8 ms·

>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnou

>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representing people. Figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...

throwpoaster 2y ago
[flagged]
- hshshshshsh 2y ago
  No information statement.
noduerme 2y ago
Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.
- alkonaut 2y ago
  Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
  - geraldwhen 2y ago
    [dead]
    - dijit 2y ago
      Since this is illegal in most western democracies, I would have told the police if I had witnessed this. In fact, in the UK the polling staff are told that they need to assess the competence of the person voting ahead of time and that the person voting must do so alone and without duress, else they should not permit the vote to be accepted. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/work-elections/working-a-polling-station https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/... > You’ll talk to voters as they arrive and make sure they know what to do. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Polling-station-handbook-UKPE.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/p... > The role of polling station staff is to ensure that voters are able to cast their vote in secret, free from influence and in a calm atmosphere.
      - geraldwhen 2y ago
        In the US I suspect it’s common. In states with mail in voting, I suspect the fraud is even worse. Yes a real person voted. But no they did not have any clue what they were doing when they did.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      You should see how security handles drunk people at the slot machines in Vegas. Just recently a friend saw them come over, prop up a dead drunk guy, reach into his pocket, put money in his hand and help him feed it into the machine. (My response was: That security guard should get a raise; you really need more minimum wage employees who care that much about the company /s)
      - geraldwhen 2y ago
        Gambling against the house is a sad sight. But security maneuvering a passed out drunk person is much worse still.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      That's pretty representative of the elected: congresspeople and presidential candidates who are far too old and steered around by advisors.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    This is an excellent point. Turnout may be an important signal which is lost with compulsory voting, and certainly any politician trying to suppress votes is dishonest. To play devil's advocate and to argue for compulsory voting for a moment, however: It is a potential antidote to the type of voter apathy by which a somewhat demoralized but popular party (e.g. Democrats in the last US election) put themselves out of power by not being as motivated as a smaller group. So while knowing the width of the motivation gap is useful, a polity could also just compel everyone to vote and then ask if they would have done so if not compelled, to get that information. Which is worse: Inaccurate data about voters' excitement, or sudden and surprising political shifts because people were sure they didn't need to go out to vote because they assumed their party had the majority? Without compulsory voting, only those with strong motivation will vote - and there is no guarantee that an outsized motivation on one extreme side of the spectrum will not drastically and surprisingly take over if most people felt safe staying home. Austria right now seems to be a good example.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      Not voting is a poor way to show dissent since it practically gives your vote to whoever gets the majority. Better then to vote for yourself, vote blank, vote for whoever you would rather have in charge, or vote for the least bad.
      - alkonaut 2y ago
        Yes. It's important to vote IF you think the elections are legitimate and fair. By voting (blank, for yourself, for Mickey Mouse) you say "I didn't like any of the candidates, but I'm ready to accept the result of the majority", thereby giving more legitimacy to whoever is elected. Not voting can be dissent (I disagree with the process, I don't think it's fair etc) or simply apathy. But in either case it gives less legitimacy to whoever is elected. And that's important: if you don't think it's a fair election/process then you don't want to give the legitimacy.
        sixstringtheory 2y ago
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Not really: Voters can still choose to "not participate" (whether as protest or laziness) simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. If anything, the signal you're talking about becomes stronger, since a compulsory-voting system removes or reduces certain practical impediments which have nothing to do with deliberate protest.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      > simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. The signals are different. I cast a blank vote to indicate my support for the process/election, but my lack of support for any of the candidates. I cast no vote to indicate my lack of support for the process itself. Non-voters and blank/invalid voters are usually reported separately to give exactly these 2 signals.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
        I wonder how well a system would work if it had compulsory voting, but there was always a 'none of the above' option on the ballet. If 'none of the above' gets the most votes or above a certain threshold, the current candidates are disqualified and another election is called with new ones.
