One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour.
This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro.
There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out
But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted.
Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable.
I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
Blanket discouragements against voting will not have the same effect on different groups, especially if the favoured group received more directed encouragement separately.
The whole bit you wrote about Bush and fraud and hanging only with your own was the straw man. I can see how maybe my initial statement was incomplete, but this stuff is not exactly news in US politics.
This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.