Progressive Politics

compulsory voting that attempts to actively single out and punish people for not participating, for instance, I believe WOULD result in them voting, out of spite, for the worst possible option. But if it's more like, any plurality "victory" has a big asterisk showing how they were vastly outnumbered by the people who didn't choose to pick a side, and that their momentum should be slowed proportional to how many weren't motivated to agree with them as a check/balance, might have a cooling effect on the proverbial "hot temper" of their technical marginal win. That, yes, they can proceed with the planning and legislation but a sword of damocles in the form of an instant referendum if those who didn't vote suddenly make a decision in light of which way the wind is about to blow finally decide to weigh in.

Sort of like how many people after Kamala lost were like "wait whats a tariff?" "wait what's this project 2025 thing??" "wait obamacare IS the affordable care act???" - it might not work out for major elections but for all the more local ones where policies are more immediately going to affect people's lives, it would be prudent. Also, even if an election is no longer actively running, changing your own position on the ledger would be a clear communication of loss in the confidence of an administration... the visibility of which, alone, would be good for prosecuting forcible removals from office for individuals who prove themselves unfit. Like that so-called alleged "George" "Anthony" "Devolder" "Santos" If That Even Ever WAS His Real Name.