        kaycey2022 2y ago
        Yes. Once that is in place you’ll realise that most people aren’t cynical about their politics and would always choose a candidate since they choose to make a trip to the voting booth.
        Vilian 2y ago
        Make it compulsory them, if they don't like it gonna show
      - fifilura 2y ago
        Your vote would have been stronger if you actually voted for change of the process. By not voting you are just voting for the strongest candidate. And chaos.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion. The US has a long history of voter suppression, which is often supported by the remaining voters. There's a lot of court cases about it; states will fight hard to reduce the impact of the ""wrong kind"" of voters.
  - Narkov 2y ago
    > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Why on earth would you prefer a signal of legitimacy over 70/80/90% vote participation? Get people engaged.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      Is that rhetorical? It's the de-facto choice in most liberal democracies for exactly the reason I mentioned.
      - rstuart4133 2y ago
        Do you have a citation for this, or is it just something you've come to believe?
        alkonaut 2y ago
        Come to believe, only. But the arguments for and against are pretty clearly laid out each time there is an election (and of course any other time like https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/compulsory-voting https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/...) (It's far from the only reason states don't use compulsory voting, I should say. There are many reasons both to have compulsory voting, and many arguments against. But the fact I was trying to point to was that the vast majority of countries don't use mandatory voting - because, one must assume, they feel the cons outweigh the pros)
        rstuart4133 2y ago
        I'll change a few words, and hopefully illustrate why "[countries] feel the cons out weight the pros", doesn't look the most likely explanation to me: "There are many reasons both to have gerrymander and not have gerrymander. The USA has gerrymander, because, one must assume, the USA feels the pros outweigh the cons." Countries don't make the laws. They delegate that job to politicians. It should come as no surprise that even for an obviously anti-democratic practice like gerrymander, politicians get away with adding laws that favour them personally over democracy. As for the arguments on www.idea.int, they say the leading one is "the leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy". It's a circular argument. You don't have complete freedom under democracy, and there is no definitive list of freedoms democracy does give you. It varies from country to country. In some countries you don't have the freedom to not vote. So the argument made is really: "the leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with definition of democracy I just made up". The other argument they raise is "random votes". True, there are random votes - 7.3% according to them. But that 7.3% is swamped by the 40% of additional voters in the USA who vote if you had compulsory voting. Besides, I'm suspicious of that 7.3% figure. In Australia we measure these things as best we can, and the figure is 1% .. 2%. Informal votes are around 5%, which if you add them together does bring the total to 7%. A vote is counted as informal votes when it's impossible to determine the voters intentions. Some are deliberate protests, but it seems most are just mistakes. In any case, they aren't "random votes" and don't effect the outcome directly so the 7.3% figure is misleading. I've never head an Australian (where we do have compulsory voting) make what www.idea.int says is the leading argument for compulsory voting, which is that "decisions made by democratically elected governments are more legitimate when higher". Again, since I've never seen a solid definition of "legitimately elected government", I suspect it also suffers from the "definition I just made up" problem. I fact I've never heard anyone make any of the arguments on www.idea.int's list. What Australians do say is it makes detecting many types of voting fraud easier, because it becomes trivially easy to check people votes just once: count the votes. Because detecting voting fraud is easy, there are no stringent ID checks. You just turn up, no ID required, get your name crossed off the electoral roll, get your ballot paper and vote (or not). So it in compulsory effect makes it easier to cast a vote. It also makes voter disenfranchisement much harder for a pollie to pull off, because people start yelling loudly if they cop a fine because someone makes it near impossible. Surprise, surprise, disenfranchisement is common in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... It's not a thing in Australia. Those are clear and obvious effects. A debatable one that I think is true is it pulls the vote toward the centre. The people pushing for extreme views always vote because they want things to change. Those that are happy with things as they are sometimes assume it will continue if they do nothing.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Total utter rubbish. Australia has compulsory voting .. meaning 98% of people turn up or mail in a "vote" and have a barbeque on the day. The "signal" you falsely claim to be missing is right there in the donkey votes and duds - anybody that objects to the candidates presented is free to draw a dick and balls on the ballot or pencil in a candidate of their choice .. and that signal is anonymous, counted and logged.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      > anybody that objects to the candidates presented You are missing the point. It's not about objecting to candidates. It's two separate signals sent by on the one hand abstaining, and on the other hand filling out a blank votes. Blank vote means "I think this is a legitimate election, I just don't like any of the candidates". The distinction between these two signals is important enough that most democracies around the world preserve it by not having compulsory voting.
