compulsory. Another bunch, which I now regard as crazy, insists they should be free to not vote. They get fined. (I have a vision of what would happen in the USA if someone proposed compulsory voting. It's far left and far right politicians who would be thrown out if the centre voted, inciting their following to riot in the streets, shouting "Freedom!") It's kinda funny, because they are allowed to not vote. The actual requirement isn't to vote because it's impossible to police. The requirement is to turn up at the polling place and have your name recorded. You can write whatever you damned well please on the voting slip. After most elections the country gets to have a laugh at the insults and pornographic images that have been inscribed on those slips. It's also funny because these crazies are insisting they have a right to not participate in the democracy. And they don't. Those that do participate then pass rules to fine them, and the non-participants get pissed off about that and demonstrate their now white hot anger by not voting again. And I bet you thought I was being harsh for calling them crazy. It's like watching someone put their hand in a fire, and not remove it because it hurts. And that is an excellent example of why compulsory voting works. The voices of the crazies literally get drowned out by the people who would otherwise be too lazy to vote. Or perhaps they just figure they are in the centre, know stuff all about the candidates, and most other people are reasonable like them so they won't change the outcome. But it turns out if most normal, reasonable, uninformed people remove themselves from machinery of democracy, what you get left with is crazies voting for crazies.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    If people are too lazy to vote and yet complain about the outcome of elections... who's really the crazy one?
    - Vegenoid 3y ago
      The point is that most people just aren't that engaged with politics, period. Most people who aren't voting aren't complaining about who is getting voted in.
    - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
      How is that crazy? I doubt that national elections usually have voting margins of a single vote.
  - bigger_cheese 3y ago
    I'm also Australian but I do not think our style of compulsory voting would be popular in the US, my understanding is the way elections are managed in the US suppresses the voter turnout. For example in the US they have their elections on a Tuesday (in Australia it is a Saturday), this strikes me as suboptimal if you want the most people to vote then you should hold the election at a time that is convenient for the largest number of people, which is not in the middle of a regular working day. Australia also has pre-polling (i.e. you can turn up to a polling station and vote before the nominated "election day") and Postal voting (both of which are to my understanding extremely controversial in the US). I believe in the US you also need to register to vote and you have to take steps to maintain your registration. again that is an added barrier that creates more friction. Australia also has Preferential voting, I do not believe US elections use this method.
Affric 3y ago
Compulsory voting is an option.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Most people already don't vote voluntarily. Forcing the uninformed and uninterested to vote has never yielded better results by any measure.
  - pas 3y ago
    it would at least help with making voting the default, also it would be normal to insert it into a schedule for employers, have enough polling places, etc. (okay, okay, I know, of course it's terminal naivete, fascist cumbombs would continue to smear their nastiness all over anyway. yet defaults matter. laws matter.)
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      In california you have two weeks to vote in some precincts. Its more time consuming to buy milk than it is to vote for many.
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    that's an interesting theory but nearly impossible to prove, thus safe from scrutiny?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  The issue is voters are uneducated. You get compulsory voting you get the same issue with the california prop system scaled out: where people are given a choice and vote on what feels right from the proposition name and two sentence description alone. Research and looking into bias be damned.
  - Affric 3y ago
    No, it's not. Compulsory voting drives engagement. Representative democracy saves the public from themselves. The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

That's not what he's saying in the quote though, he's mad that the people who are engaged are people that don't agree with him and dismisses voters as "crazy" He even goes as far to call this "broken" — it's literally democracy.

Zak 3y ago
A political and electoral system can have elections that are fair in principle but tend to produce results few are happy with in practice even when they voted for the winner. Is that democracy? Well, maybe, but I'd argue it's not doing democracy very well. US presidential elections come to mind; the likely nominees of both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority in polls, but one of them is almost certainly going to win.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  US presidential elections aren't "really" democracy IMO, we've had a long string of presidents that didn't even win the popular vote
rstuart4133 3y ago
> it's literally democracy. I guess it is the formal definition. In Australia we have a slightly different version. We don't prevent the crazies from voting. Instead we insist everyone must vote, including the crazies. Turns out when you do that the non-crazy voters outnumber the rest by a considerable margin. A weird thing happens when you make voting compulsory. Another bunch, which I now regard as crazy, insists they should be free to not vote. They get fined. (I have a vision of what would happen in the USA if someone proposed compulsory voting. It's far left and far right politicians who would be thrown out if the centre voted, inciting their following to riot in the streets, shouting "Freedom!") It's kinda funny, because they are allowed to not vote. The actual requirement isn't to vote because it's impossible to police. The requirement is to turn up at the polling place and have your name recorded. You can write whatever you damned well please on the voting slip. After most elections the country gets to have a laugh at the insults and pornographic images that have been inscribed on those slips. It's also funny because these crazies are insisting they have a right to not participate in the democracy. And they don't. Those that do participate then pass rules to fine them, and the non-participants get pissed off about that and demonstrate their now white hot anger by not voting again. And I bet you thought I was being harsh for calling them crazy. It's like watching someone put their hand in a fire, and not remove it because it hurts. And that is an excellent example of why compulsory voting works. The voices of the crazies literally get drowned out by the people who would otherwise be too lazy to vote. Or perhaps they just figure they are in the centre, know stuff all about the candidates, and most other people are reasonable like them so they won't change the outcome. But it turns out if most normal, reasonable, uninformed people remove themselves from machinery of democracy, what you get left with is crazies voting for crazies.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  If people are too lazy to vote and yet complain about the outcome of elections... who's really the crazy one?
  - Vegenoid 3y ago
    The point is that most people just aren't that engaged with politics, period. Most people who aren't voting aren't complaining about who is getting voted in.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    How is that crazy? I doubt that national elections usually have voting margins of a single vote.
- bigger_cheese 3y ago
  I'm also Australian but I do not think our style of compulsory voting would be popular in the US, my understanding is the way elections are managed in the US suppresses the voter turnout. For example in the US they have their elections on a Tuesday (in Australia it is a Saturday), this strikes me as suboptimal if you want the most people to vote then you should hold the election at a time that is convenient for the largest number of people, which is not in the middle of a regular working day. Australia also has pre-polling (i.e. you can turn up to a polling station and vote before the nominated "election day") and Postal voting (both of which are to my understanding extremely controversial in the US). I believe in the US you also need to register to vote and you have to take steps to maintain your registration. again that is an added barrier that creates more friction. Australia also has Preferential voting, I do not believe US elections use this method.

Affric 3y ago

Compulsory voting is an option.

infamouscow 3y ago
Most people already don't vote voluntarily. Forcing the uninformed and uninterested to vote has never yielded better results by any measure.
- pas 3y ago
  it would at least help with making voting the default, also it would be normal to insert it into a schedule for employers, have enough polling places, etc. (okay, okay, I know, of course it's terminal naivete, fascist cumbombs would continue to smear their nastiness all over anyway. yet defaults matter. laws matter.)
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    In california you have two weeks to vote in some precincts. Its more time consuming to buy milk than it is to vote for many.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  that's an interesting theory but nearly impossible to prove, thus safe from scrutiny?
kjkjadksj 3y ago
The issue is voters are uneducated. You get compulsory voting you get the same issue with the california prop system scaled out: where people are given a choice and vote on what feels right from the proposition name and two sentence description alone. Research and looking into bias be damned.
- Affric 3y ago
  No, it's not. Compulsory voting drives engagement. Representative democracy saves the public from themselves. The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.