This is principally a response to, according to CL, “[s]imply the most deranged rant I’ve read for months. And it’s by a ‘Liberal.’
If a right indicates anything it is the freedom to do/ say or refrain from doing/ saying this rather than that. This is abundantly clear where we are thinking of the right of association. Such a right plainly means the right to be or not to be a member of this or that voluntary, intermediate, association whether that association is a church, business or trade association, sporting club, trade union, and so on. To impose such membership upon an individual, thus not making this a decision of his/ her own, is to dissolve the link between belief and conduct. To oblige a citizen to be member of any or all of these associations would be deemed undemocratic. The same should, of course, be true where it involves the right to vote as, indeed, it is.
It has been said, as a means of circumventing this argument, that we are not obligated to vote so much as obligated to attend a voting booth. Not only this, but that the government, “critically, does not mandate what one must do” once we are in the voting booth. Both these arguments are related and specious. No one would take either argument seriously if it was applied to any of our other rights. If the law obligated us to attend and participate in religious services – I’m thinking of freedom of religion here and not of association – but did not obligate us to believe anything that was said therein, no one would regard this as at all a serious defense, let alone as preserving the link between belief and conduct. Further, the claim that because such a law also did not obligate us to attend any particular religious service but left such a decision to each citizen, we would still not find this a remotely satisfactory defense of such an obligation or as preserving the link between belief and conduct.
As I said in a previous comment, the claim that such a law “critically, does not mandate what one must do” has an Oakeshottian ring to it. He believed that laws adverbially qualify our actions, so when driving the law adverbial qualifies, within reason, how we drive. So, it follows, that the rules of the road oblige us to drive on the left or right and not over the speed limit or significantly below it, and so on, but they don’t suggest what destination we must travel to when driving. So far, so good, however, Oakeshott importantly also argued that these adverbial qualifications, like the rules of the road do not command us to drive, to register to drive, to be at such and such an intersection on a particular day, or even to drive on a particular day, but this is precisely what our system of compulsory voting requires of us. Laws, properly understood, are not commands but rules that adverbially qualify an action or utterance of our own choosing. So compulsory voting is not only completely out of character with the nature of a right, it also goes beyond what any typical law requires of us; so much so that compulsory voting subverts both law and right.
It would probably be remiss of me not to address the substantive argument typically made by proponents of compulsory voting as a counter to the above; namely, that political participation is a public good that would materially suffer under a system of voluntary voting and that this would unduly harm the interests of those most marginalised and not coincidentally least likely to vote in such a system. There is something to said for this argument but it does not, I think, defeat the criticisms raised above. Political participation is certainly a public good but there are a number of public goods that we do not enforce by means of law. Marriage is a public good, but it is no where compulsory. There is also something to be said against this argument; those least likely to vote are also likely to be the least informed about politics and there are very good reasons why we should not be press-ganging those least informed into a voting booth because they are easy prey for demagogues.
OPV is a bloody great system as you do not have to preference EVERYONE on the ticket. Imagine if a neo-nazi party were on the ticket and you HAD to preference them; would this imply implicit approval (even if you preferenced them last?).
However, a fine for not voting or turning up to have your name signed off is a bit rich.
Lysander Spooner
4 Jan 13 at 10:44 am
Is not a vote just a charade.
You dont get to vote for all the people who can control you – unions, town clerks , certain kind of judges and even protesters.
Voting gives the populace the feel of control otherwise they might want their guns back.
john malpas
4 Jan 13 at 10:50 am
John – do you mean the “faceless men?”
http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview/?pi=nla.aus-vn2247771-1
Lysander Spooner
4 Jan 13 at 10:59 am
There is a simple solution to this, already done in areas like Logan city: Just change the penalty for not voting to $0 (or proclaim that non voting fines will simply not be issued or collected).
mundi
4 Jan 13 at 11:01 am
Compulsory voting, but no fine or absolutely minimal fine is the way to go.
I think it’s important young people realise that voting gives them a say. If they’re allowed to slack off they will never know.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 11:03 am
Also the law clearly says we have to mark a ballot properly and cast a vote. Even though there is no possible way to police this law, its still a law. Casting a donkey vote is technically illegal, so the law requires more than you just going to the voting place.
The other aspect that some people are missing is that non compulsory voting will require ID’s to be presented – and this is what the left most fear. The poor and lazy are not likely to bother keeping and taking the ID paper that the electoral commission will send them – and thus they will not be able to cast a vote.
mundi
4 Jan 13 at 11:04 am
Voting is “compulsory” in 23 countries but the requirement to vote is only enforced in 10,including such beacons of Democracy as Peru,Singapore, Uruguay,Argentina,Brazil,Ecuador and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of course Australia and Naru.
Lew
4 Jan 13 at 11:08 am
Good post, Dover. I was of the compulsory vote side until I read the arguments against forcing people to attend a polling booth when first I stumbled over this site.
The beauty of this is, of course, that even those who are least informed can still vote under the voluntary scheme. It’s their choice and let’s face it, with the ALP Union Green government promising handouts even those least informed will trottle along on election day to ensure their handouts continue. It is undemocratic and paternalistic to force people to vote.