  - akdor1154 2y ago
    > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Australia has compulsory voting and retains this: the legal req is to show up and get your name marked off. If you wish to communicate your dissatisfaction with the available candidates, then you then fill out your ballot with a giant penis and go on your merry way.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      Sounds like you could do well in Australian politics by just changing your name to a penis emoji.
  - ropable 2y ago
    Couldn't disagree harder. "Participation indicates the legitimacy" is an absurd inference, and does not follow at all. By this argument, non-participation indicates a preference for a non-voting alternative (such as hereditary rule).
- eru 2y ago
  My adopted home of Singapore has something like compulsory voting. But the only punishment you get for not voting is at most a small fine and that you have to jump through some hoops to get on the register of voters again. But it seems to work in practice to get people to turn out.
roenxi 2y ago
Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions. Lot of great people of average intelligence. They should not be trying to involve themselves in governance. There should be no expectation or need that they get involved. Average people make poor decisions vs the unusually intelligent. Political discourse should elevate, not mean-regress. The magic of voting is that most people vote for a side in a semi-random manner and cancel each other out harmlessly.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I agree on the principle, but I want to argue a small point. You say intelligence, when I think an average IQ person who studies policy as a hobby and puts time and effort into being informed will be vastly more capable of proper governance than a 115-120IQ person who doesn’t put the time in. I think the main thing here is education and information distribution and how (in our case, poorly) we set up the infrastructure and social mechanisms to perform these.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Well ... if I were going to be precise, I'd prefer that people with >110IQ, Stage 5 on Bob Kagen's 5-stage adult development model, had an interest in politics, a well developed sense of fairness and evidence-based beliefs were running the show. But that is a big ask and I might not like it when I see it. Either way, encouraging stupid people to participate is not the way. At best it is a harmless no-change manoeuvre.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I’d like to see that too, but the way to get citizens with the qualities you desire is, imo, infrastructural and not best done via a filter. Currently, we churn people out of high schools half literate then feed them profit-driven slop on their tvs and phones, then we expect them to somehow make cogent political decisions. I don’t know this for a fact, but my intuition is that if you improved the relevant infrastructure you’d produce a majority population capable of pretty solid political thought, where your solutions more resemble band-aids with undemocratic side-effects. It would be harmless if you did it perfectly, but any real-world anti-voter filter or social pressure would inevitably be used for undesirable, irrational ends.
photonthug 2y ago
>> 34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Why? I think that Gilens 2005[1] and Gilens 2014[2] are the references that people usually cite to argue that America is an oligarchy. The 2nd paper made a splash at the time, see for example this summary[3]. There were some attempts at rebuttals that seemed silly even back then, but regardless of what you think about the argument 1 or 2 decades ago, wealth concentration has accelerated, so.. hmm. If voting has little chance of winning you your policy preferences even when you do get your preferred candidate, there is little good that may come of it but many potential negatives such as: junk mail, jury duty, the smoldering eternal hatred of your differently aligned friends/family, drafted into the coming great space war, etc [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3521574 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3521574 [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
apexalpha 2y ago
Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. You'd have to be a dogmatic believer of civic duty to stand in line for hour just to vote R or D in a state that will go the other way with 30% difference...
- xocnad 2y ago
  There is a solution to presidential elections for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters....
  - quintushoratius 2y ago
