That is S245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
In the Why are elections bad things post the issue of compulsory voting has come up. Several threadsters have the view that voting per se is not mandatory, just turning up and having your name struck off the roll is mandatory. To be fair this is a common view that is actively promoted in the community. So what is the legislation?
S233:
Vote to be marked in private
(1) Except as otherwise prescribed the voter upon receipt of the ballot paper shall without delay:(a) retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper;
(b) fold the ballot paper so as to conceal his or her vote and:
(i) if the voter is not an absent voter–deposit it in the ballot-box; or
(ii) if the voter is an absent voter–return it to the presiding officer; and
(c) quit the booth.
That is the secret ballot – an Australian innovation – and the flaw in the system.
S240:
Marking of votes in House of Representatives election
(1) In a House of Representatives election a person shall mark his or her vote on the ballot paper by:(a) writing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom the person votes as his or her first preference; and
(b) writing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of the person’s preference for them.
(2) The numbers referred to in paragraph (1)(b) are to be consecutive numbers, without the repetition of any number.
So far we have established that voters must mark their ballot paper in private and second how they must mark their ballot paper.
S245:
Compulsory voting
(1) It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election.(2) The Electoral Commissioner must, after polling day at each election, prepare for each Division a list of the names and addresses of the electors who appear to have failed to vote at the election.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), within the period of 3 months after the polling day at each election, each DRO must:
(a) send a penalty notice by post; or
(b) arrange for a penalty notice to be delivered by other means;
to the latest known address of each elector whose name appears on the list prepared under subsection (2).
As it happens S233(1)(b) makes it difficult for the Electoral Commissioner to comply with with S245(2). The best the Electoral Commissioner can do is make a list of people who didn’t turn up to vote but he should be making a list of everyone who failed to comply with S240 for House elections and/or S239 in Senate elections. S 238 deals with spoilt papers that occur by “mistake or accident”.
So in answer to the question
Are you saying a deliberate informal vote (e.g. blank paper) is against the law?
my answer is “Yes”. Not just blank, but any deliberate violation of S239 and S240 is against the law (the legislation for those who distinguish between “law” and “legislation”).
A few years ago two of my RMIT colleagues and I published a paper in Policy on this very issue:
Despite the plain language of the Act, many Australians are under the impression that voting per se is not compulsory. Rather it is compulsory to simply turn up to the voting booth, and have your name struck off the register. Whenever compulsory voting is discussed in the media, the letters pages of the newspapers are filled with correspondents claiming voting is not compulsory, while attendance is compulsory. Before discussing this notion in greater detail, consider the case of Krosch v Springell: ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107. Mr Springell arrived at a polling booth and handed the electoral officer a note saying he did not wish to vote for any candidate, as he found them all to be unworthy. He was prosecuted, and fined, for not voting despite the fact he had made the effort to turn up on Election Day. In its submission to the JSCEM Inquiry into the 2004 election, the AEC makes the claim “Because voting is compulsory in Australia, turnout is regularly in the vicinity of 95%.” Clearly, the AEC takes the view that compulsory voting leads to high turnout, not compulsory turnout leads to high voting.
Colin Hughes – the Australian Electoral Commissioner between 1984 and 1989 – has argued that voters were not compelled to vote for any candidate, they could always spoil their ballot. Kim Beazley – leader of the opposition – has argued voters can simply put the ballot in their pocket and leave the polling booth (in apparent defiance of section 339(1) that explicitly defines this behaviour as an offence). While Chris Puplick AM – former Liberal Senator – has written, voters “have an absolute right not to vote by placing a blank or spoiled ballot paper in the ballot box.” Judges enforcing the law, however, appear to be unaware of this “absolute right” – especially with regard to blank votes. Chief Justice Barwick, for example, wrote that voters must actually mark the ballot paper, and deposit that ballot into a ballot box. While Justice Blackburn was of the opinion that casting an invalid vote was a violation of the Act. Justice Blackburn’s view, however, is obiter, and is even regarded as heretical. Both views, however, are consistent with section 233 of the Electoral Act where the process of voting is described.
Voters, increasingly, do spoil their ballots. [Figure showing this is in the link above]. This, of course, begs the question, ‘What does happen to individuals who vote informally?’ Nothing. Australia was the first country to employ the secret ballot (often referred to as the ‘Australian Ballot’). According the Australian Electoral Commission, it is not “an offence to vote informally in a federal election.” After all, there is a secret ballot (section 233(1) of the Electoral Act); in principle the authorities should be unable to identity any voter from their actual ballot. For example, any ballot where the voter has written their name is invalid. Furthermore, many voters may ‘legitimately’ spoil their ballot through confusion and error. This view, however, is not entirely consistent with an AEC Research Report where the author writes, “While compulsory voting avoids a high degree of abstention, there is no guarantee that everyone will comply with the electoral laws and vote formally” (emphasis added). Similarly, the JSCEM report into the 2004 election states, “Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has filled out their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote” (emphasis added).
This inconsistency may well explain the confusion. Voters are legally required to vote, but there is no penalty for spoiling your ballot. Indeed, given that failing to vote because the voters dislikes all candidates equally, or cannot decide between them, is not a valid and sufficient for not voting, many voters may well have to spoil their ballots, or pay a fine. A reading of some of the court cases involving compulsory voting is instructive. The definitive case is Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 where the general principle of “valid and sufficient” was determined to be a “personal physical inability to record a vote.” Of course, the court left open the notion that “valid and sufficient” cause was a function of the circumstances, yet it is difficult to understand what these other circumstances could be. They are not, for example, an ideological objection to voting (Judd v McKeon), nor is a lack of preference for any candidate (Faderson v Bridger 1971 126 CLR 271), or even ignorance of the candidates (O’Brien v Warden 1981 37 ACTR 13). The latter cases are quite remarkable. Mr Faderson indicated he had no preference for any of the candidates, and to say he had would constitute a lie. High Court Chief Justice Barwick indicated that voters are not expected to express an opinion of what they want, but merely to indicate, from the choice available to them, what they must have. This neatly sidesteps the issue of voters being forced to lie. The Warden case is even more damning. Here the issue of voters lying is not sidestepped. Mr Warden arrived in the ACT just prior to an election, and was ignorant of the candidates, and their policy platforms. Nonetheless, he was found not to have a “valid and sufficient” reason for not voting. In the words of Chief Justice Blackburn of the ACT Supreme Court: “In my opinion the Act does not oblige the elector to make a true expression of his preference among the candidates. On one view he must make an expression of apparent preference; on another he need not express himself intelligibly or at all.”
So voting is compulsory in Australia. Deliberate spoiling of ballot papers is illegal but detection methods make this part of the law difficult to enforce.
Compulsory voting is popular amongst the political classes and the more honest of those argue that yes voting is compulsory, but that it should be compulsory. But that is a completely different argument.
John Hirst has a quick history of compulsory voting here.
Tim Evans of the Australian Electoral Commission has a backgrounder here.
The Australian Electoral Commission provide arguments for and against compulsory voting here.
Isn’t some dude in a High Court test case?
The last election had a turnout of 93.82% and 3.75% informal.
10% of people basically chose not to vote.
This is a silly and draconian law.
.
21 Nov 12 at 10:45 am
In practice I think just getting people to turn up to a voting place to have their named ticked off is sufficient without going to extreme lengths to ensure they cast a valid vote.
Just knowing that you have to vote encourages people to pay at least a little attention and thought to what is going on. And it reduces the chance of fraud too – with very low rates of participation its much easier to vote in behalf of someone else. If nearly everyone turns up and has their named signed off fraudulent voting is much more likely to be detected.
And I guess most people don’t realise how easy it is to avoid getting fined for not voting. Saying “I forgot” won’t work, but “I forgot because of family pressures” will. But then given the choice between voting and writing an excuse letter to get out of a fine, most people will just go vote
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 10:45 am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
.
21 Nov 12 at 10:48 am
The penalty for not voting is $20. It’s got to be about the smallest fine you can receive for anything from the government!
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 10:48 am
Well not too much attention I’ll agree. What it does certainly do is make the political parties pay attention to what people who can vote think. I’d like to avoid the US system where they actively run campaigns to encourage the other side not to vote.
As far as obligations of a citizen to their country, voting once every couple of years or so (state/federal) is an extremely minor burden.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 10:52 am
It shall be the duty of every elector to be harrassed by mail, email, text, tweet, home visit and street intervention by political parties trying to get out their vote in non-compulsory voting elections.
The current system is less burdensome by a huge margin.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 10:52 am
Silly and draconian, and it is about $50.
.
21 Nov 12 at 10:52 am
Chris – the amount of the fine is not as important as the fact that non-voters are fined at all.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 10:52 am
Ignorance is strength. You can’t lose the bloc of ALP zombies who wouldn’t vote, can you now?
.
21 Nov 12 at 10:53 am
If the point of this debate is to gain a political advantage, rather than an important matter of principle, then its not worth having.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 10:55 am
$50 fine for a council election, and $100 if you go past the payment deadline (two weeks).
candy
21 Nov 12 at 10:55 am
Let’s not forget that each vote also has a monetary value attached vis a vis gov funding for advertising etc. I’ve never been comfortable with that aspect.
Steve of Glasshouse
21 Nov 12 at 10:58 am
Sinc
I think you will find if you look at the scheme of the Act and use the purposive approach, as we lawyers are required to do, then you will find that in reality a voter will have fulfilled the rquirements of the Act by attending the voting place, having his or her name marked off the roll, accepting a ballot paper, proceeding to the voting booth, folding the ballot paper and depositing it in the relevant ballot box. As the AEC has no way of knowing which voter spolied his vote or wrote noting on the ballot paper, I think it’s quite clear that the Act doesn’t actually require an elector to fill out the ballot paper so as to make a valid vote.
As the Act does not require the voter to seek verification that his or her vote is valid, Parliament cannot have intended that a voter must make a valid vote.
Rococo Liberal
21 Nov 12 at 11:00 am
Sinclair, the AEC says deliberate informal voting is perfectly legal. See Paragrpah 30 here:
Electoral Backgrounder, Informal voting
In other words, voting for “none of the above” is OK.
SteveC
21 Nov 12 at 11:00 am
Sinc,
The points you’ve made are all very relevant, but the reality is that registered voters are entirely capable of casting informal votes, or for want of a better term, not voting (i.e. not marking the ballot paper) without facing state sanction.
If you were to be completely idiotic about it you could declare you hadn’t cast a valid vote (similar to Springell) and then get fined, but in the eyes of the state there is a huge difference between turning up to vote (being marked off the roll) and not bothering to do so.
Voting will only be compulsory when the completed ballot paper can be linked back to the voter. This practice would destroy the concept of secret ballot and enable the possibility of state coercion of voters. Hence the widespread suspicion of electronic voting, which also allows the state myriad possibilities to ‘massage’ voting intentions and subsequent election results.
Personally, I’m in favour of non-compulsory voting. Under compulsory voting there are simply too many morons compelled to engage with a system they are neither interested in nor understand, inevitably to the detriment of intelligent and informed voters.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:00 am
It’s still illegal.
