good idea/bad idea, necessary democratic reform or authoritarian imposition? are there better or worse ways to do it?

  • Being able to not choose is, to me, as valid as actually making a choice. So while I do think it could be beneficial, I also hate the idea of losing even just that little bit of freedom. I never like the removal of options.

    • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      You could still not choose. “I abstain” and “none of these” are valid votes. Submitting an empty ballot would satisfy the law while preserving the right not to choose.

      That said, some have a religious prerogative to not vote, and should be eligible for an exemption.

      • CameronDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even better, it makes your rejection explicit. Someone who doesn’t nake the effort to turn up to the polls isnt worth chasing their vote. Someone who turns up and says “Y’all shit” is a swing voter who can be swayed with the right policies. (Of course this all requires a healthy democracy without geremandering fuckery).

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        That said, some have a religious prerogative to not vote, and should be eligible for an exemption.

        this is, as i understand, the case in Australia—which i would consider the most compelling example of compulsory voting in practice.