I disagree however that it would rarely be practical to pull quorum. It depends on other aspects of the voting system, specifically the degree to which the two leading parties dominate. Where you have a preferential voting system, the major parties might only garner 35-40% of the primary vote, but still get >50% of the 2-party preferred vote. So in Australia, both the ALP (Labor Party) and the L-NP (Coalition) tend to win elections if they get somewhere around 42-45% of the primary vote, since they capture enough of the preferences of the minor parties. In that case, with a 70% turnout, a party with 40% would not have enough to win, but enough to pull quorum.
Of course, voting behavior might well change (compulsory voting changes political behaviour: parties move to the middle, since alienated fringe voters grin and bear it rather than stay at home). Also a party pulling quorum a few times might piss off the electorate.
On the vowels in screen names thing: there seem to be a fair few Australians in this thread. We don’t exactly dwell on our vowels (UL: to keep the flies out of our mouths), so maybe we don’t see too much need for them here. On the other hand, maybe you should stop reading this material aloud.
How about those people who are morally opposed to democracy on principle? He’s not here, but let’s use Libertarian as an example. I may not agree with his political beliefs but I’ll concede he holds them sincerely. He disagrees with the whole idea of representative democracy and feels it’s tyranny (at least I think he does). Should he, or people like him, be forced to participate in a system they oppose on moral grounds?
I don’t know Libertarian but I feel a person with an ideological objection should be afforded the opportunity to state their beliefs and perhaps be allowed an exemption. However it should require an effort on his part - the default setting should be on compulsory.
Behind a veil of ignorance, one might decide for compulsion in voting.
One justification for majority voting is that whilst it can be exploitative, it is usually decisive. In that case, unanimous agreement on the limited application of majority decision making might get unanimous support.
Whether a person behind a veil of ignorance would agree to compulsion in voting would depend on whether and to what extent compulsion might lessen majoritarian exploitation.
hello. I’m a brand new user here, this is my first ever post. Please be gentle
Also, I’m sorry that I jumped on a little late here, but I had been thinking of posting this question myself and better late than never…
that all said, I’d just like to see what people think about voting being considered along the same lines as taxation.
Now, I don’t mean that people should hate voting and find all sorts of way of avoiding it, but I have always considered voting to be a duty as part of my contract with society. I.E. the nation provides police protection, medical care, emergency services where necessary etc, and in return I pay taxes and I vote.
A lot of people are apathetic when it comes to paying their taxes, same as with voting, but taxes are a necessary part of society and so is voting.
I can expand on this and indeed have more to say, but I’d like to see how people take to the idea. (nervous newbie)
big yellow kingswood eh? What it is about this thread that draws Australians to it like a moth to a flame (hehe)?
I guess the social contract idea is what I was getting at in my last post. But it has to mean more though than “things go both ways”: what is in and what isn’t in the contract (given that the “contract” is an intellectual construction)? The veil of ignorance idea suggests that the social contract would consist of what would be unanimously agreed if people knew how society would work, but not their place in it. Perhaps we can’t agree here because we all have our various vested interests in the status quo, or perhaps we couldn’t agree behind a veil of ignorance.
Nick, I can see your point that some things like taxes or military service are (sometimes) compulsory. But I feel the ideal should be voluntary participation. Compulsion should be used on in the most extreme circumstances where there is an overriding need and voluntary participation will not suffice. In my opinion, voting doesn’t qualify. A system where only 10% of the electorate votes functions as well as one where 99% of the electorate votes.