Are you encouraging people who can afford the fine for particular offenses to feel free to break the law?
sdog
21 Nov 12 at 11:01 am
And with respect to government funding, if it costs money to get out the vote then higher levels of such funding will be allocated.
But the main principle involved is that its a democracy and a government representative of all the nation can not be achieved if the electorate atrophies.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:05 am
The St James Ethics Centre has two interesting articles, presenting the ethics of both sides of the argument.
http://www.ethics.org.au/living-ethics/why-compulsory-voting-undermines-democracy
http://www.ethics.org.au/living-ethics/thoughts-compulsory-voting
SteveC
21 Nov 12 at 11:06 am
RL – quite possibly, yet that leaves S240 being redundant and doesn’t explain the court cases.
Stevec – that was brought in after Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that individuals vote 1,2,3,3. But I think that advice from the AEC is in violation of the act – they can get away with it because they can’t enforce it. That is itself a marker of bad law.
Rabz – bullshit. The state keeps track of people voting and punishes them for non-compliance.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 11:09 am
As I think the American Ambassador noted a few weeks ago, what’s the difference between compulsory jury duty and compulsory voting?
Also, think of the money that political parties will need in an optional turn-out system and then think about the graft and corruption that will follow. Sure, there is a fair bit of that now, but it will get exponentially worse under an American system.
I can live with what we’ve got.
FM
21 Nov 12 at 11:09 am
So if you’re sure you can get away with breaking the law, you should feel fine doing so?
There goes the proposed “Priests must report any crimes they hear of in confessions” law. Unless you put CCTV in every confessional, there’s no way for the government to know who’s breaking their law. And if the government has no way of finding out whether you’re breaking the law or not, according to you guys people should feel free to break whatever laws they don’t feel like obeying.
So far, we have “feel free to break the law if you can afford the fine,” and “feel free to break the law if there’s not much chance you’ll get caught.” No-one here sees any problem with that all?
sdog
21 Nov 12 at 11:09 am
This argument is more one for an educational qualification, or other intelligence test, and not one for non-compulsory voting as such.
The educated also choose not to vote. Should they be subject to an extra penalty?
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:11 am
Juries should have conscientious objection.
Heiner
Wilson Affair
WA Inc
Obeid Property investment
Wood Royal Commission
Fitzgerald Inquiry
Costigan Commission
What? Don’t we have compulsory voting?
You cannot encourage people to vote informally. That is simply odious. Protest voting is illegal to an extent. It violates my implied right to free political communication.
I am an elector. The law is unconstitutional in that an elector was never intended to be compelled to vote as sovereignty lies with them, ultimately. The sovereign cannot be compelled to do anything.
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:14 am
Only if they don’t turn up and get their name marked off the roll, a point I clearly made in my comment.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:15 am
Such conceit. You are doubling down for punishing them for making an informed decision.
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:16 am
No it is not. Idiots and the uninterested would still be able to vote if they so desired.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:17 am
Where sovereignty rests in our system of government is highly complicated. And the sovereign can self-restrain its own freedom.
However the law is read, the fact is that the law allows you practically to not cast a valid vote.
If you want to change the vote such that the only compulsory part is attendance, in person or by letter, then I’d agree with that.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:21 am
It’s ridiculous.
If I support none of the candidates on offer, why should I be compelled to turn up and get my name marked off like I’m out on parole?
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:23 am
and why should the government have the right to direct how I choose to spend my Saturday?
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 11:24 am
Then cast a postal vote, Squire!
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:25 am
Then you have no argument at all as your only argument against compulsory voting was that it allowed idiots and uninterested the vote.
If you want to exclude idiots and the uninterested you need an educational qualification or citizenship test of some sort.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:27 am
No, I said it compelled them to vote.
There is a significant difference.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:30 am
The uninterested will not turn up if they don’t have to.
Idiots will spoil their ballots if they are long enough and reasonable third parties get better ballot access.
Idiot political parties like the unhinged Citizen’s Electoral Council ought to be denied funding. The ALP can survive on Obeid’s property investments, end all funding.
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:31 am
Ignorance is strength, dude!
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:32 am
Rabz – as it turns out I turn up early on a Saturday to put my ALP MP last on the ballot.
So this isn’t about me, this is the principle of some fascist bureaucrat telling me, and others, how to live our lives. Compulsion is prima facie wrong.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 11:32 am
It compels everyone to vote so you have no argument.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:35 am
Ignorance is strength, dude!
.
21 Nov 12 at 11:38 am
What interests me is how the question just naturally falls into sets of Left and Right. The Left, by its nature, supports compulsion – and benefits from the extra votes almost incidentally. Its a perfect fit. Like the Climate Change boondoggle. Its compulsion for our own good, they just happen to benefit from the rivers of taxation.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 11:39 am
Sinc – in furious agreement with you there.
You’ve completely misunderstood my argument, because you are an idiot.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 11:39 am
No one has to obey any laws. It’s just that there are sanctions if you don’t.
Pickles
21 Nov 12 at 11:40 am
Dot $50 Qld, $20 Federal. In 1973 I decided I didn’t like any candidates in my electorate, so I didn’t vote. I explained this in a lengthy letter to the AEC in reponse to their please explain. I also pointed out the stupidity of voting informal. Nope, not good enough, pay 20 bucks. I sent them a cheque for a 100 and asked them to credit it and after not voting in the next 4 elections I would send them more. Save both of us time, money, postage etc. No, had to be the exact amount. I didn’t pay it and was ultimately sentenced to gaol. How long? No idea and I haven’t bothered to find out. I’d left Australia and didn’t return for 11 years.
These days I just send the cash into the AEC by registered mail a week before the election. It screws with their minds because I’m admitting to and paying the penalty for a crime I have not yet committed. But by the time they get their bureaucratic shite in one pile, I have.
Yes, the Gillard government is a steaming crock and if voting was not compulsory I would vote against it. But no one in a democracy should be forced to vote or acquiesce to the stupidity of voting informal.
GrantB
21 Nov 12 at 11:40 am
If voting were not compulsory lots of young people would not bother. Politics does not particularly signify in their lives, and if they’re otherwise busy on voting day they just won’t bother anyway.
Greens/Labor could lose a heck of a lot of votes.
candy
21 Nov 12 at 11:45 am
The right initiated compulsory voting and continues to support it. It did so because it benefited from the fact that it had fewer ground troops to get out the vote and that probably remains true to this day. So the right must have a natural fit with compulsion, as per Jannie’s argument.
The right has been more willing to support conscription and capital punishment as well so the powers of the state are usually reinforced by the right.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 11:50 am
The most draconian part is not only that voting is compulsory, but that under our public funding laws political parties receive money for each first placed vote above a threshold. In other words, voting’s compulsory and then they forcibly extract money from taxpayers when people actually vote.
There’s a word for that: extortion.
Milton Von Smith
21 Nov 12 at 11:51 am
Sinclair,
You said “Deliberate spoiling of ballot papers is illegal but detection methods make this part of the law difficult to enforce.”
This is not correct. It makes it impossible to enforce as any attempted enforcement action would mean that the ballot itself would have to be inspected and revealed to others, in contravention of s323 – which does have a penalty associated with it.
Section 240 had no penalties associated with it as this is just instructions on how to set out the ballot paper.
Andrew Reynolds
21 Nov 12 at 11:54 am
Personally I think if compulsory voting (which I disagree with) has to remain, then there needs to be two changes.
First off, there should be an additional square that states ‘None of the Above’ at the bottom of the list of candidates on each ballot – so if you really do have the whole ‘Pox on both your houses’ mindset, then you can officially and legally tell them so.
I also am very concerned about the whole ‘vote early, vote often’ thing. I’m not certain about how prevalent it is, but I wonder just how often rolls are checked to see if 1) the dead are voting, or if anyone has voted multiple times.
I think there should be some kind of electronic electoral roll (with a paper roll back-up) so that when you front up to get your ballot papers, your name is not only marked off the paper roll, but it is also marked off on an electronic roll as well – greying out your name once the ballots are handed out, ensuring that you can only vote once.
A Lurker
21 Nov 12 at 12:01 pm
Andrew – you’ve written a whole paragraph and yet I can’t work out the difference between what you are saying and what you claim I have gotten wrong.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 12:01 pm
Good point, but if I have my chronology correct this law was created during the height of the classical progressive era when many similar laws were created.
Good luck getting this changed, expect a campaign as dirty as the voter fraud/suppression furor that is occuring in the states.
If you were looking to improve the voting process a move to optional preferences across the country would be higher on my priority list as being forced to choose the lesser of 2 evils is as big an infringement on my liberty.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 12:15 pm
There is actually no definition of what constitutes a vote in s245, but it may be elsewhere, and s233 and 240 are about the marking of a ballot.
The marking must be done in private and it must be done in a certain way to be valid.
The reality seems to be that ticking your name off the roll has been seen to be a vote for the purposes of s245 so unless that changes that’s your obligation.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
Sinclair – you said it was difficult to enforce. In fact it is not only difficult, it would be illegal to do so, due to the operation of s323.
Section 240 is just instructions on how to set out and mark the paper, not a legal requirement that you must do it that way. You can tell this as there are no penalties associated with it.
Andrew Reynolds
21 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
Didn’t the Labor Member for Kingsford Smith, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth profess to not voting for the ten years prior to being shoe-horned into parliament by Mark Latham?
Septimus
21 Nov 12 at 12:31 pm
Second point first: I disagree. The Act first tells us how to vote, then it says that voting is compulsory. The penalties are then set out.
First point: I agree given the current voting technology that it would be illegal to enforce subject to the secret ballot. I have always argued that to be the case. But a very simple change in technology would change that.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 12:32 pm
SteveC, you said:
But what you quote is not the law. It is another example of bureaucrats interpreting the law and giving incorrect advice.
The bureaucracy is replete with similar examples.
JohnA
21 Nov 12 at 12:33 pm
Quite right, although the left is no better. Just different issues.
That’s why I am a libertarian. Neither left nor right.
DavidLeyonhjelm
21 Nov 12 at 12:35 pm
So that’s why teh left has abolished compulsory voting..oh wait…they haven’t.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 12:37 pm
That is how bureaucrats enforce the law – but that isn’t the actual legal obligation. It is a very poor proxy.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 12:37 pm
But at least we have consistency in our voting system. Some examples -
1. “voter turnout rates vary greatly, from 13.75% to 69.86%, with a statewide average of 32.64% in 2011.”
2. “voter turnout at the (2012) elections was 80.3 percent”
Guess which state has compulsory voting. If it’s too difficult see links below.
link1
link2
GrantB
21 Nov 12 at 12:59 pm
What I would like to see is each voting forms / candidate names randomised so that there is no advantage re the donkey vote.
Wouldn’t be too hard for the gov printers to do that..
Steve of Glasshouse
21 Nov 12 at 1:01 pm
Again, Sinclair – there are no penalties for a breach of this section. The only effect of a breach of this section has is that the vote is not counted.
Is that “legal” or “illegal”? In this case there is no practical difference.
Andrew Reynolds
21 Nov 12 at 1:02 pm
No – S245 establishes the penalty. The other section describe the process.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 1:04 pm
s 245(1) places a legal obligation to vote and s 233 places a requirement to vote in private.
