It's a pity you didn't read the second post then, since it kind of explained why mandatory voting simply doesn't add anything besides people who either don't care or might want to deliberately screw up the vote.
You're basically arguing you can force people to cast a meaningful vote rather than just be contrary or chose the guy with a moustache. If you can't spot the problem with that idea...well.
Nope, I did, and it didn't.
Your second post:
A) Ignores historical circumstances.*
Like this one, which is the first that comes to my mind right now, and the one I'm most familiar with. I'm Argentinean, mind you.
B) Ignores that anyone who actually IS indifferent and doesn't really wants to vote can void their ballot or cast a blank ballot or any other such option that their system allows.
Anticipating some replies that could arise:
"But then they aren't casting a meaningful vote!"
Define what a meaningful vote is.
"They're just going to vote for the candidate with the least possibilities to win, to balance things. (be contrary)"
Yes. That's part of the game. I've done it. Especially when voting representatives for the legislative bodies.
"They're just going to vote for some superficial and inane thing, like physical appearance. (choose the guy with a mustache)"
That's prejudice. One or two idiots who cast a superficial vote do not make enough of a reason to put artificial barriers to voting. (And while I'm at it, looking down upon people's opinion like that will usually earn you their comtempt, not their votes.)
"Artificial barriers to voting isn't the same as optional vote."
It is in some places, because not all realities are the same and one size doesn't fits all. Read the article I will post at the end of the post if you want me to elaborate.
"But if you're going to force them to vote just so that they can void their ballots, why force them in the first place?"
To avoid people manipulating who gets to vote and who doesn't by imposing de jure or de facto barriers. EVERYONE gets the chance to vote, and in the privacy of the voting booth you decide whether you actually want to use that right or not. Read the article below.
"People are going to boycott the election by casting void or blank ballots en masse. (screw up the vote)"
Yes, they are going to if they have to. They're also boycotting it when they don't vote. The difference being, with mandatory vote, people actually get to know it instead of the major parties shielding themselves behind apathy and uncertainty.
So,
to sum it up, I'll repeat it once again:
Different historical, cultural, political, geographical and economical situations lead to different approaches to the voting system. If you don't know and understand such realities, stating that their voting system (or any other aspect of their society for that matter) is flawed, is just arrogance.
- The Swiss system of cantons, directories and direct democracy works very well... for the Swiss. (Or at least I guess it works well for them.) But they're few, well educated and live in a small area. Good for them. Not so good for most countries.
- The Argentinean system works fairly well... for a population where illiteracy is very low. But if the majority of the people in your country can't read, then making them use a printed ballot is an ILLUSION of democracy. You have to use something else then. Again, good for us, not so good for others.
- The US system of optional voting and an electoral college that somehow isn't an electoral college works well... for the Americans. Culturally, they seem to believe that only people who want to vote should vote. Works well in a population where everyone KNOWS when voting day is. Not so well in some underdeveloped country with low population density and poor communication infrastructure though. Good for them. Not so good for the rest of the world.
I could keep going, but I think by now I've made my point clear.
*: And since the last time I was kind and gentle and caring and made a
really big effort to cite only sources in English (which by the way leaves me with
very little space to maneuver) all I got in exchange was being scolded for citing "only" articles from Wikipedia (which, in fact, I consider is a very healthy thing to do), now I'm also citing, as complementary reading,
THIS SPANISH-WRITTEN ARTICLE HERE from a well-known Argentinean historian, that explains in great detail the circumstances that led to the Saenz Peña Law, which is the (though admittedly
heavily modified) law of the current Argentinean electoral system. The Saenz Peña law was the one that established mandatory voting. And there, in the article, you can see WHY we chose this way of voting in our own historical and political context.
And I'm not translating it, for great justice. I believe this both contributes to further the knowledge of those who actually want to know, by forcing them to either learn a new language or go through the hassle of using a mediocre automated translator (in some way similar to relegating voting for those who actually "care", when you think about it), and at the same time illustrates the point of why I will be citing Wikipedia articles in English from now on so that we all can understand each other and have a civil discussion. Two birds, one stone. I should be put to handle the logistics in the UEF if I manage to keep this up.
