Is Democracy Overrated?

[Kimpatsu]

Much is made of the fact that more people live under democracy than under tyranny for the first time in history. A quick glance around, however, demonstrates that most people, are want of a better term, just too dumb to exercise their votes wisely. I don't mena in the partisan sense (e.g., "those who don't vote Tory/Republican/Gaullist must be stupid"), but from the perspective that the majority are so woefully uninformed or misinformed, they can't possibly exercise their vote sensibly. A modern example is that the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussain had something to do with September 11th. Boiled down, if six out of 10 voters are stupid, you'll get a stupid result. So why do we tolerate such an obviously flawed system? Wouldn't a benevolent democracy modelled on Singapore be a better option? After all, what people really care about is material comfort, isn't it? So long as they have their 200 cable channels, widescreen TV, Cher concerts and multiplexes with armrest cup holders for their beer or other poison of choice, they don't really care what a country's leaders get up to in their name, do they? Well, do they?
Your opinions, please.

[a_unique_person]

"You don't know what you've got till it's gone". People do tend to take things for granted. When they feel enough pain, they will get motivated to ask "why?".

Also, make voting compulsory. It does induce at least a minimum of thought about the process, rather than being able to exist without any consideration of the process of Democracy at all.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
[BAlso, make voting compulsory. [/B]
So, you do approve of tyranny after all? Compulsory voting is tyrannical. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote; to abstain on the grounds that I support absolutely none of the candidates. This, of course, poses the question: why is there no "reopen nominations (none of the above)" option on the ballot paper?

[a_unique_person]

You have a secret ballot, one of the options is to write exactly that on the ballot paper. No one can stop you, or prosecute you for doing so.

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.

[Jessica Blue]

So, you do approve of tyranny after all? Compulsory voting is tyrannical. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote; to abstain on the grounds that I support absolutely none of the candidates.You can still exercise that right under a compulsory voting system...all it means is you have to turn up at the ballot box every few years. But on the actual ballot you can write "none of the above", draw a rude stickfigure or scrawl "politics sucks" all over it if you want. This is known as a *donkey vote*.

Tyrannical? I feel another seat-belt discussion coming on...


*bit of a cross-post there...

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You have a secret ballot, one of the options is to write exactly that on the ballot paper. No one can stop you, or prosecute you for doing so.

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.
Forcing people to vote is tyrannical, full stop. If you included the option of RON on a ballot paper, I'd certainly exercise my right to vote more, but you should never force me to vote. Just because more people vote doesn't necessarily make it the best thing. After all, I started this thread with the observation that if six out of 10 people vote poorly, you get a poor result (in terms of quality of candidate). Given that the abstainers at present tend to be the Current Bun-reading type, getting them to vote will only result in the candidate with the biggest tits winning. And of what benefit to democracy would that be?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
You can still exercise that right under a compulsory voting system...all it means is you have to turn up at the ballot box every few years. But on the actual ballot you can write "none of the above", draw a rude stickfigure or scrawl "politics sucks" all over it if you want. This is known as a *donkey vote*.
But being compelled to cast that vote is tyrannical.

[Cain]

A new book by Judge Richard A. Posner, beloved conservative intellectual, apparently takes a similar position (though, probably not quite so crude).

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/fa03/rorty.htm

So long as they have their 200 cable channels, widescreen TV, Cher concerts and multiplexes with armrest cup holders for their beer or other poison of choice, they don't really care what a country's leaders get up to in their name, do they?

That's not necessarily a free society, is it? If people value widescreen televisions and the accoutrements of a "rich" society over the ability to fashion dominant institutions that affect their lives, I guess that's the "correct" conclusion. The sedentary existence you describe, however, is neither moral, nor empowering. Is it okay for a society to be indifferent to leaders who engagein wars of aggression (so long as such acts of violence bring material comfort)? Of course not.

Another book you might find worthwhile is Robert Dahl's _Democracy and Its Critics_, probably the most influential contemporary defense of democracy (a term that needs defining in this thread).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

But being compelled to cast that vote is tyrannical.

Like being compelled to have a driving license?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

But being compelled to cast that vote is tyrannical.


Well, as I said, you are compelled to turn up...not to cast a real vote.

Interestingly, conservatives were the first to push for compulsory voting in Australia because they feared the trade unions organising their members to vote...now it is the conservatives who wish to see compulsory voting eradicated because too many poor and disenfranchised people vote against them.

If we did get rid of compulsory voting...many of these same people would tend not to vote, for various reasons. A sense of hopelesness, lack of education, general dissillusionment and lack of interest. It seems likely the wealthier tiers of our society would benefit. Also, compulsory voting gives more motivation to people to take an interest in issues...knowing they have to vote encourages people to form an opinion.

People seem so enthused about their *rights* in a society, but what about the responsibilities? Voting is one of them.

[Kimpatsu]

That was an interesting article, Cain, but I don't agree with it. I think concept 1 democracy can work--provided education is reshaped to instill an understanding of its importance. And in the article, both Posner and Rorty have missed the point: that Americans don't vote for the candidtae most likely to better their current condition, or even the candidate who promises to do so; they vote their social mobility aspirations. So the working class, who are struggling to feed their families thanks to inequitable tax cuts and who have no health insurance still vote Republican because they have dreams of one day working their way up the social ladder, and won't want to be paying hefty taxes when they do. Of course, the chance of them actually fulfilling this dream is about as good as my winning the lottery, but that's the whole point: Americans chase their dreams, not practical, boring old reality. Which brings us back to education. At present, the system is designed to turn out compliant workers for industry, rather than teach critical thinking or other intellectual (as opposed to vocational) skills. To change the education system wouldrequire a paradigm shift, one that we're not likely to get any time soon, as a compliant workforce benefits the ruling class. People don't vote because their rulers don't want them to. They would rather let the sleeping dog of democracy lie. And that's why I started this post to begin with.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Like being compelled to have a driving license?
False analogy. A liecence is only like a voter registration card: proof of eligibility to drive/vote. One can abstain from driving if one wishes. And just as drunk/drivers are banned from driving, criminals are banned from voting. But we don't tell people they have to drive.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
If we did get rid of compulsory voting...many of these same people would tend not to vote, for various reasons. A sense of hopelesness, lack of education, general dissillusionment and lack of interest. It seems likely the wealthier tiers of our society would benefit. Also, compulsory voting gives more motivation to people to take an interest in issues...knowing they have to vote encourages people to form an opinion.
People seem so enthused about their *rights* in a society, but what about the responsibilities? Voting is one of them.
Voting isn't a responsibility, it's a right. If you choose to exercise that right (as opposed to the right to abstain), the responsibility is to cast that vote wisely. People won't take any more interest in an issue if compelled to vote than if not; their heads will simply be full of resentment at being coerced when they go to the polling booth. (Ironically, this might work to have them vote the introducers of compulsory voting out of power, leading to greater democracy.) I'm disillusioned with voting because there are no candidates who represent my views and--and this is crucial--whom I can trust to implement the policies as promised. Look at Britain. The Labour Party has consistently fudged the most important issues: Lords reform, blood sports ban, higher education reform. They aren't listening, and the contempt of the Labour cabinet towards the electorate is palpable; only yesterday, John Prescott called a journalist "childish" for daring to ask an "impertinent" question. They don't want a healthy democracy, they want sycophants. But what does that leave? The Tories, who are in disarray and whose rump are still homophobic and anti-Johnny Foreigner? The Lib Dems, who have shown themselves consistently to be harbouring equally contemptuous views of the masses? Or the parties that, under a FPTP system, have no chance of power, such as the Greens or the Socialist Alliance? Maybe what I'm really arguing for here is a reform of the electoral system, but again, that would only be tinkering with the hardware. The software--i.e., the public consciousness regarding voting--would remain unchanged. And again, that requires a change in the education system, the possibility of which can be summed up in the same way as the likelihood of the Tories winning the next election: Fat chance!

[Ziggurat]

Kimpatsu,

What about paying taxes? Is that tyranical? We're all compelled to do that (the legal exceptions are irrelevant to the vast majority of people out of necessity, not choice). From a purely rights perspective, how is mandatory voting any different ? Again, you can always cast a donkey vote - hell, you can even do it by mail, just like you pay taxes by mail.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Kimpatsu,

What about paying taxes? Is that tyranical? We're all compelled to do that (the legal exceptions are irrelevant to the vast majority of people out of necessity, not choice). From a purely rights perspective, how is mandatory voting any different ? Again, you can always cast a donkey vote - hell, you can even do it by mail, just like you pay taxes by mail.
No, again there's a vast difference. One of my choices is not to vote. Casting a donkey vote is merely a waste of time in going to the polling station, or applying for a postal vote. I can't choose to opt out of paying taxes, however. What I can do is vote for a party that reflects my views on taxation: too much, or not enough. Mandatory voting removes my right to be apathetic. Casting a donkey vote is differnt; it means I cared enough to register a protest. But apathy is still a right, even if you might find it morally wrong. Butthen again, you shouldn't be getting into other people's morals, anyway, should you?

[Cain]

False analogy. A liecence is only like a voter registration card: proof of eligibility to drive/vote. One can abstain from driving if one wishes. And just as drunk/drivers are banned from driving, criminals are banned from voting. But we don't tell people they have to drive.

First, the post above the one quoted here -- I practically agree with everything you said.

Turning to the idea of required voting, I think Jessica and AUP are framing the proposition in a way that makes sense.

They argue, as I understand it, that voting is a responsibility for living under a democracy. You don't have to vote the same way you don't have to live in Australia (or any society that has "required" voting). You're not required to live there. But if you do so choose to call Australia home, and it is a choice, then you're obligated to vote. I'm not especially fond of the idea because it can justify nearly anything, but the safeguard is in demcoracy itself.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Cain


First, the post above the one quoted here -- I practically agree with everything you said.

