If mandatory voting institutionalises mass donkey voting (i.e. numbering the ballot paper sequentially) or mass informal/none of the above voting then patently it’s totally counterproductive.
The Australian experience (evidenced by the relatively low informal vote and the election of candidates regardless of position on the ballot paper) is that this does not happen. Possibly this is unique to the Australian psyche. I doubt it, though it may well not be universal either.
As an illustration, at recent elections a populist, nationalist right wing group called “One Nation” was campaigning actively. With the “buffer” of mandatory voting, the proportion of One Nation votes (around 10% nationally, up to 30% in some electorates) did not deliver much in the way of representation. However, with optional voting, it is quite feasible that the more politically active “One Nation” voters would have delivered a much higher proportion of the vote cast and probably gained at least the balance of power.
If a representative sample of the American (or any other democracy’s) electorate could be constructed using a few hundred thousand voters (or less), I’d be comfortable with that as a democratic model.
Possibly not, though there has been a precedent with the USA adopting the Australian Ballot
If I remember correctly from my time in Australia, compulsory voting was established not to increase voter participation in some sort of altruistic motive.
On the contrary, coupled with scare tactics and lies, it was establised to manipulate the vote to limit power to the party in power. When you add the preferential aspect of it, it is often possible to vote into office the very party you don’t want in office in the first place. The best method of believing everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
And yet with compulsory voting one does not get better politicians nor better politics. On the contrary, Australian politics IMHO is notoriously corrupt and ineffective.
FWIW, I have dual citizenship with Australia, something native-born Australian are prohibited from having themselves. So my critique is not from an outsider. I lived there long enough and participated at numerous levels to develop the opinions expressed.
We don’t have mechanised voting here. You do not “punch” or otherwise vote mechanically. We have ridiculously long senate papers here precisely because you can choose to vote “below the line” - in which case you must number every single candidate in order of preference. In the last two decades, I haven’t had to allocate preferences for UNDER 100 candidates for the senate. This is why people choose to vote “above the line”.
First of all, Duckster it is utter bullshit that native born Australians cannot claim duel citizenship. Not only can they do so but earlier this year the number of nations with which we have duel citizenship arrangements was extended (I hate the Howard government, but they got that particular policy right).
Could you please provide a cite for your assertions about WHY compulsory voting was introduced in Australia? Because compulsory voting was introduced here long before I was even a twinkle in my parents’ eyes. It most certainly was NOT introduced during “your time in Australia”…
Breaking my long-standing rule of not taking part in threads my mother’s active in, AND doing so to correct her :eek: - I must have some kind of deathwish.
This is Section 17 of the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 1948, which is the law that states:
In other words, you take up citizenship somewhere else, you lose it here. However, this piece of legislation was repealed as of the 4th of April this year, so now as rep said, it’s no longer true that Native-born Aussies have to give up Aussie citizenship to become a citizen of another country; however, it was certainly true when you were over this way, Duckster.
DarkJudicator, voice of reason, keeper of the peace.
It is correct that compulsory voting favours the magor parties. Hence Australia uses a different voting system (proportional representation) for the Upper House, which has an inherent bias towards the minority parties.
The OP is regarding election participation rates, quality of candidates/government is IMHO sadly independent of the electoral system.
However … notoriously corrupt … cite?
Andrew Theophanous was the first (in May 2002) Australian federal politician ever sentenced to jail for bribery and conspiracy to defraud (on visa & immigration issues). I seem to recall there have been a few earlier instances of corruption in the affairs of other nations, including the US.
Bloody hell. I started this thread in “IMHO” and it’s been moved to GD. If I’d wanted to start a shit fight about the relative merits of various political systems, I would have started this thread in the Pit.
And woolly I loves you to pieces but we both know that corrupt politicians existed here long before anyone was formally charged and found guilty. There’s a certain counsellor sitting in gaol right now who had a big party the other week…
Alas, 'tis true. But would you expect any less of a nation founded on good convict stock?
Just the notion of Oz pollies being categorised as notoriously corrupt (presumably by world standards) rather concerned me. I fear that we’re only about the global average.
Yes, in my lifetime I think we have had a few corrupt politicians.
“Notoriously corrupt” though.
I hate the Liberal party. I think their policies stink bigtime and if our PM had his head any further up Dubbya’s as your Prez would be at risk of death by impacted faeces. But “corrupt”? I don’t t think so. The Liberals are many things, but I can’t legitimately accuse them of being corrupt.
