What if election wins required a MAJORITY OF REGISTERED VOTERS to win?

[IdaBriggs]

Not just a "majority of people who voted" to win, but an actual MAJORITY of REGISTERED VOTERS.

For example, a town has 10,000 registered voters.

For the sake of simplicity only 3,000 people vote: under the current system, whoever gets the most of those votes wins.

Under a "required plurality" system, the election results would be tossed out, and the system would start again until at least 8,000 people voted. Or 9,000 or 7,500 or something resembling a "real majority" -- ???

Accepting the fact the Republicans wouldn't like it as a given, what the thoughts of my fellow DU'ers?

[oldandhappy]

1. big like!

[IdaBriggs]

2. Thank you - my "stick" would be that political ads would continue until we get a good election.

Where "good" is defined as registered voters actually "voting" --

[yeoman6987]

6. Republicans would love this!

Don't give them any ideas. They show up for elections. They have smaller voter pools to work with. Can you imagine how much effort it would take in large cities. Horrid ideas. One of the worst in fact.

[3catwoman3]

3. In Australia, voting...

...is mandatory and you are fined if you don't. Turnout, from what I am told, is typically in the high 90%s.

[Indydem]

4. What makes you confident this would work in our favor?

And what makes you think that essentially forcing people who don't want to vote, to vote, is fair, just, or constitutional?

How about the Democrats just run good candidates, have better ideas that are well articulated, and win?

[DavidDvorkin]

5. We'd have a lot of empty offices

And a lot of expensive elections.

[Travis_0004]

7. Dumb idea

I would argue that people have a first amendment right not to vote. Either show up and vote, or dont complain about the results.