zlacker

Compulsory voting is an option.

>>Affric+(OP)
Most people already don't vote voluntarily.

Forcing the uninformed and uninterested to vote has never yielded better results by any measure.

>>infamo+g2
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.)

>>Affric+(OP)
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.

>>pas+E4
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.

>>kjkjad+2d
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.

>>Affric+1j
Look at Australia. They have compulsory voting and a government that sells off natural resources to the highest bidder same as many others. Many Australians just get drunk on election day and write in “banana.” You can’t force people to care about something using the law that they don’t already care about.

>>infamo+g2
that's an interesting theory but nearly impossible to prove, thus safe from scrutiny?

>>kjkjad+Qo2
Rates of informal voting of 5.1 % in the house of reps and 3.4 % in the senate nationally at the most recent federal election put paid to that comment.

With all due respect, I find it hard to believe anyone with any knowledge of Australian elections would write your comment.

>>kjkjad+Qo2
To be fair Australia doesn't really have a choice in the matter due to forces outside of the country. Any political leader who tries this doesn't remain leader for very long.

Most of the public is aware of this, and will probably continue to accept it as long as the general standard of living doesn't fall to much.

>>Affric+1j
> Compulsory voting drives engagement.

Citation needed. I live in a country with compulsory voting, and I don't see any indication that it drives engagement. Lots of people only go voting because they have to. They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.

> The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.

But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.

>>Affric+(OP)
Dilute the votes of those who care with votes of random idiots who would never vote if not forced to and who make their decisions randomly or based on populism.

You can as well add 30% random votes, although those would be spread equally between candidates, not based on color of their hair, or random fake quote on the ineternet

>>roelsc+kW3
Have you lived in countries without compulsory voting? Have you worked in electoral politics? Would the population be more engaged without compulsory voting? Different countries do not amount to controlled experiments. Brasil, North Korea, Belgium, and Australia are all very different countries. All have compulsory voting.

> But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.

> They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.

These two things are largely linked. If one believes that one can view the true nature of reality and divine the future then one is in for perpetual disappointment with politicians. Trustworthiness can only be known a posteri. A priori we only have heuristics. The reason for the existence of representative democracy is so that politicians do the work of politics.

One may not always agree with the electorate but my experience tells me that compulsory voting does drive engagement. It changes how political parties spend money and who they use that money to try and influence. Engagement in countries with compulsory voting is different to how it would be in the same country without compulsory voting.

The average member of the electorate possesses no expertise in any single field and is ignorant of everything. The average member of the electorate holds no single opinion. This is a good thing.

Whether people's beliefs are right or wrong is one thing but what you don't want is a bunch of radicals (of any persuasion) who have made the leap of faith which prevents them from reversing course. When large proportions of a society is radicalised to hold extremist and exclusive political opinions, that's when voters cannot be convinced. This rarely ends up good for society and occasionally ends violently.