If you got your name ticked off then ripped up your ballot in public in front of the officer you might also be punished.
I don’t know whether that’s happened.
But there is no interpretation of an obligation to vote consistent with privacy that could punish a private informal vote.
That is probably why the current system is the actual legal obligation and not a bureaucratic interpretation.
Although there may be case law here too.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:07 pm
Ok, I’m not going to go into the murky waters of what the act says is illegal or not, but the issue of informal voting is surely quite easily solved.
While we are yet to adopt the practice here in Aust, electronic voting would eliminate informal voting.
A vote could not be cast unless the program determined that it constitued a formal and correct vote (correct meaning that the boxes were completed in a manner that is formal, not ordered in a particular way – don’t be paranoid). An elector would not be able to leave a booth until such a vote had been completed.
While I have certain misgivings about electronic voting, it will surely come to pass in the near future and this solves the issue of informal voting completely.
Now as to whether voting should be compulsory, well..?
Personally I beleive it shouldn’t, but until the general populace understands the value of their frnachise, it is probably for the best.
Dash
21 Nov 12 at 1:08 pm
You’re reading Acts as if the sections followed each other as a chain of reasoning. This is not how they are to be read.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:14 pm
Right there, neatly and in a nutshell, is exposed the totalitarian arrogance and cynicism of the extreme Libertarian.
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 1:18 pm
Are you guys not reading the cases and case law that I referred to in the post?
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 1:19 pm
Yes it is Sinc, for the reasons I stated above.
Rococo Liberal
21 Nov 12 at 1:20 pm
I am reading that you pointed out the electronic solution several hours ago. I read this post before the original one though. Apologies.
Dash
21 Nov 12 at 1:22 pm
The best system I’ve thought of for ‘electronic’ voting is to utilise those electronic pens that scan tiny dots on the paper to establish location and record the mark electronically as it is written.
No identification of the voter involved, retains the same paper trail. No actual changes to process for the voters. Just allows for a very quick first count (and subsequent iterations in preferential systems).
…
As to all this huffing and puffing over the compulsion to vote – once you have agreed to the system by signing up to it to get on the roll, you’re pretty much left with out argument. You chose to be part of the system, and being part of the system comes with responsibilities, one of which is voting.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 1:23 pm
RL – how do you explain the judgements?
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 1:25 pm
Sinc – If someone declares their intention to not vote formally, in writing, it rather circumvents the normal case does it not? How is that then applicable to the normal case?
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 1:30 pm
Yes, well, the case law allows you to mark the ballot however you like, then, as long as its done in conformity to s233 and not s240.
So you can’t not vote in private, but you can’t be made to vote formally. So non-conformity to s240 is possible.
So as long as you get your name ticked off and follw the privacy provisions of s. 233 you’ve voted.
This is what I thought it would mean as above.
Its a compulsory private voting system.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:30 pm
Numbers, if as a society we place no legal or actual impediments to stop people from voting, why must we compel those who are
1. Uninterested in the process, and/or
2. Do not want/need to vote.
What does the society gain by compelling people to do what they choose not to do?
Please answer without strawmen and ad homs.
Thanks,.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 1:31 pm
Right there, neatly and in a nutshell, is a conceptual misunderstanding of “totalitarian”.
Dr Faustus
21 Nov 12 at 1:35 pm
I think you should be allowed to have your name ticked off and then have your refusal to deliberately cast a vote recorded along the lines of a ‘none of the above’ or abstention provision.
This would be a good change to the law.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:36 pm
You fucking moron, there is nothing remotely totalitarian about my position whatsoever.
As Sinc has already stated:
Given you are such a lobotomised totalitarian hypocrite, I really am at a loss as to why you post comments here.
You are hated with a passion, not just by me, but by every other remotely sensible commenter on this blog.
Give it away, you sad syphilitic ol’ loser.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 1:36 pm
So.. if someone chooses not to pay for goods at a store, what good does society gain by compelling people to do what they choose not to do?
There are obvious answers to both questions, but in the end there are some standards we choose to uphold as a society. Voting. Private property. And so on.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 1:38 pm
Why not just daub them in red paint, you green tyrant?
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 1:42 pm
There is one way to avoid having to vote. Renounce your citizenship. Perhaps the government should make it easier for people who don’t want to turn up at a voting booth once every couple of years to transition from citizen to permanent resident.
Australian citizens get many rights by virtue of being a citizen. In return an obligation of having to vote every now and then hardly seems onerous.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 1:42 pm
Living in human society involves elements of compulsion.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:49 pm
Hmmm…I don’t see the relationship:
If I do not pay you for goods, it is the theft of a property and you lose out of the transaction.
If I do not get my child innoculated for a contagious disease and gets sick, there is a chance the kid will infect you and your, and therefore you can lose out of the transaction.
If I choose not to vote I lost an opportunity. You lose nothing.
The first 2 have a direct effect on you. In the third only I lose.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 1:50 pm
Let’s explore this…
I believe you should be oompelled to only post along the guidelines the majority of contributors to this blog approves Scrappy.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 1:51 pm
The owner of the blog is entitled to take it private or otherwise act as he or they see fit, but the majority have no rights.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 1:54 pm
So Scrappy, do I get this right?
You seem to reject the concept that the majority of contributors of a blog has the right to compel you to act in a certain way, but you are happy for a law written during the 1920′s to force people to act in another way.
Is that a correct summary?
Token
21 Nov 12 at 2:01 pm
The blog does not have compulsory membership laws, whereas the Australian state/s compulsory record my ‘births, deaths and marriages’ for the purpose of compulsory legislative requirements that restrict my behaviour in a multiplicity of ways of which the compulsion to vote is one that I consider on the minor side.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 2:06 pm
Speaking pragmatically, I’d rather be compelled to vote in private than to have my privacy invaded by political campaigners.
Moroever, I don’t feel that the right are going to gain any advantage from non-compulsory voting.
People in safe seats may stop voting somewhat and they tend to be Labor seats, but that’s about it.
If you don’t like compulsion as a Libertarian, then engage in civil disobedience.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 2:09 pm
That’s a bit like saying that if a bunch of guys are trying to push a ute out of a ditch that one person sitting out makes no difference.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 2:21 pm
The tracking of hatches, matches and despatches by the governments (state/Federal) are part of tracking the legal entity that is provided the right to engage in a number of transactions/activities which no citizens can not.
Voting is one of those activities. The government can not compel me to marry, who should it be able to compel me to vote?
I find this to you your most compelling argument as it has pointed a logical consequence with a cost/benefit. Though they server a purpose, election campaigns are intrusive and annoying enough at the moment. You are correct that would be ramped up if there was a need to convince people to vote.
As has been noted above by many people, this is my right and there is nothing stopping me to spoil my vote if that is what I want.
If you read my post at 12:15pm I note that I am as concerned about the guidelines that force me to vote for all candidates in all juristictions except NSW & QLD.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 2:27 pm
…which non citizens can not…
Token
21 Nov 12 at 2:28 pm
Do you want a law to compel that guy to push the ute or do you want to focus on ensuring the guy has the values where he would understand society benefits from him pitching in?
Which is more likely to get him to act and which is more likely to ensure he is not around when his mates come by asking for help?
Token
21 Nov 12 at 2:30 pm
Having in the past been a polling official, a number of times in charge of a polling place, my recollection is as follows:
- It is not sufficient to just turn up and get your name marked off.
- The polling official is required to mark off your name and ask if you have already voted and then hand you the ballot papers.
- Whether you then complete the ballot form/s to register either a formal or informal vote is up to you, but you are required to place the ballot form/s in the ballot box before leaving the polling place.
- It is an offence to remove any ballot form/s from the polling place.
Septimus
21 Nov 12 at 2:34 pm
Point.
Yet there remains a loss when he doesn’t.
-
Part of the issue we face is that there are no conditions eligibility for voting, for either house.
What one has never lost, and can never lose, has little value.
Most important change required is that those whose income is primarily derived from government sources must not be able to vote in Upper house elections.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 2:35 pm
Septimus @ 1434
Correct
Former ARO
Mike of Marion
21 Nov 12 at 2:37 pm
It doesn’t fuss me about the ‘compulsory voting”. What annoys me is the preferential voting forced upon us.
“First past the Post” for me
Mike
Mike of Marion
21 Nov 12 at 2:39 pm
Optional preferential voting is not a big problem, but at the moment that seems to favour the Left whereas compulsory preferential voting was introduced by the right to make the Country Party a non-spoiler party..
Optional preferential voting probably favours the creation of two big parties, whereas I’d prefer a multitude of parties.
I don’t know whether the LNP is a great invention that would have happened anyway, but it was made somewhat necessary by optional preferential voting.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 2:39 pm
Don’t get me wrong Driftforge, I think the guy who refuses to push the ute is a d**k.
Similarly, I also think people who don’t get informed and squander the opportunity to vote in an informed manner are d**ks as well.
No matter how much legislation we put in, we can’t legislate against foolishness, laziness, envy and hatred.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 2:41 pm
Its great when somebody bowls you a dolly like that, but I see that several people have already knocked it out of the park. Gotta get in quicker.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 2:47 pm
You guys do know compulsory voting has a very real cost to the public?
Every first preference pays $4 or $5 to the party you vote for. Public financing.
I suppose you could strategically vote 1 for a no hope Indy then 2 for your preferred but that’s a bit silly.
A real financial cost to the public punishable by law.
DaveF
21 Nov 12 at 2:50 pm
The bloke who refuses to help push the ute out of the ditch may have an objection to the fact that the pushers want to use the ute for cattle duffing.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 2:51 pm
UteGate revisited is it?
DaveF
21 Nov 12 at 2:55 pm
What a stupid fucking non-argument. You can only get the full range of services the Government offers if you are compelled to vote.
You are really reaching into the bottom of the barrel of left wing gimme culture.
Here’s a better argument: why don’t you and all other slack jawed left wing idiots fuck off to Cuba when the communist turd Gillard is turfed from office?
.
21 Nov 12 at 3:08 pm
Hey if you don’t want to vote, you are free to renounce your citizenship and move to a country like the US that does not have that responsibility as part of being a citizen.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 3:20 pm
In the early 70′s the Willis Liberal Government made voting in NSW Local Government Elections non-compulsory.The effect was both startling and pleasing.Turnouts were low and in one Council area,I think it was Blacktown,only about 27% of electors bothered to vote,but best of all,Labor controlled Councils ceased to exist.The weeping and wailing of the former bribe-takers was pitiful.Sadly it was too good to last and when Wran became Premier in 1976 he promptly restored compulsory voting.At the next Election Labor voting drones were dragged to the polling places and the bribe takers were soon back in business.
Lew
21 Nov 12 at 3:22 pm
Fuck off to Cuba when your side loses. Have all the non onerous responsibility you like.
It is just a warped and contorted view that citizens are obligated to approve of any candidates by any means at all.
It is a form of civil conscription. It is not a responsibility nor does it define citizenship. No more than you would have defined a gay person pre early 1980s out of their citizenship.
You bucket mouthed idiot.
.
21 Nov 12 at 3:26 pm
Well. Duh.
.
21 Nov 12 at 3:26 pm
Council elections down here are postal and non-compulsory. Still get something like a 60% return rate, which is remarkable.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 3:28 pm
So what should Big Government do to prevent people from spoiling their vote?
After all, like the people who do not show up, these people are failing to vote per the law.
Cameras on the people in the voting booths?
Token
21 Nov 12 at 3:31 pm
The trouble with council elections is multi-faceted.
First, there is virtually no useful political information published in the so-called local press.
Second, there is no way of telling what candidates actually stand for except their motherhood statements.
Third, there is no way of really monitoring their actions as representatives.
All this makes party political candidates look astonishingly attractive compared to the local property spivs that otherwise prevail.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 3:34 pm
Compulsory voting is a load of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences
The ALP has blown up more local councils (Wollongong for one) with backroom deals than any northern beaches property spivs (Warringah).
.
21 Nov 12 at 3:37 pm
More than you get for state and federal candidates though..
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 3:39 pm
I think I can agree to a ‘plague upon both houses’, but I think the problems are more now as I’ve described.
Over the top of councils, state governments now destroy the amenity of entire (middle class) areas by giving new rights to developers.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 3:42 pm
I lost my electoral enrolment and haven’t bothered to reenroll.
I lived in the inner city for years and was enrolled then one day I heard the Electoral Commission were doing a clean up of the rolls and were sending letters out to areas like mine. You would receive the letter and contact them to confirm your details.
I received one and sent it back RTS.
I was very bitter about politics at that time, the last time I’d voted I nearly got into a punchup with a Labor leaflet guy at Newtown Church polling booth. Kim Beazley may have been leader at the time.
TL;DR you don’t have to lose citizenship to lose your electoral enrolment.
DaveF
21 Nov 12 at 3:42 pm
No.
.
21 Nov 12 at 3:43 pm
Dot, Driftforge – see my post way back.
WA council elections 2011, turnout 13.75% to 69.86% average 32.64%. Voting non-compulsory.
Qld council elections 2012, average turnout 80.3%. Voting compulsory.
GrantB
21 Nov 12 at 3:45 pm
Yes, that’s what state governments are doing, but not with those words.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 3:47 pm
S240(b) is interesting:
It implies that elections in electorates with fewer than 4 candidates are constitutionally invalidated.
That would really put a cat amongst the Canberran pigeons if its true.
Anyone out there got a lazy hundred thou or so who wants to ask the High Court what they think?
Bruce
21 Nov 12 at 4:02 pm
And council’s arbitrarily destroy the capacity of landowners to develop their own property.
As you said, a pox on both their houses.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 4:10 pm
Hey I’m not the one trying to enable and enhance voter suppression strategies for winning elections. Voting does not define citizenship, but it is a responsibility of citizenship in Australia. And not even a vaguely onerous one.
The primary reason many on the right want to remove compulsory voting is it is the first step to disenfranchisement of groups they don’t like. Even on this thread there has been someone advocating people who pay no net tax not being able to vote in the upper house. And on other threads people have been lamenting what they see as a decline since women have been able to vote.
And if they can’t make it illegal, then they don’t see anything wrong with making it difficult as possible (eg shorter voting hours for Democrat heavy areas than Republican ones).
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 4:26 pm
It shall be the duty of every elector to be harrassed by mail, email, text, tweet, home visit and street intervention by political parties trying to get out their vote in non-compulsory voting elections.
Exactly. If you want to get elected you should be convincing people of why you are worthy to motivate them to vote for you, rather than having 50% of effort done for through public fear of an irrational law.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 4:30 pm
The primary reason many on the right want to remove compulsory voting is it is the first step to disenfranchisement of groups they don’t like.
Completely and utterly wrong. The primary reason for those on the right supporting voluntary voting is to make politicians work harder and to increase the amount of political information they must get through to the public. Just like your reasoning in my post above.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 4:32 pm
Not exactly. People should have to opt into being harrassed otherwise their privacy should be paramount.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 4:34 pm
Politicians don’t submit political information, they publish partisan material.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 4:36 pm
Finally, lets not forget that the best democracies and most impressive countries in the world all have voluntary voting.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 4:37 pm
Absolute rubbish and a brazen misrepresentation of our arguments. For example, no one is being ‘disenfranchised’ – everyone of age would still be able to vote should they wish to.
That is the second time on this thread I’ve had to point that fact out.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 4:38 pm
Scapula, privacy should be a basic right and you should be able to shut that information out if you choose to.
Politicians should be gathering your attention through the quality of their positions and the strength of their character being worthy of a political leader. It’s one of the reasons we have such low grade poltiicians; could you imagine Kevin Rudd being PM of the UK or President of the US?
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 4:39 pm
Like that’s a bad thing?
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 4:46 pm
Sinc, I think the discrepancy between your case law examples and the “Informal Voting” document from the AEC is because the amendments to the Act were enacted in 1998, after your case law examples.
For example “However, in 1987 the victorian Supreme Court
stated that as it was not an offence to vote
informally and it was not an offence to advocate
informal voting. Section 329(3) was subsequently
repealed.” (para 25)
and
“The 1998 Amendment Act, which arose out of the
JSCEM recommendations, amended the Act so that,
while it is no longer an offence to encourage or
induce voting otherwise than in accordance with
full preferential voting, Langer-style votes (that is,
preferences marked in the pattern ‘1, 2, 3, 3, 3…’)
for the House of Representatives will no longer be
counted as formal votes and will be rejected from
the scrutiny.” (para 29)
SteveC
21 Nov 12 at 4:54 pm
I said its the first step, not the final step. First you remove compulsory voting, then little by little make it more difficult to vote. As I mentioned people on this and other threads have already pushed for disenfranchisement of certain groups. And once you lower the voting rate enough, it makes it harder to detect fraud – so in comes the call from compulsory ID checks to disenfranchise even more people. We’ve seen in the US how voter suppression works (from both sides of politics) – that’s not healthy for a democracy.
“work harder” == “more money”. Yes, so effectively increase the value of having more money that opponents in determining elections.
As has been pointed out multiple times in practice no one is forced to vote for any party. They can vote informal if they wish. Pretty much everyone who votes in Australia knows that. What compulsory voting does do is encourage politicians to take into account everyone in the country who votes, because it is highly likely the vast majority will vote. And merely denigrating your opposition to discourage their supporters from turning up won’t work.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 4:54 pm
SteveC – Albert Langer won;t be sent to prison again – that is the implication of the 1998 amendments. Can’t work out how the AEC would determine who had voted 1,2,3,3 … so that’s not a real improvement.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 4:59 pm
Evidence free paranoia.
Again, this is ridiculous. People should have to be able to prove who they are when they front up to vote and I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. The US is, if anything, a salutory example of how not to run an electoral system.
As for disenfranchising certain groups, e.g. certain welfare recipients and government employees, there are strong arguments for and against as far as I’m concerned. That does not mean I am in favour of disenfranchisement of these groups.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 5:08 pm
I don’t get the argument that removing compulsory voting somehow endangers democracy. We are in the minority when it comes to requiring citizens to vote and if you look at the participation rate stats that Dot linked to earlier, it doesn’t put us near the top of the list. There are several other countries with voluntary participation with higher rates than us.
So where’s the problem?
As for the position that it’s some kind of right-wing conspiracy to disenfranchise people, don’t make me laugh. Where is the evidence of that?
tbh
21 Nov 12 at 5:18 pm
What a vile strawman you’ve constructed Chris
Do you have any evidence for your stupid rant?
Token
21 Nov 12 at 5:19 pm
The evidence for right wing people rightly or wrongly thinking that voluntary voting will disenfranchise mainly Labor voters can be found on this blog so many times that I’m surprised you’ve not noticed.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:20 pm
That’s not evidence. It’s people wanging on at a blog.
tbh
21 Nov 12 at 5:25 pm
For the last frigging time, no one would be ‘disenfranchised’.
Cease and desist with your repeated misrepresentations, you utter moron.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 5:27 pm
People ‘wanging on’ is the reason why there is this thread as well.
Politicians are always willing to change the electoral system to their advantage.
Optional preferential was introduced in Queensland to take advantage of conservative disunity.
There have been numerous opinions about the advantage of voluntary voting from right wing standpoints on this issue, but its not the predominant view.
Party machines are too wary about the cost and uncertainty of voluntary voting.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:29 pm
I agree that we should think about restricting the vote of those who benefit from Government largesse.
Rococo Liberal
21 Nov 12 at 5:31 pm
They are effectively, if not legally, disenfranchised and nobody would have construed my words otherwise.
You’re the moron with the axe to grind given your previous attempt at an educational qualification for voting to eliminate the morons.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:33 pm
Rococo Liberal – for a start people who receive more in welfare than they pay in tax.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 5:34 pm
What you have seen on other threads is academic research from the US which proves the real threat in the US is voter fraud, both parties engage in it but it is the DNC that actively engages in it in places like Philadelphia where African American districts report >100% turnout.
The documents and research provided proved that all claims of voter supression were false. That all juristictions putting place voter ID requirements provide FREE photo ID for citizens and refused the types of ID non-citizens can obtain.
Chris stop throwing strawman around and engage in a open and honest discussion.
Token
21 Nov 12 at 5:36 pm
But there were also attempts to prohibit early voting and to inhibit ease of voting by the Republicans, most notable in Florida, from memory.
Voter fraud is an issue because they don’t have a politically independen bureaucracy managing elections.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:39 pm
Sinclair Davidson…. I respectfully disagree.
Any law that is unenforceable, is not a law. It may be written, but it is meaningless. The electoral commission cannot police informal voting… So in that sense the only thing that they can police is the voter crossing their name off the list…. Voter turn out is all they can quantify and control.
What you put on you ballot papers is between you, God and a bad breakfast.
As for changing the wording as it exists…. No, it doesn’t matter and to try and attempt to make it reflect the reality, would only invite anti compulsory actists to launch a push for even bigger changes to the system.
I like compulsory voting…. Because like it or not, representative government is predicated on representing everyone…. Not just the active and engaged… Because it is the inactive and disengaged that truly need the political representation.
… If you can understand my simple explanation on what is such a complicated topic.
J.H.
21 Nov 12 at 5:40 pm
That automatically disenfranchises many of the young (students), elderly (pensioners), disabled, and many women (at home with children so don’t work or work part time, but receive family tax benefits, baby bonus, childcare benefits).
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 5:42 pm
Bullshit.
Again, this is utter bullshit.
You are an even bigger bullshit artist than shitferbrains.
Unfriggingbelievable.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 5:44 pm
So we need to compulsorily count and put a price for a vote on the head of every voter? Sounds like a really Libertarian idea!
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:45 pm
Even those that don’t want representation? The insane? Locked up child molesters and murderers?
Stop shafting them with ballot access.
If you were serious you’d be for sortition, CIR and running stuff on a subsidiarity/town meeting basis.
.
21 Nov 12 at 5:49 pm
Unfortunately the stats in that article look very dodgy. If you go to the source the article uses for Australia http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 , then check some of the other countries, you will see either the numbers in the wikipedia table simply don’t match, or even stranger things, like the number of regsitered voters exceeds the voting age population.
I would guess Australia’s turnout “ranking” would be a lot higher than the table suggests.
SteveC
21 Nov 12 at 5:50 pm
It is indicative. Calm the fuck down.
The turnout of valid voters in Australia is about 90% now.
People are being forced to vote for people they don’t approve of and it is “for their own good”.
What a paternalist heap of shit filled nonsense.
.
21 Nov 12 at 5:52 pm
No one has even suggested that anyone be prohibited legally from voting, so how come you’re so dumb you read everything literally?
You want voluntary voting to get rid of the uneducated morons and I pointed out to you that only some sort of educational qualification or citizenship test could do this?
So you must either support such a position or find another argument, but you seem to be completely out of thoughts, unsurprisingly.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 5:52 pm
Except that there were many elderly black people who do not have a birth certificate and the state has no record of their birth – apparently wasn’t that uncommon 80 years ago in many states especially for black people. They were refused photo id that could be used for voting purposes even though they were born and lived in the US for their entire life.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 5:54 pm
Absolutely no one in Australia is forced to vote for someone they don’t approve of.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 5:57 pm
By it’s very meaning, people are free to choose whether they want to vote or not. Even uneducated morons.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 6:03 pm
dot, yes I think your 90% sounds about right. The wikipedia article said 80% which seems highly suspect, and puts Australia well down the list.
SteveC
21 Nov 12 at 6:03 pm
a ggod read http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.2.html
Jim Rose
21 Nov 12 at 6:04 pm
Wow a lot of responses. This will probably disappear into the vortex of blogger responses.
But for what it is worth yes you are correct that it is technically illegal to not vote.
However, as you point out, in practise, a secret ballot means it is impossible to identify those who just turn up, so in reality, you are merely accountable to simply turn up.
As for the politics and against popular opinion compulsory voting in my view benefits the Coalition. In non-compulsary voting systems the result is dependent on voter turn out and the party best equipped to mobilise turn out will win.
The ALP are far better positioned to benefit from this for a number of reasons.
1. The ALP is far better organised and resourced to mobilise votes through the trade union movement.
2. The ALP is best positioned to profit from the multiplicity of single issue interests. It attracts the university activists, peace activists, multiculturalists, refugee advocates, ethnic minorities, environmentalists, gay and lesbian activists, animal welfare lobbyists and so on. All these groups that are organised and well coordinated would definitely vote and campaign for votes benefitting Labor. This raises the other issue of preferential voting.
3. The ALP enjoys majority mass media support which would influence voter turn out.
4. ALP safe seats are safer than Coalition safe seats meaning the Coalition would need to divert more resources in shoring up its base than campaigning in the marginals.
In general I also think compulsory voting lifts the bar a little. Rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator – those who couldn’t care to vote – as well as the plethora of single interest groups – at least compulsory voting puts majority interests ahead of minority interests more than in alternative systems.
Perfect? Not by a long shot! Better than the alternatives. Absolutely!
Justin
21 Nov 12 at 6:13 pm
That will result in the (presumably) unintended consequence of excluding many of the older retired cohort which tends to vote Liberal/National.
manalive
21 Nov 12 at 6:14 pm
There could be an empirical correlation between educational level and voting and lack of motivation to vote, but what it is would require having a lot of academic political titles to hand.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 6:14 pm
I reckon there’s an easy way to get around that constitutional burden.
Don’t impose a fine. You only need the house of Parliament to do that and in one fell swoop you’d get rid of the Labor zombies.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:19 pm
Bullshit. They are forced to attend the booth and have their names ticked off.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:21 pm
Chris:
Stop playing these stupid games.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:22 pm
That goes for you too Bob, you useless dribbler.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:22 pm
Names ticked off and take ballot, retreat to booth, mark and fold ballot, return to box, go home drink wine and eat foie gras with JC as Labor wins election.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 6:23 pm
You mendacious twat. How the fuck can you disenfranchise anyone with voluntary voting, you eggnog.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:25 pm
As has been pointed out multiple times in practice no one is forced to vote for any party. They can vote informal if they wish. Pretty much everyone who votes in Australia knows that. What compulsory voting does do is encourage politicians to take into account everyone in the country who votes, because it is highly likely the vast majority will vote. And merely denigrating your opposition to discourage their supporters from turning up won’t work.
This is the exact opposite to reality.
The fact that everyone in Australia knows they can donkey vote is missing the point. The point is that once someone has got to the polling booth they are more likely to cast a valid vote of some sort. Not much more likely, I agree, but enough to make a difference. In a democracy the effort to get someone to the polling booth should rest on the shoulders of the politicians and not the law. It should be done due to a positive influence based on people feeling they are making a difference they believe in, rather than a chore as a response to a potential fine.
What compulsory voting does is remove the need of politicians to provide this component of the process to people. This component is the bit that is based on the moral principle, the bit that makes people believe in what they are voting for and motivates them to get to the polling booth. As you don’t need this in Australia and most of the voters are going to turn up anyway all you need to do is try to capture the middle ground occupied by the 15% or so of uncommitted voters. So politicians don’t need to put out a coherent vision for the country, they just need to capture that bit in the middle. This is the antithesis of compulsory voting representing everybody. It provides a means by which politicians can win without representing everybody, and without any use of a moral backing to their arguments. This is why Australian politics is so much more hollow than, say, US politics.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 6:25 pm
Hey Bob… STFU.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:26 pm
And merely denigrating your opposition to discourage their supporters from turning up won’t work.
This bit doesn’t make any sense to me. Firstly, if you can denigrate your opposition as part of your argument because they are actually bad and their supporters don’t turn up, this is a good part of the democratic process. Secondly, where is the evidence of this improving the level of quality of politics in Australia or any other country with mandatory voting? Gillards ‘misogynist’ rant is a good example of crap that’s probably lower than many other countries with voluntary voting.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 6:30 pm
and
Rabz assumes he/she/it is in a position to judge who is worthy/not worthy to vote, and that the second group should not vote – they are “morons”. That is an authoritarian position, seeking to exercise control over the freedom or will of someone else he/she/it considers not worthy.
This is a text book definition of “totalitarian”.
An accepted meaning of totalitarian is
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 6:30 pm
No Spud Peeler, Rabz isn’t making am informed judgement. he’s simply offering an opinion, that’s all you moron.
Stick your “authoritarian position” opinion up you rear end.
Voluntary voting cannot by definition be authoritarian you fucking stupid dickweed. How can it be? Now buzz off and get back to the potatoes.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:34 pm
Compulsory voting is a bad idea.
It dilutes the quality of the ballot because you get people voting who don’t want to be there, have no interest in politics, don’t care about the outcome, casting a vote.
Voting should be a right… for anyone who wants to participate. just like running for office is a right. We don’t make everyone stand for high office, we take volunteers. We shuoldn’t force people to vote for those who stand.
All the arguments in favour of it are absurd and stupid. I’ve heard it argued that it forces people to pay attention (see above…) well, okay, but explain to me either the individual benefit or social benefit of that. There’s no individual benefit, right off the bat. As for social benefit, you’re selecting low information voters and hoping they ‘do the right thing’ before casting a vote and educate themselves. That’s naive.
I’ve heard it argued that the parties don’t have to worry about turnout. Well, they should. In America, turnout plays a useful role that counteracts the tribalism of political parties. Many people- perhaps most – are rusted on to a party for social, family, and historical reasons. Voting for the other side would be like supporting a different football team. They just won’t do it. Voluntary voting gives them a way of influencing the election without violating those social and personal constraints: they can stay home.
I’ve heard it said that compulsory voting leads to more centrism because the parties must appeal to the middle ground. Again, there’s no evidence of this, either here or overseas by way of contrary example.
I’ve heard arguments from Labor supporters that it ensures that the powerless are better represented, because it tends to be the wealthy and better educated that choose to vote. This may be the case, but it certainly hasn’t stopped social democrats winning resounding victories in other countries, nor has it prevented welfare and humanitarian policies from being introduced in other democracies. Strike that excuse. Even if it was true, conservatives would probably be unimpressed by that reason, but it isn’t true anyway. (which is good, because it holds out the hope of convincing the left to abandon their love of it).
Finally, most Australians are surprised to learn that Australia is the only nation with compulsory voting. It is an abberation, a bizarre curiosity in the democratic world.
It’s an infringement on our right to not participate. It’s an imposition that the leaders and intellectuals don’t care about because they are interested in politics and would vote anyway.
There’s no good reason for it and it damages our polity.
End compulsory voting.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 6:35 pm
The Liars Party of course attracts a large mumber of low IQ’ed people who wouldn’t be voting as they don’t understand the arguments and most likely have no desire to vote.
Similarly anyone earning a government stipend outside of essential services should not be allowed to vote.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:36 pm
Abslutely, he’s offering the opinion that some people are unworthy to vote, and assuming he/she/it is best judge of that.
That is a totalitarian position.
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 6:37 pm
Rabz is a Platonist and Popper thinks Plato is at the origin of totalitarianism.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 6:38 pm
No it isn’t. You’re a moron.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:38 pm
Can any of the mandatory voting crowd provide some evidence for their claims that:
- mandatory voting makes Australian politicians more representative than, say, politicians in other more or less equivalent nations like UK, US, Canada, France or Germany?
- mandatory voting has ‘lifted the bar’ to make our quality of politics higher than any of these nations?
- or any other benefit you believe mandatory voting offers compared to these nations or other more or less equivalent nations.
I’m after some empirical evidence or an actual example, not just feeling based stuff.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 6:39 pm
Hey Bob.. Quick question.
Do you find people falling to sleep in your company?
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:39 pm
And you have run out of logic. Your default is abuse.
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 6:41 pm
Incredible. numbers and Scrappy Doo Doo believe voluntary voting is totalitarian.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 6:41 pm
Numbers, I abuse you because I’m intolerant on leftist idiots trolling around here. Like you. I abuse you because you deserve it. Fully.
Furthermore I always fully explain why I think you’re an idiot.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:42 pm
And you blog under your service number. Again, you are clearly an idiot and probably socially inept.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 6:43 pm
It kinda leaves one speechless.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 6:44 pm
Thank Christ for that………….
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 6:45 pm
May my royal touch be upon you, Gab.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 6:45 pm
How did you become a teacher numbers? The mind boggles.
Tiny Dancer
21 Nov 12 at 6:53 pm
@ Noname
I find a superb irony in this comment.
On 25th October 1969 I was a conscript training with my battalion prior to embarking on operational duty to Vietnam on 16th February 1970.
It was ALP policy to abolish conscription and withdraw from Vietnam, so the only (slim) chance I had of not going to SVN was a Labor win.
Myself and a few other Nashos went to the orderly room and requested transport to attend a polling booth at Canungra state school. We were told to “get stuffed” and warned that if we left JTC to walk to the booth we would be AWOL.
That experience has coloured my views on both the right and responsibility to vote more than somewhat. A few of you armchair Libertarians need to get a life….
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 7:01 pm
That comment was a lot longer than I intended and kind of turned into an essay! Whoops. Sorry.
By the way, it could be changed with a simple act of parliament.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 7:05 pm
Rather than exclude anyone from the franchise, what about the multiple vote idea put forward by Nevil Shute in his 1953 novel “In the Wet” (and probably proposed by others, I have no idea).
The idea as put forward by Shute is this: everyone gets a basic vote; but extra votes are given to those who are seen as having contributed more to society. Your number of votes is shown on the roll; and you get one ballot paper per vote. The votes Shute used were:
The base vote – 1 vote for breathing
The education vote – 1 vote for higher education or equivalent
The broadened mind vote – 1 vote for living and working overseas for 2 years
The family vote – 1 vote for raising two children to age 14 without getting divorced
The entrepreneur vote – 1 vote for amassing a fortune by personal effort (not inherited)
The religious vote – for being a minister of a recognised (mainstream) religion
The ‘special’ vote – by executive grant for exceptional service (or whatever)
Aside from the fact I can’t see it getting up, what would be the effect if it did? Would it (as Shute thought) improve the standard of policy and politics? It would certainly tend to dilute the moron vote a bit.
Cato the Elder
21 Nov 12 at 7:06 pm
Good spiel DD. No need to apologize for a well written well thought out comment… as always.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 7:15 pm
STFU spud peeler, you moron. Buzz off. Your comments here aren’t worth a pile of dog turd.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 7:16 pm
nothing except one vote per person is politically palatable. Anything else is open to corruption, dispute, and gaming.
btw, in “Starship Troopers” Heinlein proposed that military service should be a prerequisite for voting. He softens the reader up for it by pointing out that we have arbitrary limits around the franchise anyway (such as age), and this is simply another limit.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 7:21 pm
Please accept my deepest sympathy and best wishes in dealing your scatological obsessions. Perhaps with time, and a more healthy lifestyle it will pass. In the meantime I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 7:22 pm
Numbers no abuse intended, but I can see why you cop it, you really do seem to get things back to front. It seems pointless explaining it. But the notion that you and your socialist acolytes are somehow responsible for teaching our children, who are compelled to attend your school, is a disturbing thought.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 7:23 pm
JC wasn’t speechless for long, but he should be warned that Rabz will be very angry as he’s a literalist when it comes to language.
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 7:23 pm
My figure on upper house voting is to make it based upon dependancy.
Once you come of age, you are independent and able to vote.
If you choose, at any time, you may return to a state of dependancy. If you do, you are eligible for the dole, for government employment, for study benefits, for the pension. You are not, however, eligible to vote in the next election, both state and federal.
Your own choice of course.
Again, you can become independent again at the time of your own choosing.
Driftforge
21 Nov 12 at 7:24 pm
DD’
Quite often you must have had a (disinterested in politics ) friend or relative ask you ” Elections on this Saturday, who’d ya recons best?”.
If your like me you tell them who and why.
Those people have ask you because they regard you as;
1. trustworthy ( as opposed to MSM )
2. informed
3. a person advising in their best interests
They only ask because they have to vote.*
You now have 1 reason why I like compulsory FWIW.
(* unless your a Jehovah Witness, another example of religious belief trumping law.)
jumpnmcar
21 Nov 12 at 7:26 pm
Yes, well, isn’t dependency the correct spelling?
Scapula
21 Nov 12 at 7:28 pm
I’m waiting for IT to arrive with his usual comment that the world has gone to wrack and ruin since women got the vote.
dd: I see an AEC paper written in 2006 says:
So – where’s your claim that Australia is the only nation with compulsory voting come from?
steve from brisbane
21 Nov 12 at 7:29 pm
Well, yes. But so is the so-called universal franchise. The interesting question is: if we had it, would it matter?
Cato the Elder
21 Nov 12 at 7:30 pm
Disenfranchised? Yep I was in 1974 after being sentenced to gaol for not paying my not voting fines. Looked up the electoral roll on microfiche in Australia House in London in 1983. What was I doing there? I’d been hired as an electoral officer for the election that Bob won. Only needed to show my passport to get a guernsey.
A convicted voting felon managing voting in the largest voting station in “Australia”. I didn’t vote of course. Couldn’t. The electoral officer had been disenfranchised for not voting. I had to laugh.
GrantB
21 Nov 12 at 7:34 pm
My teaching career (since 1971) has been working with children with disabilites. The notion that my “socialist acolytes” as you call them somehow exert some kind of evil influence on these kids is bizarre and offensive. Children with disabilities only became elegible for schooling after the Human Rights reforms introduced by that evil socialist Gough Whitlam. Prior to that they were considered charity cases and unfit for schooling. Perhaps you would care to discuss the evils of socialism with these people, many of whom have lived productive and fulfilling lives as a result of their access to education.
You could at the same time explain to them why you believe the socialist ideals embedded in the HR legislation are unworthy.
If back to front means a belief in individual worth, irrespective of race, creed or ability, well then, I’m happy to live arse about…..
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 7:36 pm
The same AEC paper points out that compulsory voting is popular here:
As those who oppose it usually come across as elitists (see this thread) and are always suspect as wanting it for political advantage for their side of politics, it is very unlikely that a campaign against it is going to get anywhere.
So, Starship Trooper dreams aside, I think this topic can just be put aside as going no where for the libertarian inclined.
steve from brisbane
21 Nov 12 at 7:36 pm
ShitFor, you can take Fiji off that list. They tried compulsory voting then dropped it.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 7:39 pm
Would the compulsory voting crowd support compulsory military service?
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 7:41 pm
Belgium hasn’t enforced it since 2003 according to Wikipedia.
Chile did have mandatory voting for life for those who chose to enrol. Chile has since dropped it.
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 7:45 pm
Jannie
Yes yes, good point, truancy laws and penalties for breaches, freedom undermined there too.
( not trying to derail, just acknowledging a point. )
jumpnmcar
21 Nov 12 at 7:51 pm
You are right, Steve… I stand corrected that there are other democracies with compulsory voting.
That doesn’t make it right, StevefB.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 7:55 pm
Listen, you fucking insufferable old idiot – my position is not as you’ve described above.
I am simply advocating voluntary voting, something you, chris and crapula are too stupid and/or dishonest to admit.
If stupid, lazy people self select out of the pool of voters due to the introduction of voluntary voting, then so be it.
You are a malignant, self obssesed, utterly dishonest totalitarian piece of filth, spudpeeler.
You’re the fuckwit who wants the state to dictate how people should live, you stupid, vile hypocritical twat.
Stop fucking lying.
Rabz
21 Nov 12 at 8:00 pm
I’ve got 8 countries in the world that enforce compulsory voting i.e. don’t allow ‘conscientious objectors’, or don’t give you plausible deniability via a technicality, and will demand a fine.
That 8 includes Democratic Republic of the Congo. Maybe someone can tell me how this is made it better than countries without mandatory voting?
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 8:10 pm
I’m sure their disabilities worsen after you’ve spent time with them.
Why? You’re an imbecile at this site, so why think you’d do a 180 when you’re imposing your rank stupidity on them.
Oh but of course their was no schooling for the disabled before year 1 of our Lord Gough Whitlam.
You fucking arshole, there’s a school for the deaf closish to where I live and the building has been around 100 years old. A person of my age was disabled and he went to an appropriate school at the time well before that socialist loser (Gough).
Disability was handled by the states before that asshat made a federal takeover.
OMG… how about that… isn’t it just awful that charities were involved… Fuck you’re a moron.
WTF has that got to do with anything Spud Peeler. As I said there was a school for the deaf and a braille learning centre that’s been around since the year dot.
Because they are, dickhead.
Please STFU. You’re embarrassing the species.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 8:10 pm
Really?
You’re saying that some people are unworthy of the right to vote because you regard them as “morons”.
You’re also saying that “intelligent and informed voters” suffer because these you label unworthy outcasts actually vote.
What insufferable elitist totalitarian arrogance.
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 8:11 pm
Don’t anything back, Rabz. I think you’re not telling him what you really think.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 8:12 pm
oops there, not their.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 8:13 pm
“Aside from the fact I can’t see it getting up, what would be the effect if it did?”
The original Athenian democracy was like this. Tocqueville’s principle does not seem to have ever taken hold during its existence.
The Roman republic had a similar slant for the century assembly but not the tribal assembly. Tocqueville’s principle started to take hold via the tribal assembly in the second century B.C., with Tiberius Gracchus.
2dogs
21 Nov 12 at 8:13 pm
No he isn’t. You’re an idiot.
Well yea… it’s true. If the moron vote hadn’t been counted last time, the Lying Slapper would have been thrown out on her huge butt. That would have been a good thing- a great thing in fact.
What insufferable elitist totalitarian arrogance.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 8:18 pm
LOL, I hate to break it to you mate but for you, it’s too late.
manalive
21 Nov 12 at 8:19 pm
You really have no clue as to the meaning of totalitarian. And you’re supposed to be a teacher. Pfft.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 8:19 pm
That is a load of mendacious, revisionist crap.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 8:27 pm
Thanks 2dogs, it was the possibility of avoiding the de Tocqueville slide that intrigued me. If it worked it would give more “weight” to the grown ups, while not denying the vote to anyone. Would that be enough to stop the slide?
Cato the Elder
21 Nov 12 at 8:29 pm
Lying turd he is. Absolute lying turd.
JC
21 Nov 12 at 8:30 pm
My problem is not with the ” compulsory” part, just the ” secret ballot ” part.
I should be able to know who voted green into power.
As yet I can find nowhere near %12 that will admit to voting green (or ALP for that matter)
I want the sun to shine on these arseholes and have them held accountable.
jumpnmcar
21 Nov 12 at 8:32 pm
The secret ballot is a good idea, because it allows people to vote for something even if they think there will be consequences for voting for it.
On the other hand, it allows vote fraud. Without a secret ballot, there can be no vote fraud.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 8:35 pm
It also makes it much harder to bribe a voter because its quite difficult for someone to prove how they voted.
Incidentally with electronic voting it is possible for someone to demonstrate mathematically they voted and their vote was counted without being able to prove who they voted for. That could help reassure people’s faith in the electoral system in places where confidence is low such as the US.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 8:45 pm
Yeah, run by the various societies. Back then the Royal Blind Institute and the school for the “Deaf and dumb” as they were called. These were residential schools so that all the bush kids had to live away from their homes and were “minded” rather than educated. The standards were atrocious, the kids were headed for sheltered workshops when they finished school, and the teachers weren’t necessarily registered.
For what were called “crippled” children, there were institutions set up by various charities, most of which were founded during and after the polio epidemics.
In Queensland, there was the Montrose “home”, the Spastic Welfare League, and the Cootharinga society. These were financed initially by public donation, and then gradually by state input, but it wasn’t until the advent of HR legislation largely introduced during the Whitlam era that children with disabilities had the same access to schooling as able bodied kids. With this legislation came federal funding to build schools.
I opened a multi million dollar school in Townsville in 1987 where, for the first time, 75 kids actually left the institution to attend school.
Prior to that, many of them lived their whole lives inside the four walls of an institution. Many were penned to keep them in, and some had maggots in their ears because the “homes” weren’t staffed well enough to keep the flies away.
This major transformation occurred because of the legislation and the funding.
The “schools” that were around since the year dot were institutions that hid these kids from wider society and “minded” them.
Those poor sensitive Libertarians were affronted by the sight of people with disabilities back in the day.
It looks as if not much has changed given the tone of what I see posted here….
