Would Mandatory Voting Make Political Campaigns Better or Worse?

In The Nation, Norman Ornstein polishes the false-equivalency apple by suggesting a method to stop both parties from appealing to their extremist base instead of to the (imaginary) middle.

When politics is driven by the need to turn out your base, and policy is then dominated by the desire to cater to that base, it brings out all the base instincts.

In Australia, where failure to show up at the polls (you can vote for "none of the above")* leads to a $15 fine, attendance is over 95 percent—and politicians cater less to consultants and the extremes (since both bases turn out in equal proportions) and more to the small number of persuadable voters who are not swayed by outrageous rhetoric. Those voters might not fit the typical pattern of readers of The Nation, but they are a far better audience to cater to than that of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Leave aside for the moment that we will see abortion on demand and gay sex techniques taught in public kindergarten before the repugs allow mandatory voting.

The problem with Ornstein's "solution" is that only one party appeals to its extremist base and ignores other voters: republicans. For decades, it was a winning strategy for them, and may be so again.

Democrats have exactly the opposite problem: they consistently ignore their own base (severely lacking in extremists anyway) to pander to the non-existent middle and to repugs who will never, never, EVER vote for them.

So would mandatory voting really force both parties to the - again, non-existent - middle? I can easily see the teabaggers revolting against any federal mandate and the GOP having to double- and triple-down on its base appeals to force them to the polls.

Democrats, meanwhile, would leap with joy for the excuse to abandon their base completely and devote all their money and time to courting repugs who - again - will never, never, EVER vote for them.

So go ahead, bring on mandatory voting. Why not? It won't make any difference.

*Now this, I could get behind. But instead of "none of the above," I'd want a simple "NO" next to each candidate's name, as an alternative to "YES." Any candidate who received more "no" votes than "yes" votes automatically loses, even if she got more "yes" votes than her opponent got. And it might prevent the current atrocity of candidates "winning" by running unopposed.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....