If you want more people to vote, then just pass a law that mandates all citizens have to vote.

That's how it is done in Belgium.

Think of it. If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine, you'd rather go and vote. If you go and vote, you'll learn at least a bit about the choices you have to make in the ballot.

P.S. While Belgium got mandatory voting right, it completely messed up electronic voting. I remember being an assessor in a polling station with electronic voting.

People voted, then the head of the voting station took 3 1⁄2-inch floppy disks out of the machine, put them in an envelope and drove away to the district polling committee. There was not counting, no protocol to sign. Nothing. I was appalled.

> If your choice is ether vote or risk a fine

This is ABSOLUTELY not what I want. I for one want voting to be extremely accessible. Everyone that wants to vote can. The goal isn't to make everyone vote but rather that everyone has the ability to vote. That you don't have to take time off to vote. That it is easy.

Universally accessible, not universally mandated.

If you go by the American-style "absolute freedom" mantra, I get where you're coming from.

On the other hand, casting a vote doesn't mean CHOOSING a candidate. It means that you can cast a BLANK vote. And that, in and of itself is an extremely important thing. It shows that you are NOT okay with either candidates, and forces them to actually adjust their agendas to suit the "public will", instead of falling back to what I believe is commonly called in the US as "ratfucking", aggressive districting, and voter disenfranchisement, which means they literally only care about getting enough voters to pass.

As for the doability, it's already done in Australia. Pretty successful, and basically and national holiday celebrated like 4th of july in the US.

The problem you are presenting is about protest voting and VSE. There are much better ways to address that problem, such as cardinal styles of voting like Approval and STAR. These also have other properties that help. I am perfectly okay with a "none of the above" option available as well.

If you dont mandate it, then people can be subtly disenfranchised and then blamed for it.

What happens though is that once you make voting compulsory, you have to make voting as easy as possible.

You could simply mandate that voting be done on a federal holiday. That won't help everyone, but it will help most people who are trying to vote physically.

Australia, which has mandatory voting, also mandates that voting is on a weekend.

Same for Belgium. Voting is always on Sunday.

What's wrong with mandated voting?

As an Australian, I would argue nothing. I think it protects us from the extremes in political opinions that we see in the US and I hate for us to lose it.

People who has no business voting voting. Imagine how many people would vote - not from the informed voter perspective. They'll most likely vote for the candidate they remember in a positive light. Imagine how much more sway would a big ad campaign have. I would be ok if a blank ballot would be the least effort option with no strings attached, but with a "wasting your vote" being a stigma and a part of the culture I see no need in any mandate. I just really don't want people who can't be bothered to go to a polling station on a holiday specifically made for voting to caste their vote to vote at all. Some times gatekeeping certain things is ok. There must be a balance.

Apart from literal children (and felons in the US, I suppose), there is no such thing as a citizen who "has no business voting".

That's the pesky thing about democracy, you see. If you want "informed voters" then you actually have to work to have an informed populace, not gripe about people's right to participate in the society they're a part of.

There is no griping about the right to participate on my part. I don't think it's fair for you to substitute a mandated voting for a right to vote like this to misrepresent my point entirely. A right is something you have to exercise yourself, any right is an option. When you force everyone to go to the polls it's different, because people who would've never chosen to exercise their voting rights otherwise end up checking boxes, and I don't want that. It's just like you have a right to be a candidate, but you also have to go and gather signatures to actually put yourself on a ballot - where I live we already have 3-4 pages of ballot in every local election. You can't let everyone just sign their name into the ballot without any filters. Same should be true for voters - people who wouldn't bother going to polling stations don't have any business voting by their own admission. You can force people to go to the polls, but you can't force them to care or to put even one thought into that said vote. Now if you want to talk about polling being accessible and more convenient to those willing to cast their votes - I'm all for it. More station? Sure. Disability assistance? Sure! Where I live we do polling at schools, because these are what kids go every day to, and they are located in places everybody knows about and they distributed very sanely and fairly.