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 8:50 pm
Why is this numbers persons raving on about schools when the thread is about voting?
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 8:53 pm
To an extent that’s true, but that is too simplistic and gives no credit to the dedicated staff who worked with disabled kids in those institutions.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 8:59 pm
Wow, the state of US politics and their voting system is not something to aspire to. Better as a warning to us as to what to avoid.
Chris
21 Nov 12 at 9:00 pm
1735099 – looks like they’re getting to you more than you’re getting to them.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 9:01 pm
Suggest you ask Jannie (7:23 pm)
@Sinc
Not at all. Most of your readers wouldn’t know the band was up them until they heard the drum…..
1735099
21 Nov 12 at 9:13 pm
LOL – that is very good.
Sinclair Davidson
21 Nov 12 at 9:16 pm
The secret ballot allows vote fraud? How so dd?
In the Australian electoral systems, both federal and State (and i presume council, but I have not worked as a polling official for council elections):
- the electors name must be marked off on the roll.
- the elector must be asked, and provide an answer to, whether he/she has already voted.
- the elector completes the ballot paper in a private cubicle (how it is completed or if it is completed is at the sole discretion of the elector).
NB, if the elector spoils the ballot paper he/she can obtain a new one in return for the spoiled one.
- the elector places the ballot paper, completed or not completed or spoiled at the elector’s discretion, into a sealed ballot box.
- at the close of polling, in front of scrutineers from the candidates if present, the sealed ballot box is opened and the votes counted.
- the number of ballot papers from the ballot boxes is reconciled to the number of ballot papers issued to electors by the polling officials,
NB. prior to issue to electors each ballot paper must be initialled on the back by the issuing polling official.
Septimus
21 Nov 12 at 9:18 pm
Bullshit.
.
21 Nov 12 at 9:21 pm
Lies.
.
21 Nov 12 at 9:22 pm
Oh yes, I see. Jannie made a comment
and somehow this set you off on a tirade about special schools. Yes, I see the connection, I also see the gun he pointed at you that forced you produce your self-indulgent screed. It’s always about you.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 9:24 pm
No, no, dear Dot. “Flies”.
Gab
21 Nov 12 at 9:25 pm
Aefyument for compulsory voting (just so y’all are clearI
leaving voting to the non illiterati would stop the wonderful plays we have each election time wiyj pur pollies as the =star caste.
Its better tha nbig brother or the house. Instead of a CCTV they all rat on each other in attempts to sell themselves. Its the best comedy to watch of all time.
You want to be bored each election? Evene\ less would vote than now. At least complusory voting takes into account a atrtempt to govern by majority or as ckose to as possible.
I do not want people whu only vote for trees to be cut down to imprive their water views.
S
Alice
21 Nov 12 at 10:00 pm
Oh god time for bed – too tired to spell (glasses in bag – I hate my glasses).
Alice
21 Nov 12 at 10:02 pm
Well the link is that many kids have no choice where they go to school, they are compelled to attend their nearest State school if not privately educated. There they are indictrinated into some very weird logic (as demonstrated by some of the above conclusions by the numerical correspondent), and by some awful political and environmental nonsense, then they are compelled to vote. Compulsion produces results.
I note without irony that it is not surprising that high school grads mostly vote Green and Labor.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 10:07 pm
Ralph Blewitt was in 2RAR Vietnam Anzac batallion apparently.
I don’t know what that means but 1735099 would.
candy
21 Nov 12 at 10:07 pm
Coming soon (predicition).
After 24 hours community consultation Labor moves to adjust the voting age to 13 (and settles at 15). Its the right thing to do.
Jannie
21 Nov 12 at 10:12 pm
Well the link is that many kids have no choice where they go to school, they are compelled to attend their nearest State school if not privately educated.
Not true in WA.
sdfc
21 Nov 12 at 10:27 pm
There are a good number of american elections were there was fruad and on a large scale. Read robery caro’s great biography of LBJ.
anyone know of such instances in australia?
Jim Rose
21 Nov 12 at 10:39 pm
True in QLD for High School
John Mc
21 Nov 12 at 10:39 pm
Well it’s not a problem here but the US seems to have pockets of vote fraud. I figure that if each vote was connected to a name, it would be much more difficult to simply walk into the tally room with a bag of marked ballots that were somehow ‘forgotten’.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 11:40 pm
There were 37 Chicago precincts in the recent election in which Romney scored zero votes.
Philadelphia voted 100 percent for Obama, with 100 percent voter turnout.
dd
21 Nov 12 at 11:41 pm
“The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.”
(Wiki says the earliest confirmed use of this is by Henning Webb Prentis, Jr., President of the Armstrong Cork Company.)
The people have learned to vote themselves largesse.
Ellen of Tasmania
22 Nov 12 at 9:06 am
I once spoke to a scrutineer for a Liberal party candidate who won by 200 votes or so. One ballot paper had the the letters ‘s’ ‘h’ ‘i”t’ written in the first four squares. The third square was opposite the Liberal candidate’s name. The Liberal scrutineers argued successfully that the ‘i’ was in fact a ’1′. Because there is optional preferential voting in NSW, it doesn’t matter if the voter cocks up the ‘numbering’ in the other squares, if he/she puts a ’1′ in a single square the vote is valid.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 9:29 am
Numbers
I distinctly remember profoundly deaf children being in normal classes and special classes in state primary schools in NSW before 1972.
SO I think you are gilding the lily with your assertion that Goough made any difference. Remeber Gough was Federal politician and education is the reponsibility of the States.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 9:36 am
The first thing to do is to disenfranchise public servants (except, police, firemen and smilitary personnel;)and anyone receiving unemployment benefits.
It makes sense that if you receive the majority of you payment from the Government you should not be able to be able to influence Government spending decisions, unless you are risking your life or person on the community’s behalf.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 9:47 am
“There were 37 Chicago precincts in the recent election in which Romney scored zero votes.
Philadelphia voted 100 percent for Obama, with 100 percent voter turnout.”
Astonishing, isn’t it? What a segregated society.
Jarrah
22 Nov 12 at 11:00 am
“Well it’s not a problem here but the US seems to have pockets of vote fraud.”
Individual voter fraud is negligible. What is of concern are all the other threats to electoral integrity, like politicians making their own electorates, the institutionalised bribery system that is political lobbying, the lack of transparency and accountability in the hodge-podge that are their election systems, and the effort parties go to in order to suppress the opposition vote (not to mention the built-in disincentives).
That last is only possible when voting is voluntary, as it happens.
Jarrah
22 Nov 12 at 11:08 am
@rococco etc
Perhaps – but by exception. The fact is that prior to Whitlam this cohort of the population had no right to access schooling and were in schools as a gift of charity. I am familiar with the Qld scene, but any history of the disability sector will reveal a similar pattern nationally. Suggest you read Geoffrey Swan’s Ph D thesis (University of Qld) for a snapshot of the Qld scene.
I saw the transition in progress in Queensland between 1971 and 1980. I was part of it, and it required a cultural change on the part of many teachers. I had a gentleman on my staff who told me that if I enrolled a child with Down Syndrome at my school he would leave.
I did and he left.
1735099
22 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
Yes, its probably more indicative of how racially and class segregated some neighbourhoods are. Many of those were pretty much poor black neighbourhoods. And very similar results have occurred in previous elections.
Allowing governors to set electoral boundaries within their state to whatever they want has got to be on of the more stupid aspects of the US electoral system. It explains how Republicans can lose the popular vote in the Congress and yet still get a majority of the seats in the House.
In Pennsylvania, the Democrats got 5% more votes than the Republicans, and yet only won 5 of the 18 Congressional seats. That sort of result really brings into question how legitimate the Republican house majority is.
Chris
22 Nov 12 at 12:31 pm
I don’t know that I’d make the exclusion even then. Once you start making exclusions they tend to grow.
Also, everyone should get the vote in the lower house – that is for representation, and it’s not a principle you want lost either.
Different houses, different principles, different conditions for electors.
DriftForge
22 Nov 12 at 12:55 pm
Numbers
You still don’t say how Gough had anything to do with the change of culture in Qld regarding the education of disabled children.
You even gave the start date of the change as 1971, when Gorton and the McMahon were in the Lodge. Did you mention Gough because of the timing of the change? Could it you are guilty of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 2:07 pm
Driftforge
Your idea of restricting the vote only in the Senate has some merit.
But if we did that, the Senate’s power to reject or hold up Money Bills must be written into the Constitution. If it is left to convnetion, I can just see Lefty MHRs arguing that the Senate shouldn’t be allowed to overrule the lower house, as the Senate franchise is narrower than the ‘democratically’ elected house.
I would therefore argue that it is the House of Reps for which the vote is restiricted and the Senate for which everyone over 18 who isn’t a felon can vote. Then I would leave the Senate’s power as bound by convention as it is now. You could still then argue that the Senate isn’t any more democratic than the lower House because of the Statewide electorates for the Upper House. A system with this little bit of grit in it (adided by the continued existence of the Monarchy which adds a bit more of a question re legitimacy) would make our politcal arrangement really first class. We would also drop compulsory voting (or more accurately compulsory putting a ballot paper in the ballot box).
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 2:20 pm
You people talk such proto-fascist nonsense when you try to strip away the fundamental rights of citizens.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 2:29 pm
1971 coincides with my discharge and entry into special education. I was in a very good position to observe events because I was part of them. I developed a design brief for a school in 1983 and used the UN declaration of the rights of the child as part of the basis for the brief. It was also based on the Whitlam legislative reforms. This brief was successful but it took until 1987 for the school to be built because the Qld govt of the day stuffed around with the Commonwealth grant which again was predicated in the Labor reforms under Whitlam. In 1987 i had the great good fortune to open (as founding principal) the school (built at Mundingburra in Townsville) for $2.8 million, lots of dosh in those days.
Incidentally, you read like a lawyer.
Had lots of fun last year with one of your profession when I was pro bono advocate for a lad with a disability who had been treated very badly by a very posh private school.
We won the case (hearing before HREOC) in the first 5 minutes because the school’s very expensive brief had no knowledge of the application of the relevant legislation.
The refund of fees and apology to the lad’s father was gratifying.
Your gratuitous use of the dead language to cast doubt at my reading of history is entertaining, but irrelevant. I’m iPadding on the road so can’t link, but Google Geoff Swan’s paper. You’ll find it backs up everything I’ve posted.
1735099
22 Nov 12 at 2:36 pm
Rococo – interesting inversion of the houses there. I’d go with your first option, and do the constitutional changes such that appropriation bills can only originate in the senate.
This can be done at a state level, and through the state delegation to the senate a degree of control placed over the federal government.
Actually, what we are talking about here is the re-establishment of the fundamental right of those who are paying the bills to have a say in how big those bills are.
DriftForge
22 Nov 12 at 2:58 pm
You are out of your mind Chris.
The Dems got 225 000 more votes nationwide.
Look at CA-11.
George Miller won by a huge margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2012#District_11
152 690 votes for Miller (Dem)
68 160 votes for Fuller (GOP)
That’s 84 510 popular votes in the House alone from ONE district alone, out of 435.
.
22 Nov 12 at 3:00 pm
Varieties of property qualification have not and never have been a fundamental right.
