$50 fine for not voting.

[Shira]

What do you think would have been the 2004 presidential elections results if there was a law that everyone who does not vote has to pay $50 fine?

[A18]

What do you think would have been the 2004 presidential elections results if there was a law that everyone who does not vote has to pay $50 fine?

Republican landslide, 75-25. Since obviously only the Democrats would have advocated this rule, and the 50% of 18+ year olds who don't normally vote would be pissed off about it.

[Shira]

What do you think would have been the 2004 presidential elections results if there was a law that everyone who does not vote has to pay $50 fine?

Republican landslide, 75-25. Since obviously only the Democrats would have advocated this rule, and the 50% of 18+ year olds who don't normally vote would be pissed off about it.

But let's assume that this rule was not a new one but rather existed in the last 70 years and that it started with $10 fine and gradually went up to $50.

[A18]

One of the parties would have opposed it then too, and won in a landslide. Though it is not and never has been constitutional for Congress to impose a fine for not voting, I'll assume you mean state legislatures did it, in which case they would be swept out of office, thus clearing the way for repeal in every state.

In short, no matter what, the people who don't like voting are a large enough percentage of the population that forcing them to vote would blow up in the party's face that enacted it, and the other party would be smart enough to use that to their advantage.

Even if both major parties supported it, a third party would win, 50-25-25.

[Shira]

One of the parties would have opposed it then too, and won in a landslide. Though it is not and never has been constitutional for Congress to impose a fine for not voting, I'll assume you mean state legislatures did it, in which case they would be swept out of office, thus clearing the way for repeal in every state.

In short, no matter what, the people who don't like voting are a large enough percentage of the population that forcing them to vote would blow up in the party's face that enacted it, and the other party would be smart enough to use that to their advantage.

Even if both major parties supported it, a third party would win, 50-25-25.

You are missing the point. I am not talking about who is the initiator of this hypothetical rule. Let’s even assume that it was from the beginning. In other words let’s assume that such a fine would have increased the turnout from almost 60% to 90%. How would these additional 30% have voted?

[Platypus]

A very good idea. But you should point out that they usually let a 'first offence' go.

[A18]

One of the parties would have opposed it then too, and won in a landslide. Though it is not and never has been constitutional for Congress to impose a fine for not voting, I'll assume you mean state legislatures did it, in which case they would be swept out of office, thus clearing the way for repeal in every state.

In short, no matter what, the people who don't like voting are a large enough percentage of the population that forcing them to vote would blow up in the party's face that enacted it, and the other party would be smart enough to use that to their advantage.

Even if both major parties supported it, a third party would win, 50-25-25.

You are missing the point. I am not talking about who is the initiator of this hypothetical rule. Let’s even assume that it was from the beginning. In other words let’s assume that such a fine would have increased the turnout from almost 60% to 90%. How would these additional 30% have voted?

For whatever party promised to repeal the law. One would.

[King]

The Libertarians would probably denounce the fine as a violation of civil liberties:

2004
Badnarik (L) 51% (526 EVs)
Bush (R) - 25% (9 EVs - UT, ID)
Kerry (D) - 23% (3 EVs - DC)

[M]

If it happened at an earlier date, chances are history would be so butterflied up that neither Bush nor Kerry would likely ever be born, let alone run for president.

But I'll play your game. My natural instinct is to guess it benefits the Democrats. Of course, the 2004 election shook up the conventional wisdom, and in truth its anyones's guess.

[King]

I don't think Democrats would be benefit if the law was enacted 70 years ago like Shira says as it would have been approved of by the Democratic Congress and President FDR.

[MaC]

The Libertarians would probably denounce the fine as a violation of civil liberties:

2004
Badnarik (L) 51% (526 EVs)
Bush (R) - 25% (9 EVs - UT, ID)
Kerry (D) - 23% (3 EVs - DC)

I LIKE those numbers.