Turning to the idea of required voting, I think Jessica and AUP are framing the proposition in a way that makes sense.

They argue, as I understand it, that voting is a responsibility for living under a democracy. You don't have to vote the same way you don't have to live in Australia (or any society that has "required" voting). You're not required to live there. But if you do so choose to call Australia home, and it is a choice, then you're obligated to vote. I'm not especially fond of the idea because it can justify nearly anything, but the safeguard is in demcoracy itself.
What about my right to abstain from voting? Maybe I'm an anarchist who finds the very notion of voting abhorrant. And that is my right.
As to choosing to live in Australia, we are all stuck here on planet earth for the foreseeable future. Let's not get into this jingoistic nonsense about countries; one world, all the people. Everyone has equal rights. And one of those rights is the right to refuse to vote.

[Cain]

What about my right to abstain from voting? Maybe I'm an anarchist who finds the very notion of voting abhorrant. And that is my right.

But this is a mere assertion. Okay, you have the right not to vote; I tend to agree in a restricted sense. What other rights do you have? Why can't you have the right to not pay taxes (to use Ziggaraut's example)?

From a prior posting:

I can't choose to opt out of paying taxes, however.

Why? Because of your right to be apathetic? Well, that's exactly the same indifference argued for by people who wish to abolish all forms of taxation (I have a right not to give a sh*t about the welfare of society).

Casting an anonymous vote every two years isn't really my idea of a democracy, though.

As to choosing to live in Australia, we are all stuck here on planet earth for the foreseeable future. Let's not get into this jingoistic nonsense about countries; one world, all the people. Everyone has equal rights. And one of those rights is the right to refuse to vote.

Again, I tend to agree. The criticism is best levelled at laissez-faire apologists who insist on a "free-market" and supposedly oppose the initiation of force. Well, there's a free-market of governments, and no one is forcing you to live here. It's not exactly compelling... but for someone who fanatically insists you're "free" to change employers, it just might prove convincing...

[Kimpatsu]

I'm not free to change countries on a whim; if that were the case, there would be far more Mexicans in the USA and far more Indonesians in Oz, and no such thing as illegal immigration.
Taxation is necessary to fund those projects that we need in common: education, street lighting, etc. I can't eductae my own children in all the branches required of an education (heck, I can't teach them much beyond the 3Rs), but experts in these fields can. Consequently, it behooves me to pay into a central fund from which school costs can be administered. This is the core purpose of taxation. If I want to see more tax money allocated where I think it should be, then I must get out and vote for the candidate who says, for example, that they'll fund more schools. (Unfortunately, this doesn't work in practice, as no politician is ever going to say they want to cut school budgets, though they may well do so all the same.) If I really don't care, though, then abstention owing to apathy is my right. I really shouldn't complain about the outcome, though.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Wouldn't a benevolent democracy modelled on Singapore be a better option

No. I'm not a big gum chewer, but I prefer not to have to have a doctor proscribe it to me (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_712719.html?menu=news.quirkies).

[Kimpatsu]

I don't chew gum at all, so why should I care? Explain it to me.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I don't chew gum at all, so why should I care? Explain it to me.

Singapore is actually quite repressive socially. You can't import or chew gum. Public canings for petty vandalism. Things of that nature. I know all the democracies have their issues with freedom and social control, but Singapore I would hold up more as a paragon of social order, not of benevolance.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Singapore is actually quite repressive socially. You can't import or chew gum. Public canings for petty vandalism. Things of that nature. I know all the democracies have their issues with freedom and social control, but Singapore I would hold up more as a paragon of social order, not of benevolance.
I know that Singapre is repressive. The question I'm asking is, why should I care about Singaporean repression if I don't live there and have to suffer the repression personally? (Devil's advocate, you see.)

[Hal 2001]

I have had the same thought as you. Democracy will not lead to all the best choices, neither would any other kind of government, although other systems might lead to better choices. The idea and primary goal of democracy is not efficiency.

I have often played with the idea of having people take a basic test before elections (it could be about the candidates and there policies ;-) ). But it's a messy idea from the start who would decide the questions, who would decide the level to obtain.

And the basic opposition to this idea is that we asume that all men(and women) are equal (in rights). Departing from this basic idea opens up a whole new can of worms.

mss Hal

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Hal 2001
And the basic opposition to this idea is that we asume that all men(and women) are equal (in rights). Departing from this basic idea opens up a whole new can of worms.
...but someare more equal than others, right, Hal? People are required to pass a test before they can drive. Why not require them to apss a test before they test drive a country? (The deliciousness of this idea is that politicians would be among the test failures.) ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I know that Singapre is repressive. The question I'm asking is, why should I care about Singaporean repression if I don't live there and have to suffer the repression personally? (Devil's advocate, you see.)

Because you're suggesting a democracy based on Singapore. The problem with that model is that part of the reason it's successful is the socially repressive nature of the government there. Any model patterned after Singapore's would need to include that component for maintaining domestic tranquility.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

No, again there's a vast difference. One of my choices is not to vote. Casting a donkey vote is merely a waste of time in going to the polling station, or applying for a postal vote. I can't choose to opt out of paying taxes, however.


But you haven't provided any argument for WHY you can be compelled to file taxes but not file a vote, even a blank one.


What I can do is vote for a party that reflects my views on taxation: too much, or not enough. Mandatory voting removes my right to be apathetic.


No it doesn't. Trust me, I'm a master in apathy, I can do absolutely anything and still be apathetic about it if I choose.


Casting a donkey vote is differnt; it means I cared enough to register a protest.


Not under a mandatory voting system. If voting is mandatory, a donkey vote can be the very height of an expression of apathy. You could even leave the damn thing blank, as long as you filed it.


But apathy is still a right, even if you might find it morally wrong. Butthen again, you shouldn't be getting into other people's morals, anyway, should you?

But it's not about morals, and it's not about apathy. I'm apathetic about taxes, but I still have to file. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue based on a "right" to apathy, when that "right" is impossible for states to take away from people. You can be as apathetic as you want, even about actions you are being forced to do. It's like arguing that the government can't take away your right to be angry, or cheerful, or stupid. Of course they can't, but that's because there's no possible way for the government to do that even if they wanted to.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

What about my right to abstain from voting? Maybe I'm an anarchist who finds the very notion of voting abhorrant. And that is my right.


It's your right to find voting abhorent. But that doesn't mean you have a fundamental right to not do so. A lot of people abhor paying taxes even on principle, probably more than abhor voting. Yet they do not have a right to refrain from filing their taxes. The government can make you do things you abhor, that's not the issue, and never was. You can FIND voting as abhorent as you want until the cows come home, nobody cares, just like you can find filing taxes abhorent, but at the end of the day the government already forces you to do the later, why is the former fundamentally different?

[Hal 2001]

I can't see how mandatory vote would make anything better.

Do you really think people when obliged to vote will gain interest? I am more inclined to think that those who did not intent to vote in the first place, will just go up and vote blank or even worse vote randomly. They are beeing obliged against their will to make an action, they are not obliged to be interested.

Non mandatory vote is in my opinion better, only people that have a minimum of interest votes.


Mss Hal

[geni]

Just rember the people with the highest level of state intervention in their lives and the most to lose is the goverment manages to mess thing up dan't have a vote at all migh be interesting to ask LK and Yahew waht they think about this one.
On this isue of compusory voting I have two points. First I'm in favor of people who don't care not bothering to vote it just means that my vote counts for more. Secondly even where there is compulory voting I belive the penalty for not voting is fairly low so if you realy felt that you did not want to go to a polling both on election day yopu would not have to ( you just migh have to pay a small fine).

[Kimpatsu]

Payment of the fine is not acceptable, either. I have a right to toally abstain from voting if I so wish.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Payment of the fine is not acceptable, either. I have a right to toally abstain from voting if I so wish.

Where is this right enshrined, in your opinion?

Graham

[Graham]

That came out a little wrong, sorry. What I meant was, why do you consider that "the right not to vote" is or should be a "right"?

Graham

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Graham
That came out a little wrong, sorry. What I meant was, why do you consider that "the right not to vote" is or should be a "right"?

Graham
Voting is a right, and one of the ways I can exercise that right is to abstain.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Voting is a right, and one of the ways I can exercise that right is to abstain.

to you, what is the difference between abstaining and "spoiling" your vote?

Graham

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Graham


to you, what is the difference between abstaining and "spoiling" your vote?

Graham
Spoiling the ballot paper is actually an act of defiance; I'm saying that I disapprove not only of all the candidates, but also of the system, whihc does not permit RON.
BTW, can one abstain or spoil a boat with an electronic voting machine in America?

[geni]

I belive that some of the compusory voting systems would give you right to abstain since the requirment is to got to the polling station there is no requirment for you to do anything once you get there. Would you find this acepterble?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
A quick glance around, however, demonstrates that most people, are want of a better term, just too dumb to exercise their votes wisely. I don't mena in the partisan sense..., but from the perspective that the majority are so woefully uninformed or misinformed, they can't possibly exercise their vote sensibly.

Hmmm...
A system where the ignorant and apathetic don't vote...

Sounds perfect to me!

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Wouldn't a benevolent democracy modelled on Singapore be a better option?

For welfare-loving leftists? Yeah...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You have a secret ballot, one of the options is to write exactly that on the ballot paper. No one can stop you, or prosecute you for doing so.

Just so long as the Voting Police see you drop that ballot in the box...

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't.

WOW! Did you come up with that all by yourself?! :rolleyes: :roll:

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Spoiling the ballot paper is actually an act of defiance; I'm saying that I disapprove not only of all the candidates, but also of the system, whihc does not permit RON.