    As if presidential elections are the only elections, or even the only ones that matter. What the prior commenter meant is that in some jurisdictions it's pointless to vote against one of the parties because they win so overwhelmingly. For example, I live in Massachusetts. The legislature is 95% one party. There's no point in being in another party, you'll never get elected and your vote won't change the outcome. It sounds like a dream if it's "your" party but without inter-party tension there are a lot of shenanigans that go on. Your municipal and state elections are, by a wide margin, the most consequential to your daily life. Congressional representatives have a moderate importance. Who is elected president has the least impact to your daily life, and to the laws and politics of the country, of any person you ever vote for. It's actually tiny, even if some people would like you to think it's everything.
    - xocnad 2y ago
      There are down election solutions, unfortunately most are as likely to succeed as the electoral compact. Non-paetisan definition of district boundaries for US and state legislatures, and ranked choice voting for these and more local elections. Gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy. Unfortunately it is self perpetuating.
- finnthehuman 2y ago
  > Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. The problem is that it's also "what point is there in voting D in California?" All this great shit the D's talk about never seems to manifest in the states they solidly control. (Also, if you're hung up on the fact I'm bagging on the home team, that's just the state the parent poster mentioned, mentally invert R and D and substitute a southern state).
lapcat 2y ago
A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controlled by competing factions of the wealthy. The voters are merely pawns in their game. The fact that Jeff Atwood can make $8 million in political donations just underlines the fact that I am powerless compared to him. We may have equal say on election day, but people like Atwood have vastly disproportionatal say on legislation days. Putting money into politics is the problem, not the solution to the problem. If the "American Dream", according to Jeff Atwood, is to become much wealthier than one's fellows, that's inherently anti-democratic.
- fifilura 2y ago
  Seeing it from the outside, i can understand. There was a lot of Musk/Thiel billions here, Kamala spending surge there, George Clooney, Taylor Swift. (And now this guy who will spend more millions) Wasn't the intention that you could not buy a democratic election? The real winners here must be Ad providers (google/facebook) and television networks.
  - zephyrfalcon 2y ago
    Taylor Swift didn't donate anything to either party. (as far as we know)
- jongalloway2 2y ago
  The post specifically calls out wealth concentration (e.g. becoming wealthier than one's fellows) as a major problem, and the donations are focused on working against that. Review the list of dentations, as you may have missed that these are organizations that help people in need rather than, say, recent examples of billionaires buying votes.
  - lapcat 2y ago
micromacrofoot 2y ago
> If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone I mean... is the definition of "everyone" really up for debate? 60% is only a little more than half
disambiguation 2y ago
On top of that, swing state turn out was like 70%. Goes to show more people turn up when their vote could make a difference.
- coryfklein 2y ago
  I wonder how much real difference you get in the statistical sampling margin of error when going from 58% to 70%. How much accuracy does that buy in the election outcome for the extra time that additional 12% of the population spent?
JeremyNT 2y ago
Right, this system of government is obviously not working very well at representing the will of the people currently, nor has it ever. You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. The obvious things to reach for are the electoral college (where votes simply don't matter unless you live in a swing state) and the two party "system" (where you have to vote for an omnibus which will definitely have things you disagree with). But it's just plain rotten. The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy.
- euroderf 2y ago
  > The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy. Well, that's because they know how to invest wisely in lawmakers. Fabulous ROI.
  - pas 2y ago
    meh, not really. maybe it's good when you are at that level. Jeff and Elon both spent a ridiculous amount, but arguably smart money like the Koch brothers are just making nice influence campaigns with a lot less, and of course the same goes for state-level actors. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
- coryfklein 2y ago
  > You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. Maybe because statistically speaking your individual vote does not in fact matter? And that's a principle that applies equally to the left/right. For every marginal non-voter in your preferred party you get to vote, there's a marginal non-voter in the opposite party that somebody else is trying to get out to vote. Put another way, we could intentionally reduce the sample size and mandate that only 33% of adults vote in any given election, and we'd reduce the statistical confidence in the election result very little. Any given individual's singular vote (which is likely nullified by the marginal person in the opposite party) just has so little impact compared to Atwood's $8m political contribution that it's a rounding error.