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 11:10 am
Jury duty is a public good that we obtain through compulsion. It is a greater or lesser public good than democracy? Or conscription. Or taxation. Discuss.
FM
4 Jan 13 at 11:18 am
Barnaby Joyce is certainly a strange mixture, he opposes this move to grant citizens voting freedom. But then having already exercised that freedom by not having ever voted in a government election I guess I’m unqualified to comment.
Chris M
4 Jan 13 at 11:39 am
FM: Jury duty is not a ‘public good’ when you are in the middle of a multi-million dollar project!
It is also not a ‘public good’ when cases drag on for days and days on end without resolution not on the fault of the accused or accuser but because court bureaucracy is so lame and slow (i.e. having a decision ready just prior to afternoon tea break and the regulated conditions stipulating tea break MUST be taken instead of just getting it over with!).
There are some ways “out of” jury duty but it is pretty hard. It too should be voluntary.
Lysander Spooner
4 Jan 13 at 11:40 am
@FM, Jury duty should be a voluntary activity. You want to be a juror, then register your name at your local courthouse. There should be no compulsion at all. If you no longer wish to be a juror or your circumstances have changed that you cannot commit the time, then go back to your local courthouse to have your name withdrawn from the list.
Ditto for voting. There should be no compulsion to vote. My understanding was that Australia only adopted compulsory voting because of its small population – that excuse simply doesn’t hold water any more. It is not very democratic to have compulsory voting.
A Lurker
4 Jan 13 at 11:43 am
It’s another one of those issues where I’ve done a complete 180° turn.
I see no rationale for compelling the uncaring, disinterested, disengaged and resentful to cast a vote when they don’t perceive any benefit for themselves or anyone else in doing so.
It’s nonsensical.
However, voluntary voting might actually lead to a more reasoned debate.
Imagine if the major parties had to actually present an inspiring alternative and cajole your vote rather than relying on a very simple, very scary message (the carbon tax is the end of life as we know it / Tony Abbott is a dangerous Catholic who hates women and workers /unless we end Western civilisation, the planet will fry) in the hope that it might sway you just before you tick the ballot box?
Republicans lost in the US because they didn’t put up a candidate who inspired and enthused their base with a passionate defence of small government principles.
Perhaps if they had done so, the base would have turned out in numbers sufficient to demonstrate they wanted a change?
There is no public interest argument I have seen which suggests compelling someone to make a choice for political candidates when they would actually rather make none, is better for democracy.
Jim from Brisbane
4 Jan 13 at 11:46 am
Democracy only works if you participate. However, if you are sufficiently happy that the system of democracy alone is enough, then forcing you to elect people to tinker around the edges of that system should not be compulsory. If your pissed off about the tinkering, then you have the right for your vote to be counted.
After all, apathy is not illegal.
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 11:48 am
Barnaby Joyce bests what I thought was the most deranged rant I’d read in months.
He says we must have compulsory voting or racism.
Also:
Note that Joyce and O’Farrell define “responsibility” to mean ‘something the government must force people to do under threat of jail.’
C.L.
4 Jan 13 at 11:51 am
Great effort Barnaby. Suck up to the left with even more deranged talk about this.
JC
4 Jan 13 at 11:57 am
I like compulsory voting. I also think it should be compulsory for all citizens to stand on one leg for 10 minutes every Friday at noon. Failure to comply without a reasonable excuse punishable by a fine of $150.
Steve of Ferny Hills
4 Jan 13 at 12:00 pm
True, however “responsibility” no longer remains that personal virtue once the state forces it’s citizenry to act under threat of penalty. In which case, “responsibility” is taken away forcefully by the state treating its constituents like belligerent teenagers.
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 12:03 pm
I agree that jury duty can be much more onerous than compulsory voting. Yet it is a feature of every Western democracy I’m aware of. My point is, compulsory voting is not nearly as awful in comparison to some other “compulsory” public goods that are commonly (and mostly unquestionably) accepted, and even the author of this piece agrees that it is a public good.
Then there’s the whole change of dynamic that comes with political parties trying to “turn out” their base for voluntary voting. Political parties need more money for all of that and hence become even more corruptible and/or draw more heavily on the public purse. Do we really want that? In comparison to some countries, is our system all that awful?
I’m not a huge fan of compulsion in public policy either, but this I think I can live with when I consider the alternatives.
FM
4 Jan 13 at 12:04 pm
Nope all wrong. Voting of any description is an implicit agreement to diminish your rights in favour of the man being voted for.
Joe
4 Jan 13 at 12:30 pm
Candy, kids quickly learn about the rights that they care about – such as how old they have to be to be able to drink, and to take out a driver’s licence. They value making their independent decisions about these things.
They may value their right to vote if they actually have to think about it rather than have it imposed. When they start to live independently in the world and to see value in voting, and care enough to register to vote and actually do vote, then they are ‘fit’ to vote, imho.
