We Never Know
No Slack
I still don't understand your objection - as mentioned, there are potential problems with any sort of compulsory system but those problems are not inherent and depend on the specifics. None of what you talk about here would be necessary to implement with mandatory voting. I'm pretty sure neither Costa Rica nor Australia have armed government officials going around to the homes of citizens demanding their ballots and that they be marked only with the "correct" candidates or face punishment. If they did, sure, that'd be authoritarianism. But neither mandatory taxation nor mandatory voting is inherently authoritarian. Again, I don't see the wisdom in throwing out the seeds with the soil.
Still not for making it to where people have to vote but did do a little searching after your post and read these two articles.
Political philosopher argues how mandatory voting could impact U.S.
Political philosopher argues how mandatory voting could impact U.S.
UB's Alexandra Opera has studied this topic.
Stanford political scientist makes the case for mandatory voting
![news.stanford.edu](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.stanford.edu%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fimage%2F0029%2F86375%2FCourtesy-emilee-chapman.jpeg&hash=2f54ed42f70aaa3bd826cefad5feb47c&return_error=1)
The case for mandatory voting
Elections play a distinctive role for strengthening democracy and voting is a pivotal part of that process, said Stanford political science scholar Emilee Chapman, who in a new paper makes the case for universal participation through mandatory voting.
![news.stanford.edu](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.stanford.edu%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fimage%2F0026%2F9368%2Ffavicon-196x196.png&hash=66ca2f8c46ebfdbb9641c06b172999cd&return_error=1)