Non-attendence at the polling station is more likely to be interpreted as laziness/apathy, IMO.

Like it or not, the system in place is the system in place. You won't change it by not participating - you only exclude yourself.

If you do not approve of the current system, the appropriate action is to:

(a) vote for (or stand as) a candidate whose platform is to reform the system

(b) spoil your vote in an approptrite manner

What do you think of that?


BTW, can one abstain or spoil a boat with an electronic voting machine in America?

I don't know - you'd have to ask an American ;)

Generally speacking though, IMO, electronic voting machines are a bad idea on boats regardless of their nationality!

Graham

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hmmm...
A system where the ignorant and apathetic don't vote...



They just get elected president



Sounds perfect to me!



For welfare-loving leftists? Yeah...

Lee-Kwan Yu a welfare loving leftist? That's the funniest joke I've heard in a long time.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They just get elected president



Lee-Kwan Yu a welfare loving leftist? That's the funniest joke I've heard in a long time.

Excellent!

Two fallacies in one post, an Ad Hominem and a Straw Man!

Impressive! Keep up your usual good work... :rolleyes:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Kodiak
For welfare-loving leftists? Yeah...
If you think Singapore is left-wing, you're mental.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Excellent!

Two fallacies in one post, an Ad Hominem and a Straw Man!

Impressive! Keep up your usual good work... :rolleyes:

I think your's is called an argument from ignorance.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

If you think Singapore is left-wing, you're mental.

I didn't say that, either.

I opined that welfare-loving leftists would prefer a "benevolent democracy" modeled after Singapore.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think your's is called an argument from ignorance.

It was an opinion, not an argument.

An argument consists of premises and a conclusion.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Graham


Non-attendence at the polling station is more likely to be interpreted as laziness/apathy, IMO.

Like it or not, the system in place is the system in place. You won't change it by not participating - you only exclude yourself.

If you do not approve of the current system, the appropriate action is to:

(a) vote for (or stand as) a candidate whose platform is to reform the system

(b) spoil your vote in an appropraite manner

What do you think of that?

Graham

When you're all quite finished bickering . . .

Anyone care to comment on the above?

Graham

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Graham
Anyone care to comment on the above?

I don't care how non-attendence is interpreted. Those who want to vote can, and those who do not want to don't have to.

I fully support a person's right to choose whether or not to exclude themselves from the voting process. I guess for some, choice is only for pregnant mothers...

[Flame]

Originally posted by Kodiak

... I guess for some, choice is only for pregnant mothers...


ooooooeeeeeeeeeee... :eek:

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kodiak

I don't care how non-attendence is interpreted. Those who want to vote can, and those who do not want to don't have to.

Do you believe that society comes only with rights and entirely without obligations?




I fully support a person's right to choose whether or not to exclude themselves from the voting process. I guess for some, choice is only for pregnant mothers...

Yeah . . . good answer . . . reee-al mature :rolleyes:

[Richard G]

Is Democracy Overrated?

I couldn't tell ya. I live in a Republic.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I didn't say that, either.

I opined that welfare-loving leftists would prefer a "benevolent democracy" modeled after Singapore.
I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Richard G
I couldn't tell ya. I live in a Republic.
...which is prerequisite for being closer to true democracy than the monarchies of Europe.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

So the working class, who are struggling to feed their families thanks to inequitable tax cuts and who have no health insurance still vote Republican because they have dreams of one day working their way up the social ladder, and won't want to be paying hefty taxes when they do. Of course, the chance of them actually fulfilling this dream is about as good as my winning the lottery, but that's the whole point: Americans chase their dreams, not practical, boring old reality.I think this is crazy...but true. It happens here as well, people are sold a vision of society which doesn't match their reality, and preferring to live in their aspirations, they can end up voting against their own interests. Such people cut their own throats. It's fine to have dreams, but we shouldn't let them obscure "practical, boring reality". I also think that the public are encouraged to have dreams and aspirations which are too selfish, too consumerist and too scewed toward individual privilege.

Voting isn't a responsibility, it's a right

It's both.

People won't take any more interest in an issue if compelled to vote than if not; their heads will simply be full of resentment at being coerced when they go to the polling booth.

That hasn't been the experience here. Most people in Australia don't resent compulsory voting, any grumbling is minimal...they accept it as necessary for a truly representative democracy. It's only a problem for those who would benefit from public apathy.

I'm disillusioned with voting because there are no candidates who represent my views and--and this is crucial--whom I can trust to implement the policies as promised...

Tell me about it. Democracy is flawed, but I can't conceive of a better system. I agree we need to constantly improve the software...the better educated and healthier[pychologically and physically] the general population is the better and healthier the democracy will be. That way there will be a wider pool from which to pluck our politicians and a better educated people will demand better government.

That's a good reason to vote for those parties who consider such things as a good standard of health and education a necessity for all people, not just those who can afford it.

[Dancing David]

Given the nature of common wisdom and common sense, I am rather glad to live in a representative democracy!

Something about the tyranny of the mob, it is why we have a roating set of representatives too.

I am sure better systems could be devised, but our works fairly well. A local electorate gets to chose thier representative.

I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, ewh, I am not sure that I would want the uninformed and apathetic ti give thier moo cow support to the cause du'jour, another reason I think term limits are silly.

[ssibal]

If I do not want to show up to vote I should not have to, if I do not want to vote for any candidate or anything else on the ballot I should not have to. Forcing someone to vote is not going to make people think about the issues, you will more likely have people randomly picking whatever. If someone is not interested in voting or politics, forcing them to vote is not going to get them interested. I remember our last state elections, I only voted on the laws. I did not vote for a governor because I did not like any candidate and I did not vote for any of the judges and other government officials because I had never heard of any of them. Not everyone has the time or the interest to keep up with every detail of every election, it makes no sense to force people to vote.

[Thumper]

Question:

Is Australia a compulsive-voting country? What are the penalties for not voting?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Thumper
Question:
Is Australia a compulsive-voting country? What are the penalties for not voting?
Yes, and summary fines.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Much is made of the fact that more people live under democracy than under tyranny for the first time in history. A quick glance around, however, demonstrates that most people, are want of a better term, just too dumb to exercise their votes wisely. I don't mena in the partisan sense (e.g., "those who don't vote Tory/Republican/Gaullist must be stupid"), but from the perspective that the majority are so woefully uninformed or misinformed, they can't possibly exercise their vote sensibly. A modern example is that the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussain had something to do with September 11th. Boiled down, if six out of 10 voters are stupid, you'll get a stupid result. So why do we tolerate such an obviously flawed system? Wouldn't a benevolent democracy modelled on Singapore be a better option? After all, what people really care about is material comfort, isn't it? So long as they have their 200 cable channels, widescreen TV, Cher concerts and multiplexes with armrest cup holders for their beer or other poison of choice, they don't really care what a country's leaders get up to in their name, do they? Well, do they?
Your opinions, please.

People are taught to care primarily abotu material comfort in our "democratic" "capitalist" societies. That's certinaly not true of all societies and does not have to be true at all. Encouraging the American mindset is part of the system of serving the State.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Malachi151


People are taught to care primarily abotu material comfort in our "democratic" "capitalist" societies. That's certinaly not true of all societies and does not have to be true at all. Encouraging the American mindset is part of the system of serving the State.

There's nothing actually wrong with wanting material comfort. Not much wrong with wanting it for yourself and certainly nothing wrong with wanting it for others.

If everyone in the world restricted their wants and desires to simple things like a nice place to live and good food to eat, the world would be a better place.

That's a lesson you would do well to learn, my revolutionary friend but sadly I don't think you ever will.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham

If everyone in the world restricted their wants and desires to simple things like a nice place to live and good food to eat, the world would be a better place.


Graham

Graham,

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. It is precisely because so many people yearn for a better life, one filled with hopes and dreams of better material possessions and comforts, and the freedom that comes with not having to worry about whether or not one can make the next month's rent payment that America has such a strong economy (And these are the same desires that drove western exploration and expansion in the 15th and 16th centuries--hell, throughout most of recorded history).

We are strong economically because we are a nation of greedy, wasteful consumers. Greed and wastefulness and rampant consumerism on a macro scale create demand, entrepreneurialism, innovation, efficiency, the free flow of capital, and economic robustness. Of course, they also lead to undesirable effects, such as inflation and income and wealth disparity among the population. Nothing good ever comes without a cost.

Nevertheless, I'll take the robustness over simple complacency any day of the week.

Complacency and contentedness with just the bare necessities on a macro scale are evils beyond measure, in my opinion. They lead to stagnation and an utter dearth of creativity and innovation in the society. A stagnant society is a dying one.

No thanks.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Graham,

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. It is precisely because so many people yearn for a better life, one filled with hopes and dreams of better material possessions and comforts, and the freedom that comes with not having to worry about whether or not one can make the next month's rent payment that America has such a strong economy (And these are the same desires that drove western exploration and expansion in the 15th and 16th centuries--hell, throughout most of recorded history).

We are strong economically because we are a nation of greedy, wasteful consumers. Greed and wastefulness and rampant consumerism on a macro scale create demand, entrepreneurialism, innovation, efficiency, the free flow of capital, and economic robustness. Of course, they also lead to undesirable effects, such as inflation and income and wealth disparity among the population. Nothing good ever comes without a cost.

Nevertheless, I'll take the robustness over simple complacency any day of the week.

Complacency and contentedness with just the bare necessities on a macro scale are evils beyond measure, in my opinion. They lead to stagnation and an utter dearth of creativity and innovation in the society. A stagnant society is a dying one.

No thanks.

