Voluntary Voting and Extremism

[ku]

In countries like Australia, voting is compulsory, while in countries like the USA, voting is voluntary. I hypothesize that, if voting is voluntary, then there will be a bias by politicians to supply more extreme policies in an attempt to get people to vote. Would you agree with this? Have there been any studies on the topic?

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/public-choice-theory

[Pangloss]

That's interesting, I've never heard of compulsory voting. Is that a common thing?

[-Demosthenes-]

(underlinging question) Should voting be seen as a responsibility, or is it a right?

[Pangloss]

Can't it be a responsibility without making it a legal obligation?

[-Demosthenes-]

You're right, it wouldn't be quite so black and white. If a nation thought it was a responsibility then it could be a social pressure to vote, or if they felt ever more strongly then could make it a legal obligation. The same with voting as a right or indifferent, I suppose.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The problem with making it optional is that people with strong opinions are more likely to vote than those who only have mild interest.

 

A politician who can get strong supporters would probably be more successful than one who can get a large pool of indifferent voters who really don't care, but vote for him.

 

When you make voting compulsory, then everybody with an opinion votes. That makes it a much better representation of the general population, rather than the motivated "let's vote!" people.

 

 

This is just the same as in many web sites, where people who hate the site voice their opinion a lot more than those who like it.

[Phi for All]

I hypothesize that, if voting is voluntary, then there will be a bias by politicians to supply more extreme policies in an attempt to get people to vote.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would scare the willies out of the two major US parties if a charismatic independent came along and everybody suddenly declared they were actually going to vote this time. Extreme policies notwithstanding, it is not in most politicians interest to have everyone vote. In the US the two main parties insure that special interests only have two candidates to fund.

[Pangloss]

The problem with making it optional is that people with strong opinions are more likely to vote than those who only have mild interest.

 

A politician who can get strong supporters would probably be more successful than one who can get a large pool of indifferent voters who really don't care' date=' but vote for him.

 

When you make voting compulsory, then everybody with an opinion votes. That makes it a much better representation of the general population, rather than the motivated "let's vote!" people.

 

 

This is just the same as in many web sites, where people who hate the site voice their opinion a lot more than those who like it.[/quote']

 

Okay, but is it better?

 

Here's the problem statement for the compulsory-voting approach: People with NO opinion are now voting.

 

In both systems we also have an additional problem: Underinformed people are voting. This problem, however, would seem to be compounded in the compulsory approach, because there may be more underinformed people in the booths.

 

Is that really an improvement?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed.

 

I wonder just how many underinformed there would be, however. Many of them refuse to believe the facts, rather than suffer from a lack of information; CNN and all of the other networks really get coverage of the elections out to an extent that it becomes annoying.

I know of many people who would rather believe that George Bush eats babies than accept the truth and realize he isn't a cannibal. It's more fun to believe the Weekly World News.

[Phi for All]

I wonder just how many underinformed there would be, however. Many of them refuse to believe the facts, rather than suffer from a lack of information; CNN and all of the other networks really get coverage of the elections out to an extent that it becomes annoying.

I think for many it's not so much hearing or refusing to believe the facts, it's their selective approach of only taking in what conforms to their own preconceived opinions. The number of people who are unwilling to change based on new knowledge would probably appall us all.

 

You say this:

I know of many people who would rather believe that George Bush eats babies than accept the truth and realize he isn't a cannibal. It's more fun to believe the Weekly World News.

And they hear this:

people... believe that George Bush eats babies... accept the truth... believe the Weekly World News[/i'].

[Pangloss]

(Psst, Phi, you double-clicked the quote button there....)

[Phi for All]

(Psst, Phi, you double-clicked the quote button there....)

You too?! You're only seeing what you want to see.

[Pangloss]

Wait, wait, I can debunk that scientifically! I also wanted to see piles of cash, and they did not appear. Explain... IF YOU CAN!

[Severian]

Let's face it. Democracy is a dreadful way of running a country. Look at the average voter and ask yourself if they are qualified to choose decide who will form the best government. Of course not!

 

The only form of government worse than democracy are all the other forms of government.

[Pangloss]

Winston Churchill.