Amen, Go alien and yojimbo. When I vote I have to think in terms of “The party I hate the least” rather than “The party I would like in power”. If voting was made compulsory here I think I would vote against the party who made it law… purely out of spite. 
Does anyone really believe that the US’s foreign policy is as a result of goodwill, **or idealistic belief about spreading democracy to non-democratic countries? **
Istara
Yes, I do believe this. I think this is at least part of the motivation. I think some of our foreign policy is determined by common interests, stability, economics, pleasing our “friends”, and maintaining the existing power structure. I think most Americans think democratic ideals should be the basis for government structures. Economic systems are just as important. In order for democracy to work, there must be adequate standards of living where people have access to education, food, shelter, etc.
What do you thin drives U.S. foreign policy,BTW?
Part of the problem in the United States is that, in many voting jurisdictions – and this may be true in Australia as well, in which it’s academic – there are dozens of individual offices and issues up for vote on every ballot. In Ohio, in Presidential election years, I could be expected to vote for:
President
Governor
U.S. Senator
U.S. Congressman
State Senator
State Congressman
County Commissioner(s)
Mayor
Juvenile Court judge
Domestic Relations Court judge
several other judgeships
several levy issues
several bond issues
several other referenda and ballot issues
Voter behavior is largely explained by the economic concept of rational ignorance. When the personal cost of not learning something is essentially zero, but the expense of learning it is high, the rational course is for a person not to learn it. In this case, the time it would take to learn, to a degree required to vote intelligently, about every candidate for every office and about every levy, bond and referendum, is very high; the consequences for the individual, on the other hand, are negligible. Therefore, not learning about them is the rational decision.
That may then manifest itself in a few different ways: 1) Not voting at all, 2) Voting randomly, without knowledge of the issues and candidates, or 3) Leaving portions of the ballot blank. I’d say that between the three, option #1 is the most preferable.
It is true that US voting participation rates are pretty appalling by the standards of most democracies. My guess is that this results from high levels of apathy, indifference and alienation from the political process. If I am right, compulsory voting would conceal this problem, not solve it. For all we know, Australians are equally apathetic, indifferent and alienated. We know that the number of invalid votes which Australians cast is relatively small, but we do not know how many votes, while valid, are unconsidered or even random.
Do low turnouts weaken the mandate of the US government? Not really, and certainly not internationally. There has to be a US government, and there’s nobody with a better mandate.
Should low turnouts worry the US? Certainly. Indifference, apathy and alienation in the electorate are not a good thing. It’s no help to the US to say that Australians may have the same problem but have contrived to conceal it and, therefore, ignore it.
For one thing, I feel that if you live in a country that uses voting as the method for deciding elections and referendums, if you have the ability to vote, but don’t, you have absolutely no right to complain.
However…
It is completely true that the political parties in America are like different varieties of Kraft Mac & Cheese…they have different boxes, they have different advertising campaigns, but when you get home and open the box it’s still just pasta and processed cheese. There’s almost no freaking difference. From my seat here in the suburbs, you have a choice between a bunch of rich, soulless bastards who won’t stay out of your wallet, or a bunch of rich, soulless bastards who won’t stay out of your house.
We’re supposed to be engaged in this huge fight against terrorism and a grant for hundreds of thousands of dollars was just given to an American city to fight Goth culture in the young.
(Link)
The crime rate is rising all over the country and the police in San Francisco are…shutting down establishments that serve coffee after 2am during the World Cup…for “doing business after hours.” Even though many of them were just broadcasting the game and giving away the coffee, and none of them were selling alcohol. (Link)
I think the biggest problem in America is apathy…people are willing to be told what to do, where to go, and who to vote for because they don’t want to take a chance on losing Wal*Mart or WWF or Nascar or Treet or Pabst Blue Ribbon. There are several issues I feel strongly about, but I’m too afraid that standing up for some of the less mainstream things I believe in will put my children at risk. My comfort is worth sacrificing. My children are not.
And unfortunately being willing to risk my comfort makes me a radical over here. How depressing.
No, it isn’t. It’s falling. And it has been. For years now.
I think the biggest problem in America is apathy…people are willing to be told what to do, where to go, and who to vote for because they don’t want to take a chance on losing Wal*Mart or WWF or Nascar or Treet or Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Hamadryad
I am not following the reasoning here. Sometimes I convince myself that I am too busy or to uninformed to vote. I still believe that it is well within my rights to talk to or write or email elected officials about issues that concern me. Actually, I feel that this is a great way to make my POV known and considered.
I am really lost by your remarks concerning WalMart, WWF, NASCAR, Treet -???, and Pabst Blue Ribbon. If you have a minute, please enlighten me.
Whoops–strike previous comment. It was falling, until this past Tuesday.
Sometimes I convince myself that I am too busy or to uninformed to vote. I still believe that it is well within my rights to talk to or write or email elected officials about issues that concern me.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t exactly clear…I was talking more about the people who whine and moan and complain about how horrible everything is - to each other, in the “Letters to the Editor,” - but never bother to vote, become informed, or anything else remotely productive.
I am really lost by your remarks concerning WalMart, WWF, NASCAR, Treet -???, and Pabst Blue Ribbon.
“Treet” is “Spam,” but made by a different company. Didn’t want confusion with the food product “Spam” and the unwanted email “spam.” This was actually a really nastily prejudiced remark on my part - those are products or institutions which seem to attract primarily consumers who are uhm…not particularly concerned with matters that take place farther away from home than the molding armchair in front of their trailer.
A note: I know people who consume many of the above who are not ignorant savages, and I know people who live in trailers who are not ignorant savages…but from casual observation they would seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
What I’m basically saying is that there are SCORES of ign’int Amurkinz who don’t really care what the hell our government does as long as it doesn’t change their ability to drink cheap beer and watch things blow up.
I’m pretty much a big ol’ left-wing liberal type, but I would rather have a rabid conservative screaming epithets about Clinton in my face than ignorant savages glued to the WB. At least the screamer cares passionately about SOMETHING other than his own limited personal neighborhood.
reprise, There have been books written on the subject of why Americans don’t vote. Here is a very interesting interview with the author of two books on the subject.
**What I’m basically saying is that there are SCORES of ign’int Amurkinz who don’t really care what the hell our government does as long as it doesn’t change their ability to drink cheap beer and watch things blow up. **
OK, now I get it. The masses are composed of folks that could be described as being self-absorbed. I include myself in that group. Individualism is a big part of this culture. On behalf of the “ign’int Amurkinz”, I will say that those seeking to hold public office are kind-of elitist. Many, if not most of them have very strong ties to big business. Many, if not most are part of very wealthy families. The guy that drinks cheap beer, watches WWF and shops at WalMart, looks at the candidates, and sees nothing that he respects or finds interesting. Oddly enough, some of the politicians that were most respected by “the common folk” turned out to be somewhat thug-like and unsophisticated. What would happen if all the people that watch WWF voted?:eek:
I will not take part in a political process that is equivalent to a beauty pageant. Let me vote on issues, not politicians, and you would see me at the voting booth every Tuesday afternoon, if that is what it took.
I will not take part in a popularity contest. Majority opinion decides that we don’t want any of the candidates offered, but we still get schmucks. And people, here in this thread, and out IRL (I am constantly getting into arguments about this) tell me I don’t have a right to complain. Ha! Some even tell me, “Well, if you don’t like any of the candidates, why don’t you just write yourself in?” Oh, yeah, that’s a real solution to a problem of misrepresentation.
Check Little Nemo’s democracy thread for similar opinions. I am going to apologize in advance if I sound too harsh, but it does hurt for people to accuse me of apathy because the means I am given for expression are left wanting.
i think that despite the success of mandatory voting in asutralia, it would be disastrous if implemented in america. for a start, whether a result of mandatory voting or not, it seems to me that australians take a more active interest in politics. there are people who don’t care, but nowhere near as many as there are in the states. this is probably for a huge variety of reasons.
you try implementing mandatory voting in the u.s, you might as well be picking the president out of a hat - so many people staring vainly at a sheet of paper and choosing a name at random (more likely, there’d be just as small a turnout as usual - maybe even smaller).
in asutralia, the informal vote is often used to mean ‘none of the above’ - if the outcome of the last election had not been so important to me, i would have turned up to the booth, but put in a blank ballot sheet. i’d much prefer a ‘none of the above’ box, but obviously this isn’t going to happen.
a few things i think america could benefit from the australian system is its organisation. it is a lot easier for an australian to vote than an american - our elections are always held on weekends, not tuesdays, so the majority of the population isn’t working. and we have a single body in charge of running the election, the australian electoral commision, which makes sure that no matter where you are in the country, the ballots look the same and you vote in exactly the same way - which would have solved many hanging chad problems in florida, if nothing else.
If government officeholders are richer than most, then it is largely because government offices pay like crap. I mean, to be a Tennessee state Senator won’t get you above the poverty line, much less the traveling, stumping, and advertising to run next year.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing voting participation fall lower. Too many ignorant people, who don’t understand the issues or know anything about the candidates, vote. Better that 10,000 informed, intelligent folks vote and have their opinions count, then have them be drowned out by 100,000,000 ignorant slobs who couldn’t even tell you the difference between a progressive or regressive tax, or name five points on the platform of the candidate they’re “voting for.”
To follow up on wolfman’s comment on ‘self correcting’ electoral systems, can anyone update me on fixes to the problems of the 2000 election, especially in Florida? ie were there any?
If the Australian Electoral Commission (the federal department that organises federal and state elections) had suffered ONE instance of voting machines not working / not working well enough for the vote to be counted towards a candidate / sections of the electorate not able to vote / confusing ballot papers, the head of the Commission would have been hauled over the coals and probably kicked downstairs to run the Gulargambone West Post Office agency. Jeb Bush (from this distance) seems to have institutionalised it…
“The biggest argument against democracy is to talk to the average voter for five minutes”
Winston Churchill
While I agree that weekend voting might increase turnount, a nationwide ballot could never, ever work in the U.S., IMHO. First of all, as pld mentioned, we have too many offices, referenda, etc. to make a single nationwide ballot practicable.
Take for example Cook County, IL where where we have President/Vice President, US Senator, US Rep, Governor/Lt. Governor, State Senator, State Rep, State Attorney General, State Comptroller, State Treasurer, Sheriff, various Judges, County Board District, Forest Preserve District, Library District, Park District, Water Reclamation District, School Board, City or town mayor/president/manager, alderman or town council members, and I have definitely forgotten more.
It’s an old cliche, but I wouldn’t be suprised that if in some jurisdictions, people really have to vote for “Dog-catcher”!
And that’s just Cook County. Go downstate, and they’ll have a completely different set of offices. Go to Ohio or Maine or Florida, and it will be even more different.
Plus, the voting protocols vary. Take judgeships for example. Some are appointed, others are elected in the traditional manner, i.e., two or more candidates run, and the one with the most votes wins. In other places, judges run for “retention” meaning the existing judges are all on the ballot and must receive 60 or 70% of the vote to stay in office.
I know this probably sounds confusing and costly and maybe even crazy, but I think it’s the way most Americans like it, being governed locally by local people who can then be held accountable. Plus, we the people of Cook County can do things our way, and the people in Texas can set things up how they want it, and it’s all good.
So no, I don’t think America can adopt an Austrialian-style “national ballot.” YMMV.
How about those of us who aren’t ignorant, but still hold our ability to drink cheap beer and watch things blow up dear? Personally, I usually feel that I’d prefer not to be in any way responsible for any of the fuckers on the ballot being in power.
Tsubaki wrote:
You are required to have a social security number, and to “participate” in the social security system (in the sense of paying employment taxes and/or self-employment tax to the Social Security Administration), if you have any gross income at all. The IRS uses your SSN as your taxpayer identification number.
So, basically, yeah, you have to have a SSN.
What’s weird, though, is (A) the Social Security Act of 1935 makes no mention of Social Security Numbers at all, and (B) no one except the Federal government can require you to give out your social security number for any reason, however, many businesses have taken to using their customers’ SSNs as personal ID numbers and refuse to do business with anyone who won’t give them their SSN.
Of course, we all know that SSNs are really the Mark of the Beast. 
(Or was that credit card numbers? Or bar codes? It’s so tough to keep track of the Apocalypse these days.)