They were the product of laws designed by the privileged to protect their position by force if necessary.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 3:01 pm
Yeah right dickhead previously you reckoned you were a teacher in remote areas and the sun shone out of your arse in those poor, remote communities. Somehting like “the school ought to be the focal point of community life”.
More pathological lying. Lawyers are stupid. Private schools offer poor service. I’m smarter than lawyers and beat them in court cases in five minutes.
Fuckwit.
.
22 Nov 12 at 3:03 pm
Voting isn’t a fundamental right, it’s a privilege given us by the Monarch so she can justify obtaining supply from us in the form of taxation.
The only fundamental right involved in this discussion, Scapula, is the fundamental right of a person to keep what is his and not be forced to give it up to someone else as a result of the promise of lots of freebies for the weak-willed and the indigent.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 3:08 pm
You’ll find it backs up everything I’ve posted.
Fantastic life experiences 1735099. People who have lived with a tale worth recounting and reading are a rare treat on blogs.
You’re right about the pre-Whitlam treatment of disabled/handicapped kids in the school system in Qld and presumably other states. They simply weren’t there.
catnip
22 Nov 12 at 3:09 pm
The rich and the powerful, corporates mainly but also individuals, benefit the most from state largesse.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 3:10 pm
Surely all sighted humans read in the same way, i.e. with their eyes. SO your statement is as uselsss as saying; “you breathe like an ornithologist”
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 3:12 pm
Ah the old lie about the ‘rich’ and the corporates getting something from the state. Is that why the aged care, health and social security expenditures are by far the biggest Commonwealth budget expenditures?
It is quite clear that Government largesse is being used to buy votes of the less well off to rip money off from the the better off.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 3:20 pm
You’ve jsut admitted that the rich and powerful benefit from state largesse, but just not quite as much.
Howard used to specialise in ‘middle class welfare’, which is only called such by the right after the Liberals lose power.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 3:22 pm
Surely all sighted humans read in the same way, i.e. with their eyes.
The dumbest assertion I’ve seen in a long while.
The stupid: it burns.
catnip
22 Nov 12 at 3:25 pm
I don’t think that’s true. If you look at the presidential popular vote, the Democrats got about 3 million more votes than the Republicans nationwide. Look at Pennsylvania for the House specifically:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/house/pennsylvania/
The Democrats got about 2.7 million votes (for the House), and the Republicans about about 2.65 million. But the Republicans ended up with 13 house seats and the Democrats 5. How did this occur? The Democrats won their districts with 60-85% of the vote – 2 were won with 85% of the popular vote. The districts that the Republicans won were won with popular votes of 51-65%.
So the Democrats get > 50% of the popular vote, but only 27% of the house seats.
Do you really think that was just good luck on behalf of the Republicans or perhaps there’s a bit of gerrymandering going on….?
Chris
22 Nov 12 at 3:27 pm
Obviously this is true, but do you know the the mechanism by which that is obtained?
DriftForge
22 Nov 12 at 3:37 pm
Fools don’t like to stand out?
DriftForge
22 Nov 12 at 3:40 pm
“Do you really think that was just good luck on behalf of the Republicans or perhaps there’s a bit of gerrymandering going on….?”
The Democrats do it too. Just not as much, but that’s not for want of trying.
In any event, from a practical point of view McGhee has a plausible claim that:
And there’s this important point:
Jarrah
22 Nov 12 at 3:50 pm
Scapula
You said that cororates and rich individuals benefited most from the largesse of the state. The when I prove you wrong you say that’s OK because the rich and the corporations get some largesse, and the government pays the middle classes some welfare.
Your response is the response of the typical illogical lefty.
Rococo Liberal
22 Nov 12 at 4:02 pm
Prove wrong? – you just muttered your displeasure! – these facts concerning the state largesse that corporates and the well off receive are well known but I made no comparative assessment.
My statement stands unchallenged and no comparative assessment can contradict it. It has to be challenged on its merits, and you can’t just change the question.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 4:14 pm
From today’s press but it could be any day of the week:
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 5:20 pm
What is wrong with that? These other countries want to be the home of these multinational firms and are willing to compete more aggressively for their business. Furhermore, these companies don’t exist to give money to the Australian government.
John Mc
22 Nov 12 at 5:36 pm
OMG OMG OMG, how dare a company act in the interests of itself and its shareholders.
How dare they stop having the money they earned forcibly taken by the government.
Carpe Jugulum
22 Nov 12 at 5:48 pm
Google – they spy on us, steal our data, take our money and pay no taxes.
Sounds like a good deal!
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 6:01 pm
Don’t use them if you’re not happy. They are incredibly responsive to customer sentiment.
John Mc
22 Nov 12 at 6:05 pm
Taxis want to audiotape your conversations now, so there won’t be an alternative taxi service will there?
I can’t remember authorizing Google to invade my privacy, and theyve admitted to that already.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 6:11 pm
You are out of your fucking mind. Look at the House votes and not Presidential votes. They have single member, winner takes all electorates.
So what? They don’t have PR. Why compare it to Presidential votes which uses the antiquated, barely applicable EV system and doesn’t use local or national preferential voting?
Let’s assume that PR is the be all and end all. The US LP got 1.63% of the vote in 2000 and got zero out of 435 seats. By rights, they should have gotten seven seats.
Presuming they would have gotten nominally GOP seats, the House in 2001 and 2002 would have looked like this:
GOP 214
Dems 213
LP 7
Ind 1
Well actually the Greens might have gotten 1 seat and the Indeps/others (Reform, Constitutionalist etc) might have blown out to about 25-30 seats.
They would have held the balance of power. They key issue in America is that they don’t use preferential voting of any kind (in a significant manner).
The Senate could weigh votes as an inverse of average population per Senator to appoint by a list if they really wanted to (it would be convoluted but it could be done without an amendment. We could do the same here (and although simpler might require a referendum).
The US 2012 results for the US House
Democratic 49.0%
Republican 48.2%
Libertarian 1.2%
Green 0.35%
Democratic 213 seats
Republican 210 seats
Libertarian 5 seats
Green 2 seats
Ind (past performance) 2 seats
Const. 3 seats
It’s likely the GOP would be the majority even if the Indeps. broke left.
.
22 Nov 12 at 6:19 pm
The Netherlands is also the place where James Hardie decamped to in order to try to avoid their legal obligations.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 6:28 pm
That explains the suspicous looking character in the lamplight. Oh wait – i don’t use google. mmmmmmmm, the plot thickens.
Carpe Jugulum
22 Nov 12 at 6:47 pm
No they didn’t you fuck knuckle. They set up a fund which wasn’t solvent (to ostensibily deal with such obligations).
.
22 Nov 12 at 7:06 pm
They decamped to the Netherlands while leaving behind an insolvent fund, so they might have had other reasons for decamping as well, (it does appear a tax haven of choice according to the ATO), but I don’t have access to the vast and disgusting obscurity of their thoughts.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 7:13 pm
You’re an idiot.
They went there before they (as part of) the attempt to list in the US. During the same process, they set up the fund.
They screwed up and it ended badly for them.
.
22 Nov 12 at 7:35 pm
You’re just an apologist, so drone on with your ‘oops we just made a little mistake that we really didn’t mean’.
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 8:05 pm
Coming from a Google conspiracy theorist i shall do the only reasonable thing.
aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Carpe Jugulum
22 Nov 12 at 8:22 pm
By the way, the reason I made the earlier error about Australia’s uniqueness in having compulsory voting is because John Hirst said this in a talk I listened to – or to be more precise, I recall him saying it.
Perhaps I misheard.
At any rate, I lazily assumed that what I heard in Hirsts talk was accurate. Hirst, by the way, is against compulsory voting.
dd
22 Nov 12 at 9:00 pm
I never said that dickhead. I said they stuffed up and paid a high price for it.
You don’t read well, do you, bloated northern beaches whale, Bob?
.
22 Nov 12 at 9:19 pm
I read when someone has something to say, and you don’t!
Scapula
22 Nov 12 at 10:03 pm
You are a stupid fat fuck who got the chronology wrong. How about another essay about how it is important to find our gay side?
.
22 Nov 12 at 10:11 pm
No doubt. The only reason they don’t do it more is because they can’t. Its the electoral system itself which is flawed. The independence of the Australian Electoral Commission is something we should be very proud of. Complaints about bias or corruption by any of the political parties are extremely rare.
btw its worth reading the comments on that post. Someone pointed out that his assumptions do have one flaw in that they assume that the 2008 district boundaries were neutral. The analysis that the commenter links to is quite interesting.
That may be true that the GOP would still have a majority, but it would be tiny and very vulnerable to defections depending on the actual legislation unlike the 30 seat majority.
And one party (whether they be Republican or Democrat) getting 50% of the popular vote, but less than 30% of the seats in a state is not a particularly healthy sign in a democracy.
Chris
22 Nov 12 at 11:40 pm
If compulsory voting gets a better turnout and higher rates of voting, then it’s a good thing WRT statistics, since it gets a bigger sample.
wreckage
23 Nov 12 at 2:23 am
If you have safe seats that you win by large numbers, this is gonna happen. Lesser examples kept Bob Carr in power in NSW.
wreckage
23 Nov 12 at 2:32 am
Yes, distribution is never going to be perfect especially where there are strong geographic differences (urban/rural) in voting patterns. And the electoral commission can only adjust the boundaries so often.
Still, if the ALP ends up with 70% of the lower house seats next election with less than 50% of the popular vote I predict there will be riots around here about the illegitimacy of the Gillard government
Chris
23 Nov 12 at 10:05 am
If compulsory voting gets a better turnout and higher rates of voting, then it’s a good thing WRT statistics, since it gets a bigger sample.
This notion is debatable as well. It’s like the ‘Observer Effect’; you probably shouldn’t expect that you’ve got the same result by forcing people to turn up, that you would have got if they had all of turned up voluntarily. The most obvious reason is that some people are definitely just voting randomly, and there’s almost certainly a myriad of more subtle effects on someones decision on where to put the ’1′. Although you will get a higher percentage of the population turning out, you are probably not getting the same thing you would have got in a voluntary election, you are getting another thing. How much greater or lesser value or meaning that ‘thing’ has is subject to another debate, but you can be pretty much certain method A is not the same thing as method B.
Then there’s the people who don’t turn up, of which I can include myself. I would vote from time to time if it was voluntary, but because it’s not I’ve stayed off the electoral roll because I don’t want to vote every time and I’m willing to accept the cost that I never will be able to vote for a candidate I do like (unless they’re exceptional and I go and enrol, which I will do if they are exceptional). There are 1.5 million people in this country who are eligible to be on the electoral roll but aren’t, out of a total eligible voting population of less than 15million (I think it’s around 12 million but that does seem low). How many of them are like me? Do you still think that result is now more representative of the community?
Overall, the Australian democracy is quite OK, but really there’s not much special about it in any particular area.
John Mc
23 Nov 12 at 4:38 pm
[...] brain seems to be stuck in legal mode as a result of exams, and so a recent post by Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy grabbed my interest. In the post he claims that its illegal to [...]
Interpretive Pedantry « Navigating the Informationscape
25 Nov 12 at 2:12 pm