Better, and politically neutral, civics classes in schools (outlining the basic institutions of parliamentary democracy) would be a useful step too. There are risks here though given the nature of the people who might run these courses.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
4 Jan 13 at 12:37 pm
Jury duty is, as the term indicates, not a right. Neither is conscription, and neither is taxation. They are, like being called to be a member of a jury in a trial, duties.
Agreed. Of course people have a responsibility to vote, all things being equal, but this is properly considered a moral responsibility owed by citizens and not a legal responsibility.
dover_beach
4 Jan 13 at 12:43 pm
I’m not using public good in its economic sense.
dover_beach
4 Jan 13 at 12:50 pm
Remove compulsory voting and the preferential system so that at the very least the people who bother to vote at least know their vote is not traded for some backroom deal.First past the post wins,just how many politicans do you think would vote for that ??? very few I would imagine.
bicheno trenny
4 Jan 13 at 1:12 pm
Mundi – it is a common misconception which drives me mad. A donkey vote IS NOT an informal vote! It is a vote in which electors number, say, 1 through to 4 in order or the candidates listed as they are on the ballot paper. Thus making it hard to differentiate as to whether someone was a “donkey” or really intended to vote that way.
If you mean “illegal” to informally vote as in not filling out a piece of paper, well that is a totally different set of circumstances as you are really just required to sign your name of the electoral list as having attended – after that you can walk straight to the ballot box and put a blank vote in and will not be fined.
Lysander Spooner
4 Jan 13 at 1:17 pm
It won’t happen of course but full marks to the LNP for starting a debate. I refuse to be forced to go to a polling booth to get my name crossed off so I can vote informal so I haven’t voted for 42 years.
Swan, Gillard, that Liberal clown and others seem to think that you can’t have a democracy without compulsory voting.
Idiots!
If they do introduce it I might just vote. But then again I might not. The choice finally would be mine. As it should be in a liberal democracy.
Grant B
4 Jan 13 at 1:23 pm
According to an article in the Australian, Swan is opposed to optional voting, characterising it as reminiscent of the ‘Joh’ era – I am not sure how.
But what is certain is that he is opposed to it – therefore it must be the best way to go.
Toiling Mass
4 Jan 13 at 1:35 pm
Gab:
Good point. In the same way welfarism has evaporated personal responsibility on the one hand, and the personal virtue of charity on the other.
Jannie
4 Jan 13 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Jim of Brisbane. I was once an ardent supporter of compulsory voting but that changed when I began womanning polling booths handing-out how to vote cards for various friends. The absolute ignorance of voters, particularly young voters who don’t know the difference between the Senate and the House of Reps blew me away — now I am all for voluntary voting.
Wayne Swan paddled into the discussion yesterday immediately fouled the discussion. Every time he opens his mouth the drop in IQ points is audible.
Imagine pretending that a person’s right to vote is under threat.
Tintarella di Luna
4 Jan 13 at 1:53 pm
I support compulsory voting/turnout and I would be a Liberal supporter. You don’t have to agree to everything that the fixed label you have been given or he party that you a member of/support.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 1:53 pm
“Better, and politically neutral, civics classes in schools (outlining the basic institutions of parliamentary democracy) would be a useful step too”
Lizzie, I think that’s a great idea too.
but I still go with it being a resonsibility to vote.
If kids don’t vote to start with it’s unlikely they’ll ever vote, unless they get sucked into some weird minority party and become Green zealots or something.
candy
4 Jan 13 at 1:58 pm
Little by little, Barnaby Joyce is starting to piss me off.
Kaboom
4 Jan 13 at 1:59 pm
Andrew, the question is here is really whether one can at once support compulsory voting AND the right to vote. The argument I’ve made is that you cannot coherently do so. You may believe that compulsory voting is fine but if you do you have judged voting to be something other than a right.
dover_beach
4 Jan 13 at 2:04 pm
As for jury trials, it astounds me how many people see this as a beacon of “public good” – seriously, how would you appreciate your very liberty being determined by twelve people who are too stupid to even get out of jury duty?
Kaboom
4 Jan 13 at 2:05 pm
Jury duty is not a right, but trial by jury is.
Service in the military is not a right, but living in a free and secure country is.
Taxation is not a right, but having a government that carries out certain basic functions is.
It does not follow that a law requiring you to carry out your responsibilities, infringes on the right from which those responsibilities stem.
“Right of Association” does not determine what you must do if you choose to be a member of a group…. only that you have the right to not be a member if you refuse to conform with the laws of that group. It means that if you don’t respect the laws of this country, you are free to leave it.
This does not mean that I’m in favour of compulsory voting – and I see just as many problems where voting is optional – but I see nothing in the arguments so far advanced logically demonstrating that compulsory voting is contrary to democracy or human rights.
Peter
4 Jan 13 at 2:06 pm
Barnaby certainly does not fit many of the economic views of free market liberals on this blog. He still holds many protectionist views economically.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 2:07 pm
DB…
I don’t believe that you have established that voting cannot be both a right and a duty at the same time.
Peter
Peter
4 Jan 13 at 2:11 pm
Based on outcomes delivered in the EU (and recently in the US), I’m not sure that voluntary voting has much to recommend it.
