Compulsory Voting

I think someone should be able to make any kind of claim they want, no matter how ludicrous, and still be able to win. I would have voted PRO in the '1=2' debate if he would argue it better. You make a couple of scary claims. I think there is a lot wrong with someone not being elected by majority. This isn't a debate about the electoral college. The point is, if everyone showed up to vote, we could have had different results. Every win in every election is essentially illegitimate. Next, you claim it is better to have a small number of 'informed' voters rather than have the large percentage of America voting. This is simply not true. Again, who is to qualify a vote? Why does the reason that you vote have any more weight than the reason I vote? If I am a single issue voter, like the millions of Americans, whats to say I'm informed? Should we require poll testing, as I asked earlier. The fact is, qualifying people's votes in any way is unconstitutional and illegal. So, who is to say the valid opinion of the true majority of Americans would somehow be the 'wrong' one? Maybe the government should just protect us all from ourselves and choose who is going to be president themselves. Some of your points would be true if there was some kind of principle decision made as to why not to vote. But, this isn't the case. Most voters don't vote because they are simply lazy. Giving them an incentive would inspire them to get out and vote. If they are going to vote, people have the option of abstaining if they don't have a preference, and if they do, this motivates them to express their opinion. In short, people would be motivated to vote. Once at the polling station, these people would either abstain if they had no viable opinion or cast their vote for whatever reason they decide. Its presumptuous to think that your reasons for voting are any more important than theirs. The only way we can be called a legitimate democracy is if we can truly access our populations opinions. 20% turnout, no matter how 'educated', does not warrant a victory and is not reflective of a democracy. Furthermore, people would take it upon themselves to become more informed, in the event that they don't have any reason to vote one way or the other. If they don't become more 'informed', than they have the option of abstaining. As for the cons, I don't have any reason to believe their would be some new bureaucracy formed. What would cause this, more votes being cast? If so, I think more vote counters are a small sacrifice and deserve to be implemented. The 'point' of representative democracy is not so that stupid people won't have their voices heard. It is simply a matter of efficiency. There is no way we could have everyone in the country vote on half a dozen issues a day, like Congress does. How is an incentive the same as a fine? A tax break would be great for people. I don't see how the rich benefit from a universal tax break. This is illogical. So, your position stands as unconstitutional and illegal. People who truly don't have an opinion could abstain or 'educate' themselves and make an 'informed' decision. Any reason that someone votes one way is enough to warrant their opinion. My grandma votes on who she thinks "looks more like a president", while I do some research and watch the campaigns etc. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to vote? Whether they are voting on who looks more trustworthy or the voter has in depth knowledge on each and every technical issue, the vote still counts the same. Whether you personally see it that way or not, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several Supreme Court decisions do. We have a need to know the true opinion of our populous if we are to call ourselves a democracy.