Would you support compulsory voting?

[B-Fly]

The "problem" as I see it is that the key to winning elections has become less about broadly appealing to the American people and more about energizing and turning out "the base", which leads to more polarization and more extreme ideological candidates. Particularly at the local election level, low voter turnout also makes it much easier for "special interests" to dictate candidates and policy (e.g., the teachers' union essentially choosing the school board that will negotiate their contract).

[Gregg]

That would be a boon for the Dems. GOP would never go for it.

Why do you think that?

Seem like a lot of geriatric Repubs don't get out an vote.

[Gregg]

I would support it if employers were mandated to provide time off or if elections were declared holidays.

Or make them on Saturdays.

[Gregg]

I dont want people voting that dont want to take their vote seriously.

This..

[Sour Masher]

In the U.S., we're not too big on "compulsory" anything. the word itself is creepy.

making the voting process easier, that's a different story.

Yes. Having voting on Tuesdays is idiotic. Getting off work to vote is hard for a lot of folks, and regardless of the day of the week, we should reequire employers give a window of time off for employees so they can vote, or we make it easier for folks to vote online or via mail in-ballots. Getting to overcrowded voting places in poor areas while richer areas often have shorter waits is also unfair. We should be making voting easier. We should be spending more not on partisan ads, but on objective informational sources, so voters have places they could go to find out where candidates stand on issues important to them. We should be shortening the amount of time politicians can campaign. We should address gerrymandering and other methods that those in power work behind the scenes to keep power.

But mandating voting is a bad idea. Too many people vote now that don't really understand who they are voting for and how it affects them. I suspect those who sit on the sidelines, are as a group, even less informed than those who vote currently.

[senorsheep]

Or make them on Saturdays.

Oh, sure, disenfranchise people who work Saturdays. You and your "weekends off" privilege.... shame!

[senorsheep]

Rather than just reacting to "compulsory", what do you view as the cost-benefit analysis specific to the question of compulsory voting?

Actually, I think just reacting to "compulsory" is good enough reason not to do it. There are still a large number of us who don't care to have the federal government dropping hammer blows outside of their purview. The country was kind of built around that idea - that's not how we roll.

The main concern I would have from the cost-benefit analysis side: I think forcing people to vote could open the door to significant corruption. It would take unscrupulous partisans about 37 seconds come up with a scheme to have outside parties fulfill the voting obligations of people who are just too irresponsible/ disinterested/ disenfranchised to do it themselves. "You want to avoid the fine? Just send us your ballot, we'll take care of that for you."

If it ever was to be implemented, I think you'd have to include a "none of the above" option on the ballots. Forcing to people to vote if they don't like any of the options would be unacceptably totalitarian.

Bottom line: I'm against it, for the obvious reasons others have already mentioned. I wish all citizens would choose to be responsible, concerned, aware, and motivated, but I'm not comfortable using the force of government to make them so, even if I did believe it was possible. It's not.

Compulsory voting is a Democratic Party pipe dream, born of frustration with low voter turnout within their ranks. Forcing people do the right thing is not the solution. Making them want to do the right thing is. Stop dreaming up tricksy voting schemes, and work on your platform, candidates, and rhetoric instead.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I have rubbed shoulders with two groups of people who routinely don't vote: (1) people for whom their work schedule makes it difficult, and (2) people who do not find either Republicans or Democrats appealing and don't believe third parties have any realistic chance of changing things.

Addressing group #1 is important, and I don't think we have any shortage of ideas of how to do that. The Republican Party, however, is opposed because they perceive that this group would lean against them. I don't know of any good proposal to address group #2. I am not aware of a large group that is too lazy to go to the polls. I do think in non-national elections that many people feel uninformed and hesitant to vote because of that. I know that when there are fifty judges on the ballot that I find it hard to educate myself on them.

[DMT]

Australia, that bastion of totalitarianism! Lol

Like universal health care and eliminating guns, it amazes me how so many think these things are impossible in our country despite other industrialized countries pulling it off. Aren't we supposed to be the best?

[senorsheep]

Australia, that bastion of totalitarianism! Lol

Different founding principles, different history, different culture. There are countries where compulsory voting might be a fine idea. It's not gonna fly in this one. Not in our lifetimes, anyway.

Like universal health care and eliminating guns, it amazes me how so many think these things are impossible in our country despite other industrialized countries pulling it off. Aren't we supposed to be the best?

"Best" as defined how, by whom? I don't think compulsory voting is an objective gold standard for electoral law.

[Sour Masher]

Australia, that bastion of totalitarianism! Lol

Like universal health care and eliminating guns, it amazes me how so many think these things are impossible in our country despite other industrialized countries pulling it off. Aren't we supposed to be the best?

I think this conflation erroneously puts these things on equal footing. I don't think they are. I think there is very strong evidence that universal health care would not only be an ethical move, it would be a economically beneficial one in the long term. As SS said, there is no evidence to support that compulsory voting is better, even if it were possible.

[DMT]

I think this conflation erroneously puts these things on equal footing. I don't think they are. I think there is very strong evidence that universal health care would not only be an ethical move, it would be a economically beneficial one in the long term. As SS said, there is no evidence to support that compulsory voting is better, even if it were possible.

My only point was that the argument against them is similar (i.e. we can't do it here). I just don't buy it. The only reason we can't move forward on universal HC or gun regulation is because Republicans are controlled by monied interests that protect their profits.

So in that sense, compulsory voting is different.

[DMT]

Different founding principles, different history, different culture. There are countries where compulsory voting might be a fine idea. It's not gonna fly in this one. Not in our lifetimes, anyway.

"Best" as defined how, by whom? I don't think compulsory voting is an objective gold standard for electoral law.

By best I meant that we could accomplish whatever we wanted if enough people committed to it. Australia was founded as a penal colony yet they were able to eliminate guns from their streets because a majority of their politicians haven't been paid off by the gun lobby.

[senorsheep]

By best I meant that we could accomplish whatever we wanted if enough people committed to it.

Okay, but viable or not, federal coercion is the wrong way for a free society to get its citizens to vote. Increasing voluntary voter turnout is a far worthier goal. Commitment driven by force of government isn't really commitment at all.

[chancellor]

Okay, but viable or not, federal coercion is the wrong way for a free society to get its citizens to vote. Increasing voluntary voter turnout is a far worthier goal. Commitment driven by force of government isn't really commitment at all.

Well, of course, but it’s the typical leftist point of view. Because they suspect it will benefit them politically and centralizes more power in the federal government, it’s a win-win to them.