3 ms·
> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Not really: Voters can still choose to "not participate" (whether
by 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 agoI 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 agoYes. 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 agoMake it compulsory them, if they don't like it gonna show
- fifilura 2y agoYour 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.
- Gud 2y agoThe most important option is effectively removed (for poor people) if you reject the whole system, which is to not participate.