A factor, minor perhaps, that favors trying to get more people to vote comes from the requirement that both major parties (in a more or less two party climate) must be so close to the "middle of the road" that random voters are likely to split about equally between them. This allows a consolidated small group of voters with "an agenda" to swing the net result to give their separate "cluster vote" substantially greater impact than is proportional to their real numbers.

The general rule of thumb is that any 15% of the voters who can manage to "all vote together" can carry any election. (I'm told that the "big boys" who rule the corporations consider owning 15% of the stock as generally a "controlling interest," provided there isn't another stockholder or very cohesive bloc that has 16%.)

By having more numbnut pick-and-check random voters actually showing up at the poll booths, it at least requires a slightly larger group of "issue nuts" to get the "magic 15%" to swing the result, especially as a "popular" few issues is more likely to bring forth a competing bunch of issue voters.

In the recent vote in Kansas on the "marriage amendment" it appears that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee effectively blocked the proposal, simply by tabling it, through three sessions of the Legislature; but allowed it to advance when the vote would come in an election when the only other thing on the ballot was election of Local School Committe representatives in only a third of the local districts. Nobody without a strong opinion and commitment (or stern instructions from their preachers) showed up, and the vote was carried by the wingnuts. Had it appeared when there were more general issues on the ballot, it is debatable whether it would have passed. Similar tactics have recently been used (successfully) by my County administrators to "manage" special interest votes so that they appear when general voter turnout is expected to be low.

Yes, probably everybody should vote, and they should be provided with "flippin' coins" when they enter the booths to make their random selections. The larger "random vote" does (usually) help to dilute the effectiveness of the radicals, and probably doesn't really hurt the real candidates.

John