There’s no such thing as an informed populous. There never has been, and never will be. There was never a “golden age” of democracy, where everyone dutifully read their newspaper every morning that was filled with articles written by unbiased and objective journalists. It’s always been a shit show. Having some reasonable and well understood requirements for who does get to vote within a jurisdiction is a means to ensure that those who do are doing so with care. Perhaps that’s naive. But it’s no more naive than thinking “democracy”, broadly defined, would improve if we had 100% voter participation.

I know it seems utterly incomprehensible to Americans right now, but it actually is entirely possible to have a populace that is at large capable of participating in government with quite a bit more critical thinking than the bipartisan shitshow you currently have going on. Not having shitty education (especially when it comes to social issues) or a culture that's proud of its political ignorance/apathy would probably help.

Not everybody has to be your idea of an intellectual to be a part of a democracy. And not only is that okay, it's precisely the point of it being a "democracy".

> If you want "informed voters" then you actually have to work to have an informed populace

Yes, and the solution to this is not mandating that they vote. If they are uninformed forcing them to vote doesn't cause them to be informed. It makes the system more vulnerable to populism.

Mandating resolves gerrymandering, voting on workdays and a host of other problems.

How? And can't you do that without mandating voting?

Because it is weird to force people to do things that they don't want to if it doesn't harm another person. In this instance, forcing a vote can actually harm others if someone votes randomly.

The idea behind freedom is not absolute freedom. It is a balance of the contract with society vs individual freedom. You want to maximize individual freedom, but for everyone (not a singular person). Clearly things like the "freedom" to murder someone doesn't outweigh that person's individual freedom to live and thus we make laws (and ways to enforce them). Mandating voting decreases individual freedom and has a potential for reduced societal freedom (while little to no real potential for increase. Much prone to populist candidates). So why mandate? Don't solve problems that aren't problems. If someone doesn't want to vote, how does that harm you?

Yep, and let people vote for a longer period of time. Having a voting week or month instead of a day.

Nope, spanning voting over several days makes it easy to hack the electoral process. In Belarus, they voted for 5 days and people are out in the streets for 5 weeks to reclaim their votes. Today is the last of three voting days in Rissia, and it looks like the results will be totally made up.

Reliable online voting is not hard, it's impossible. There is fundamentally no way that 99.99% of the population could be convinced that any online voting scheme is secure (this includes the vast majority of software engineers). And if voting and vote counting are not understandable to essentially everyone, then you're not living in a democracy.

Are 99.99% convinced that normal voting is secure?

Yes. And even for those few that are not, the representatives they voted for are, whether they won or lost, so it's all moot anyway (either the representative is correct, or the representative is playing their opponent's game, so it doesn't really matter who won).

In general, people don't trust elections because they don't trust their representatives to actually represent their interests, or they don't trust the rest of the political system to actually allow any meaningful change. These are very valid and correct criticisms, confirmed by many sociological studies (in the US at least, the opinions of the bottom 50% of the electorate by wealth have almost no influence on their representatives' agendas).

Voter suppression and vote buying/bullying are much more common, but those have little to do with the voting system (though India has an interesting and complex voting system designed to combat a history of systematic retaliation against entire groups of voters, such as de-funding entire regions that had voted the with the losing party).

But actual voter fraud is rare in most democracies. It's extremely common in authoritarian regimes that are mascarading as democracies, but an online system would make those cases especially trivial.

Totally agree. I’ve voted in every election since I’m 18. So far all voting booths have been in walking distance. IIRC all have been on a Sunday, so it doesn’t conflict with work for most people.

You can do it without the security issues of online though.

For example every election in Washington ballots are mailed out to every address on file, it’s very easy to print a ballot online if you didn’t get it in the mail, and until recently there have been no supposed issues with mailing ballots (postage is prepaid), plus there are dedicated dropoff boxes as well. And even with all that convenience turnout was 65% in 2016, though it is expected to be higher this year.

Adding screens and tech does not help people to vote, and does make untraceable hacking and distortion much easier. The fact that actual states like Georgia have apparently covered up real examples makes this part crucial.

Reliable on-line secret ballots do not exist for us yet and may never.

More easy-to-access polling stations does.

> does make untraceable hacking and distortion much easier

IME, high tech voting makes changing one vote a little harder, but it makes changing the outcome much easier.