Picture a commuter who hasn't followed a single debate, dragging themselves to the polls after work, picking a name because it sounds familiar. That's not democracy, that's noise. From a game theory standpoint, forcing participation pushes candidates to chase the uninformed median voter with slogans and vibes instead of actual policy. Informed voters get drowned out by random choices. The system already suffers from rational ignorance; mandatory voting just scales it up. Better to let people sit out if they haven't done the homework, so the signal-to-noise ratio stays high. Turnout isn't the goal, good decisions are.

Does forcing someone who knows nothing about the candidates actually make them care? Your argument assumes apathy is the problem, but mandatory voting just shifts the cost. That uninformed person still hasn't done the homework—now they pick a name that sounds familiar or vote randomly to avoid the fine. In game theory, when everyone is required to play, the rational move for the ignorant is to flip a coin or copy a friend. That dilutes informed voters and amplifies noise. Apathy is a useful signal that someone has no stake. Turnout numbers don't measure good decisions.

You're worried a powerful person will buy votes from a small, apathetic minority. But mandatory voting makes that problem worse, not better. If you force everyone to vote, the rational move for someone who doesn't care is to sell their vote to whoever pays, or copy whatever ad they saw last. That's just adding more uninformed, easily-manipulated players to the game. The powerful man doesn't need a majority, just enough confused votes to tip it. Low turnout is a signal that people aren't engaged; forcing false participation doesn't create real accountability, it just lets the manipulators farm it at scale.