Many Americans don’t realise voting is compulsory in many countries including here in Australia. In fact many Americans react with outright scorn and derision, claiming they have a right to not vote.
But let’s look at the systems and compare. Non-compulsory voting sees a 10% turnout of population. Even reducing the maths simply (let’s not get sidetracked) you could win control of a country with 5% of the vote.
Under compulsory voting the elected government truly has been elected by the people (all of them - gerrymandering aside).
The latter system is far less vulnerable to special interest groups and lobbyists (though not immune) which surely means decisions are based more on the good of the country (once again I realise motives are often still political but it’s the comparison that’s important) rather than personal or lobbyist gain.
Voting is a responsibility. Should it be compulsory to ensure fair representation for all?
What’s the answer? Which is better (if either)? Is Australia a totalitarian regime for forcing its citizens to vote?
We have this debate in Britain from time to time, especially after the usually low turnouts at local government elections (often in the region of 30%). We’ve got some coming up in a couple of weeks, so if the thread is still going, I’ll post the turnout figures.
I think that the right to vote has to comprehend the right not to vote–it’s wrong that you should be compelled to cast you vote for someone, anyone, even if you disapprove of all the candidates. Having said that, my understanding of the Australian system is that you are required to attend but there’s no requirement to actually place a cross on the ballot paper. Is that right, dpr?
My feeling is that if people are so indifferent that they can’t be bothered to go and vote then we shouldn’t make them. An election determined by a large number of people voting only because they are compelled to is no better than one determined by a low turnout.
Question: In the last UK general election (1997), the “fringe” parties (e.g. Monster Raving Loony Party, Natural Law Party, Go Bowling Party) got < 0.5% of the vote in most constituencies. Most of these parties represent single issue groups (e.g. anti-tobacco lobby), quasi-religious cults (NLP) or are just a joke (Loony). Do parties like this get a significantly higher share of the vote in Australia.
In Australia it is required to vote and perhaps as a result of this it is our leaders and government who are apathetic. If everyone is forced to vote and in a bored sort of way tick random boxes, or vote 1, 2, 3, 4 consecutively then it stands to reason that leaders are being elected and not much thought has gone into their capability for the job.
Some greek philosophy guy once said ‘The price that good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.’ I am not saying that our current politicians are evil - but our indifference obviously exacts a price. Let us not forget a good example of the 1936 German elections in which Hitler was elected. Okay - so that IS a little off topic, - the Australian Labour Party don’t employ brown shirts to beat up Liberal/National voters or prevent them from voting - but you see the point. Hitler was elected by the lowest voter turnout in the German democratic history. The system in the USA where you can vote if you want to - or abstain per se, means that those who vote put a lot more thought into their selections. Unless the democrats are preventing republicans from voting. Who knows. Does this necessarily happen? Maybe metaphorically. Low voter turnouts allow crap like electing 1960’s film stars as Presidents. You elect who is flavour of the month. All their relatives turn out with a ballot paper and wham! Instant majority.
So do I support a particular side of this discussion? Not really. I can see inherant benefits to both. I always thought I supported one side (won’t say which) but each has not necessarily benefits I guess but lesser evils than the other.
As a member of a democratic society and a free person, I withhold my right to return to the topic later on after giving it more thought. Consider this an abstaination - a right in a democratic society.
If you don’t care enough about your country to get off your ass and vote of your own free will, you don’t deserve a say in who wins the election. Nuff said.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)
Yes, in Australia it is compulsory to find a booth and have your name marked off the electoral list. But no, you don’t have to vote responsibly or at all. There’s nothing stopping you from voting informally or failing to mark the ballot paper at all. This is exercising your right not to vote and is where I agree: there should be an option to abstain (none of the above option), though I can just see a legal question if the none of the above option ever got more votes than all the candidates.
As an outsider to the British system I’ve always been entertained by the existence and antics of such parties as the Raving Loony Party. But alas, we don’t have such whimsical political parties form in Australia. No, I’m not sure this is a direct effect of compulsory voting though it must be noted that it DOES make it harder for a vocal (and passionate) minority group to get someone elected.
Some may argue that One Nation (a new’independant’ party that recently surfaced) was such a party but in reality they were a bunch of rednecks who offered a choice from traditional parties but no substance (or ideals). It’s scary to think how well this redneck party would probably have done under the American system.
Please don’t misunderstand my position here: I don’t think the Australian system is perfect. Far from it. In my next post I’ll address the shortcomings of the electoral process Down Under and some of these can be directly linked to compulsory voting.