throwpoaster 2y ago

[flagged]

hshshshshsh 2y ago
No information statement.

noduerme 2y ago

Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.

alkonaut 2y ago
Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
- geraldwhen 2y ago
  [dead]
  - dijit 2y ago
    Since this is illegal in most western democracies, I would have told the police if I had witnessed this. In fact, in the UK the polling staff are told that they need to assess the competence of the person voting ahead of time and that the person voting must do so alone and without duress, else they should not permit the vote to be accepted. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/work-elections/working-a-polling-station https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/... > You’ll talk to voters as they arrive and make sure they know what to do. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Polling-station-handbook-UKPE.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/p... > The role of polling station staff is to ensure that voters are able to cast their vote in secret, free from influence and in a calm atmosphere.
    - geraldwhen 2y ago
      In the US I suspect it’s common. In states with mail in voting, I suspect the fraud is even worse. Yes a real person voted. But no they did not have any clue what they were doing when they did.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    You should see how security handles drunk people at the slot machines in Vegas. Just recently a friend saw them come over, prop up a dead drunk guy, reach into his pocket, put money in his hand and help him feed it into the machine. (My response was: That security guard should get a raise; you really need more minimum wage employees who care that much about the company /s)
    - geraldwhen 2y ago
      Gambling against the house is a sad sight. But security maneuvering a passed out drunk person is much worse still.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    That's pretty representative of the elected: congresspeople and presidential candidates who are far too old and steered around by advisors.
- noduerme 2y ago
  This is an excellent point. Turnout may be an important signal which is lost with compulsory voting, and certainly any politician trying to suppress votes is dishonest. To play devil's advocate and to argue for compulsory voting for a moment, however: It is a potential antidote to the type of voter apathy by which a somewhat demoralized but popular party (e.g. Democrats in the last US election) put themselves out of power by not being as motivated as a smaller group. So while knowing the width of the motivation gap is useful, a polity could also just compel everyone to vote and then ask if they would have done so if not compelled, to get that information. Which is worse: Inaccurate data about voters' excitement, or sudden and surprising political shifts because people were sure they didn't need to go out to vote because they assumed their party had the majority? Without compulsory voting, only those with strong motivation will vote - and there is no guarantee that an outsized motivation on one extreme side of the spectrum will not drastically and surprisingly take over if most people felt safe staying home. Austria right now seems to be a good example.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    Not voting is a poor way to show dissent since it practically gives your vote to whoever gets the majority. Better then to vote for yourself, vote blank, vote for whoever you would rather have in charge, or vote for the least bad.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      Yes. It's important to vote IF you think the elections are legitimate and fair. By voting (blank, for yourself, for Mickey Mouse) you say "I didn't like any of the candidates, but I'm ready to accept the result of the majority", thereby giving more legitimacy to whoever is elected. Not voting can be dissent (I disagree with the process, I don't think it's fair etc) or simply apathy. But in either case it gives less legitimacy to whoever is elected. And that's important: if you don't think it's a fair election/process then you don't want to give the legitimacy.
      - sixstringtheory 2y ago
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Not really: Voters can still choose to "not participate" (whether as protest or laziness) simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. If anything, the signal you're talking about becomes stronger, since a compulsory-voting system removes or reduces certain practical impediments which have nothing to do with deliberate protest.
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    > simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. The signals are different. I cast a blank vote to indicate my support for the process/election, but my lack of support for any of the candidates. I cast no vote to indicate my lack of support for the process itself. Non-voters and blank/invalid voters are usually reported separately to give exactly these 2 signals.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      I wonder how well a system would work if it had compulsory voting, but there was always a 'none of the above' option on the ballet. If 'none of the above' gets the most votes or above a certain threshold, the current candidates are disqualified and another election is called with new ones.
      - kaycey2022 2y ago
        Yes. Once that is in place you’ll realise that most people aren’t cynical about their politics and would always choose a candidate since they choose to make a trip to the voting booth.
        Vilian 2y ago
        Make it compulsory them, if they don't like it gonna show
    - fifilura 2y ago
      Your vote would have been stronger if you actually voted for change of the process. By not voting you are just voting for the strongest candidate. And chaos.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion. The US has a long history of voter suppression, which is often supported by the remaining voters. There's a lot of court cases about it; states will fight hard to reduce the impact of the ""wrong kind"" of voters.
- Narkov 2y ago
  > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Why on earth would you prefer a signal of legitimacy over 70/80/90% vote participation? Get people engaged.
