[zeveb]

Is this really relevant, though? Republican democracy means that the people are sovereign within the laws they themselves have set up and may change; universal suffrage means that everyone[0] may vote. But isn't the choice not to vote itself just as much of a signal as voting? I know that some countries have compulsory voting, but that has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone simply wishes to sit out, that seems to me to be his right.

Given the reasonably-established effect of weather on elections[1], I am uncertain that forced votes are particularly high-information votes.

0: well, not children or felons

1: e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463178/

[wickedwiesel]

In direct response to your first point, I would argue that it is you right to not vote. That being said, as it is THE fundamental right in democracies, you should not need to jump through any hoops whatsoever to vote. Especially as evidence suggests this leads to the people in power making use of that to stay in power.

On a side note: the idea that felons are unable to vote strikes me as totally wrong. What's the reasoning behind that? Why on Earth would you do that to a person? I cannot think of any scenario where this does not only have negatives consequences (alienating convicted felons even further from communities etc.). The only upside is pandering to those who feel that punishment is an important aspect of criminal justice. (This in itself deserves debate.)