The question I pose is: is it truly a democracy when only some people have input?
While I, as an idealist, recognise we should have rights to do what we wish (with normal restrictions pertaining to social justice of course) I have to wonder if a loud minority should be allowed to rule based on their loudness, ability to attract a few passionate groups and eagerness to lead?
Not fighting an injustice may be your right but surely it should be your responsibility.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” -Lewis Carroll
Apathy and laziness go hand-in-hand. And the logistics between getting 19 million people (Australia’s population the last I checked) to the voting booths and getting 275+ million people there are a big hinderance too voter turnout(yes, lower the numbers to the voting age people, I don’t have those stats). I wonder if we’ll see a much higher voter turnout as soon as online voting becomes available. I think I read about a mayoral election being online last month, so it is starting.
I feel it’s a bad idea to force citizens to exercise their rights. How can they truly be rights in that sense?
Dpr seems to feel that radical fringe parties are helped by optional voting. I think it’s the opposite if anything. The massive voter turnout a few years back in Louisiana when David Dukes ran for Governor shows that a controversial candidate draws voters both for and against him. Or consider the 1992 or 1968 Presidential campaigns, where strong third party candidates and high voter participation are linked. On the other hand, I feel that mandatory voting helps third parties. Many voters who favor a third party candidate don’t bother to vote; they figure there’s no point in casting a vote for a candidate whose chances are hopeless. Add in the number of people who would vote for a third party in protest against the major candidates and I’m sure the third parties would receive substantionally higher percentages in a compulsory election.
Also consider ignorance. I rarely vote in local elections because I rarely know any of the positions or stances of the people I’m being asked to choose from. Maybe that’s apathy in not setting aside a week or two to study in-depth the positions and records of the five dozen county officials, judges, and low-level state officials I’m being asked to choose. I know who I support for the House, the Senate, Governor, or President; but being asked to choose who is Maryland’s Secretary of State only makes me wonder “what the hell does that job do? Oversee our foreign policy with the state of Virginia?”
I’d be horrified by the idea of people being forced to vote, if only because I don’t doubt that a lot of people who don’t vote don’t know much about the candidates at these levels, and were they forced to vote, would vote basically at random- and we have enough regular voters doing that right now. A study conducted in the late ‘80’s showed that elected officials’ names disproprtionately started with names close to the beginning of the alphabet. Why? Because when faced with a decision they don’t have any information on, many voters just voted for the first name on the list. End result- whomever gets listed first alphabetically has a serious edge over whomever gets listed last.
So I’m all against mandatory voting.
JMCJ
“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame
If someone doesn’t care to take the trouble to register beforehand, and go vote on election day, then I don’t want his opinion to count.
I guess my fundamental problem with this post is the premise of the question. The question seems to presume that “more democratic” is good. A measure of democracy is necessary for a republican government to be able to respect our liberties, but more than a little bit and it starts to infringe on them.
But the point you miss - and it’s understandable - is that here in Australia we’re conditioned into voting. We don’t even question it and are quite surprised when we discover it isn’t compulsory elsewhere.
As a result, the average Australian is reasonably well informed of the political system and political parties. Compared to Americans we’re light years ahead, but as I said before hardly perfect. We don’t particularly like politicians, preferring to lump them used car salesmen, but we know who they are and what they stand for. This system promotes at least knowledge though not always interest.
I’m not advocating the US switch because it wouldn’t work for generations (if ever, considering how political some people would suddenly become) - it’s ingrained here. Our right to vote is percieved more as a social responsibility rather than a burden though it may occasionally inconvenience you. It’s certainly not questioned.
Nemo: history shows us small radical parties cannot exist here. The very few new parties have been splinter groups from one of the three major parties (two of which are in coalition together and they’re really one entity). The only exception has been the recent One Nation but thee popularity has plummetted putting them in fly by night status. But bear in mind that our political system here differs from yours. It certainly doesn’t give minor parties much chance though it still offers independants opportunities.
Sounds odd, but it works well.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is to highlight how valuable voting is. This may surprise US citizens but I - like most Aussies - am not political. I’m a swinging voter and will never wave placards for a candidate or support a party (I hate party politics).
However I see it as a social responsibility to have input into a democracy. And isn’t that the point of democracy? For the people by the people?
Dpr, in Australia, as well as here in Canada, our voting options are much more limited than in America. As John pointed out, they have elections for many positions that we appoint. They vote for judges, sherrifs, prosecutors, dog catchers and I don’t know what else.