Seems like extremists such as getup, trade unions, hard core Greens and the like would agitate a high voter turn out from their supporters whilst regular folk would (Howard’s battlers) will stay home.
As a citizen one of your duties is to vote for your political representative, if you don’t like it than either an invalid vote or renounce your citizenship(and associate duties).
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 2:16 pm
I personally think that compulsory voting/turnout achieves a more representative result and I believe that as Cory stated, people at GetUp who think gay marriage is an important issue would still vote in droves and Howard’s battlers wouldn’t, even though they would prefer a Coalition Government than a Labor/Green Government. That is one of the main reasons I support compulsory voting.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 2:24 pm
Barnaby is developing Tim Fischer syndrome.
He wants to be loved by the people who watch the ABC.
C.L.
4 Jan 13 at 2:25 pm
LOL, Barnaby always has openly criticised the ALPBC.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 2:29 pm
I said he wants to be loved by the people who watch the ABC.
C.L.
4 Jan 13 at 2:31 pm
My comment still applies. Did you watch his last QandA episode appearance? He certainly knew that he wasn’t going to be loved by the audience yet still debated hard for his cause.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 2:34 pm
CL – I say that I am happy to chance “volenti non fit injuria”
Lysander Spooner
4 Jan 13 at 2:38 pm
Peter, yes, that is because the right you speak of is the right to a jury trial, not the right to jury duty. I have no problem with compelling people, within reason, to participate in the trial of their peers. But, such a responsibility, jury duty, does not infringe our right to a “trial by jury”. The former is implied in the latter; this, however is not the case re compulsory voting.
I’m not sure what your point is in your third paragraph.
Voting cannot be both a legal right and duty simultaneously. If we have a legal right to vote this right must also involve the liberty to refrain from voting; in other words, we have the liberty of choosing for ourselves whether to vote or not. However, if we are legally obligated to vote, we no longer have the liberty of voting or not. Therefore, we cannot simultaneous enjoy a legal right and duty to vote. However, while we may enjoy a legal right to vote, you might well argue that we have a moral responsibility to vote and the two are compatible because the link between belief and conduct is here preserved.
dover_beach
4 Jan 13 at 2:43 pm
I rather like compulsory nonvoting. Hardly anyone should be allowed to vote and even those who are must first complete a general knowledge quiz, IQ test, spelling bee, ropes course, cross country run, and three rounds in the ring with Danny Green. All on election day. We don’t want Labor riff raff deciding elections. Also, we need a 100 metre exclusion zone around polling stations against union officials only to stop ballot fraud.
Fisky
4 Jan 13 at 2:45 pm
Andrew
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 2:58 pm
Andrew
Just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion?
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 2:59 pm
Tim Fisher scored himself a nice little earner at the Vatican didn’t he? Better than some toad infested backwater in Queensland! (disclosure : I am a Sandgroper)
Woolfe
4 Jan 13 at 3:04 pm
Actually, Fisky is getting to the nub of it.
Qualified franchise to vote.
I have always maintained that “one man – one vote” has been a disaster (witness the Socialist governments that have been sent to plague us on a regular basis since Federation..) and we should, as a society, move to a better system.
My idea of a better system is “those who pay – have the say”.
Basically, in the weeks before a Federal election, the AEC sends you a document with a coded bar-code showing your personal income tax payments for the previous three years, to be handed over when voting.
Effectively, this will give you a “vote value” when compared with all other voters in your electorate.
Of course, if you paid little or no income tax (as a result of tax avoidance, or simply just sitting on your arse) then your vote is not worth very much. Sorry.
In a non-compulsory system, it will take a little bit of computer tweaking to work out the “vote value” that you personally have, compared with everyone else who bothered to vote in your electorate. Not impossible by any means.
Note that in a compulsory voting system, it is a dead easy calculation. This may well be a valid argument in favour of the status quo.
Every elector will get a “vote value” to back their preferred candidate.
This is how democracy should be defined … let those who pay have the say.
Simple, elegant, and efficient.
Kaboom
4 Jan 13 at 3:04 pm
You vote National/Country Party/Katter Fruitloops, you’re voting for a Big Government agrarian socialist.
Tom
4 Jan 13 at 3:11 pm
those least likely to vote are also likely to be the least informed about politics
Is that true? Or just an assumption. I reckon being informed about politics probably drives many people to want to not vote. And those who do vote because ‘informed’ might be able to discuss this or that issue or episode or courtier’s blunders and victories but more often than not their discourse is simply the regurgitation of the line as distributed by a media pundit or two.
Still this is all academic because the motivation for scrapping compulsory voting has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with an expectation that the ALP’s supporters won’t show at the polls in such large numbers. Moreover that the youth protest vote which ends up with the Greens will be eradicated.
The comparison with compulsory attendance at Church, a practice that used to be traditional in America, is specious. Compelling voters to exercise the franchise is an infringement on their liberty to associate, sort of (we can’t freely choose to disassociate ourselves from governance entire can we?) but it ensures that the will of all the people is expressed, it also cuts down on the incentives to bribery and brouhaha that the US is prone to.
