An opposite argument is that compulsory voting smooths out or buffers the extreme radical urgency of any faction that might, in the right circumstances, carry the day in a low-turnout election.
Why put the [citation needed]? I've told you what my rationale is behind my statement. Just argue against my logic.
> An opposite argument is that compulsory voting smooths out or buffers the extreme radical urgency of any faction that might, in the right circumstances, carry the day in a low-turnout election.
That is a bad thing IMO. I am (and many other people) are disenfranchised by mainstream politics and I want to see more radical ideas/policies/opinions, I (and many others) don't want more of the same.
I've seen enough weird output from some models to not think quite so negatively about nay-sayers.
If "stupid response" happens 1% of the time, and the first attempt to use a model has four rounds of prompt-and-response, then I'd expect 1 in 25 people to anchor on them being extremely dumb and/or "just autocomplete on steroids" — the first time I tried a local model (IIRC it was Phi-2), I asked for a single page Tetris web app, which started off bad and half way in became a python machine learning script; the first time I used NotebookLM, I had it summarise one of my own blog posts and it missed half and made up clichés about half the rest.
I think I could make a good argument that our brains are machines for repeating past mistakes. Interesting to think about the opposite sides of the argument.
Alcohol has played a role in plenty of similar accidents. Here's one I just read about yesterday, in which the writer William Burroughs shot his partner, Joan Vollmer, in the head (!) as part of a William Tell reenactment: https://www.openculture.com/2018/07/joan-vollmer-wife-willia...
[Citation needed]
An opposite argument is that compulsory voting smooths out or buffers the extreme radical urgency of any faction that might, in the right circumstances, carry the day in a low-turnout election.