AS

Hmm, I'm not advocating complacency, though I can see how it reads like that.

I also have nothing against ambition, as such, certainly not personal ambition. If a person wants to be a doctor or a lawyer or and astronaut then more power to them. If a person sees something wrong with the world then, by all means, they should try and fix it.

What I'm trying to say (my six year old just swore at the dog, btw - I'm actually quite shocked!) what I'm suggesting is that it's wrong to condemn people for just wanting to live their lives, just wanting to be comfortable and happy.

As you say, without ambition and without the drive to succeed, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself - what's it all for?

Some might say the glory of god, others the glory of the stars and stripes or whatever but ultimately, it's all about a better life for you, me and everyone else. So why condemn people who are happy because that's just what they've got?

Revolutionaries want to change the world and remake into something better, somewhere where everyone will be happy. At the same time, they rail against that small proportion of the world that is actually already happy or at least reasonably so, like they're doing something wrong.

So be as greedy and/or as ambitious as you like (the two are not the same thing, as you know). Strvie towards whatever it is that you think will make you happy or strive because that is what makes you happy. Just don't condemn those people who are already happy and, for goodness sake, don't take that happiness away from them just because you think you know what's good fot them better than they do.

Graham

[Malachi151]

I disagree that a society has to be primarlily self serving in order to be robust. For example, I live in South Florida and there are many, many multi-million dolars homes here.

People spend millions and millions of dolars on things that are ultimately not imporant at all.

Our society has created a culture where many people would rather spend money buying something usless for themselves than spend that same money helping someone else.

There is much more DEMAND in the world than there is in the US, there is simply less MEANS to fulfill that deamnd.

People can rally behind and get more excited about war to kill people than a war to help people, for example like the Peace Corps.

If our culture took the attitude to the Peace Corps that we have to the military I guarnetee you that we coudl solve more violence in teh world and create a much, much better, safer, healthier, and happier world. We spend billions of dollars year making weapons and paying armies and people spend millions on trivial home decor because they can't think of anything better to do with their money, when in fact there is plenty that can be done with the money that woudl actually matter and make a diffrence in the world.


People in America don't value that though, they don't value making a difference in the world, they value self gratification to ecxess.

Our culture is based on creatign as much excess as possible in a relatively few individuals to fuel demand. Its just asinine.

Let's go to war, let's mobalize insustry to do what? To go to Africa and South America and help them build essential infrastructure and housing etc.

The thing is, that IS a possibility. As a country we COULD do that if we wanted to, we simply don't want to. Nothing is preventing us from doing that other than our own free will.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Malachi151
People in America don't value that though, they don't value making a difference in the world, they value self gratification to ecxess.

That's right, Malachi, and you should also add that it's only Americans, and that no other country on the planet has citizens who are greedy or who are concerned with their own interests. America's greed is so powerful, in fact, that first-generation immigrants start businesses and get jobs just to sate their never-ending hunger for solid-gold limousines and $70 steaks. As an American, I enjoy skewering Guatemalan babies and roasting them over a fire fueled by African hardwoods. I would tell you, Malachi, that all forms of life compete for food and power, including humans and trees and bacteria and koala bears, and that's just the motherf****** way it is, but of course no one can trust me, because I'm pure, concentrated evil.

[LFTKBS]

And P.S., you idiots, what are you going to do if someone doesn't vote? Put them in jail? What possible good does that accomplish?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
And P.S., you idiots, what are you going to do if someone doesn't vote? Put them in jail? What possible good does that accomplish? Which idiots are you referring to...those who support compulsory voting?

Since the average turnout rate for an Australian election is 95%, it's unheard of that anyone is sent to jail for not voting. Just because you might not agree with compulsory voting doesn't mean that people who do are *idiots*, when a very reasonable case can be made for it. Just in case you haven't heard one, here are a few points in support of compulsory voting:

Under a non-mandatory system, parties and candidates have to spend alot of energy on just getting the voters to come, energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

Citizens are only required to turn up at a ballot box every few years, so mandatory voting causes very little intrusion on peoples freedoms compared to the many other legal compulsions which are a consequence of living in a society.

There is no doubt compulsory voting means a wider representation of the people and thus it could be argued, a more effective democracy.

Evidence strongly suggests that non-mandatory systems favour conservative governments so many people who desperately need representation are disadvantaged. When political parties know the less powerful groups in a society are going to exercise a vote they are more likely to consider their needs.

No-one is forced to make a "real" vote.

Prior to the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, voter turnout was only 47%. There appears to be little sense of "oppression" here by being legally compelled to vote and not much antipathy to it. If it's a "compulsion", it's one most Australians accept willingly. Being able to vote is a great thing, that was once denied to many people and is still not an option in parts of the world...it seems a tad *spoilt* to look upon mandatory voting as a drag or a significant infringement on your personal liberty.

Compulsory voting may not suit the American psyche...but it seems to have worked just fine for us.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Compulsory voting may not suit the American psyche...but it seems to have worked just fine for us.
What's the American psyche got to do with it? Of course you have a 95%+ turnout; voting is compulsory. That doesn't make it right. Claiming that only 47% turnout is low, and energies should be better spent elsewhere is farcical. People don't vote not because their apathetic, bet because there is no one worth voting for. If the political parties were actually honest, then more people will vote. Case in point: At the 1997 UK general election, Tony Blair promised that in his first term as PM he would: 1. Introduce more liberal licencing laws; 2. Abolish hunting with dogs; 3. Reform the Lords. He has done none of this things, so at the 2001 election, unsurprisingly, voter turnout was at an all-time low. If politicians could be trusted, more people would suppport them. And compulsory voting is still tyrannical.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

DUH!!!

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. You may not view compulsory voting as tyrannical. I'm sure that those doing Hitler's will didn't think of themselves as tyrants - they thought they were doing the right thing. Mandatory participation is a form of tyranny. Is it as awful as what Stalin did? Well, of course, no. Does that mean it isn't tyranical? Again, no.

[Jessica Blue]

Oxford Dictionary
Tyrannical...a despotic or cruel exercise of power.

Compulsory voting cruel and despotic? I don't think so.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Compulsory voting cruel and despotic? I don't think so.
Definitely cruel and despotic. It's despotic by virtue of the fact that it's compulsory. What of my right to abstain as a protest?
And cruel? What could be crueller than being forced to vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith?

[Jessica Blue]

It's despotic by virtue of the fact that it's compulsory.

Then I guess all legal compulsions in a society must be despotic.

What of my right to abstain as a protest?

Your right not to turn up at the ballot-box doesn't outweigh the benefits to be had and you already know you dont have to give anyone your vote if you don't wish to.

Of course you have a 95%+ turnout; voting is compulsory.

Sheesh...yes, ironic isn't it. We have a vibrant, highly representative democracy and it's all because of a cruel and despotic law.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Then I guess all legal compulsions in a society must be despotic.
Then you guess wrong. There is an essential difference between the compulsion against killing and the compulsion to vote. Killing someone inflicts direct harm upon another person, which is a right I do not have. My refusal to vote, however, harms no one.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Your right not to turn up at the ballot-box doesn't outweigh the benefits to be had and you already know you dont have to give anyone your vote if you don't wish to.
So you think I should just show up at the ballot box and then tear up the ballot paper? Where's the sense in that? My right not to turn up outweighs everything ] because it is my right. Governments, by contrast, have no right to force me to attend a voting station. Such compulsion, I reiterate, tyrannical.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Sheesh...yes, ironic isn't it. We have a vibrant, highly representative democracy and it's all because of a cruel and despotic law.
It's not vibrant or representative; the principled abstainers are not represented. The disillusioned are not represented. The cynical are not represented. There is no RON (None of the Above) option on the ballot paper, so pretending that the ultimate results is representative is a fraud. If 51% of ballot papers are spoiled, is that counted as a NO vote against all the candidates, and the election recalled? (Don't bother; I already know the answer.) Pretending that compulsory voting invigorates democracy is to play into the hands of the politicians, who are deswperate to conceal the fact that even the incumbent wins on a minority of the votes because the majority of the electorate don't trust them. Of course, being their dupe is what the politicians want all along...
Also, your above paragraph is an insult to all the other countries of the world where voting is not compulsory: Britain, America, Canada, France, New Zealand, Germany, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands.... The assumption that Australia is somehow more of a democracy because of a compulsion is as daft as screwing for chastity. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote, nor even to attend the voting. Taking away that right does not enhance the cause of democracy; it subverts it. A fact that you seem to miss completely, so I'm goign to spell it out for you: You do not know better than I do, and you do not have my best interests at heart. I am not your child. So stop trying to tell me what to do. I am quite capable of deciding for myself that all politicians are corrupt and that we would be better off without them. A viewpoint for which I am unable to vote, because the rigged system does not offer that as an option on the ballot paper. So there is no option for me to support. Where is the democracy there? Or can it be that, like the politicians, what you really want is the pretence of validation? If so, I know a good place to start. A place where they have universal compulsory suffrage, and no ability to register a protest vote. It's called North Korea...

[Kimpatsu]

...And another thing. There are people who do not vote because it breaches their religious faith, or code of ethics. For example, there are some Buddhist sects that eschew voting as a roadblock to enlightenment; their aim is to avoid being mired down in grubby earthly concerns such as politics. How does compulsory voting benefit them? And how is fining them for their principled stand against voting either a) contributing to a vibrant democracy, or b) different from the Sharia compulsion to fine non-Islamic believers (Xpians, Jews, etc.) in an Islamic state?
Fine example of democracy you have there, Jessica. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

Is it okay for a society to be indifferent to leaders who engagein wars of aggression (so long as such acts of violence bring material comfort)? Of course not.



Why not? If people have all they want, and they feel fullfilled, why should they care what goes on in the world? I think it is ok, because people have the freedom NOT to care. Do you want to take that freedom away?

[Jessica Blue]

Kimpatsu,

I'll just say no, I don't think compulsory voting ensures a perfect democracy or a vastly superior political system...some countries do have high voluntary voter participation rates, such as New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark which all have rates over 80%, conversely, many others have much lower rates.

Regardless, I think it works well for us and I prefer it to the American system. As I understand it, participation rate in the last US Presidential and Congressional elections was very low, which meant that the candidates were effectively elected by a *majority* of 20% or less of eligible voters. The US has been described by some as a "DisneyWorld Democracy", with much hype to cover the low participation rate, voter disenfranchisement, vote rigging and probably vote buying.

It would be great if our society were perfect and we had no need of compulsions, or that politicians were so honest and inspiring that people felt a voluntary sense of civic duty and voted en masse. But in the abscence of perfection, I think the best way to get political parties and their representatives to take account of the needs and opinions of all citizens, is to have a wide representation as possible of those citizens voting.

What I dont buy into is the idea that some people don't "deserve to vote" because they aren't motivated, educated or intelligent enough and we'd have a better democracy if a smaller percentage voted. This would be a sham democracy and an insidious kind of of authoritarianism.

Finally, and the reason I don't balk at the "compulsory" side to our voting system is that at bottom, I do believe in the idea behind the original Athenian democracy ie; that citizens have both rights AND responsibilities. I don't see it as tyrannical at all and if most Australians don't view it that way, where is the problem?


And another thing. There are people who do not vote because it breaches their religious faith, or code of ethics. For example, there are some Buddhist sects that eschew voting as a roadblock to enlightenment; their aim is to avoid being mired down in grubby earthly concerns such as politics. How does compulsory voting benefit them? And how is fining them for their principled stand against voting either a) contributing to a vibrant democracy, or b) different from the Sharia compulsion to fine non-Islamic believers (Xpians, Jews, etc.) in an Islamic state?
Fine example of democracy you have there, Jessica

Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic?
You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim. My desire not to vote is mine and mine along; if I am compelled to vote, then I am the victim of a crime: government tyranny. And it doesn't matter how often you vote; one compulsion is one too many. You have just insulted everyone in these esoteric Buddhist sects who eschew voting, again proving my point that you seem to think that you know better than they do what's in their own best interests. You don't. I know better than anyone what's best for me. If you can dictate my voting requirements, why can't I dictate your dietary habits? Or your sexual preferences? Or anything else for that matter? Tyranny is tyranny, regardless.

[corplinx]

Democracy == Mob Rule

In democracy, instead of being led by an evil dictator you are ruled by a mostly ignorant and self-absorbed majority.

Make no mistake, a pure democracy can be as bad or worse than a dictatorship.

Now, federal republics on the other hand I dig.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by corplinx
Democracy == Mob Rule

In democracy, instead of being led by an evil dictator you are ruled by a mostly ignorant and self-absorbed majority.

Make no mistake, a pure democracy can be as bad or worse than a dictatorship.

Now, federal republics on the other hand I dig.
Republics aren't a political system in the way that democracies or dictatorships are. You can have a monarchist dictatorship or a republic democracy; you can't, however, have a monarchist republic.
The point of a real democracy is to make sure that everyone is politically savvy so that the feared "mob rule" is an impossibility, based on the notion that a mob is a mindless entity moving in unison.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim. My desire not to vote is mine and mine along; if I am compelled to vote, then I am the victim of a crime: government tyranny. And it doesn't matter how often you vote; one compulsion is one too many. You have just insulted everyone in these esoteric Buddhist sects who eschew voting, again proving my point that you seem to think that you know better than they do what's in their own best interests. You don't. I know better than anyone what's best for me. If you can dictate my voting requirements, why can't I dictate your dietary habits? Or your sexual preferences? Or anything else for that matter? Tyranny is tyranny, regardless. Seems I'm insulting people all over the globe with my insistence that compulsory voting works in Australia and is not tyrannical.

You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim.

Okay...yes, female circumcision is a different matter. But I didn't miss the point, I just thought it was absurd. You were trying to claim that the "tyrannical" nature of compulsory voting prevented people from exercising their religious freedoms.

Strictly speaking this might be true...but any effects on religious freedom are negligable and to call this tyranny is the real insult to those who suffer real tyranny and real religious persecution.

If a buddhist doesn't want to sully the purity of his mind with lowly politics he doesn't have to. He can blank out the candidates with some enlightened meditation, pick up his ballot, stuff it in the box and walk out. No-one is dictating his voting...he's merely being required to perform a civic duty by attenting the ballot box.

Such persecution! Such tyranny! Is it reasonable to expect to enjoy the rights of a society without paying any heed to the responsibilities? Sometimes the benefits to a society from a particular law outweigh the benefit of a particular freedom to an individual.

[Kimpatsu]

You still miss the point, Jessica. First of all, compulsory voting IS denial of religious freedom. Secondly, the Buddhist doesn't want to go to the polling booth, spoil the paper, and leave. Nor should they have to. Making them do so is to forcibly involve them in an earthly process they find grubby and demeaning. You have no right to force people to do that.
Your parting line about "real tyranny" is the most telling, however. You assume that Australia is a fine western demo0cracy, and so tyranny can never truly happen there, so all objections to the tyranny of cumpulsory voting is mere hyperbole on my part. You're wrong, and your complacency is dangerous, not least because it is capitalised upon by the likes of John Howard and the convict Pauline Hanson. The curtailments of liberty using the excuse of 9/11 are a case in point, but most of all, if you really want to witness the contempt in which Howard holds you, look at how he treats asylum seekers, for in the words of Neil Acheson, "Always watch how a country treats refugees, for that's how they'd treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic? [/B]

1) There are plenty of religious sects that don't vote. Another example are the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't particularly like them, but if you can force them to vote, why not force an atheist like LFTKBS to abstain from blood transfusions?

2) You're right: Australia shouldn't organize its political system around religious dictates. However, it should also not organize its political system around a law that is based ultimately in force. I.e., if you don't vote, we either put you in jail or fine you. (http://www.mind-trek.com/writ-dtf/votehoax/bay-4b.htm)

3) Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. False analogy and appeal to emotion: the act of not-voting hurts no one, whereas clitorectomies and FGM have a victim.

Freedom includes freedom from as well as freedom to.

[DrMatt]

Compulsory voting is tyranical in the same way that A refusing to tell B what to think is a religious imposition by A on B.

I hear the latter all the time by prospective B's who have theretofore only encountered people who have identical views to theirs, and who thus can tell them what to think without telling them to think anything they're not already thinking. Along comes somebody who doesn't tell them what to think, and out comes all the accusations that THAT person is imposing on them. Count yourself lucky if you've never been the accused in one of these.

[DrMatt]

I'd just like to point out that "not voting" and voting an abstention are practically identical. Thus "being compelled to vote" is rather like "being oppressed by the Law of Gravity".

Can we consider the consequences of blocks effectively abstaining on matters on which they might actually posess an opinion? An opinion, which somebody refuses to express and act upon in any way--does it still exist?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrMatt
I'd just like to point out that "not voting" and voting an abstention are practically identical.

Yeah, except in one instance you're actually voting, while in the other one, you're not. ;)

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by KimpatsuYou still miss the point, Jessica. First of all, compulsory voting IS denial of religious freedom. Secondly, the Buddhist doesn't want to go to the polling booth, spoil the paper, and leave. Nor should they have to. Making them do so is to forcibly involve them in an earthly process they find grubby and demeaning. You have no right to force people to do that.I find this laughable. It's not that I'm missing the point Kimpatsu...it's that I don't happen to agree with it. Clearly we have different ideas of what constitutes tyranny. If you live in a society then you are expected to participate in its laws or pay the penalty, whether you find them "grubby and demeaning" or not. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

*Requiring a citizen, who may be a buddhist to turn up at a polling booth every few years is not, IMO a significant enough erosion of religious freedoms that we should sacrifice a system that works well for the majority of Australians and which most Australians are happy with. I don't think religious freedom should extend to changing our laws to appease a very small group.

You assume that Australia is a fine western demo0cracy, and so tyranny can never truly happen there

You've made a big jump there. Where did I say this? I think that given the right set of conditions and enough time to develop tyranny could happen anywhere.

You're wrong, and your complacency is dangerous, not least because it is capitalised upon by the likes of John Howard and the convict Pauline Hanson. The curtailments of liberty using the excuse of 9/11 are a case in point, but most of all, if you really want to witness the contempt in which Howard holds you, look at how he treats asylum seekers, for in the words of Neil Acheson, "Always watch how a country treats refugees, for that's how they'd treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."

What does all this have to do with my defence of compulsory voting? Just because I don't believe compulsory voting is the slippery slope to tyrannical despotism doesn't mean I'm complacent. It doesn't mean I think Australia has a perfect democracy or is immune to political dangers...I already made that point in an earlier post.

Compulsory voting is not responsible for the horror that is Pauline Hanson or John Howards deficiencies or the refugee issue. Without compulsory voting it's likely the Howard government would have had an even greater majority. In the US, where there is no mandatory system they have George Bush and the Patriot Act so what's your point? In a democracy you dont always get the best candidate...whether you have compulsory voting or not.

Supporting compulsory voting doesnot equate to complacency...in fact it's rather the reverse.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
There are plenty of religious sects that don't vote. Another example are the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't particularly like them, but if you can force them to vote, why not force an atheist like LFTKBS to abstain from blood transfusions?

You've made a false analogy yourself. Compelling someone to reject a blood transfusion is life threatening and thus creates a "victim"...in the same way a female circumscision does. Enforced refusal of blood transfusions is not reasonable in any way and would have no social benefit. It's a crap analogy.

Under a mandatory system no-one is told "what to think" or compelled to hold a certain view. All this "stifling of religious freedom" is just a bunch of hot air. Turning up a polling booth once every three or four years is easy. It's less drag than taking your rubbish to the tip or getting a dog licence.

Scribble on your vote if you want and keep your religious principles in tact. Tyranny my arse.

[Kimpatsu]

You still miss the point, Jessica. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Anything else is tyranny. You are compelling people to break with their religious faith. Such compulsion is tyranny. This is not a debatable point; you just don't get it. Most likely, you think that such religious edicts are stupid and that these Buddhists should grow up, but all that does is show your complete lack of empathy for their standpoint and your own Anglocentrism. Allowing the government to force you to do things incrementally is indeed being asleep at the wheel.
If you think compulsory voting is a good thing, what else do you believe should be compulsory? Voting for a particular party? Sterilisation? Euthanasia? The point is that the government has no right to force people to do anything, except in the case where actions by one directly impinge upon the liberty of another. Anthing else is tyranny by definition. Your unwillingness to accept this basic fact is the living definition of complacency. Big leap? Not at all; glum recognition. I've seen the symptoms a million times, and things are not getting better. And your stance on compulsion is adding to the problem. It's only when the government compels you to so something you domn't want to do that you'll develop empathy for the first time. Pity it will take such an experience, though.
See you in the gulag.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
All this "stifling of religious freedom" is just a bunch of hot air.
And there we have it. If Buddhism is a "lot of hot air", what else do you consider to be hot air? Xpianity? Islam? Hinduism? The point is that just because you think it to be piffle doesn't make it any less important to believers. You're a bigot. You think that what's best for you is automatically in the best interests of everyone else too. To these Buddhists, going to a polling station every four years is NOT easy. It is a retrograde step in their quest for enlightenment. You are the living, breathing example of tyranny. Oh, to be a lawyer in Australia and wipe the floor with you for breach of human rights. Now that would be entertaining. I could even sell tickets.

[LFTKBS]

Nicely done, Kimpatsu.

And Jessica, nice catch on the whole false analogy thing. You're still wrong, tho'. ;)

[DialecticMaterialist]

"Democracy is the worst form of government--after all the others." Winston Churchill.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
"Democracy is the worst form of government--after all the others." Winston Churchill.
And your point is...?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Basic inference will tell you what my point is.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Basic inference will tell you what my point is.
No, I don't get it. Do you think compulsory voting is tyrannical? If not, why not?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

And there we have it. If Buddhism is a "lot of hot air", what else do you consider to be hot air? Xpianity? Islam? Hinduism? The point is that just because you think it to be piffle doesn't make it any less important to believers. You're a bigot. You think that what's best for you is automatically in the best interests of everyone else too. To these Buddhists, going to a polling station every four years is NOT easy. It is a retrograde step in their quest for enlightenment. You are the living, breathing example of tyranny. Oh, to be a lawyer in Australia and wipe the floor with you for breach of human rights. Now that would be entertaining. I could even sell tickets.

Hahaha...What a twister you are! I never said buddhism was alot of hot air. I said your arguments about compulsory voting stifling religious freedoms were. I acknowledged that compulsory voting was a possible infraction of religious freedom but did not consider this infraction significant enough to abandon the system, because the benefits outweighed such deficits.

As it happens it's possible for those citizens with religious beliefs to argue exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection.


In 1983 the Commonwealth Electoral Act Act was amended to provide that an elector who fails to vote may be excused if he or she shows cause why proceedings should not be instituted against him or her for failing to vote without a valid and sufficient reason.16 Arguably, conscientious objection on religious or other grounds would be a valid and sufficient reason. Prior to the 1983 amendment the practice was to excuse only those objecting on religious grounds.

Law Reform Commission Publications

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well since you "don't get it" (more like won't get it) I will spell it out for you.


First, compulsory voting is tyrannical, because it violates freedom of conscience. And a free conscience is a corner stone of democracy.


Secondly, I am illustrating the point that while democracy has problems, other forms of government have more. If you can present a better system, a better hypothesis, I'd love to hear it. Until then you are merely arguing from the negative.



Third, democracy is the best form of government I know of for many reasons.


1) It allows for easy mechanisms that encourage change, instead of stagnation.


2) It fragments power, leading to less corruption.


3) It makes the majority happier, usually, leading to less infighting.

4) It leads to an easy way to attain power peacefully, causing less infighting.


One of the great strengths in a demccracy is that disagreements are settled by words and vote, not coupes and revolution.


The greatest strength however is how open it is. Open systems, like a democracy run by vote and basic rights like free speech and conscience; can change rapidly and efficiently. The people can learn from mistakes and throw out politicians who may otherwise be dogmatic. Newer generations can eventually out-vote the old, bringing with them newer, more refined and modern ideas, which may otherwise, under a set un-elected ruler would never see the light of day for decades more. Democracy thus encourages reform and progress, change that comes from openness, whereas more closed government systems encourage mere secrecy, dogma and stagnation. Autocracies and Oligarchies are extremely succeptible to the Planck problem.

That is why demcracies have typically done much better then other forms of government, and that is why they are out-competing those others forms today.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Hahaha...What a twister you are! I never said buddhism was alot of hot air. I said your arguments about compulsory voting stifling religious freedoms were. I acknowledged that compulsory voting was a possible infraction of religious freedom but did not consider this infraction significant enough to abandon the system, because the benefits outweighed such deficits.
How can compulsion have benefits?
As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you. Australia is a signatory to the UN Charter on Human Rights. (Even if it hasn't been ratified.)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well since you "don't get it" (more like won't get it) I will spell it out for you.
No, I seriously can't see how the Chrchill quotation is germaine.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
First, compulsory voting is tyrannical, because it violates freedom of conscience. And a free conscience is a corner stone of democracy.
Thank you. But tell Jessica, not me. I agree with this assessment.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Secondly, (snip)
There is no second. The topic of conversation is the ethics of compulsory voting. As I said, the Churchill quotation would be relevant if we were discussing democracy vs. oligarchy vs. theocracy, etc., but it's as useful as duck soup to the question of compulsory voting.

[Jessica Blue]

How can compulsion have benefits?

Think about it. Do you think a society could function well without any?

I've already listed the benefits of compulsory voting in earlier posts.


As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you

[laughs]Go for it...I'll see you in court.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Kim your opening statement on this thread was directed at democracy in general, not just compulsory voting. In any event then, my statements concerning democracy were in general par original subject. I don't see why you would find that offensive by any means.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Kim your opening statement on this thread was directed at democracy in general, not just compulsory voting. In any event then, my statements concerning democracy were in general par original subject. I don't see why you would find that offensive by any means.
I don't find it offensive, DM; the conversation has meandered from the original title, and is now wholly regarding the issue of compulsory voting. (As a background, I should add that the British government is panicking about falling voter turnout, and has bruited the introduction of compulsory voting. This was shown to be daft when Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, went on a radio phone-in show, and spoke at length about 21st century voting schemes involving texting from your mobile, etc. Then the first call came through, and the caller asked a simple question: "Are you a socialist?" This shows the gulf between the rulers and the electorate. We don't vote not out of apathy, but because there are no candidates we view as worth supporting. This requires a change in the calibre of the candidates, but no politician will admit to themselves that they are anything less than sterling, 100% the best politician the country has ever seen.)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
How can compulsion have benefits?

Think about it. Do you think a society could function well without any?
Yes, absoutely. Remember: "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Anything else is tyranny.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I've already listed the benefits of compulsory voting in earlier posts.
I haven't seen any arguments regarding benefits. All you've come up with so far are excuses to curtail my liberties.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you

[laughs]Go for it...I'll see you in court.
Let me get qualified in Oz, and you're on.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I didn't read the entire thread, I just wanted to voice support for democracy. On the issues of which you speak, that's more specific stuff I'd rather not get into. On compulsory voting, that's so obviously undemocratic I don't really see why its being argued. That's majoritarianism; not democracy. I'm glad we cleared that up though.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well I didn't read the entire thread, I just wanted to voice support for democracy. On the issues of which you speak, that's more specific stuff I'd rather not get into. On compulsory voting, that's so obviously undemocratic I don't really see why its being argued. That's majoritarianism; not democracy. I'm glad we cleared that up though.
Yes, the curse of thread drift strikes again. :p
Jessica is our resident supporter of compulsion; I wonder what else she thinks should be compulsory. Jessica?

[Jessica Blue]

As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you

Actually that's pretty tyrannical of you. Despite general satisfaction with our voting system you insist it is despotic and so would seek to undermine it on our behalf.

Jessica is our resident supporter of compulsion; I wonder what else she thinks should be compulsory. Jessica?

Yeah...I'm such a despotic tyrant that I support laws and regulations that make sense and are of benefit to society.

I haven't seen any arguments regarding benefits. All you've come up with so far are excuses to curtail my liberties.

I made them...and they weren't excuses, they were reasonable arguments. Either you didn't bother to read them or you dismissed them because you just didn't agree.

[Kimpatsu]

Compulsory voting is antithetical to a free society. Yo usay you support laws that are of benefit, but compulsory voting clearly isn't one of them. Your arguments have already been torn apart, and yet you still cling to them.
As to my hypothetical lawsuit, how can it be tyrannical? I'm not outlawing voting; I'm suing to prevent compulsion. You can still vote if you want to. What I'm doing is giving you the choice, a concept with which you're clearly unhappy.

[Jessica Blue]

Compulsory voting is antithetical to a free societyAny reasonable definition of a free society does not include no restraints or compulsions. All societies have them....its a question of degrees. I just dont see being required to have your name ticked off an electoral role once in a while as an outrageous violation of freedom.