This is quite a gain for a small cost; it’s hardly fascism is it? What would be gained by making religious attendance mandatory save perhaps a surge in the number of secular humanists?
Adrien
4 Jan 13 at 3:11 pm
Having read the piece by Nick McGowan yesterday, I was reminded of the mechanism of a firing squad. That is, a group of men are gathered to execute a death sentence. They each have a gun but only one has a live bullet. Each can rest assured that they didn’t “kill” the prisoner. It’s a brilliant technique only an authoritarian could think of.
The logic is the same with Mr McGowan, we have to attend the voting booth but we don’t have to vote. What is worrying is that he could extend this so called “thinking” to any public policy. I’m guessing Mr McGowan would be a fan of libertarian paternalism as posited by Thaler and Sunstein in “Nudge“.
Scott
4 Jan 13 at 3:16 pm
Tom,
No argument whatsoever. These people are despicable, in terms of their self-interest.
It’s just that I had thought that Barnaby had exhibited some modicum of intelligence and independent thought, and that there was some hope for the agrarian rump of the conservatives (who in decades past used to be the backbone of the Labor Party, you might recall).
Now I see it as “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here”.
This probably does not auger well for the conservative coalition.
Kaboom
4 Jan 13 at 3:27 pm
Happy new year, Adrien.
Nice to see you.
C.L.
4 Jan 13 at 3:31 pm
Some of these arguments remind me of the legalising drugs debate. That if we legalise heroin, everybody is going to quit their jobs, buy a needle and get on the crank.
If we make it voluntary voting, everybody will get into apathy mode and we will have a voter turn out of 20%. Somehow, magically, if political parties have to spend more to get people into voting booths it will corrupt the system, because, through magic, politicians will no longer be held accountable for the promises they make and the policies they enact.
It ain’t Gunna happen.
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 3:35 pm
Yes, I was making a general statement; and yes, there would be times where the current state of politics would provide an opportunity to those particularly interested in politics to refrain from voting.
My arguments are not motivated by any such thing and as the US and Britain, for instance, clearly attest, voluntary voting does not prevent left or centre-left parties from achieving government.
If they are not showing up under present conditions where voting is voluntary to actually vote, they are only purportedly ALP supporters.
You haven’t shown this at all. If freedom of religion (or right to vote) mean anything it must also involve the liberty to refrain from participating in any religious attendance (or voting at elections). Thus, you cannot have at once freedom of religion (right to vote), and compulsory religious attendance (compulsory voting). BTW, compulsory voting does not infringe the right of association.
It is amusing how effortlessly principle is forgotten.
dover_beach
4 Jan 13 at 3:48 pm
Why not? Once enlisted to serve in the military one has both a moral duty and a legal duty to continue the term of service.
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 4:03 pm
See Europe and USA for examples.
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 4:04 pm
People join those particular armed forces voluntarily
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 4:17 pm
Kaboom
What about farmers who make bugger all so pay little tax but contribute big?
Helen Armstrong
4 Jan 13 at 4:30 pm
But once in have a legal and in my opinion, a moral duty to continue their service for at least 12 months I believe.
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/oneyearroles/
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 4:38 pm
Corey, you must feel disappointed that the rest of the English speaking world don’t have compulsory voting. The USA, UK, Canada and NZ. Faux democracies the lot of them with totally unworkable electoral systems some of which are centuries old.
At least we can hold our heads up high. Along with Uruguay and the Congo.
Grant B
4 Jan 13 at 4:42 pm
North Korea, China, Cuba too. What great company we are in.
Fisky
4 Jan 13 at 4:58 pm
I would be fascinated to hear if there are any jurisdictions in the UK, Canada or NZ that come close to the corruption we have experienced with compulsory voting in Queensland and NSW. In fact, given the number of former party leaders we’ve had in jail for all kinds of offences, I’d say our propensity for political corruption more closely mirrors the US.
Whatever problems there are with the US electoral system obviously have nothing to do with voluntary voting. The UK, Canada and NZ are doing fine without compelling people to vote. So will we.
Fisky
4 Jan 13 at 5:04 pm
Well when the Robo-calling starts, just remember I was against it.
FM
4 Jan 13 at 5:12 pm
Electoral Matters.
Hansard 13 years ago.Note Danby, Ferguson, Mason and Somlyay are still in Parlt. Chair was Gary Nairn(Eden-Monaro).Near split my sides re-reading the McDermott session.(communists, jail,who can and can’t count etc.)
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Fc0000368.sgm%2F0000%22
JimD
4 Jan 13 at 5:19 pm
Robert Heinlein championed the qualified franchise in “Starship Troopers”. People earned citizenship and the right to vote by undertaking “Federal Service” (commonly but not exclusively military service). Non-citizen residents who had not exercised their right to perform this Federal Service retained all other rights generally associated with a modern democracy (free speech, assembly, etc.), but could not vote or hold public office. It is implied that they are eligible for welfare benefits, but given that they do not have the vote, generous or unlimited benefits are much less likely. While earned suffrage is not (yet) on the table, it would certainly reduce the risk of an unproductive segment of a polity hijacking the public policy of that polity through self-interest.
Cold-Hands
4 Jan 13 at 5:25 pm
@ Cold-Hands,
Agreed, isn’t one of his quotes that something unearned has no value?
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 5:31 pm
What the eff has that to do with voluntary voting Corey?
Dan
4 Jan 13 at 5:33 pm
Our system is working relatively well. Even if our current fed gov is one of the worse in Oz history. I just don’t see the need to follow EU down the fiscal hole of welfare dependency. A trend that voluntary voting will exaggerate.
There are also plenty of countries other than the Congo who have compulsory voting and are doing quite well for themselves.
Austria
Belgium
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Singapore
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 5:36 pm
@ Dan,
Apologies if you felt I was deviating from the topic at hand. I was making the point that legal and moral duties are not always separate.
Ie; it’s my belief that one has a duty to vote as a citizen of this nation; both morally and as is currently the case legally.
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 5:38 pm
Corey – “A trend that voluntary voting will exaggerate”
Isn’t life wonderful. You learn something new every day. I wasn’t aware that voluntary voting and welfare dependency were correlated.
Are you a climate scientist?
Grant B
4 Jan 13 at 5:48 pm
That depends will you give me a grant in exchange for becoming one? ^^
It’s been noted a few times that people in the US appear quite happy to vote for public spending increases or greater welfarism without ever considering who is going to bear the burden of increased spending.
You could consider them to be very motivated voters.
While at Uni a number of my house mates were adamant that everyone had to go and vote Labor, as at the time apparently they were promising increases in payments to students and lower HECS fees…
The below link is in the American context –
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2002476/pg1
Cory Olsen
4 Jan 13 at 5:55 pm
Personally I think they wouldn’t because generally they are not as engaged in policy and can be seen as what Menzies called the ‘forgotten people’. They are Liberal leaning voters, but still feel a bit left out of the political domain in some cases.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 5:55 pm
Okay, it’s intuitive for you.
Gab
4 Jan 13 at 6:08 pm
Corey – “While at Uni a number of my housemates were adamant that everyone had to go and vote Labor”. Likewise, except I was doing a doctorate in the UK and it was spelt “Labour”. They all hated the Iron Lady.
Not much difference then between a non-compulsory voting country country and a compulsory one in that respect.
Compulsory voting in a democracy is an oxymoron.
Grant B
4 Jan 13 at 6:27 pm
Scratch one country
Grant B
4 Jan 13 at 6:29 pm
Schooling is compulsory….
J.H.
4 Jan 13 at 6:38 pm
Something that is an obligation obviously cannot be a right and the arguments against Dover’s claim fail. Whether compulsory voting is a big deal is another matter entirely. I’m agin it, but wouldn’t die in a ditch. Nor do I think there is a moral obligation to vote. I frankly don’t understand how anyone even makes that case.
The reason our pollies like it is not hard to understand. They know the current system and so are afraid of change.
Pedro
4 Jan 13 at 7:05 pm
Helen A.
Farmers who make “bugger all” should not be in the industry in the first place. If they cannot survive without subsidies and tax havens, they should pull up stumps, move to the cities, and live the life of Riley, close to all conveniences and medical entitlements.
Other traditional tillers of the land have figured this out long ago, you know…
Kaboom
4 Jan 13 at 7:20 pm
Kaboom, you don’t know many farmers like my Dad ! He ain’t pulling up stumps and moving to the city ANY TIME soon, and at 90+ he still votes !! lol. He doesn’t work his land to the same degree as he used to be able to, so his income is now minimal, but he owns property and, once upon a time, it was property ownership that counted not income. I’d love to know which tax havens and subsidies got him to his current economic situation !!!!! Do Tell !!
hzhousewife
4 Jan 13 at 7:44 pm
The trouble with farmers is they actually went and got too damn efficient. Farming used be a significant employer when it was labour-intensive, and politicians would sit up and listen. Those days are now gone.
Keith
4 Jan 13 at 8:09 pm
Don’t know how this thread evolved into farm subsidies but to housewife the lack of subsidies is what has made our farmers some of the best in the world along with the Kiwis.
Dover
Are you kidding or what, in considering this an issue to even write a post about on some obscure blog? Some of the older commenters here may remember the government asking for 2 years of a persons life. This does not compare with doing maybe 20 minutes work a year. As far as hurting freedom again are you kidding there are some countries in the world where burning a flag is a crime or ingesting some substance. For citizenship which could be valued between $200 000 and $1 000 000 twenty minutes of ones time per year to keep this or a small fine paid is ok by me.
kelly liddle
4 Jan 13 at 9:17 pm
Another small comment look at the wealthy countries without compulsory voting are they doing better than us?
kelly liddle
4 Jan 13 at 9:20 pm
How so? Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives (Wikipedia). That doesn’t contradict the idea that people have to vote. I personally support compulsory voting because it makes the result or the elected member more legitimate. In recent elections over in Britain, the turnout for some seats was around 20%. Do we really think that having 20% of voters elect a member is really reflecting the principle of representative government and the member having a mandate to implement polices? Secondly, I often hear the arguments from proponents of non-compulsory voting that the parties will be forced to engage the electorate more. I disagree. I personally think that the parties will simply just target the party base for the turnout, which will give them enough votes to win. On the other hand, having compulsory voting forces the parties to engage all parts of the electorate, who have different needs and therefore the parties will have a broader platform, providing the people with a more difficult choice.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 11:01 pm
Great – my favourite recent bugbear and totally late to the (compulsorily voted for) party!
