By at the same time also requiring some form of ranked choice for every election, and to have a “none of the above” option, and if over 50% of the votes have “none of the above” as the #1 choice the election must be redone with all new candidates. Everyone is thus able to truly vote for who and what they believe we have the turnout to never have to discuss the legitimacy of the winner.
forcing people to perform an act to legitimize an unjust system
I assume this means that you don’t believe votes are properly counted and that all of our elections are “rigged.”
If you have that belief, then what reforms do you think are possible? Most people who I’ve heard express those opinions are far right wing people who want to discard democracy.
Not the one you responded to but if I may hazard a guess I’d say they see non-voting as a protest against the two party representative democracy currently in place.
If you’re forced to vote and there is no blank alternative, you are being forced to legitimise it whether you like it or not.
In Australia, for example, which has mandatory voting, the only requirement is that you participate. So, you can do the equivalent of submitting a completely empty ballot if you want to protest.
Mandatory voting creates more room for independent and minor parties to collect your vote, instead of just abstaining in the booth. The preference system tends to avoid outcomes that don’t reflect the electorate.
In Australia, far left and far right politicians and candidates can and do bloviate all they want, but ultimately mandatory voting pulls politics back to the centre.
Yeah, forcing people to perform an act to legitimize an unjust system is really a great way to achieve reform.
Please explain how that’s supposed to work?
By at the same time also requiring some form of ranked choice for every election, and to have a “none of the above” option, and if over 50% of the votes have “none of the above” as the #1 choice the election must be redone with all new candidates. Everyone is thus able to truly vote for who and what they believe we have the turnout to never have to discuss the legitimacy of the winner.
I assume this means that you don’t believe votes are properly counted and that all of our elections are “rigged.”
If you have that belief, then what reforms do you think are possible? Most people who I’ve heard express those opinions are far right wing people who want to discard democracy.
Not the one you responded to but if I may hazard a guess I’d say they see non-voting as a protest against the two party representative democracy currently in place.
If you’re forced to vote and there is no blank alternative, you are being forced to legitimise it whether you like it or not.
In Australia, for example, which has mandatory voting, the only requirement is that you participate. So, you can do the equivalent of submitting a completely empty ballot if you want to protest.
Mandatory voting creates more room for independent and minor parties to collect your vote, instead of just abstaining in the booth. The preference system tends to avoid outcomes that don’t reflect the electorate.
In Australia, far left and far right politicians and candidates can and do bloviate all they want, but ultimately mandatory voting pulls politics back to the centre.