Sir, do you have informed opinions regarding compulsory voting, as in Australia? (They impose a penalty [ or tax :) ] upon those citizens who fail to vote. I think. Could be wrong...)
It seems to me the US elections have in the past three decades moved from a process where candidates espousing policies attract "swing voters" of mixed view…
Sir, do you have informed opinions regarding compulsory voting, as in Australia? (They impose a penalty [ or tax :) ] upon those citizens who fail to vote. I think. Could be wrong...)
It seems to me the US elections have in the past three decades moved from a process where candidates espousing policies attract "swing voters" of mixed views and no durable loyalty toward a new process where candidates with sufficient money and organizational support can exploit "unlikely voters" who have no views or loyalty at all, but vote as instructed by the organization's operative. The winner of the election is the organization with the best techniques of ballot harvesting.
Were all the exploitable voters compelled to vote, presumably the forces of randomness would have low information, uncaring, votes cancel one another out. The fewer tribal, or swinging considerate, voters would then return to power. But I recognize this is a naïve, if hopeful, view. Do you have a better informed view of your own to share.
Sir, do you have informed opinions regarding compulsory voting, as in Australia? (They impose a penalty [ or tax :) ] upon those citizens who fail to vote. I think. Could be wrong...)
It seems to me the US elections have in the past three decades moved from a process where candidates espousing policies attract "swing voters" of mixed views and no durable loyalty toward a new process where candidates with sufficient money and organizational support can exploit "unlikely voters" who have no views or loyalty at all, but vote as instructed by the organization's operative. The winner of the election is the organization with the best techniques of ballot harvesting.
Were all the exploitable voters compelled to vote, presumably the forces of randomness would have low information, uncaring, votes cancel one another out. The fewer tribal, or swinging considerate, voters would then return to power. But I recognize this is a naïve, if hopeful, view. Do you have a better informed view of your own to share.
1