Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/politics
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
kripcat.eth pfp
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
It's election day. Time to exercise your democratic rights Australia.
6 replies
1 recast
22 reactions
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
is it really a right tho if it's compulsory
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
I guess you can choose to pay the fine or write in a nonsense vote... so I'd still classify it as a democratic right personally.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
"you have a right to break the law" is my favorite kind of right
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
kripcat.eth pfp
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
Fine for not voting is $12 USD.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
kripcat.eth pfp
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
lol There are pluses and minuses. Compulsory voting pushes politics towards the center because instead of having to "get out your base" everyone gets out by default. So instead of politics getting more extreme and polarized to motivate people to vote, you have the opposite; parties seek to alienate as few potential voters as possible by being as mild mannered and centrist as possible. So our equivalent of Trump, Clive Palmer, is a marginal figure who spent 120 million dollars to win a single seat last election. The flipside is that our major parties are somewhat cowardly and afraid of bold reform which is becoming a problem with issues like housing, energy and tax.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
I don't know if politicians can rely too much on these "structural" advantages to prevent extremism in politics. Trump had everything going *against* him on paper (outspend 2:1 in some background states, criminal cases, hostile media, etc) and he still won. At the end of the day politicians need to be effective and be able to "sell" their policies to the electorate. If they think "the system" (how elections are structured, demographics, etc ) will let them get away with incompetence and unpopular policies, they're just inviting more extreme politics to take hold.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
In the US, you can say that roughly a third voted for Trump, a third voted for Harris and a third didn't vote at all (I think Trump won the popular vote by less than 2%) - since a third sits out, politicians and parties have to motivate their base. In Australia, for the major parties they're really just trying to not be the worst option since everyone has to vote... so they tend to shy away for anything polarizing.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Mike | Abundance 🌟 pfp
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
I don't disagree with this reasoning. But I'd argue that Trump could pursue the same exact policies without the polarizing rhetoric. He uses polarizing rhetoric bc it's super effective in the US media environment (helps him dominate the news cycle & get earned media) If the US had compulsory voting he could have made that work to his advantage also (by promising to end compulsory voting, for example). So my point is that there is no substitute to an effective government that can sell its policies to the public. Everything else is just tactical maneuvering
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
kripcat.eth pfp
kripcat.eth
@kripcat.eth
I’d probably take a middle of the road opinion. You’re not wrong that there is agency in the parties and specific people involved to sell themselves effectively. But also incentives matter and rules like compulsory voting and preferential voting do subtlety shift incentives that alter the trajectory of political culture and the Overton window. Everyone operates within a given context and they both shape that context and are shaped by it. If the US amended the constitution and adopted compulsory voting tomorrow the political culture wouldn’t change overnight, but I think the US would find itself in a very different place to its current trajectory, 50 years from now. For better or worse.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
The thing with US elections is that the margins between Republicans and Democrats is razor-thin... it can often be thousands or hundreds of votes that can decide crucial seats and with the Electoral Collage that can make all the difference. I personally don't think Trump won on policy, as evidenced by voters who are now hurt by tariffs or deportations that they didn't think they were voting for (despite Trump being very clear about both). I genuinely do think Trump was able to get over the line because of the Podcasters (JRE, Impaulsive, etc) inspired young men (a traditionally low voting group) to go vote. Happy to agree to disagree though, I'm sure there are lots of variables to consider here.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction