Should voting be compulsory?

[eloise]

in my uni elections, it's not compulsory, but everyone tries to get people to vote for them simply by accosting them as soon as they come near to the polling area- 'vote for us, tick the box, ask no questions'

this is ok on campuses where most of the students are very politically minded/informed, and know what's going on.. but at others, it's simply a matter of who can coerce the largest number of ignorant students to spare 5 minutes before class.

So it's a hard one! Compulsory voting would only work if a really good job was done to educate people as to who and what they were voting for.. rather than 'hey! it's election day! pick a box!'

i think i'm making myself even more confused now...

 

[crow011]

people are so quick to defend their RIGHTS as citizens, and not their DUTIES . . .

its your DUTY as an australian citizen to vote . . . we are asked to do so little in this society: all we are asked to do is not steal, kill, or basically infringe on anyone elses happiness and peace . . .

im glad voting is compulsory in this country - it makes people to take an active interest in the forces that have power over their lives . . .

look at america - the under 30 year olds dont vote, so instead you have nothing but conservative middle aged and elderly people voting . . .

thats really dangerous . . .

consider compulsory voting a sign of a progressive neo-liberal democracy, and be happy . . .

it could be a lot worse . . .

 

[muzby]

forcing people to vote is the same as not allowing them to vote..


you are taking away a basic right of choice...

not only that, it would stop people doing silly votes which end up giving preferences to people like john howard... (well, thats my theory on why he got back in...)

 

[Donny Don't]

Absolutely.

 

[Raz]

im glad voting is compulsory in this country - it makes people to take an active interest in the forces that have power over their lives . . .

That's the thing though, I don't know that's so true. I still know tons of people who don't have the remotest interest in our political system, and the only reason they vote is because they don't want to cop a fine, not out of any sense of duty.

IMO, it'd be better for them if they could just stay home and not have to go through the charade, and it'd be better for the rest of us because at least we'd know that the ones who have voted are the ones who really give a toss.

PS:Sorry about my tone in the last couple of posts in this thread, I just re-read and it looks a bit narky...

 

[josh_nexus]

Yes. Voting should be compulsory.

Non compulsory voting disadvantages the poor/uneducated in society. Anyone who claims it should be a choice issue needs only to look at voter demographics in US elections. They are skewed in an unacceptably towards those with significant financial and social means. Freedom of choice is a moot point in this case. Yes you can choose in the States, but the result which is produced is fundamentally flawed because democracy only works if everybody has a say.

It is not good enough to say that you dont care. You are all members of a society which provides us with significant
social means, which, lets be frank, we have all used at sometime. Roads, public transport, postal services, water, power and the legal system are just a few of these sevices which we use virtually everyday and the price of this is we must all be prepaired to participate in the running of this society and that means voting.

 

[lostpunk5545]

Yes. Voting should be compulsory.

Non compulsory voting disadvantages the poor/uneducated in society.

Well it seems the poor/uneducated people this time round voted completely against their best interests. Maybe it would be better if people who gave a fuck about the country were the ones out there voting, without their valid votes being smothered in a plethora of uninterested apathetic votes.

 

[ozbreaker]

*cough america cough bush cough*

i think it at least forces people to try to have a say/participate. i'm all for it.. evenn though it's been proven time and time again that the bell curve is being generous

 

[atomica]

the people who dont believe in it seem to think that disinterested in politics equals bad decision-making, and that only interested persons voting is somehow more valid. this seems to be founded on a basic belief that interested somehow equals informed and/or intelligent.

look at the usa and you will see that none of this is true. do we REALLY want things to be like that?? the people who vote in the usa are not more intelligent, more compassionate, more benificent, or more informed. very often they are extremists, and the strength of certain factions (such as the christian right) makes the representation unbalanced in certain directions, which do not accurately represent the wishes of the american people.

removal of compulsory voting allows the more powerful (and, generally, wealthy) groups in society to have a greater say, whilst the disillusioned less powerful just give up and stop voting all together, cuz they dont see the point. got a bit of orwellian dilemma of the proles to it, imo.

who on earth wants to be more like the usa?!? i mean REALLY.... compulsory voting also helps to protect against absolute corruption (as in the usa), the cycle of disillusionment leads to disinterest leads to nonvoting leads to dodgy corrupt politions leads to more disillusionment.. and so on. we have some element of that in australia, but i think compulsory voting slows that process down quite a bit - our pollies are nowhere near as corrupt or morally bankrupt as in the usa (although we're working on it apparently...)

in theory at least (and nothing in practice works like the theory) compulsory voting imposes a certain degree of civic responsibility that helps to mitigate the overwhelming laziness, disinterest, and disillusionment of most people. sure people are still like that, and many of them donkey vote or vote for parties who will not really represent their true wishes - but at least they have a say.

and sure, this time around a lot of disinterested or uneducated or stupid people voted against their own best interests, but that was their decision to make, however lazy and uninformed it might have been. it was still their choice. to begrudge them a voice leads us to quite dangerous waters.

one person, one vote. its really the only way to maintain even a semblance of democracy or balanced representation. however flawed it might be, its still the best system we've come up with yet (along with some fine european countries). until we come up with something better, i think we should stick with it.

i also believe people (as a group) get the government they deserve, if you are lazy and avoid your civic responsibility to think about the issues, well you cant really complain when you're unhappy with the consequences can you? especially in au where everyone votes.

 

[ozbreaker]

^^ Exactly.

Excellent post atomica - i was wanting to write something more along those lines but i was just too busy and lazy

 

[Pleonastic]

As has already been mentioned, it's compulsory to turn up on election day and get your name ticked off. However since it's a secret ballot then there's nothing they can do to stop you "not voting". You don't have to choose anyone, you just have to be there. So the argument that people should have the right to choose not to vote is a moot point, because it's incredibly easy to not vote. Besides, how bad is it to spend 5 minutes at your local primary school hall once every 3 years?

The problem with our system isn't the compulsory voting - the problem is the system istelf. Full Preferential voting means you're eventually forced to choose between candidates you don't like, and if that's both the major parties then you're still voting in a two horse race. There's currently no way in the House of Representatives to get your vote to count without making this choice between major parties. The Senate has the same sort of problem with preferences, although this is offset by the fact that it's a proportional Representation system which gives minor parties more chance. However since it's a semi-list system and 95% of people don't know enough about the candidates to fill out 50+ boxes, they vote above the line and let their preferences flow where the parties say they should go. Which leads to back door preference deals which don't always result in elected candidates who represent the will of the electorate (Family First in Victoria is the case I'm directly refering to).

Here's what I reckon we should have.

• House of Representatives: Optional Preferential Voting
  This system requires the voter to place a number 1 in the box of the candidate who they wish to elect. After this requirement all further preference numbers are optional, so a voter can stop when they reach the candidates whom they do not wish to see elected. They are not forced to choose between major parties if they don't agree with any of them. If their candidate is not elected, their vote flows to their next preference, and if all their preferences are exausted then their vote is excluded from the count - but at least they won't be voting against their will!
• Senate: Proportional Representation - Single Transferable Vote - Partial Preferential
  This system eliminates above the line voting and forces voters to number individual candidates in order of preference. Partial Preferential means that voters are required to number the same amount of boxes as there are positions to be filled (in the case of the senate that's usually 6). All further preferences are optional. Candidates are elected if they recieve a droop quota of votes (which is the smallest percentage required to guarantee election given the number of candidates). Again, this removes the requirement to eventually preference a party or candidate whom the voter does not want elected under any circumstance.

I also think that a Robson Rotation for the House of Representatives would allow for a fairer system. This involves rotation of the order of candidates on the balot, so different voters may recieve their list of candidates in random orders (different orders are printed and handed out at random).

The systems are out there, and combinations of these are used at various places in Australia. There are probably drawbacks to these systems, one being that it provides more chance of a scattered asortment of parties in both houses which can potentially cause an unstable government. But personally I think doing it this way is better than the current way. At the very least, I'd like to see above the line voting in the Senate abolished.

[Edit for spelling]

 

[Macksta]

Nick Minchin the Finance Minister wants to introduce non compulsory voting... with Coalition control of the senate this could become a possibility.

 

[Pleonastic]

Actually now I think about it, do changes like that have to go to a referendum? Or is it just simply an amendment to the electoral act passed by both houses of parliment? I thought it was the latter because I don't think the method of voting is actually part of the constitution, but I'm not 100% on that.

 

[Macksta]

the latter is right, it is not part of the constitution so all it would entail is a legislative change.

scary!

 

[diegoblunt]

dont want to vote?

then don't enrol.

seems fair.

 

[katmeow]

Good post atomica, you pretty much set out all the reasons I think it should remain compulsory.

I've been following bits of the American campaign - it's a total circus.

 

[Raz]

Yes. Voting should be compulsory.

Non compulsory voting disadvantages the poor/uneducated in society. Anyone who claims it should be a choice issue needs only to look at voter demographics in US elections. They are skewed in an unacceptably towards those with significant financial and social means. Freedom of choice is a moot point in this case. Yes you can choose in the States, but the result which is produced is fundamentally flawed because democracy only works if everybody has a say.

It is not good enough to say that you dont care. You are all members of a society which provides us with significant
social means, which, lets be frank, we have all used at sometime. Roads, public transport, postal services, water, power and the legal system are just a few of these sevices which we use virtually everyday and the price of this is we must all be prepaired to participate in the running of this society and that means voting.

Don't know if it exactly changes my mind, but that's probably the best argument I've heard for compulsory voting yet...

 

[anfalicious]

Pleo's system is great. For the last few months I've been toying with ideas for new electoral systems based on the same reasons Pleo points out.

I also believe voting should be compulsory. As far as I can see the only reason to make it non compulsory is for lazy people who can't be arsed either going to the local primary school once every few years, going into the city during the campaign to vote at the electoral office (if you work in the city it's something you can do on your lunchtime) or postal voting.

Voting is not a privillage, it's an obligation. Saying it should not be compulsory on an argument of choice holds as much water as me saying to the tax office paying taxes should be voluntry (trust me, you don't get far). For the privillage of living in this country, it is your obligation to make a decision on how it is run. Whether that be informed, uninformed, random or donkey vote.

Who cares if the stupid and ingorant are making uninformed choices? At least they are forced to make a choice, and will therefore most likely put a little bit more effort into the decision they will make. If voting were not compulsory then these people would either a) not vote at all or donkey vote (meaning our elected representatives need to gather even less votes to win) or b) make a stupid and uniformed decision based on what they have seen during a campaign that is aimed at people who will only vote if they feel there is something to vote for.

Think of the way campaign advertising will be aimed with non compulsory voting. I think it's dirty enough now, let alone if they're only wanting to attract the people who can be bothered to go vote.

 

[ayjay]

The giveaway is that the people who cry the loudest for non-compulsory voting always come from the conservative right.

But given the stranglehold on media by the afore-mentioned conservative right, it's unlikely that we'll ever have enough information to make an informed choice anyway.

The main problem with the full preferential voting system is the difficulty in getting information about senate candidates. I am pretty well informed and even I had to guess a bit to vote below the line. This system just encourages voting above the line, hence validating all the bullshit preference deals our slimy politishitans make with each other. I still can't believe that labor directed their preferences in the senate to that family first twat over the greens!!!

To quote the old anarchist ( ) saying: "No matter who you vote for the government always gets in"

 

[katmeow]

I liked the Chaser Decides' idea of random vote testing on the way into polling booths