3 ms·

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 di

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
    Who here believes Trump will pull punches because the election wasn’t satisfactorily legitimizing? If you get killed on the high ground, you’re still dead.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    I don't think you've adapted to the level of motivated reasoning in current politics: if people want to declare the election illegitimate, they will do so, and they can make up claims about how it's illegitimate faster than you can debunk them.
alkonaut 2y ago
Yes I agree, in the US specifically it would proabably be the lesser evil to have compulsory voting. And especially if it was coupled with some sweeping reforms to convince everyone of the integrity of the election (The problem not being the integrity, but that people lack faith in the integrity which is an equally important problem!). For example, ensure absolutely everyone has easy and free access to ID. Then ensure everyone votes with that ID.
- rickydroll 2y ago
  Free access to an ID is only part of the problem. you also need equal access to ID issuers (ie, locations, hours open, wait times, etc), multiple forms of ID to validate the voter ID. Not everyone has a birth certificate (lost, home birth, in another country that you may want to stay hidden from). Put simply, the effort to become a voter should be equal regardless of wealth. I like the idea of imposing the difficulty the minority poors have in getting an ID on the white better off. Can you imagine Musk having to make multiple in-person trips to the DMV and wait an hour each time he is there?

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
  Who here believes Trump will pull punches because the election wasn’t satisfactorily legitimizing? If you get killed on the high ground, you’re still dead.
- pjc50 2y ago
  I don't think you've adapted to the level of motivated reasoning in current politics: if people want to declare the election illegitimate, they will do so, and they can make up claims about how it's illegitimate faster than you can debunk them.

alkonaut 2y ago

Yes I agree, in the US specifically it would proabably be the lesser evil to have compulsory voting. And especially if it was coupled with some sweeping reforms to convince everyone of the integrity of the election (The problem not being the integrity, but that people lack faith in the integrity which is an equally important problem!). For example, ensure absolutely everyone has easy and free access to ID. Then ensure everyone votes with that ID.

rickydroll 2y ago
Free access to an ID is only part of the problem. you also need equal access to ID issuers (ie, locations, hours open, wait times, etc), multiple forms of ID to validate the voter ID. Not everyone has a birth certificate (lost, home birth, in another country that you may want to stay hidden from). Put simply, the effort to become a voter should be equal regardless of wealth. I like the idea of imposing the difficulty the minority poors have in getting an ID on the white better off. Can you imagine Musk having to make multiple in-person trips to the DMV and wait an hour each time he is there?