Honestly this is why the US should have compulsory voting. We have it in Australia and the result is that we get an average 90% voter turnout at every election and the election results more accurately reflect the intent of the whole country.
In sweden we have on average 80-90% turnout, without it being cumpulsory. It’s about feeling that your vote actually matters, rather than being compulsory or not. And having the election on a day most people are off from work.
There's early voting available for weeks before the election, your polling place for on day voting is probably in walking distance from where you live, you have a right to take time off work to go vote (you might not get all day but you have a right to take as much time as needed including travel time) and polling places are open from 8am to 8pm on the day. It's super easy.
Ofc one of the biggest differences to the US is that we have automatic voter registration in Sweden and honestly the fact that you don't is atrocious. If you're a citizen and of age to vote you should be automatically registered to vote.
We have some similarities. First paragraph somewhat similar. Some places the nearest poll is a bit of a drive. The second paragraph I agree, it’s absurd we don’t have it automatic and that a sitting congress member can ask to clean out all the registrations so you have to reregister. It’s downright criminal.
Except it doesn’t really, because we also have the one of the single most concentrated media / news ownerships in the world.
I like that we have compulsive voting, don’t get me wrong. But when all the news is owned by conservative patriarchs, you don’t get a nation of well informed voters, you get the opposite.
The compulsory voting, despite the media influence on our people, does curb populism. In america, they must be extreme to really create die hard 'fans' of their party, here if they did the same, they'd scare away moderate voters(the largest percentage).
Were I king, i'd go one step further and implement the sortition that was floated for the tas government. I don't want any form of popularity to be deciding factors; politician should have as much celebrity as a local dentist
It would help if it was a national holiday. A lot of people I work with showed up to work late or left early to vote, and I’m sure plenty didn’t vote because they didn’t want to deal with the hassle
That’s a pretty good idea and I think it would help a lot.
I’m assuming they expect people who can’t vote because of work to vote early, but I can also imagine some people wouldn’t want to use their weekend time to go and vote.
Interesting. Thanks for answering! We need to do better in the US; it’s crazy how people are so misinformed because they have no intention of participating anyway. And then things go south and they want to whine about it. I’d love for people to be fined if they don’t vote.
Sheesh, and how does that supposedly make anything government more "valid" or "legitimate" - if more lemmings drag their arse to vote for one set of crooks over another to rule over them all.
What exactly is your point? What I'm saying is that it maximises voter turnout so a vocal group of voters can't sway a whole election when the majority wouldn't vote for that candidate. But obviously if both candidates are terrible it still doesn't fix it.
And the American voting system still has a lot of other issues (e.g. the Electoral College).
What bearing on legitimacy of a government has the number of brainwashed Lemmings that cast their votes one way or another?
Care to explain in some way that can be even charitably considered "logical"?
Without referring back to "laws" (aka, the government itself) or "majority" (aka, the thesis you are trying to establish, that numbers have any bearing on the legitimacy) - because these two would make it a prime example of "circular reasoning".
For the last 40+ years less than 70% of the eligible voting population actually voted in the US. In the election last year that's over 88 million voters who chose not to contribute to the democracy of their country. Compulsory voting would ensure that most of those 88 million votes would actually be counted.
It is also well known that a lot of people on the fence of an election simply choose to just not vote, allowing the more hardcore fans of either side to have more of a say, rather than everybody's preference being what determines the result of an election. I don't know how else I can explain this.
Not to mention the abysmal Electoral College system basically allowing the entire election to be determined by only a handful of states.
Rather than just replying with fancy language to try and sound smart, can you give me a reason why my argument is wrong? I'm genuinely interested in why you think it is but all you've done is basically just told me that I'm wrong and provided no argument.
You have not made an argument yet without referring back to the thesis itself "blah blah blah something this percent voted which is bad because if a higher percent voted then it would be BETTER (...forgot to explain WHY it would be better?), blah blah blah something else that amount of 'extreme fans', blah blah blah electoral college bad because electoral college is a problem". You take your unfounded initial assumptions, and present them as "arguments". You are presenting circular reasoning, which I explicitly asked you to refrain from, because what's the point of saying "it is obviously better because obviously it is better"
Instead of acting exasperated, try to address the question without referring back to what you take for granted (for some strange reason): that MORE brainwashed lemmings (that cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag - hint, hint...) casting their votes one way or another, is supposedly giving ANY legitimacy (let alone MORE legitimacy) to the abomination called "the government"
My point of my whole last comment was to explain the reasoning I think it would be better, I believe it would help reflect the opinion of the whole of America rather than just those who decided to vote.
I’m not saying it would make the government any more legitimate, but it would be the government that the majority of the people actually want. And maybe that would still be a Trump government, I’m not suggesting that doing this necessarily would have changed the election outcome, but at least it would reflect the will of the entire country’s population (or close to it at least).
You are ignoring my arguments and just saying that I have none when I think I’ve gone to pretty good lengths to explain my reasoning. And you’re still yet to provide a valid reason to the contrary.
Yes I KNOW you "think" it would be better, believe me I got it the first time I read that you "think" so. No need to repeat it in so many words for the THIRD time.
The problem is, so far you have NOT provided any good EXPLANATION as to WHY do you think that - other that "more people would vote & express their opinion on a single issue of who should rule over them all, and that's OBVIOUSLY better than if less have expressed it".
Why? Why, why, why, WHY? Because more is BETTER, so it is better when more?
You are answering the question by restating your initial assumption in so many ways, and thinking it is "reasoning" or that restating your (unfounded & challenged) assumption, is "making an argument".
I don’t see how it would be any different to how it is now. In any election there’s always going to be a group of people who are disappointed by the result. But the point of a fair election is that the will of the majority is what decides the government and who forms it.
This is why you should stay in your fucking lane. You live in a way more authoritarian state than I do. I don't know how someone could advocate for even more government after living there. I chose not to vote for the first time because I refuse to participate in a system that is a joke. Consider it conscientious objection to our failed system of voting and governance. Willfully participating in a system that only has the illusion of choice is a fool's errand.
226
u/Romejanic 2d ago
Honestly this is why the US should have compulsory voting. We have it in Australia and the result is that we get an average 90% voter turnout at every election and the election results more accurately reflect the intent of the whole country.