Edits to post #25281951 by Feoric
Edited at 2014-11-02 16:51:44
At 11/2/14 03:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While like the idea of having everyone vote, the idea of every idiot voting concerns me. We already have serious problems with the dumbing down of politics here in the US. Not only has the discourse from the politicians and measuee supporters dipped heavily since the advent of the TV, the comments that come from the dumb end (and by end I mean 60% of the voting population) makes my brain hurt.
The goal of democracy is 100% political efficacy. Voting from all is essential to that. HOWEVER, voting is only a small part of it. The knowledge and interest (or at least caring) about politics and the results is vital as well. Having one without the other leads to problems. Sad thing in the US, the knowledge and interest portion of efficacy is so low, a high level of voting would not only be problematic, but particulalry dangerous.
That's a pretty elitist thing to say. Actually I'd wager that the smart:dumb ratio for people who don't vote is higher than the smart:dumb ratio for those who do, as I feel that the likelihood of you feeling disenfranchised and thus not participating grows higher the more politically informed you become.
At any rate, whether you have compulsory or non-compulsory voting is largely academic if there are problems with drawing up the rolls of eligible voters (dead people voting, disenfranchisement, etc.) or with the possibility of genuinely competitive, democratic outcomes to those elections (gerrymandering). If an electoral system has these sorts of problems, implementing compulsory voting would be likely to have no political effect or to entrench incumbents further in their positions. I don't see how compulsory voting would solve more fundamental problems with electoral systems. If there are justifications for it, I think they must be found in ethics or civic duty, because I can't see any meaningful practical impact. That being said I think the participation in the selection of government is a duty to society just as much as it is a right, but changing a core function of a democratic system should be based on pragmatism, not romanticism. Reforms on redistributing would have much more of an impact than compulsory voting and would likely increase turnout rates.
At 11/2/14 03:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While like the idea of having everyone vote, the idea of every idiot voting concerns me. We already have serious problems with the dumbing down of politics here in the US. Not only has the discourse from the politicians and measuee supporters dipped heavily since the advent of the TV, the comments that come from the dumb end (and by end I mean 60% of the voting population) makes my brain hurt.
The goal of democracy is 100% political efficacy. Voting from all is essential to that. HOWEVER, voting is only a small part of it. The knowledge and interest (or at least caring) about politics and the results is vital as well. Having one without the other leads to problems. Sad thing in the US, the knowledge and interest portion of efficacy is so low, a high level of voting would not only be problematic, but particulalry dangerous.
That's a pretty elitist thing to say. Actually I'd wager that the smart:dumb ratio for people who don't vote is higher than the smart:dumb ratio for those who do, as I feel that the likelihood of you feeling disenfranchised and thus not participating grows higher the more politically informed you become.
At any rate, whether you have compulsory or non-compulsory voting is largely academic if there are problems with drawing up the rolls of eligible voters (dead people voting, disenfranchisement, etc.) or with the possibility of genuinely competitive, democratic outcomes to those elections (gerrymandering). If an electoral system has these sorts of problems, implementing compulsory voting would be likely to have no political effect or to entrench incumbents further in their positions. I don't see how compulsory voting would solve more fundamental problems with electoral systems. If there are justifications for it, I think they must be found in ethics or civic duty, because I can't see any meaningful practical impact. That being said I think the participation in the selection of government is a duty to society just as much as it is a right, but changing a core function of a democratic system should be based on pragmatism, not romanticism. Reforms on redistricting would have much more of an impact than compulsory voting and would likely increase turnout rates.
