What no one seems to mention here is that Australia has a parliamentary system, we do not. Party politics is built into the system of Australia, it is not built into the system here thank whatever, though not for lack of trying by the parties. Also, I dont know if this applies in Australia, but here the political parties have the legal status of private organizations.
I agree very much with the poster who said it appeared to him as if mandatory voting in Australia came into being in order to maintain the status quo.
I resent the assumption that peoples not choosing to vote for any of the choices on the ballot is somehow an assault on democracy by those choosing not to vote; it could equally very well be an assault on democracy by the political parties for not being able to offer anything anyone wants to vote for. Dont damn the chooser, damn the one setting the choices.
I dont see how this would in any way curtail the influence of special interests, since the influence of special interests takes place primarily after someone has been elected. Unless ofcourse one needs to believe that their candidate lost due to the efforts of ‘special interests’ rather than just face the obvious facts that the voters didnt like your candidate. It would certainly increase the influence of the special interests otherwise known as political parties, and that fact alone is enough to make me loathe the idea of mandatory voting.
Personally, I think the lack of voter turnout is the market saying it doesnt want to buy the political parties tired old goods anymore.
The political parties for their part dont want the market to dictate to them, they (or the hardcore in both) are so used to setting and determining the choices that the people have to choose from that they arent going to give that up easily. Hence we will hear more and more talk of things like publicly financed campaigns, etc, ostensibly with the motive of giving the ‘people’ a wider choice, but really only so that candidates can run who otherwise never would have been able to because no one was willing to give them any money. A candidate who cannot raise money is a candidate whom no one wants. This is all irregardless of the fact that spending does not equal winning, though many in both parties cant admit that because then, well, that might take some introspection and change on their part, which is of course asking too much.
Likewise, we will hear other prospective changes some think are needed to the system to save ‘democracy’, which really just means saving the established parties from having to change and adapt to what people really want. This whole mandatory voting idea is one such scheme. It somehow places the blame on the people themselves, as if its the peoples responsibility to choose from one of the established parties and the candidates they have chosen for us in their private primaries.
I also dont see how one can claim its not people being forced to vote, but compelled to show up at the booth. Please, what is the difference between forced and compelled? And if people are free, once they are ‘compelled’ to go to the voting booth, to not vote at all, then what the hell was the purpose of the whole thing anyway other than to lay some sort of symbolic boot on the neck?
Democracy is means to an end, not an end in and of itself. That end is individual freedom, and even a democratic vote has to meet somewhat of a litmus test of whether or not it increases or decreases individual freedom. Its got nothing to do with ‘the social good’ or a ‘social contract’ or any of that made-up-to-justify-the-unjustifiable crap.
Mandatory voting is a pretty objective limit to individual choice and freedom with a very subjective potential benefit to individual choice and freedom. As such, its a pretty obvious scam.