Who has the time or the will to learn enough to mark an informed ballot on these elections?
The fact is, the Americans have a system that works very well. Not perfect, but well.
As I said in my earlier post, mandatory voting is an infringement.
It has been used to good effect in some totalarian and socialist regimes, though.
People do not fail to vote because of apathy or cynicism. They fail to vote because the are generally satasfied. Look at teh voter turnout in successful countries like the US and the UK and the results are low. Then look at the turnout in malasia or the phillipines or haiti and you see very high voter turnout.
People vote when they are mad as hell and can’t take it any more. if they feel that things are going OK, they don’t feel the need to cast their ballot.
Let’s face it, does anyone here believe that our country in on the verge of destruction or oppression if wither Bush or Gor e gets elected? IF you did feel that way, would you be more or less likely to vote?
Provided that everybody has an equal opportunity to have an input, then it is.
If people are not voting because they simply can’t be bothered or don’t care, or because they genuinely have no preference (though I find the latter hard to believe), I don’t see the problem.
The only way I could see low turnout to be “undemocratic” would be if some people were indirectly discouraged or prevented from voting. For example, because their local polling station is not accessible by public transport or because they can’t get time off work to vote. I think both these things could be a problem for some people in this country.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, three days, 12 hours, 40 minutes and 27 seconds.
421 cigarettes not smoked, saving $52.64.
Life saved: 1 day, 11 hours, 5 minutes.
It’s not that people feel it’s going ok. It’s that they don’t feel they can make a difference. I would challenge you to go down to any ghetto with a low voter turnout and ask people if they are satisfied with their lives. Of course they aren’t, they just realize that voting doesn’t make a difference.
And, on the flip side, you get such high turnout in places like the Philippines because the people are excited about the prospect of democracy, and haven’t yet become jaded by the system. We’ve had a nominal democracy for so long that we’ve taken it for granted.
[Got in a minute after closing in GQ - doesn’t seem to shown up in GD so I’ll copy. Might get rid of an inadvertant smiley as well. Sorry if I’ve stuffed up, I’m new]
Australian Federal elections are not only compulsory, but preferential voting is compulsory: not only must you vote, but you must fill in all the boxes (in pencil!! - that is a sign of a nation’s confidence in its temper if ever there was one).
It is only psuedo-compulsory - turning up is indeed enough, but if you don’t want to turn up, then as long as you say “I had the 'flu” or “I was playing footy and got concussed” no-one will quibble. In order to get fined, you’ve either got to fail to make such an excuse or want to make the point that you feel that voting should not be compulsory.
Compulsory preferencing is another matter: Albert Langer went to jail for distibuting how to vote cards which suggested people do not preference to the end of the ballot.
The system is that if no candidate receives 50% +1 of the primary votes, the last candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to their next preference. This continues until a candidate receives 50% +1. (This only applies to the Lower House in which government is formed. For the Senate, the vote is quota based.) The effect of this system is that if the vote is close, the preference of the non-major party voters between the major parties determines the outcome. This means that even if you hate the Liberal/ National Parties and the Labor Party, your vote will be for one of them if preferences are required to obtain a result.
There is a strong case for optional preferential voting where a vote would exhaust at the discretion of the voter.
Compulsory voting is a little trickier: it is like the old Groucho Marx “club” quote: do you want only those who want to vote’s preferences to count? Think here of juries: people who are keen are probably not the ones you want.
On a more sophisticated note, since a person’s vote has a vanishingly small chance of influencing the outcome, voters have little or no incentive to be informed or vote according to their preferences (I know there is a thread about this, but…) If this is the case, the relationship of ANY system of voting to what the majority - let alone “the people” want - is far from clear.
If this is the case, then the question of “which is more democratic?” becomes less a question about which system reflects preferences better and more a question of which dilutes power better.
I went around an area of Melbourne (Australia) just before an election, checking whether people’s electoral enrolment was correct (okay, because the local candidate I knew thought he’d get more than half of the new enrolments). Many of these people were fairly recent immigrants from the Horn of Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe etc. The look on many of their faces when they realised that the Australian political system was INSISTING on their opinion being registered (if not heard) was something I’ll never forget: halfway between bemusement at the charade of voting in large number electorates and the majesty of no-one (not even anyone’s apathy) determining whose view counts (and the fact that the major parties had to send sweaty people like me 'round to beg for their attention).
I know my vote matters little, but it is my duty to pretend it does.
