Mandatory voting means more low-information voters who will vote reactively. I don’t see how that will help.
Australia has mandatory voting and its politics are just as broken as the UK’s (which has a similar parliamentary system) and nearly as hosed as the US.
My view is that the root cause is money in politics, which drives corruption. Everything else that’s being discussed is just displacement activity, “quick fixes” that are easier than dealing with the real problem, but don’t actually accomplish anything.
We need to enforce mandatory disclosure of all non-legislative income, to shut down legislators having side jobs at all, insider trading by legislators, prevent them taking cushy fake jobs when they leave office, shut down the current Citizens United system of institutionalized bribery, further control agents of foreign influence interfering in our politics, and brutally punish anything remotely approaching Trump levels of corruption. It’s hard and will require constant vigilance, but band-aids don’t help.
more low-information voters who will vote reactively. I don’t see how that will help.
Disenfranchisement runs on the idea that most people would vote left if everyone voted. That’s why the right tries so hard to suppress rather than invigorate more people to vote. Mandatory voting doesn’t literally mean “everyone has to vote”. It punishes institutions who try to obstruct voting much heavier than a voter who refuses (for that voter, it’s usually an easy excuse or like, 20 bucks fine. It’s not trying to punish them).
But sure. There’s a no zero chance we get an influx of low information voters who just go with whatever narrative is popular. Or votes in a candidate with no political presence but is a well known name. I’d wager the average voter is aware enough to at least know the two big national candidates for president or their senate, though. Ideally, it creates a culture where there’s time to get informed for you ballot, since it usually includes a holiday to allow for voting.
My view is that the root cause is money in politics, which drives corruption
Okay. I agree with all your points. How do you drive that out? You need votes. Votes to get people in who aren’t corrupt and votes to regulate it. If someone wants to take a bribe, they should be scared for their life of that being a campaign-ending, if not career-ending, move.
Primary turnouts especially are absolutely pathetic. Things would be very different if candidates weren’t betting on 20% turnout.
Mandatory voting means more low-information voters who will vote reactively. I don’t see how that will help.
Australia has mandatory voting and its politics are just as broken as the UK’s (which has a similar parliamentary system) and nearly as hosed as the US.
My view is that the root cause is money in politics, which drives corruption. Everything else that’s being discussed is just displacement activity, “quick fixes” that are easier than dealing with the real problem, but don’t actually accomplish anything.
We need to enforce mandatory disclosure of all non-legislative income, to shut down legislators having side jobs at all, insider trading by legislators, prevent them taking cushy fake jobs when they leave office, shut down the current Citizens United system of institutionalized bribery, further control agents of foreign influence interfering in our politics, and brutally punish anything remotely approaching Trump levels of corruption. It’s hard and will require constant vigilance, but band-aids don’t help.
Disenfranchisement runs on the idea that most people would vote left if everyone voted. That’s why the right tries so hard to suppress rather than invigorate more people to vote. Mandatory voting doesn’t literally mean “everyone has to vote”. It punishes institutions who try to obstruct voting much heavier than a voter who refuses (for that voter, it’s usually an easy excuse or like, 20 bucks fine. It’s not trying to punish them).
But sure. There’s a no zero chance we get an influx of low information voters who just go with whatever narrative is popular. Or votes in a candidate with no political presence but is a well known name. I’d wager the average voter is aware enough to at least know the two big national candidates for president or their senate, though. Ideally, it creates a culture where there’s time to get informed for you ballot, since it usually includes a holiday to allow for voting.
Okay. I agree with all your points. How do you drive that out? You need votes. Votes to get people in who aren’t corrupt and votes to regulate it. If someone wants to take a bribe, they should be scared for their life of that being a campaign-ending, if not career-ending, move.
Primary turnouts especially are absolutely pathetic. Things would be very different if candidates weren’t betting on 20% turnout.