OK I'm jumping in without reading the whole thread. But I've always advocated mandatory voted. The problem is that people don't vote when they just don't like any of the parties enough. If they do, they get out and vote. The problem with this is that it means that if there are no viable choices then it allows the extremist parties to get more power because not enough people are voting to keep them out. People do not realise that not voting has a consequence. By not voting people are effectively creating a weaker vote for the more extremist parties.
Mandatory voting only works though if there is an option for none of the above. And that has to have a consequence.
Saying that though I don't know how mandatory voting is supposed to help combat big business and it may not be so viable for America where there are effectively only two parties. If anything it sounds more like a way to maintain the duopoly of the Democrat/Republican parties. But in Europe there are always more parties to vote for. If mandatory voting can be convincingly argued to combat big business then surely this is a good thing.
Mandatory voting only works though if there is an option for none of the above. And that has to have a consequence.
Saying that though I don't know how mandatory voting is supposed to help combat big business and it may not be so viable for America where there are effectively only two parties. If anything it sounds more like a way to maintain the duopoly of the Democrat/Republican parties. But in Europe there are always more parties to vote for. If mandatory voting can be convincingly argued to combat big business then surely this is a good thing.
