[user123456780]

Even though people may not be engaged in politics mandatory voting is important. It reduces extremist politics and the constant need to be increasingly divisive. It forces regression to the mean.

In non mandatory voting systems the politicians need to motivate people to the polls. The default of the population is apathy so to generate action you appeal to the extremes who are the most likely to act. The more people you can make act the more you can get to vote for you.

But with mandatory voting the apathetic mass (who are most likely to be moderates as they don't really care but generally are reasonable educated people and don't agree with the extremist views) cast almost random votes which smoothes out the skew to the extremes non mandatory voting causes.

[mrslave]

Except this implies that disagreement on any policies agreed upon by the two major parties is extremist. What is the solution to issues where both parties perpetuate the status quo?

I would suggest reversing the Senate ballot 6 votes rule. We can have status quo in the lower house, and negotiation with minor parties representing the population on issues they deem most important - and handled incorrectly by the major parties - in the Senate.

It is important to note that you are making an argument for outcomes where the design of the system should be philosophical. What system best represents the will of the people? (Or whatever question best frames this problem. This is troublesome and often prejudicial.) It's the subsequent application of this system that is the people's voice. We should not be designing a system to get the political outcome you prefer.

[kylebyproxy]

Compulsory voting in an unengaged populace can only serve to lower signal-to-noise ratio. How many times do we need to relearn "garbage in, garbage out"? The responsible ballot choice when uninformed is "abstain". AFAIA, Australia doesn't provide that option.

Also, the intransigent moderates you mentioned create inertia biased toward status quo and inhibits appropriate policy action and change (see e.g. the slow-moving trainwreck of climate destabilization).

[dane-pgp]

> AFAIA, Australia doesn't provide that option.

To be precise, there isn't a specific "Abstain" option on the ballot paper, but it is perfectly legal to leave the ballot blank. After all, if they could trace blank ballots back to the voter to punish them, it wouldn't be a secret ballot.

For context, "informal votes" (i.e. those votes which are rejected at the counting stage) have typically accounted for less than 5% of votes cast, and blank votes were about 20% of the votes cast in the 2001 federal election[0]. That suggests that about 1% of the population is "abstaining" in this way.

[0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...

[kylebyproxy]

Ooo that's interesting! I stand educated; thanks for sharing that.

[8note]

Voting at all in an unegaged populace is bad. Might as well just have a dictator

[ErikVandeWater]

This is pretty disrespectful to people actually living under dictatorships.

[kylebyproxy]

Sic aside, I don't follow your line of reasoning. Care to elaborate?

[spaginal]

Disengaged voters will simply vote for the current leadership or loudest guy, typically the same thing, without a thought towards the issues.

Strongmen love compulsory voting, it creates a false perception of legitimacy, because corruption or no corruption, if only 30% of a population is engaged in the issues and the other 70% could give two shits, that is a slamdunk for incumbents.

[Aerroon]

There's some evidence for this. Chile adopted voluntary voting in 2012. According to this study[0] this decreased the incumbent's advantage in the elections that follower.

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-s...

[kylebyproxy]

Agreed on all points.

Parent's assertion that "Voting at all in an unegaged populace is bad." still rubs me the wrong way.

Why discount the votes of engaged individuals just because the masses aren't? Baby, bath water, etc.

[_-david-_]

Seeing how this law was passed, maybe you should rethink your theory that you will get less extremist politics.

[SilverRed]

It's not extremist politics. There was no TV marketing about how x group is the devil and they need this law to stop it. The government just passed quickly without much publicity. The average Australian is not radicalized like Americans are and they generally do not hate peoples existence based on how they vote / make their vote their identify.

There is no such thing as "a group of liberal supporters protesting" like you see with trump and biden supporters.

[_-david-_]

The Australians voted for these parties who then pass this policy. This policy is extreme. That sure seems like extremist politics to me.

I don't get why you are talking about the US. This policy was passed by Australia. I am not saying that non mandatory voting will avoid extremist politics. All I am saying is that mandatory voting is not a silver bullet to avoiding extremism.

[joshschreuder]

The Australians who voted for these parties largely do not give two shits about the bills, because a) unlike HN, they don't understand them, why they're bad or any of the consequences, and b) because the media monopoly here ensures they don't get adequate explanation or coverage, which in turn feeds a).

I agree with GP that this is less about the Australian population being extremist or facilitating extremism as much is it is about voter apathy and a lack of proper coverage or education on these bills.

[_-david-_]

Just because the average person doesn't know what bills are passed is irrelevant to what I am saying.

All I am saying is that forcing people to vote has no impact on stopping extreme policies. If you were correct Australia wouldn't have passed this and other similar laws over the past few years.

I agree that voter apathy can lead to extreme policies passing. That point is irrelevant to what I was trying to convey that extreme policies are still passed despite mandatory voting.

[SilverRed]

I feel like even when they do get coverage it doesn't matter. This issue has had plenty of coverage but the situation is pretty much "yeah? well what are you gonna do about it? Both parties support it"

Even the greens have been supporting objectionable laws relating to tech. I feel a good chunk of people do care but there is not a single thing that can be done about it.

[dcolkitt]

> who are most likely to be moderates as they don't really care but generally are reasonable educated people and don't agree with the extremist views

Except this isn’t true. Non voters are significantly less educated than voters. This creates paradoxes like both Trump and Biden voters being wealthier and more educated than the average American.

Non-voters are less likely to be “extremist” in the sense of having strong party loyalties. But they’re much more likely to host a whole myriad range of beliefs that are disproportionately found amount the least educated and aware. They’re more likely to believe in psychics or be 9/11 truthers or to think Bill Gates is tracking people with Covid vaccine microchips.

[astrange]

> But with mandatory voting the apathetic mass (who are most likely to be moderates as they don't really care but generally are reasonable educated people and don't agree with the extremist views) cast almost random votes which smoothes out the skew to the extremes non mandatory voting causes.

Pure moderates aka centrists don't exist. Those people average out to be moderate but they're actually "cross-pressured" - they have crazy beliefs that are inconsistent because they never thought about them.

The one constant is that nobody in real life is a libertarian, even though you always run into them on the internet.