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    Is that rhetorical? It's the de-facto choice in most liberal democracies for exactly the reason I mentioned.
    - rstuart4133 2y ago
      Do you have a citation for this, or is it just something you've come to believe?
      - alkonaut 2y ago
        Come to believe, only. But the arguments for and against are pretty clearly laid out each time there is an election (and of course any other time like https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/compulsory-voting https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/...) (It's far from the only reason states don't use compulsory voting, I should say. There are many reasons both to have compulsory voting, and many arguments against. But the fact I was trying to point to was that the vast majority of countries don't use mandatory voting - because, one must assume, they feel the cons outweigh the pros)
        rstuart4133 2y ago
        I'll change a few words, and hopefully illustrate why "[countries] feel the cons out weight the pros", doesn't look the most likely explanation to me: "There are many reasons both to have gerrymander and not have gerrymander. The USA has gerrymander, because, one must assume, the USA feels the pros outweigh the cons." Countries don't make the laws. They delegate that job to politicians. It should come as no surprise that even for an obviously anti-democratic practice like gerrymander, politicians get away with adding laws that favour them personally over democracy. As for the arguments on www.idea.int, they say the leading one is "the leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy". It's a circular argument. You don't have complete freedom under democracy, and there is no definitive list of freedoms democracy does give you. It varies from country to country. In some countries you don't have the freedom to not vote. So the argument made is really: "the leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with definition of democracy I just made up". The other argument they raise is "random votes". True, there are random votes - 7.3% according to them. But that 7.3% is swamped by the 40% of additional voters in the USA who vote if you had compulsory voting. Besides, I'm suspicious of that 7.3% figure. In Australia we measure these things as best we can, and the figure is 1% .. 2%. Informal votes are around 5%, which if you add them together does bring the total to 7%. A vote is counted as informal votes when it's impossible to determine the voters intentions. Some are deliberate protests, but it seems most are just mistakes. In any case, they aren't "random votes" and don't effect the outcome directly so the 7.3% figure is misleading. I've never head an Australian (where we do have compulsory voting) make what www.idea.int says is the leading argument for compulsory voting, which is that "decisions made by democratically elected governments are more legitimate when higher". Again, since I've never seen a solid definition of "legitimately elected government", I suspect it also suffers from the "definition I just made up" problem. I fact I've never heard anyone make any of the arguments on www.idea.int's list. What Australians do say is it makes detecting many types of voting fraud easier, because it becomes trivially easy to check people votes just once: count the votes. Because detecting voting fraud is easy, there are no stringent ID checks. You just turn up, no ID required, get your name crossed off the electoral roll, get your ballot paper and vote (or not). So it in compulsory effect makes it easier to cast a vote. It also makes voter disenfranchisement much harder for a pollie to pull off, because people start yelling loudly if they cop a fine because someone makes it near impossible. Surprise, surprise, disenfranchisement is common in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite... It's not a thing in Australia. Those are clear and obvious effects. A debatable one that I think is true is it pulls the vote toward the centre. The people pushing for extreme views always vote because they want things to change. Those that are happy with things as they are sometimes assume it will continue if they do nothing.
- defrost 2y ago
  > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Total utter rubbish. Australia has compulsory voting .. meaning 98% of people turn up or mail in a "vote" and have a barbeque on the day. The "signal" you falsely claim to be missing is right there in the donkey votes and duds - anybody that objects to the candidates presented is free to draw a dick and balls on the ballot or pencil in a candidate of their choice .. and that signal is anonymous, counted and logged.
  - alkonaut 2y ago
    > anybody that objects to the candidates presented You are missing the point. It's not about objecting to candidates. It's two separate signals sent by on the one hand abstaining, and on the other hand filling out a blank votes. Blank vote means "I think this is a legitimate election, I just don't like any of the candidates". The distinction between these two signals is important enough that most democracies around the world preserve it by not having compulsory voting.
- akdor1154 2y ago
  > Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Australia has compulsory voting and retains this: the legal req is to show up and get your name marked off. If you wish to communicate your dissatisfaction with the available candidates, then you then fill out your ballot with a giant penis and go on your merry way.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    Sounds like you could do well in Australian politics by just changing your name to a penis emoji.
- ropable 2y ago
  Couldn't disagree harder. "Participation indicates the legitimacy" is an absurd inference, and does not follow at all. By this argument, non-participation indicates a preference for a non-voting alternative (such as hereditary rule).
eru 2y ago
My adopted home of Singapore has something like compulsory voting. But the only punishment you get for not voting is at most a small fine and that you have to jump through some hoops to get on the register of voters again. But it seems to work in practice to get people to turn out.

