If you can be expected to defend your country in wartime (using forced conscription, aka the draft) I don’t see why you shouldn’t be expected to help select your representatives in peacetime.
The argument I hear is that “people will vote who don’t know anything about politics.” My counter-argument would be:
a) I’m not convinced that everyone that votes now is fully informed of the issues;
b) This might be an incentive for people to become better informed.
That’s a good point Wally - and yes the sheer number of their elections would desensitise the vast majority quite easily. (heck I’m disinterested in our system most of the time)
But I’m not seriously suggesting the US change - just find it interesting to note the differences between the US and Australia (and Canada). Both democracies but with different approaches. Is one more democratic? Probably not. Both have strong ideals behind the rationale.
But wasn’t it the greeks who used to take turns governing to ensure everyone had an input and everyone accepted a level of social responsibility?
Well it depends. If the majority decided that the everyone had to vote, it would be more democratic. If congress passed a law stating that everyone must vote it wouldn’t be very democratic.
So if a referendum was held and the result came up yes for compulsory voting you’d accept it because it was the will of the people?
But voting wouldn’t be compulsory for this theoretical election so it would be a small turnout and thus a minority determines your rights. 
Maybe you should make it compulsory to vote on whether voting should be compulsory. Hmm… wait a minute…
Peace.
We should have a compulsory vote on whether or not the vote to vote to vote to see if voting should be compulsory, should be compulsory. That would solve everything.
History is on our side we will bury you -Nikita Kruschev
i think i should be emperor
Here here. 
The right to be heard does not automatically
include the right to be taken seriously
Sorry to point this out but neither the US, Australia, nor the UK are true democracies. They are all representative democracies. The people do not vote for laws, they vote for representatives who will then vote for laws.
The OP asked “which is better?” First, let me say that all this talk about compulsory voting being an infringement on personal liberty is bunk. Okay, maybe it isn’t totally bunk, but it is only part of the analysis. Merely saying that compulsory voting would infringe on personal liberty is not enough.
It is an infringement on my personal liberty to make it against the law for me to go to the mall naked. All laws necessarily restrict personal liberty. Such is the price of living in a society. The relevant question is whether the infringement, when balanced against the benefit, is an acceptable trade-off.
So the question can be rephrased, “Would a law instituting compulsory voting be in the best interest of society?” The only two justifications I can think of for having compulsory voting are (1) it raises social awareness of politics, and (2) it results in better candidates.
Personally, I don’t think compulsory voting would result in either (1) or (2). Maybe I’ll provide more analysis in a later post, but I think I’ve said enough for now. Merely focusing the debate is enough for me.
Okay… focusing again
My original point - and I do have one - centres around democracy being the voice of the people and how some systems don’t encourage the voice.
So far the answer seems to be “We have rights and they include our right to not vote” which - no offence - seems lazy to me (but remember I come from a system that conditions us).
Is democracy “Power Of The People” or “Power Of The People If We Feel Like It?”
I don’t think voting should be categorised under Rights. Rather I think of it as a social responsibility. An inconvenient and sometimes tedious one, but a responsibility nonetheless.
“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
So not only is it our right and privilige to vote, it’s also our responsibility.
We have to take some measure of responsibility for our government in a democracy, yet all we do is complain/whinge/moan.
Whatever else that can be said about Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party - at least they took some measure of responsibility for their actions. And voting.
Hello friends,
I am not sure how I feel about this 1. Both arguments have merits. I’ll have to think this 1 through.
But, I thought I would post to point out that America taking election advice from Down Under isn’t completely unheard of.
IIRC, America got the concept of secret elections from New Zealand. Before this, sometime in the last century, American elections could go like this:
“All right Sam, who are you voting for?”
“Grover Cleveland”
“Grover Cleveland? Come on. You can’t admire that son of a bitch!”
“Um”
“Benjamin Harrison is the REAL American!”
“OK, put me down for Harrison.”
“Good boy, next…”
Obviously, the New Zealand method is superior.
So we shouldn’t reject this Aussie idea out of hand.
-Curtis C. Cleveland(no relation)
Hi dpr,
I’m not convinced that it is simply a matter of compulsory vs. not.
In New Zealand it is compulsory to enrol to vote, but not compulsory to vote.
OK… some comparitive enrollment figures first, (I got these figures from the NZ Govt elections site)…
Country / Election Year / Percent Enrollment
Sweden / 1998 / 94.7%
Germany / 1998 / 91.7%
New Zealand / 1999 / 91.1%
Australia / 1998 / 86.3%
Canada / 1997 / 83%
USA / 1996 / 74.7%
So, despite it being compulsory, some 9% of New Zealanders and 14% of Australians failed to even enrol.
As for voting… well, the voter turnout for the 1999 general election in New Zealand was 84.77%
I can’t seem to find an exact figure on the Australian Electoral Commission’s site for the actual number of votes cast in 1998, but let’s assume that everyone on the roll voted.
What I did find was the percentage of “informal” votes (incorrectly filled in forms, etc) that resulted in wasted votes and it is 3-4% (depending on if it’s a House of Reps or Senate ballot (different definitions of informal). Let’s say 3.5% of the total votes were wasted… that leaves (86.3% * 96.5%) = 83.28% actual valid votes cast.
In the '99 NZ election the percentage of informal votes was 0.95%, so, 84.77% * 99.05% = 83.96%
So… something over 83% vote in the '98 Oz election with it being compulsory to vote, and a bit under 84% in the '99 NZ election with it non-compulsory.
Comparing any two countries this way is probably simplistic but I would hazard that our cultures (NZ and Oz) are closer than Oz and the US or NZ and the US, and perhaps it is this, rather than compulsory voting, that makes the difference.
Cheers,
Martin
Having every citizen vote would be a good thing. But compelling people to vote is almost as great an infringment of liberty as denying them the vote. People should be free to make their choices, even though some of them will make bad choices (such as not voting).
I would require everyone to cast a ballot, but include both a write-in and a “None of The Above” option.
how about the idea that if you didn’t have an absolute majority of eligible voters voting, the election is null and void and must be held again in a couple of weeks?
I’m against compulsory voting for several reasons.
First, I really think it is an infringement of my civil rights. That reason alone is enough, but also…
Second, a surly voter, resentful at being forced to do his or her “civil duty” might vote for the most extreme or silly choice (just to honk people off) or straight ticket (whatever gets them out of the voting booth fastest).
This wouldn’t work, since a party which knew it would lose and had disciplined voters could always do it. This is known as “pulling quorum”. In any case, in a reaonably close election (45/55) voter turnout would have to be very high to make for a valid election.
Picmr, I think you may have misread jti’s post. (As an aside; what’s up with the names on this thread? dpr, pLt, jti, picmr. Somebody buy a vowel.) His suggestion was not that the winner have a majority of all possible votes; just that a majority of voters cast ballots. So in a district with a million eligible voters, a candidate who received 260,000 votes would legitimately beat his opponent would received 250,000. But if the same election had results of 250,000 and 240,000, then neither candidate would win. And in a three way race with results of 240,000; 230,000; and 40,000, the first candidate would win even though he did not receive a majority of the votes cast. Pulling quorum might be possible, but in most cases impractical. A party would only choose to do this in cases where they were clearly in the minority. And in those cases, the majority party would have sufficient votes on its own to validate the election.
Happy Easter everyone.
I tend to agree with having the None Of The Above option. At the moment under our system a disgruntled voter will either just write 1-whatever down the page (called a donkey vote), do it randomly or cast an informal vote (which is either an invalid &/or abusive vote). There is no outlet for anyone interested in neither candidate.
hoping the Easter Bunny brings me some vowels