71–80 of 239 posts
I don't know how you can want to improve democracy, and be in favour of universal mail-in voting, the most open to abuse form of voting there is.
That's a big lie promoted by the republicans who don't like mail-in voting because democrats use it more [1]. There is still absolutely no evidence that any fraud ever happened with that system. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-mail-in-vo...
Welcome to oligarchy, America. Private citizen Musk now owns the government, being the largest donor of the republican party. The democrats are bought too and now only show a principled opposition.
What remains of public services will get privatized on bullsh*t excuses (through DOGE, for example) so that Musk and his friends can put their hands on the latest markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.
Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Total utter rubbish.
Australia has compulsory voting .. meaning 98% of people turn up or mail in a "vote" and have a barbeque on the day.
The "signal" you falsely claim to be missing is right there in the donkey votes and duds - anybody that objects to the candidates presented is free to draw a dick and balls on the ballot or pencil in a candidate of their choice .. and that signal is anonymous, counted and logged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
This is an excellent point. Turnout may be an important signal which is lost with compulsory voting, and certainly any politician trying to suppress votes is dishonest. To play devil's advocate and to argue for compulsory voting for a moment, however: It is a potential antidote to the type of voter apathy by which a somewhat demoralized but popular party (e.g. Democrats in the last US election) put themselves out of…
>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representin…
Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions. Lot of great people of average intelligence…
> We are at an unprecedented point in American history, and I'm concerned we may lose sight of the American Dream The understatement of the year. From all I read, hasn't it been dead and burried for decades? (Of course not for some founder who hit the jackpot like Jeff). "Evidence indicates that in recent decades social mobility in the United States has declined, and income inequality has risen.[7][8] Social mobility…
"Gotcha: Can't win, don't try." - Bart Simpson This is nihilist cynicism, and is worth rejecting out-of-hand.
In any case it's a moot point, to an argument nobody made.
Trying or not trying, and understanding that the (documented) cases of social mobility are worsening are orthogonal.
In fact, with that understanding, a society can do something to improve that, which will also make it easier for people trying.
(Context: SC2 is a competitive game where players are distributed in "leagues" according to their skill in the game. "Gold" is one of the lower leagues. "Stay gold" is a mean thing you would say to someone who is wrong and shows unwillingness grow by learning from their mistakes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions. Lot of great people of average intelligence…
I agree on the principle, but I want to argue a small point. You say intelligence, when I think an average IQ person who studies policy as a hobby and puts time and effort into being informed will be vastly more capable of proper governance than a 115-120IQ person who doesn’t put the time in. I think the main thing here is education and information distribution and how (in our case, poorly) we set up the infrastructu…
Either way, encouraging stupid people to participate is not the way. At best it is a harmless no-change manoeuvre.
>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representin…
Furthermore, while philosophically I don't want to see any barriers to voting, full participation is not a good thing in the abstract. It is like free speech; great idea but that doesn't mean we just say everything. Similarly, everyone has the right to vote but for heavens sake people with only a shallow clue should stay away from all but the most basic of policy questions. Lot of great people of average intelligence…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Total utter rubbish. Australia has compulsory voting .. meaning 98% of people turn up or mail in a "vote" and have a barbeque on the day. The "signal" you falsely claim to be missing is right there in the donkey votes and duds - anybody that objects to the candidates presented is free to draw a dick and balls on the ballot o…
You are missing the point. It's not about objecting to candidates. It's two separate signals sent by on the one hand abstaining, and on the other hand filling out a blank votes.
Blank vote means "I think this is a legitimate election, I just don't like any of the candidates".
The distinction between these two signals is important enough that most democracies around the world preserve it by not having compulsory voting.