roenxi 2y ago

Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions. Lot of great people of average intelligence. They should not be trying to involve themselves in governance. There should be no expectation or need that they get involved. Average people make poor decisions vs the unusually intelligent. Political discourse should elevate, not mean-regress. The magic of voting is that most people vote for a side in a semi-random manner and cancel each other out harmlessly.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I agree on the principle, but I want to argue a small point. You say intelligence, when I think an average IQ person who studies policy as a hobby and puts time and effort into being informed will be vastly more capable of proper governance than a 115-120IQ person who doesn’t put the time in. I think the main thing here is education and information distribution and how (in our case, poorly) we set up the infrastructure and social mechanisms to perform these.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well ... if I were going to be precise, I'd prefer that people with >110IQ, Stage 5 on Bob Kagen's 5-stage adult development model, had an interest in politics, a well developed sense of fairness and evidence-based beliefs were running the show. But that is a big ask and I might not like it when I see it. Either way, encouraging stupid people to participate is not the way. At best it is a harmless no-change manoeuvre.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I’d like to see that too, but the way to get citizens with the qualities you desire is, imo, infrastructural and not best done via a filter. Currently, we churn people out of high schools half literate then feed them profit-driven slop on their tvs and phones, then we expect them to somehow make cogent political decisions. I don’t know this for a fact, but my intuition is that if you improved the relevant infrastructure you’d produce a majority population capable of pretty solid political thought, where your solutions more resemble band-aids with undemocratic side-effects. It would be harmless if you did it perfectly, but any real-world anti-voter filter or social pressure would inevitably be used for undesirable, irrational ends.

photonthug 2y ago

>> 34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Why? I think that Gilens 2005[1] and Gilens 2014[2] are the references that people usually cite to argue that America is an oligarchy. The 2nd paper made a splash at the time, see for example this summary[3]. There were some attempts at rebuttals that seemed silly even back then, but regardless of what you think about the argument 1 or 2 decades ago, wealth concentration has accelerated, so.. hmm. If voting has little chance of winning you your policy preferences even when you do get your preferred candidate, there is little good that may come of it but many potential negatives such as: junk mail, jury duty, the smoldering eternal hatred of your differently aligned friends/family, drafted into the coming great space war, etc [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3521574 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3521574 [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

apexalpha 2y ago

Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. You'd have to be a dogmatic believer of civic duty to stand in line for hour just to vote R or D in a state that will go the other way with 30% difference...

