> we need compulsory voting
1. Elections cost money. Serve more people, more cost. More ballots, more ability to accommodate more people at a time, more machines, more poll monitors, etc.
2. You have to work*, or you're out of state, out of the country, or sick, in the hospital, or don't have any way to get to your assigned voting site because you got no car and no money for public transport etc. Now you're a criminal for not voting.
3. Or you go vote in primaries but don't know shit about the choices. Someone will tell you who to vote for so you don't have to think about it though. Then in the general you vote party line like now.
Basically I think if someone's not voting they either find it difficult to get to the polls, or it takes too much time, or they don't think it accomplishes anything (say they're a Democrat in a heavily Republican state), and making voting compulsory wouldn't change any of that - it would just criminalize not voting.
Mind you, I've never experienced a non-us voting system. Maybe you're speculating about this for some place where there aren't poor people with limited access to voting, or where it doesn't break down to picking between two sometimes meaningful choices, or sometimes no choices (people running unopposed).
The way I see it:
1. I have never experienced voting sites being overburdened from where I come from, most of the time they could easily accommodate more people for the money they are currently getting. Could they accommodate
all? That's a good question, I admit. We could found ourselves needing more money if we go that way, but that's a discussion for economists.
2. Pretty much what Teneb said, but also: even in my no-compulsory voting country you already have a system that let's you vote in advance/out of the country etc. If we just build on that to eliminate possible misuse and wrong accusation (in case of sickness, as you put it), I think the system could work.
3. True. As I said, even with such system in place, there is not automatic guarantee all of the people will actually think what they are voting for. I'd speculate that if they are being slightly forced (that is, compulsory voting), they might actually think about it more, but it is up in the air.
Regarding criminalizing prostitution: I think this is tackling the problem at the wrong end. If you want to decrease the prostitution in general,for whatever reasons, simply fining people won't do. I can see how it
could help, because that way some people will be to scared to engage in/with prostitution, but on the other hand, as Ukrainian Ranger put it, those who wont be scared by the fines will probably be forced to pay even more for it which in turn would probably make the underground market even harsher as more money and more danger brings out more ruthless criminals to exploit the situation.
When it comes to paying for sex, we have to realize this is nothing new. Regarding this topic I've just recently read a comment somewhere that sex should be done only between people who love each other. And while such thinking is nice, it is a bit naive. Apart from procreating and love people also had sex for the sake of pure physical pleasure since before Babylon stood, pretty much. Paying for any sort of pleasure is just a few steps further down the line. Personally, I think it would be better if prostitution was legalized because with certain regulations, health checks etc. it can potentially lead to more safety for everyone involved. Of course you would not eradicate illegal activities totally, but it could be beneficial none the less. Still, there is some truth in what UR said - more money, even if it goes to the state, could still lead to exploitation...
At best, I think any country trying to tackle with illegal prostitution should take a look at countries where prostitution is legalized, like Netherlands and Germany. Consider what are the benefits and downside of such system vs. complete ban on prostitution. That's my opinion, at least.