"consider is there any scenario where we might want to consider low turnout a sign of a healthy democracy?"

This little line from the notes on our reading really struck me, for some reason. Primarily because it's so counterintuitive. How could NOT voting be a sign of health in a democracy? I mean, voting is what democracy is all about, it's the center of the entire system. But then I started to think about potential scenarios.

The point of voting is not to take a shot in the dark, but to make an educated decision about a candidate that meets their needs and matches their positions and beliefs. If there is no such viable candidate, then the theory that some have proposed, like Dahl if I recall, say that you should just give it your best go. I disagree. If there is no candidate that matches your positions, a credible candidate now, then there really is no point in compromising the vast majority of your opinions just for the sake of feeling like you've done your civic duty. You're creating a false sense of mandate for ALL the positions of the guy you vote for, if he wins. In addition, if there just isn't enough information available to decide, then it's likewise irresponsible to vote.

To bring up an example it was for these reasons that brave dissidents in the USSR didn't vote: There was no such thing as information about candidates and the candidates were all party-loyal communists. That meant it was largely pointless to vote and as a result, if you were brave enough to stand up to the soviet system, you didn't.

Now the soviet system was not a democracy, but the same principle stands, if you are ill-informed, or ambivalent the system is better off without your vote. If there are enough people that are ill-informed (because information does not exist or is not clear) or ambivalent (usually because of frustration with the system), then a low voter turnout could be a sign of a POLITICALLY healthy system with problems in other areas.