Your arguments have already been torn apart, and yet you still cling to themSuch confidence. They weren't "torn apart" from my perspective.

As to my hypothetical lawsuit, how can it be tyrannical? I'm not outlawing voting;No, but you're attempting to outlaw a system-of-voting which a democratic country has adopted and the majority of people have faith in, because you dont like it.

But I meant it lightheartedly.

Just a note to DialecticMaterialist

First, compulsory voting is tyrannical, because it violates freedom of conscience.If you feel its your moral obligation not to vote you don't have to. As I've said many times in this discussion you are only required to have your named ticked at the electoral role, you are not required to make a legitimate vote so where is the violation of conscience? And, as I've just recently discovered, you can also seek exemption even from that, through conscientious objection. Requiring people to turn up at a ballot box every few years is not much to ask. Civic responsibilities as well as civic rights are also a cornerstone of a democracy.

I think we have a fairly good political system in Australia. We have a thorough representation in the senate and the house of representatives with proportional voting and preferential voting respectively. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people vote, means we have a more accurate representation of views in the community.

Mandatory voting is not essential in order to have a healthy political system...but the legal compulsion means we have come to view voting as a necessary civic obligation rather than something we can shirk if we feel like it. I think that has a positive, rather than a negative effect on a democracy.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But you haven't provided any argument for WHY you can be compelled to file taxes but not file a vote, even a blank one.

Little late responding to Ziggurat, but I thought I'd point out that in the United States, the Congress is given the power to levy taxes by the Constitution, whereas there is no mandatory voting in that document. Those rights not held by the republic or the states belong to the people. So there you go.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I've already listed the benefits of compulsory voting in earlier posts.


In case anyone missed it, Ms. Blue's benefits of compulsory voting are below:

More people vote when voting is mandatory.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Any reasonable definition of a free society does not include no restraints or compulsions. All societies have them....its a question of degrees. I just dont see being required to have your name ticked off an electoral role once in a while as an outrageous violation of freedom.
And that's the problem. You just can't see it. Next you'll be deciding which church gets preferential treatment from the state. Because you can't see what's wrong with that, either. :rolleyes:

[Adrian Lopez]

Some people in this thread keep insisting that voting is a citizen's responsibility while also insisting that people who don't want to vote can cast an invalid vote. Such a position is logically inconsistent, for if you really believe that voting is a citizens responsibility then it follows that casting an invalid vote - essentially a non-vote - is irresponsible. If you were consistent in your position you'd be arguing that it's just as wrong to cast an invalid vote as it is to not vote in the first place. You can try to skirt the issue of voters rights by arguing that persons who object to voting can cast an invalid vote, but such a position does not support the idea that voting is a citizens responsibility.

Regarding conscientious objector exceptions to mandatory voting, who the heck is the government to decide upon matters of my conscience? By including conscientious objector exceptions in mandatory voting statutes the government recognizes that it's wrong to force conscientious objectors to vote, yet for some strange reason they get to decide who is conscientious and who is not. To me, it seems like a token concession.

Finally I must question the assumption that greater participation in the electoral process is better on its own merits than lesser participation. More is not always better, and the quality and integrity of democratic decisions is more important than the quantity. A lot of people complain about apathetic voters, but what those people fail to consider is that apathy is often due to not having your interests represented in a polarized political environment.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Adrian Lopez[/i]
Some people in this thread keep insisting that voting is a citizen's responsibility while also insisting that people who don't want to vote can cast an invalid vote. Such a position is logically inconsistent, for if you really believe that voting is a citizens responsibility then it follows that casting an invalid vote - essentially a non-vote - is irresponsible. If you were consistent in your position you'd be arguing that it's just as wrong to cast an invalid vote as it is to not vote in the first place. You can try to skirt the issue of voters rights by arguing that persons who object to voting can cast an invalid vote, but such a position does not support the idea that voting is a citizens responsibility.There's no conflict or inconsistency, because there is no encouragement not to make a legitimate vote. It's simply a fact that since voting is by secret ballot, there is no compulsion there to act against your conscience if you feel you shouldn't vote. Mandatory voting works by encouraging a sense of civic obligation to make a real vote, not forcing you to make one.


Finally I must question the assumption that greater participation in the electoral process is better on its own merits than lesser participation. More is not always better, and the quality and integrity of democratic decisions is more important than the quantity.Yet compulsory voting does not preclude quality and integrity. What evidence is there that the quality and integrity of those democracies which have voluntary systems are better than those which do not? How good is the quality and integrity of those democracies which have low voter turnout?

If Australia abandoned mandatory voting it would likely have a deleterious effect on our democracy. The danger is that Australian democratic elections would deteriorate to the decrepit state of the United States electoral process.

[Kimpatsu]

Compulsory voting doesn't foster a sense of civic responsibility, it creates resentment. Even the Australian government understood that; they didn't introduce compulsory voting for anything so noble as to raise civic awareness. They did it to stop left-leaning unions, to which they were bitterly opposed, organising block voting.
Compulsory voting doesn't even exist in countries like Japan, where people are far more like sheep than the independent-minded West. And the final nail in your argument's coffin: spoiled ballots in Australia aren't counted as protest votes (RON); they're simply discarded. Some democracy. :rolleyes:

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

And that's the problem. You just can't see it. Next you'll be deciding which church gets preferential treatment from the state. Because you can't see what's wrong with that, either. :rolleyes: It's you who doesn't get it. Compulsory votng is an easy anti-State target and held up as an invasion of freedom and rights. But we live with the reality of it in Australia and the practice of compulsory voting just hasn't matched the boogey-man rhetoric of those who oppose it in theory.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
It's you who doesn't get it. Compulsory votng is an easy anti-State target and held up as an invasion of freedom and rights. But we live with the reality of it in Australia and the practice of compulsory voting just hasn't matched the boogey-man rhetoric of those who oppose it in theory.
One person forced to vote against their will is one person too many. That is the reality of the Bogeyman. Australia is trampling on people's rights, and if you're any indication, the populace are asleep at the wheel.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Jessicca I just see it as an unencessary violation of freedom of conscience. We can force people to actually study politics and history too, doesn't mean its a good idea. I think simply giving them a free day off on election times would do just as well, without making voting compulsory. Also they may be forced to vote for a group they very much can't in good conscience support, because all are bad to them.

Also some for some groups, like the Jehovah Witnesses, it is against their religion to vote.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by corplinx
Democracy == Mob Rule

In democracy, instead of being led by an evil dictator you are ruled by a mostly ignorant and self-absorbed majority.

Make no mistake, a pure democracy can be as bad or worse than a dictatorship.

Now, federal republics on the other hand I dig.

Which is precisely the reason why the US has a Constitution. Obviously, it would be a scarey place if we were ruled purely by the will of the majority. It already is a little scarey at times, particular when you consider that many seem to consider the Constitution to be a pick and choose sort of document.

[Adrian Lopez]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
There's no conflict or inconsistency, because there is no encouragement not to make a legitimate vote. It's simply a fact that since voting is by secret ballot, there is no compulsion there to act against your conscience if you feel you shouldn't vote. Mandatory voting works by encouraging a sense of civic obligation to make a real vote, not forcing you to make one. If you truly believe that citizens have a responsibility to cast "real votes" then you tacitly support measures aimed at preventing invalid votes. Otherwise you cannot honestly speak in terms of civic obligations, because an obligation to vote implies an obligation to cast a legitimate vote. You dodge criticism from opponents of mandatory voting by suggesting that it's possible to cast an invalid vote, but if it's wrong not to vote then it's just as wrong to cast an invalid vote. On the other hand, if it's okay to cast an invalid vote then the "obligation to vote" becomes nothing more than an "obligation to show up", which strikes me as rather silly.

Would you withdraw your support of compulsory voting if the system made it difficult or impossible to cast blank or invalid votes?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

One person forced to vote against their will is one person too many. That is the reality of the Bogeyman. Australia is trampling on people's rights, and if you're any indication, the populace are asleep at the wheel. How many times do I have to say no-one is forced to make a vote? Why don't you phrase that question "One person forced to have their name ticked off the electoral role is one person too many", because that would be more accurate.

You seem unable to accept that someone could have a different perspective on compulsory voting than you. It does not mean I or other Australians are "asleep at the wheel" and it's pretty arrogant of you to say that. If I were I wouldn't be bothering to justify my position with these posts.

Australians are not simply acquiescent to government impositions. There were, for example, well organised anti-conscription movements during World War One and the Vietnam War. The plan by the federal government a few years ago to introduce a national identity card was defeated by a large, spontaneous opposition uniting both left and right wing forces. Government compulsion is neither automatically accepted nor automatically rejected in Australia. I think we dont balk at compulsory voting because we see more benefits than negatives.

Because certain socio-economic groups tend to be politically shy and are less likely to vote under a voluntary system...abandoning compulsory voting would negatively affect the welfare of these groups. Perhaps one reason Australians seem to readily accept compulsory voting is not because we are *asleep at the wheel*, but because we view this particular social compulsion not in terms of inalienable rights but in terms pertaining to equality and welfare.

One important benefit of compulsory voting I should have emphasized is that it reduces the significance and power of money in determining the outcomes of elections. Here is an excerpt from an essay by Aust. former Liberal party senator Chris Puplick who makes a few relevent points:

Australia's electoral system is unique in being probably the fairest and least open to manipulation of any in the world. An independent Electoral Commission, redistributions conducted under judicial scrutiny, a system of preferential voting, the operation of the secret ballot, no age barriers preventing electors from seeking election as candidates, public funding of campaigns, the random listing and identification of party affiliation on ballot papers, and a number of other local practices ensure this. One of those unique local practices which contributes so much to the fairness of Australian elections is compulsory voting.

