First, some definitions: in English, the word "many" is defined as a large number. Two is not a large number.
There are only two countries in Europe with compulsory voting, and they don't enforce it (I'm not going to name them for you, you'll have to learn something by doing the research yourself). Australia is the only English-speaking nation with compulsory voting which also enforces with a fine, and they aren't in Europe.
Second, you're (intentionally, I suspect) missing my point that, in general, an educated populace is more likely to vote, where an ignorant populace will not, and that's the reason Europe has higher voter turnout than the U.S.
Third, you can't claim I'm spouting biased propaganda without providing evidence. Do you have any? Ah, I thought not. But don't trouble yourself, I do have evidence. Both President Clinton and President Obama have raised taxes on the wealthy, and they are Democrats. President George W. Bush TWICE cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he's a Republican. Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul...all are Republicans, and all have consistently suggested lowering taxes on the wealthy. Just this month, Republicans reduced the amount of the Social Security Disability Fund in the future, which helps those who are not wealthy. Republicans have reduced food stamp funding, and they've fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which help poorer people afford food and health insurance, respectively. Republicans support the Keystone Pipeline, which benefits the billionaire Koch brothers. The United States Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, illegally halted the recount in 2000 to allow Republican (and member of the top 1%) George W. Bush to become president. He subsequently charged up trillions in debt to pay wealthy private industry to wage war, probably one of the largest redistributions of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy that we've ever seen.
President Reagan (darling of Republicans everywhere) reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. He was a Republican, and that benefitted the wealthy, no one else. And it was Republicans in Congress who came up with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, allowing the 1% to gamble with their money and stick middle class and poor taxpayers with the bill (while also setting us up for the Great Recession).
Have you even looked at the Republican Party platform? You can read it, you know. It endorses regulatory reform (so the wealthy can get away with poisoning our food and environment without fines or penalties), and privatizing Social Security (so wealthy banks can get trillions of dollars in new accounts they can charge fees). It suggests pulling more money out of welfare programs (so the poor will be desperate enough to take that job at the local McDonald's...owned by a wealthy person), and both gut the FDA and restrict Americans' rights to sue when they're harmed (both great for the top 1%).
I don't straddle the fence like some milquetoast moderate, I see things for what they are: the Republican Party stands for elevating the wealthy, while destroying the middle class and the poor, and represents the single largest threat to America since World War II. Yes, more than terrorism. And much more than Libertarians.
While we're engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit the truth, and think I should moderate my position. Republicans came down with the Citizens United decision, which benefits the top 1%. Democrats take corporate money for their campaigns as well, but it is a false equivalency to claim the parties are basically the same. Democrats are pro-union, which benefits working people, and not the top 1%. Republicans are anti-union. Democrats want to help poor people, and the Republican Party does not.
Honestly, I can't figure out if you're just ignorant, or a moron. Is it possible you're a sociopath or a malignant narcissist? Those are practically prerequisites for Republicans and Libertarians these days.
Politics is a hobby of mine, so I don't expect you to know everything I do, but you could bother to do SOME small amount of research before taking such an untenable, absurd position. America can't afford to have voters so naive.
By the way, the Fortune 500 is much too large to be an oligarchy. I would characterize the United States as more of a kleptocracy than republic these days.
Try harder...to know what you're talking about.