The Ethics of Voting

[Aristotle]

Sorry Ari but arguing that "compulsory voting will make the stupid vote stupid" or "compulsory voting will make special interests buy the stupid votes" is a shallow analysis.

Its actually just common sense obviousness based on what already happens.

It is a lot easier to buy someone's vote if they don't give a crap, than to buy their vote if they actually care.

In the last US Presidential Election, 81 million eligible voters chose not to vote. That's 81 million people who for the most part don't care enough to vote, and would be far easier to buy off or influence with cheap tricks.

[i]CV has a direct impact on voter turnout, evident in both aggregate and individual-
level analyses.

That assumes high voter turnout is actually a virtue. It isn't. The sad fact is, a huge portion of the population - possibly the majority - is not qualified to make a decision of this importance. They CHOOSE not to learn anything about the candidates or the issues, so they would be voting blindly.

[i]To gauge the political consequences of CV, we start with the near universal
association between political participation and socio-economic status. Noting
that ‘‘low voter turnout means unequal and socioeconomically biased turnout’’
(Lijphart 1997, 2), many scholars see CV as going a long way towards removing
this ‘‘bias’’.

Again, this assumes high voter turnout is a good thing. Where's the evidence that uneducated, clueless people who know NOTHING about the issues or candidates casting a vote is a good thing?

Do stupid or clueless people have some kind of ignorant magic that empowers them to make smart choices? I'm guessing they don't.

If we let kids have a vote on the "ice cream vs. broccolli" issue, that would certainly increase participation in family decisions. But would it really be best for the kids?

This defense of CV fails because it assumes something not in evidence: that higher voter turnout is actually good. It defies logic to argue that more clueless, unqualified, ignorant people voting is likely to result in the best result.

Forcing more clueless, apathetic people to vote just drowns out the voice of people who actually take the time to learn the issues, learn the candidates, and can actually make an educated vote. Why should someone who thoughtfully considered the issues and the candidates have their vote effectively nullified by 10 random idiots who vote the opposite way because they think "Boehner" sounds funny. There's absolutely nothing good about that. Its a disaster.