Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The alternative is voter suppression, which leads to unequal access. Also, given that more passionate individuals are gonna seek out a ballot vs. others, the result is going to be skewed in favor of those passionate people regardless of their understanding of reality or truthfullness.
I admit it might help the current problem, since people less passionate about the issues might be less inclined to vote for reactionaries, but I don't think the result would be better representation. Most likely the result would be a system that leans even heavier on marketing to get brand recognition for the party to the most people
We already have a system like that in the US. Whoever has a wider reach and/or higher budget gets more turnout. A big reason why Obama won was because of his presence on social media, and Trump won because of the insane amount of media coverage he has. The current system gives prederence to voters who treat elections like simple popularity contests, whereas mandatory voting would force people who somewhat pay attention to current events and not to campaigns to be counted.