Compulsory Voting

Great Debates
1

I have noticed that none of the contributors to a recent MPSIMS thread, Compulsory voting in Australia and Belgium*, support compulsory voting. I think that most Australians do. Certainly, there is more support than opposition when the subject is raised in the press. As usual, I hold the minority view.

There was some support for compulsory voting in a GD thread from last year: Voting: A right or responsibility?*, but only a little.

As far as I can tell, the reasons given in Australia for making voting compulsory are that [ul][li]voting is so important, and a hard fought right, that it would be wrong not to exercise that right; []if voting is optional, people will be bribed to vote (I’m not sure how serious this argument is, since voting is by secret ballot);[]with voluntary voting, fanatical voters and special interest groups will have too great an impact, and[] (similar to the first, and to counter the point that actual voting is not compulsory) it is moral weakness not to make a decision for one candidate[/ul][/li]The opposing views are that[ul][li]forcing people to vote (all right, turn up to the polling booth) does not encourage intelligent voting, and []an enforced ‘right’ is not a right.[/ul][/li]The main justification of success that I have seen is voter turnout (turnouts from 50% to 78% before compulsion and 91% immediately after it was introduced in 1924*. There has been no argument or evidence for how this has produced a more rational approach to voting among the electorate.

The behaviour of people at the polling booths (‘Who do I vote for?’ etc), the very existence of ‘how to vote’ pamphlets being distributed at booths, and the advertising campaigns based on fear and greed, provide evidence in support of the first opposing argument. On the other hand, the existence of poorly informed voters also supports the argument that voluntary voting produces superficial campaigns (as in many U.S. elections, where more attempts seem to be made to whip up enthusiasm, and thus, a vote, than to stimulate careful thought).

Interestingly, while voting is compulsory in Australian state and federal elections and this is supported resolutely by the political parties, these same parties do not have compulsory voting for the preselection ballots.

Also, I believe that most Australians do not know that they can legally return an empty ballot paper, or that they do not have to number every square (we have preferential voting) for the vote to be valid (see Australian Electoral Commission) But we don’t have to cope with chads!

*(I am having trouble with links, so I will give them in the next post)

2

Voter Turnout before and after compulsory voting introduced

I still can’t post the urls of these SDMB threads: [ul][]Compulsory voting in Australia and Belgium (MPSIMS, 11-16-2001)[]Voting: A right or responsibility? (GD, 11-21-2000)[/ul]Don’t know why.

3

Could you phrase the OP in the form of a question?

Here’s one problem with compulsory voting - last year in my hometown a winter storm hit on election day. A bad storm in a rural area. People could not get to the polling places. Many people with 4x4’s took the day off to try and help elderly rural voters get to the polls, but the turnout was 50% of usual.

Should those people who literally could not get to the polls be penailized for not voting?

4

Gee, DD. My vote is my telling the government of the day who I think should be in a particular office or what I think on a particular issue. Since one of the major concepts of democracy here in the US is that I have freedom of thought, forcing me to tell my thoughts on any issue detracts from that freedom. After all, I also have the freedom to not think about an issue.

Besides: isn’t the compulsion merely to show up and cast your ballot, regardless of if you actually voted for each and every matter on the slate? That’s an attendance requirement, not a voting requirement.

5

**

It would be wrong of me to vote if there were no candidates who matched my political ideology. What’s the point of a communist in voting for someone who isn’t a communist?

**

I am unsure what they mean by bribe. No matter what candidates will attempt to garner the most votes by promising what they think the people want.

**

Fanatical voter and special interest groups sound like informed voters to me. Those are people who have particular issues that are important to them and vote accordingly.

**

If my moral weakness isn’t picking someone elses pocket or breaking someone’s leg then the government shouldn’t force me to stop.

**

The percentage of voter turn out is not the end all be all of government. 80% of the population who didn’t vote in one election always has the option of voting in the next one.

Marc

6

Marc:

We both forgot to ask the OP: “And exactly how many of those 91% who did vote were utter fools with no clue whatsoever as to what they were doing and thus the nation would probably have been better off had they not voted?”

7

Bad idea , since if you’ve got to vote then you might just tick anybody on the form , and thus not make an informed choice , which messes up government and the so called “will of the people” . Also voter apathy is dicussed often and it has been defended , thinking nobody is worth voting for and not voting at all should be allowed and IS allowed in many places .

8

I started a voting thread once… or maybe it was just a “politics” thread, don’t remember. I tried a search on it but found no mathces. Anyway, the candidates that make it to the ballot don’t often represent who I would want to be president. I’ve always wanted ballots to include a “none fo the above” box. I would utilize that. I would also be interested in seeing how many chose that option, were it available. (note that “none of the above” is not equivalent to not voting!) What would we do if “none of the above” won?

9

I believe that in Australia, if there is a specified percentage of “none of the above” votes, then the election is declared null and void and needs to be re-held with new candidates.

Gp

10

1- There is a link between the constitution and relevance of voting. The Islamic Republic of Iran allows people to vote for their representatives to the parliament. But if the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, does not like the representative, he/she is removed from the ballot. The reason is that there is no separation of church and state.

Similarly in the US, since there is no separation of Corporations and Government, no matter who you vote for, the representative is chosen by special interest groups a priori. Makes voting a puppet show.

2- In Switzerland, people vote on important issues rather than personalities or individuals. With availability and spread of the Internet, are we going to continue delegating decisions on crucial issues to a third party middle person called “a representative”? Shouldn’t we start thinking about a new constitution that does away with the concept of representative government - at least when it comes to important issues such as foreign policy?.

Maybe 6000 people at WTC and Pentagon would not have been killed if the US voters had long ago addressed the foreign policy issues rather than delegating the decisions to the servants of the oil and defense industries. As we reflect on the tragedy of 911 trying to find the root causes, how much of the fault falls squarely on the shoulder of the average voter who, for many years, ignored formulation of our foreign policy?

11

One Cell, I’m not even sure how to respond to such a post.

This must be hyperbole. Yeah, candidates who are popular are likely to have gotten the public attention from private funds, but we still have to vote for them for them to hold office.

Maybe.

12

This is probably NOT a good idea. First of all comparing what the Swiss to the US is apples and oranges. Switzerland is a small, VERY homogenous country with very little in the way of global interests. What works well for them may not work well for us.

Secondly, there are a whole raft of problems that come with an initiative form of governance. Look at California and see where ballot initiatives have gotten them. Ballot initiatives can be a problem in their own right.

In short, you are asking voters to make decisions on issues with many nuances. Most voters can’t be bothered to educate themselves on two different candidates. Why do you suppose they would educate themselves on a score of different issues ranging from education to drugs to foreign policy? No thanks. That’s what your elected representative is supposed to do. It is his or her job to spend time looking at issues from multiple directions and understand the subtleties involved and then make a choice that is in their constituency’s best interests. At least that’s the theory and while that may not happen it is still better than letting voters in on every fiddly little issue (especially foregin policy).

13

Actually, One Cell most candidates are chosen through the primary process, in which the people decide who the candidate is, not the corporations.

Second, I agree with Whack-a-Mole that doing away with representatives would be a major disaster in the US. I don’t even like the limited referendum processes in California. Stupid laws get enacted that way, and are often struck down by the courts as unconstitutional/illegal. I don’t want the same people who strike down bond initiatives to repair schools deciding foreign policy.

14

I am so opposed to the referendum process in California that I will not sign petitions for them and I make sure to vote against them, whether or not I have an underlying agreement with them or not.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DopeyDave *
**As far as I can tell, the reasons given in Australia for making voting compulsory are that [ul][li]voting is so important, and a hard fought right, that it would be wrong not to exercise that right; [/li][/quote]
**You said it yourself: if you are required to do something it’s not a right. As an example: since we have free speech as a right should I be required to give my opinion on any or all issues?

[quote]
[li]if voting is optional, people will be bribed to vote (I’m not sure how serious this argument is, since voting is by secret ballot);[/li][/quote]
Bribing enough people is unlikely because it would be too damn expensive. On a national level it would cost a hell of lot more than a media blitz (TV, newspaper ads, etc.) would. Also anyone who does this risks being found out and that would end their political career real quick. And then of course, as you mentioned, the voting is done by secret ballot so how would the attempted bribers know if people are voting the way they (the bribers) want?

[quote]
**[li]with voluntary voting, fanatical voters and special interest groups will have too great an impact, and[/li][/quote]
** And they don’t where voting is mandatory? Fanatical voters are loud and special interest groups usually have a lot of money to spend on advertisements for their issues or candidates; either way plenty of people are going to hear about their side of the issues, and when combined with people who don’t think but blindly follow they’re going to get a lot of votes. The assumption is that with non-compulsory voting you’re mainly going to get people voting when they care a significant amount about certain issues or candidates and hopefully are making an informed and thougtful decision.

Actually I think that in some ways the threat of the damage that can be wrought by special interest groups and fanatical voters would be worse in a mandatory voting system: a person, having only minimal knowledge of the issues/candidates, may cast a vote simply because they are at the polls and had vaguely heard (possibly erronously) about how great/bad a candidate or issue is; they’re not voting because they feel strongly about something and are well informed, simply because they feel they have to pick someone/something.

[quote]
[li](similar to the first, and to counter the point that actual voting is not compulsory) it is moral weakness not to make a decision for one candidate[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

As MGibson pointed out it would be wrong to vote for any of the official candidates if you don’t like any of them. However I would like to add that if you have the ability to write in a candidate then I would encourage you to do that instead of not voting. If everyone who didn’t vote because they didn’t like the candidates were to do a write-in vote instead I think that there would be a lot of light shed on issues that are often ignored or the public is unaware of, and it could also expose a bit more of the country’s psyche (or it could just cause Howard the Duck to get thousands of votes again).

I understand if you think the system’s crap and want to show your opinion by not voting, but most people’ll just think you’re lazy IMO.

[personal anecdote]
In 2000 I was having a conversation with a girl I work with and asked her if she was going to vote and she said no. I asked her (carefully) if I could know the reason why and she responded: “Because the only person I think should have power over us is Jesus.”

I told her to do a write-in vote for Jesus because if everyone who felt the way she did were to actually do that it could have an effect that was to her liking: such as a closer examination of whether or not we should have seperation of church and state (I think we should have seperation, but I’m making a point about getting people aware of lesser known or looked at issues).
[/personal anecdote]

16

As much as I think that voting is a duty, I did not vote in the most recent one. Why? It was a few local candidates that I knew nothing about, and I thought that it would be waste of time for me to vote. I don’t think that I should have been fined for not voting. Furthermore, as I understand it, voting is required of all registered voters. I think that the biggest effects of mandatory voting would be to just decrease the number of registered voters.

17

Well the idea has some merit as long as people can choose to leave their ballots blank if they don’t know anything and will admit it to themselves. As opponents of each other on this board have frequently pointed out, the other party isn’t educated on the issues and they vote, so that isn’t much of an argument. I have occasionally left an entry blank on a ballot when I knew nothing about the issue.

As for forcing people, I guess the next question is what is the punishment for not voting, a fine like a parking ticket? And if you don’t pay it, then what? They don’t let you drive, or you aren’t eligible for a tax rebate?

Our country has frequently had a draft for military service, which is substantially more onerous than voting, and also a “draft” for serving on a jury.

This would make spending massive amounts of money on meaningless advertising less effective or more important, I’m not sure which.

In California we have just enacted a law that allows people to sign up for permanent vote by mail, meaning that we don’t have to specially request an absentee ballot for each election. In Oregon it is mandatory.

18

I think that if compulsory voting were the case, then that day should also be a national holiday. I’m serious. The last thing I’d want to do it battle rush hour traffic, hungry, after working all day, to go stand in a long line to vote.

Overall, I favor voluntary voting. I figure, if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch.

19

Why not?