On political reform, I’m interested in EAs’ opinions on this one.
In Australia, we have compulsory voting. If you are an eligible voter and you don’t register and show up on election day, you get a fine. Some people do submit a blank ballot paper, but very few. I know this policy is relatively uncommon among western democracies, but I strongly support it. Basically it leaves the government with less places to hide.
Compulsory voting of course reduces individual freedom. But that reduction is small, and the advantages from (probably) more inclusive government policy seem well worth it. I’ve heard it said that if this policy were implemented in the US, then the democrats would win easily. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that, but if it’s true, then in my opinion it means that the democrats should be the ones in power.
I’m not sure there’s any evidence of it having changed election outcomes, the people who are forced to vote that wouldn’t normally are divided along similar lines as those that do vote.
Also there maybe more people voting who are easier to persuade because the only reason they’re voting is the risk of a fine. I used to be quite pro this idea but now think it is neutral in outcome.
One example might be the Brexit vote which saw the highest turnout since 1992.
Another way of affecting the voting balance would be extending the right to vote to felons. I think this already has something of a campaign in the US and maybe isn’t as controversial as compulsory voting.
I was going to add that the 2000 and 2016 both had bad candidates lose the popular vote but win the general election so we should think about replacing the electoral college with a popular vote. But looking at all of American history, only four out of sixty presidential elections have had this kind of outcome. So abolishing the electoral college probably isn’t worth the cost of pushing it, even though there’s a fairly good way to get there (NPVIC).
On political reform, I’m interested in EAs’ opinions on this one.
In Australia, we have compulsory voting. If you are an eligible voter and you don’t register and show up on election day, you get a fine. Some people do submit a blank ballot paper, but very few. I know this policy is relatively uncommon among western democracies, but I strongly support it. Basically it leaves the government with less places to hide.
Compulsory voting of course reduces individual freedom. But that reduction is small, and the advantages from (probably) more inclusive government policy seem well worth it. I’ve heard it said that if this policy were implemented in the US, then the democrats would win easily. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that, but if it’s true, then in my opinion it means that the democrats should be the ones in power.
I’m not sure there’s any evidence of it having changed election outcomes, the people who are forced to vote that wouldn’t normally are divided along similar lines as those that do vote.
Also there maybe more people voting who are easier to persuade because the only reason they’re voting is the risk of a fine. I used to be quite pro this idea but now think it is neutral in outcome.
One example might be the Brexit vote which saw the highest turnout since 1992.
Another way of affecting the voting balance would be extending the right to vote to felons. I think this already has something of a campaign in the US and maybe isn’t as controversial as compulsory voting.
I was going to add that the 2000 and 2016 both had bad candidates lose the popular vote but win the general election so we should think about replacing the electoral college with a popular vote. But looking at all of American history, only four out of sixty presidential elections have had this kind of outcome. So abolishing the electoral college probably isn’t worth the cost of pushing it, even though there’s a fairly good way to get there (NPVIC).