Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2628181" data-attributes="member: 7240">Umbran,I voted for you because I normally see a high level of reasoning from you but I really question your idea that the way to compensate for low voter turnout is to restrict voter choice. In your early posts on this thread you really emphasized that there was a problem in there being very low turnout and that many of your concerns sprang from that source. It seems to me that our goal should be to increase turnout, not to assume that low turnout is a permanent feature of the system and try to somehow compensate for it.In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals; secondly, those wishing to challenge incumbents will know that they have to mobilize a significant number of voters in order to win. If we restrict voter choice while simultaneously reducing the incentive to mobilize voters, turnout will drop, as will the legitimacy of the awards. If people want term limits, they have to show that these limits will increase turnout/legitimacy; if they can't, I'm not sure what these limits are for.</blockquote>