xocnad 2y ago
There is a solution to presidential elections for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters....
- quintushoratius 2y ago
  As if presidential elections are the only elections, or even the only ones that matter. What the prior commenter meant is that in some jurisdictions it's pointless to vote against one of the parties because they win so overwhelmingly. For example, I live in Massachusetts. The legislature is 95% one party. There's no point in being in another party, you'll never get elected and your vote won't change the outcome. It sounds like a dream if it's "your" party but without inter-party tension there are a lot of shenanigans that go on. Your municipal and state elections are, by a wide margin, the most consequential to your daily life. Congressional representatives have a moderate importance. Who is elected president has the least impact to your daily life, and to the laws and politics of the country, of any person you ever vote for. It's actually tiny, even if some people would like you to think it's everything.
  - xocnad 2y ago
    There are down election solutions, unfortunately most are as likely to succeed as the electoral compact. Non-paetisan definition of district boundaries for US and state legislatures, and ranked choice voting for these and more local elections. Gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy. Unfortunately it is self perpetuating.
finnthehuman 2y ago
> Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. The problem is that it's also "what point is there in voting D in California?" All this great shit the D's talk about never seems to manifest in the states they solidly control. (Also, if you're hung up on the fact I'm bagging on the home team, that's just the state the parent poster mentioned, mentally invert R and D and substitute a southern state).

lapcat 2y ago

A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controlled by competing factions of the wealthy. The voters are merely pawns in their game. The fact that Jeff Atwood can make $8 million in political donations just underlines the fact that I am powerless compared to him. We may have equal say on election day, but people like Atwood have vastly disproportionatal say on legislation days. Putting money into politics is the problem, not the solution to the problem. If the "American Dream", according to Jeff Atwood, is to become much wealthier than one's fellows, that's inherently anti-democratic.

fifilura 2y ago
Seeing it from the outside, i can understand. There was a lot of Musk/Thiel billions here, Kamala spending surge there, George Clooney, Taylor Swift. (And now this guy who will spend more millions) Wasn't the intention that you could not buy a democratic election? The real winners here must be Ad providers (google/facebook) and television networks.
- zephyrfalcon 2y ago
  Taylor Swift didn't donate anything to either party. (as far as we know)
jongalloway2 2y ago
The post specifically calls out wealth concentration (e.g. becoming wealthier than one's fellows) as a major problem, and the donations are focused on working against that. Review the list of dentations, as you may have missed that these are organizations that help people in need rather than, say, recent examples of billionaires buying votes.
- lapcat 2y ago

micromacrofoot 2y ago

> If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone I mean... is the definition of "everyone" really up for debate? 60% is only a little more than half

disambiguation 2y ago

On top of that, swing state turn out was like 70%. Goes to show more people turn up when their vote could make a difference.

coryfklein 2y ago
I wonder how much real difference you get in the statistical sampling margin of error when going from 58% to 70%. How much accuracy does that buy in the election outcome for the extra time that additional 12% of the population spent?

JeremyNT 2y ago

Right, this system of government is obviously not working very well at representing the will of the people currently, nor has it ever. You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. The obvious things to reach for are the electoral college (where votes simply don't matter unless you live in a swing state) and the two party "system" (where you have to vote for an omnibus which will definitely have things you disagree with). But it's just plain rotten. The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy.

euroderf 2y ago
> The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy. Well, that's because they know how to invest wisely in lawmakers. Fabulous ROI.
- pas 2y ago
  meh, not really. maybe it's good when you are at that level. Jeff and Elon both spent a ridiculous amount, but arguably smart money like the Koch brothers are just making nice influence campaigns with a lot less, and of course the same goes for state-level actors. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
coryfklein 2y ago
> You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. Maybe because statistically speaking your individual vote does not in fact matter? And that's a principle that applies equally to the left/right. For every marginal non-voter in your preferred party you get to vote, there's a marginal non-voter in the opposite party that somebody else is trying to get out to vote. Put another way, we could intentionally reduce the sample size and mandate that only 33% of adults vote in any given election, and we'd reduce the statistical confidence in the election result very little. Any given individual's singular vote (which is likely nullified by the marginal person in the opposite party) just has so little impact compared to Atwood's $8m political contribution that it's a rounding error.