Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
How is it better if someone just goes and circles a random name on the list because its mandatory? If someone doesn't follow politics and isn't educated enough to pick a good candidate, or motivated enough to research them, I think it's better to not vote at all than to give it up to either chance or a superficial gut feeling based on constant propaganda barrage. A person that votes like that just makes your vote less impactful, statistically speaking.
Because they won't do it randomly. Being forced to participate will make people think: "If I have to do it I might as well choose X". If you ever participated in a mandatory school activity you might know the feeling. You might not have chosen to do it of your own free will, but now that you're there let's think what to make of it.
Also politics is not just voting. Politics is almost every choice you make every day. If I have to drag someone kicking and screaming until they understand it so be it.
Also also, voting randomly is not useless. Keeping the political system functional is preferable to forever pining for a perfect candidate. A "perfect glorious leader" doesn't exist, random votes make those emotionally swayed by charismatic leaders less likely to gain a majority.
That's a lot of assumptions that I can't agree are inherently true. Forcing people to participate might not make them think at all beyond fulfilling the duty and not paying a fine, and random votes might not balance out the charismatic leaders at all - if anything the charismatic populist leaders that focus on good PR over substance will probably gather up more of these uneducated "just circle something" voters than the others. It is where/why marketing and commercials work so well in the first place and I'd rather not give even more power to this type of brainwashing, it is a popularity contest enough as it is.
If anything, I'd make it so in order for people's votes to count they need to show at least a very basic understanding of what they are voting for and what are the implications of it.
One of you depends on people wanting aganecy in their own lives and a fair world, the other depends on everyone being literally too dumb and selfish to do the bare minimum to keep society from collapsing without a gun held to their head.
I know which world I would rather be living in
Which one is which that's the big question
Not hard for anyone paying attention