Compulsory voting sucks arse.
The last feral election (2010) provides a salient example of why this is so.
In the seat I resided in (albansleazeyville) there were six candidates.
Five were leftists, of which four were unrepentant marxists. The gliberal candidate was a twenty something university student (and probably a marxist as well).
I was determined to cast a legitimate vote, given my entirely justified fury with the utterly dysfunctional ruff/dullard corruptomonkey squandocracy shambles.
Thanks to our wonderful obligatory preferential system, I had to number every box on the ballot paper.
After much cussing, I placed albanseazey above fiona byrne’s emasculated hubby (that is, 5 and 6).
Due to the massive swing away from albansleazey, the AEC in its wisdom, made the count a two cornered contest between albansleazey and byrne.
Therefore, having been forced to front up, my vote had been effectively (and involuntarily) allocated to one infinitesimally less loathsome marxist than teh other.
That is not democracy, it is its absolute antithesis.
Had voting been voluntary, I would not have bothered.
End of fucking story.
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 11:07 pm
If we had a referendum on compulsory voting, would it be compulsory?
chrisl
4 Jan 13 at 11:09 pm
Your argument is flawed. This is not a problem with compulsory voting but the system of voting. The thing is, the majority of people in your electorate did not want the Liberal candidate and s/he obviously did not finish in the top two of the primary vote. Therefore, to ensure that you get the preferred candidate that the most amount of people are happy with, your second preference or whatever went to Albanese, who you prefer over the Green candidate. This is a democarcy because your electorate has a candidate of which the majority of people like the best.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 11:15 pm
No, you are wrong.
Had voting been voluntary, I would not have bothered.
The NSW electoral system of optional preferential is infinitely better.
I was compelled (against my will) to vote for one of two marxist deadshits.
Or I could have broken the law and cast an invalid vote – or simply not turned up and been fined.
None of the outcomes above (due to the current system) are satisfactory.
For the last fucking time, I should not have been effectively forced to vote for one of those two deadshits, end of story.
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 11:22 pm
True – hence my point about the NSW system.
However, my initial point stands – I would not have voted last election had voting been voluntary.
There is no guarantee that compulsory voting ensures a fair “system of voting” and if it doesn’t, it is incumbent on all libertarians to reject that system.
“Not voting with their feet”, as it happens.
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 11:33 pm
Well that is your prerogative to have not bothered to turn up. Again, my post clearly demonstrates that you got your PREFERED option and that is the aim of PREFERential voting. The winner of your seat may have not been satisfactory, but from the information in your original post suggests that you preferred Albosleazy over the Green candidate, so you got what you preferred. If you did not vote Liberal, that was one less vote that could have potentially helped the Liberals win that seat, unlikely as the victory was. With non-compulsory voting, I personally believe that it is more likely that in safe seats you will only get large turnouts in around 20 seats that are up for grabs and then a gradual decline in the voting turnout of the other seats from the lesser safe to the most safe. Is that the sort of democracy you want? I doubt that.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 11:34 pm
My preferred option would have been to have not had to vote in the first fucking place.
You just don’t get it.
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 11:38 pm
How exactly is what you’ve described above under voluntary voting different to the current system?
That is, how would results be any different to what they are now?
Rabz
4 Jan 13 at 11:42 pm
The formal votes comprise of 90% of eligible voters in most elections. That is how it is different to voluntary voting.
The results would be different because less engaged voters who still have views on issues and may be more aligned to a party could be less inclined to vote. There are plenty of other factors that non-compulsory voting could do to alter the result.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 11:47 pm
If you really didn’t want to vote, you didn’t have to fill out the ballot. The fact that you did shows an intention to vote and contribute in the election of the member of Parliament.
Andrew
4 Jan 13 at 11:49 pm
Andrew – “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives”. Yep, although I don’t see anything about compulsory voting in your definition. To me it means I can write letters, harangue politicians, stand on a soap box and say whatever I like without having to worry about statist wallopers knocking on my front door.
It also means that all citizens should have the freedom to cast a vote if they want to. It doesn’t mean they should have to go through the bullshit of turning up to save themselves a fine if they don’t want to. I was sentenced to gaol in 1974 for not voting and have asked to be taken off the electoral roll until compulsory voting is abolished. Nope, can’t be done. They really are determined to force me to vote. But I won’t.
