>This work shows that non-voters are have even worse prejudices and are less knowledgable than voters

Does that book discuss causation? Do people not vote because they aren't paying attention to politics, or do they not pay attention because they aren't planning on voting?

I think it's at least plausible that if voting became very widespread, people might feel more pressure to stay generally informed. And of course, politicians would be forced to communicate to everyone, rather than just to groups that are most likely to vote.

From what I have read, it appears that intelligent and informed people also happen to be the ones that vote (likely for social or ethical reasons). I have not seen evidence that mandatory (or strongly encouraged) voting leads to a more informed public; do you have any evidence of this?

No I don't, I was just wondering if it was discussed in the book you linked. But again, you're talking about a correlation in this comment, and I'm wondering which way the causation goes. I don't know if there are any studies on this.

Why should their prejudices/biases not be represented? I mean, I personally probably disagree with them, but disagreement is sort of the reason for having voting.

The evidence shows that these uninformed and biased non-voters would take different views on a variety of important issues if they were less biased and more informed. Essentially, the voters represent the 'enlightened' views of the citizenry.

>more informed

by who, and in what way? Arguably the issue is people are informed, just by misleading information. Whether it be CNN, Fox News, reddit, or the Drudge Deport - they all have their own bias. By asking people be more informed, you're really just adding to their own bias and prejudices with the biases of a larger group of people. People tend to gravitate towards information sources that reaffirm their existing beliefs.

There is a great deal of statistical work that compares what people think and believe. Some of these works try to 'correct' for wealth and education, then measure the gap between the views of certain groups and what their view would be if they were more well educated. Other studies compare what people say in response to survey questions to objective truths, i.e. what are the branches of the US Government, who is the president, who is the chief justice of the supreme court. If you would like more information on how voters and non-voters differ, I suggest that you read some of the work on the subject; I cannot brief you on the subject in a few Hacker News posts, as there is simply too much information.

Citizens (, especially non-voters,) are ill-informed, biased, and lack any incentive to scrutinize their views, as the only change that could come about would be a painful realization that they have been wrong (which nobody wants). If you want to read a very revealing and well-written exposition on this subject, I recommend "The God that Failed" (edited by Crossman).[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed

I haven't read the book in question, but I wonder which causes which: does being more informed cause one to be a likely voter, or does choosing to vote cause one to become more informed?

It seems to be a "dreaded third thing". Wealth and education seem to be highly correlated with electoral participation, and both wealth and education are indicators of knowledgability and rationality.

I strongly, strongly suspect that the primary motivation for this comes from the fact that higher voter turnout tends to favor democrats.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/progressives-ne...

Not democrats, but liberal fiscal policy.

Although seeing as how there's no party in the US that would cater to social conservatives and fiscal liberals (and vice versa), your statement is mostly correct.

> Not democrats

I'm pretty sure it favors Democrats.The GOP long has tried to suppress votes; what other motive would they have?

The drama of something to argue over with their Establishment sister party, perhaps?

It is plain that the Democratic Party doesn't want Sanders voters if they're going to demand Sanders policy outcomes. There's no drama in successfully helping people, and what kind of partisanship isn't made of drama?

It is plain that the GOP didn't want Trump voters until Trump more or less took over the ticket with the help of professional-class journalists looking for... drama.

I think that it hurts the GOP more than it directly helps Democrats. In my mind a sudden large increase in voter turnout may give sway to candidates running as Democrats that may not be totally in line with the DNC as a whole. You're seeing a huge leftward push by Democratic voters in the presidential election, and while I don't believe it's as fragmented as the GOP currently is, I don't see any reason why this split won't continue.

Probably the most under-represented group is the youth vote, so 100% turnout would probably mean much more progressive, socialist results as well. I say socialist here without the negative connotation.

If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party?

> If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party?

Because the Democratic Party prefers to expand voting by expanding access (making it easier to register, and easier to vote by expanding times, methods, etc.) rather than by personal mandates and threats of punishment.

Never mind that at the end of the day, the federal government has very little control over elections.

The Democratic Party doesn't just exist in federal government, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, whether or not its true.

Well looking at state legislatures, it kind of doesn't exist outside the federal gov't

Looking at legislatures, plenty where the Democrats are more powerful at the State level then they are in Congress.

What does that say about people who can't be bothered to register and/or vote?