By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Here's the thing, though: If you live in a country with mandatory voting (like I do, for instance; Luxembourg has mandatory voting for all citizens with Luxembourgish nationality), you try to stay informed about politics and what politicians do. This is something that would not go well for the usual flip-flopping Republicans, but also not for any of the many Democrat with those habits, as they would be under much more and harsher scrutiny.

Something else it would do would be boosting third parties. If one has to go to vote anyway, few are those who then just make a blanket or intentionally invalid vote, and rather choose some outsider. This could be devastating to both the Democrats and the GOP if this happens in large enough numbers.

Luxembourg is smaller than Rhode Island, the smallest state in the US. It is about 1/70 the size of Oklahoma and less than .01% of the size of the US as a whole. It's about twice the size of the EU as a whole. In terms of population, the population of Luxembourg is less than that of Alaska, and less than 1/3 of one percent of the US as a whole.

Even if mandatory voting would not be unconstitutional (it most likely would, as not voting would be interpreted as a form of speech protected by the first amendment), and would lead to a more educated electorate (I'm skeptical of this), it would simply be a logistical nightmare. Things that may work out in a small country with a centralized population might not work in a country like the US.

Keep in mind that mandatory voting also holds true for European elections, so your size comparisons are not exactly true here.

As for your second point, if Brazil can do it and enforce it through the deepest jungle, why shouldn't the US be able to do so if it's constitutional?