The people most likely not to vote are those who are least aware of their rights, the most disadvantaged and the ones most likely to be exploited by rich and powerful political and financial interests.

Keeping these people away from the polls is something which corrupt sectional interests always try to do. For example, in 1993 the Democratic Governor of New Jersey (USA), Jim Florio, was defeated in a campaign in which there was strong evidence that his Republican opponents had run a deliberate campaign (including actual allegations of bribery) to keep poor black voters (traditional Democrat Supporters) away from the polls.

Compulsory voting keeps down the cost of campaigns. The most expensive part of a campaign where there is no compulsory voting is having to 'turn on the vote'. A Senatorial campaign in the United States costs from $3 million to well over $12 million. The very act of having to raise large sums of money leaves candidates and political parties potentially beholden to their financial backers and thus keeping down the costs of campaigns reduces the potential for political corruption.

In the United States politics is characterised as 'the struggle of pressure groups versus the public interest'. Powerful lobbies such as the National Rifle Association dominate political life because they can motivate their members to get out and vote in numbers disproportionate to their real strength in the community.

Assume that pressure group X has the support of 5 per cent of the population, then in a compulsory voting situation it is likely to be able to influence 5 per cent of the vote. But if the number of people voting falls to 30 per cent and all the members of pressure group X vote, then their electoral strength is now 16 per cent. I believe pressure groups are proper and legitimate in our democracy but they should have no greater power to determine electoral outcomes than they actually possess in terms of real community support. Compulsory voting ensures this, while voluntary voting increases the disproportionate power of pressure groups. This again puts a premium on money. The richer and the more powerful can both better organise and better skew the outcome of elections to their sectional advantage than can the poorer, the less articulate and the less educated.

When opponents of compulsory voting characterise these people as 'apathetic' they reveal only their own class (and often racial) prejudices. There are as many 'apathetic' rich people as poor people, but those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap are the ones most likely not to know that it is by their participation in elections that they can best ensure a government that will not feel free to ignore them entirely. Similarly the proposition that only the 'educated and informed' should vote is a clear first step on the road to imposing qualifications on electors against which true democrats have always fought, and with good reason.

I am very proud of Australia's electoral system and while I favour regular review of all its aspects, I would not destroy any of them currently in place and to my mind functioning well. I believe compulsory voting is a major pillar which gives strength to one of the fairest and most democratic electoral systems currently practised.

[Kimpatsu]

I know your perspective is different, Jessica; it is also just plain wrong. I have a right to take no part in any element of the electoral process. Australia is asleep at the wheel, but the same can be said of other countries as well. The difference is that voting is not compulsory in Britain, America, or Canada, etc. Why on earth can't you understand that all compulsions are de facto unacceptable? What gives you the right to mandate how I must live my life? Your comment about being "proud of Australia's... system" is telling. This is jingoism at work. The only good thing I can say is that despite your dreams of being a totalitarian dictator, they are just that: dreams. John Howard, therefore, is by far the more dangerous enemy.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Adrian Lopez

If you truly believe that citizens have a responsibility to cast "real votes" then you tacitly support measures aimed at preventing invalid votes. Otherwise you cannot honestly speak in terms of civic obligations, because an obligation to vote implies an obligation to cast a legitimate vote. You dodge criticism from opponents of mandatory voting by suggesting that it's possible to cast an invalid vote, but if it's wrong not to vote then it's just as wrong to cast an invalid vote. On the other hand, if it's okay to cast an invalid vote then the "obligation to vote" becomes nothing more than an "obligation to show up", which strikes me as rather silly.There is only an obligation to show up, which is why arguments that it is tyrannical, an infringement on conscience etc. are specious.The compulsory voting system is really a misnomer...it's intention is to encourage the community to view voting as a civil obligation, not to force a vote out of us.

Would you withdraw your support of compulsory voting if the system made it difficult or impossible to cast blank or invalid votes?I can't imagine how that could be done without sacrificing the secret ballot which I think is essential to a democracy. But even if it could, yes I would withdraw my support, because while I think people should be encouraged to make a real vote, I don't think they should be forced.

[Jessica Blue]

What gives you the right to mandate how I must live my life?
Kimpatsu,

I'm not. Have I said you must adopt compulsory voting or even that you are wrong to hold your opinion? I'm just defending it because I believe in it.

Your comment about being "proud of Australia's... system" is telling.

That was Chris Puplicks comment. I put it in because I seem to be the only one supporting compulsory voting on this thread and I felt lonely!

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
There is only an obligation to show up,
That is unacceptable. You do not have the right to order me to go anywhere, or corrall me against my will. I am neither cattle nor a prisoner.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I'm not. Have I said you must adopt compulsory voting or even that you are wrong to hold your opinion? I'm just defending it because I believe in it.
Anything compulsory is telling me how to live my life. If you can't see that, you must have some very funny notions about what "compulsory" means.
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
That was Chris Puplicks comment. I put it in because I seem to be the only one supporting compulsory voting on this thread and I felt lonely!
That's because you're in the wrong.

[Adrian Lopez]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I can't imagine how that could be done without sacrificing the secret ballot which I think is essential to a democracy. But even if it could, yes I would withdraw my support, because while I think people should be encouraged to make a real vote, I don't think they should be forced. It could be done quite easily through an electronic voting system. An anonymous computerized system could hand out a nondescript "vote completed" receipt once a valid vote is submitted while refusing the receipt if the vote is invalid. Considering that your ballots do not include a "none of the above" option, such a system would be fatal to a fair democracy. While I'm glad to hear you would withdraw support if casting invalid votes were not possible, I must insist that casting invalid votes is not in any way intended to be part of a compulsory voting system, and that it's therefore a serious mistake to consider such systems valid on the grounds that it's possible to do what you're not supposed to do in the first place.

[Kimpatsu]

Well said, Adrian.

[Jessica Blue]

I must insist that casting invalid votes is not in any way intended to be part of a compulsory voting system, and that it's therefore a serious mistake to consider such systems valid on the grounds that it's possible to do what you're not supposed to do in the first place.Not making a vote is an option in the system...its not invalid just because we call it a "compulsory voting system" and not voting appears to contradict the title. We could call it the encouragement-to vote-system system and you couldn't make that argument. What matters is how it works, not what its called.

[Kimpatsu]

But as I said, compulsion doesn't encourage people to vote; it encourages resentment.
Of course, given how much people hate the sh!tty government, not much has changed there...

[Adrian Lopez]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Not making a vote is an option in the system...Is it really an option in the system or is it merely possible? A true option is designed into the system, not merely implied by the mechanics of the system. The casting of "donkey votes" as you call them is not designed into the system, although it's certainly possible under the current system. What makes you think donkey votes will be possible once electronic voting systems inevitably become the standard (perhaps in the distant future)?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But as I said, compulsion doesn't encourage people to vote; it encourages resentment.You are making an almighty assumption there. What evidence do you have for it? If that were the case then you would expect the majority of Australians to be against compulsory voting, but the reverse is true.


As can be seen in this Morgan Gallup poll conducted in 1996 :

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/edu/student_pages/2000/jmould/Blank%20Page%203.htm


Originally posted by Adrian Lopez
What makes you think donkey votes will be possible once electronic voting systems inevitably become the standard (perhaps in the distant future)?That would transform the current sytem into something other than it is now. It's an interesting question and I dont know if the powers that be would want to erase the no-vote option or not. I suspect not, since it works well as it is and the vast bulk of Australians choose to make a genuine vote anyway. That would upset the apple cart.

There is no reason why an electronic voting system couldn't include an option for an invalid vote...if it failed to so, then we would be having a different discussion and as I said, I would oppose it.

[Kimpatsu]

Jessica, the poll to which you linked says that most Austrlaians accept compulsory voting, not that they approve of it. That's resignation, which is when the anger of resentment has burned out, but the underlying disdain still remains. That's because compulsory voting has been around since 1924--a long time. Give Australians a referendum, and see what happens. I'll lay money on democracy winning out.

[LFTKBS]

Bump because Kimpatsu is awesome.

That is all.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Bump because Kimpatsu is awesome.
That is all.
Thank you.
In my perfect world, you may be Minister in Charge of Beer.
:jedi:

[Jessica Blue]

This thread is so last year...


Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Jessica, the poll to which you linked says that most Austrlaians accept compulsory voting, not that they approve of it. That's resignation, which is when the anger of resentment has burned out, but the underlying disdain still remains. That's because compulsory voting has been around since 1924--a long time. Give Australians a referendum, and see what happens. I'll lay money on democracy winning out. The poll says the level of support for compulsory voting is strong among all party supporters. The suggestion that this is some kind of resignation with disdain festering underneath is just your opinion...where's the evidence for it? Do the other Australians on this board feel disdain for our compulsory voting system?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
This thread is so last year...
Strange, I thought justice never went out of fashion...
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
The poll says the level of support for compulsory voting is strong among all party supporters. The suggestion that this is some kind of resignation with disdain festering underneath is just your opinion...where's the evidence for it? Do the other Australians on this board feel disdain for our compulsory voting system?
Actually, polls of people who don't actually belong to a political party shows weary resignation and resentment. Even if that were not the case, it is still wrong to compel people to do anything, and always will be.

[Tony]

Kimpatsu is dead on. Compulsory voting (compulsory anything, school, taxes ect..) is a violation of my rights.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Tony
Kimpatsu is dead on. Compulsory voting (compulsory anything, school, taxes ect..) is a violation of my rights.
Hey, a two-Tone effort. ;)
I think the Thomas Jefferson quote in your signature block is dead on, too.