These days I just staple a note ($20 federal, $50 Qld) to the value of the fine a week before election day with a brief explanatory note. It screws with the AEC bureaucracy and they send me letters of complaint basically because when they receive it I have admitted to and paid the fine for a crime that I have not yet committed. But they seem to take it anyway eventually and I hear no more. Maybe they spend it on their Christmas party, I don’t really care but at least it keeps me out of gaol.
GrantB
5 Jan 13 at 12:14 am
Corey, how does this counter my point? I talked about the impossibility of a liberty being both a right and a duty simultaneously. I said nothing about something being both a moral and legal duty.
Andrew, more legitimate? Really? Since when was legitimacy ever a function of size? Or composition? Something is either legitimate or it is not, for reasons other than size or composition.
dover_beach
5 Jan 13 at 12:19 am
In albansleazeyville in 2010, 91% of voters turned up, of which 7% cast informal votes. That’s not including donkey votes, which are nominally legal votes.
That’s nearly 15,000 enrolled voters.
Voluntary voting would not have inconvenienced them. It wouldn’t have inconvenienced me.
Although I did enjoy the 45 minutes or so spent outside Leichhardt Town Hall on election day, soaking up the atmosphere in Oz greenfilth dirtbag central.
Rabz
5 Jan 13 at 12:28 am
You surely jest?
Oh my, what a waste of cash. I’ve never even visited a polling booth in my life much less voted so I can’t imagine this. At least write them a cheque, they may not bank it.
Chris M
5 Jan 13 at 8:00 am
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has accused the Liberal Party of trying to make democracy ”the plaything of cashed-up interest groups”, after the Queensland government opened the door to the abolition of compulsory voting.
WHAT A LAUGH-Who voted for her when she stabbed the then prime minister in the back? No one, stick your lying head in Julia and stop telling us a pack of LIES and what we should or should not do.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-vows-to-fight-any-qld-move-to-scrap-compulsory-voting-20130103-2c6hr.html#ixzz2H2thbICd
don
5 Jan 13 at 8:55 am
Interesting discussion.
The right to vote is never so precious as when it is denied, as it was to me in 1969. I was at Canungra Jungle Training Centre, training with my battalion, prior to embarking to Vietnam as a conscript.
Myself and a few other Nashos keen to vote in the federal election requested transport to the nearest polling booth. It was denied, and we were threatened with charges of AWOL if we left JTC.
The Coalition was returned with a reduced majority, and we were shipped of to SVN to fight for freedom.
The army didn’t do irony…..
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 8:57 am
1735099 – I once heard a similar (perhaps worse) story in the SADF. Officer comes into mess and asks who wants to vote, counts the hands, and says okay x votes for the National Party.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 9:03 am
numbers, another irrelevant anecdote about 10 months of your life from over 4 decades ago. Build a fucking bridge.
Huckleberry Chunkwot
5 Jan 13 at 9:10 am
That seems awfully strange that you were “denied” a vote, “numbers” given that even the voting age back then was lowered to 18 by special Federal amendment and only for service personnel.
Gab
5 Jan 13 at 9:17 am
Folks, you can believe Numbers yarn if you want to. I reckon it’s complete bullsh*t though.
Strangely enough, the ADF is pretty damned good at using the postal/absentee voting system for state and federal elections and has been since 1916.
Mk50 of Brisbane
5 Jan 13 at 9:19 am
Well, it’s like I said before, Mk50, “numbers” always has a personal anecdote for every single topic under discussion. And it’s always how bad the army/government was at the time.
Gab
5 Jan 13 at 9:22 am
I really couldn’t give a stuff whether you believe me or not, but I have noticed something else interesting about this site. Anything that doesn’t gell with the politically correct view of the world, as held by Catallaxians, is rejected out of hand as a lie.
It’s a strange and wondrous phenomenon.
As to the 1969 incident, if I dreamed it, so must have the other members of my section at the time. The incident was revisited over a few beers at our reunion in Melbourne in August last year, along with many other recollections, on the whole less bizarre, when seen through the prism of 43 years. The problem with Mk50 and a few others is that they are unable to conceptualise any world outside their limited range of life experiences.
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 9:46 am
I would suggest a government that represents only a fraction of voters yet rules over 100% of all voters is not legitimate.
Combine Dave
5 Jan 13 at 10:09 am
I do believe that this numbers chap has written the above lines with absolutely no sense of irony.
Let me spell it out for you numbers- you are derided and despised on this blog because you try to derail threads by constantly trying to link them, no matter how tenuously, to your,
.
Fuckwit
Huckleberry Chunkwot
5 Jan 13 at 10:13 am
I would suggest a government that represents only a fraction of voters yet rules over 100% of all voters is not legitimate.
This would be true if the franchise were in fact limited, for reasons that lacked sufficient justification, to only a fraction of the population. But where a majority of that population have voluntarily declined to vote (and the composition of this pool might change from one election to the next so that a person that has declined to vote in the last election may have voted in the one previous), on what grounds should anyone regard the laws enacted by such a government to be illegitimate?
dover_beach
5 Jan 13 at 10:21 am
My thought exactly.
Cold-Hands
5 Jan 13 at 10:21 am
Chris M – true story. It didn’t bother the Department of Defence as I held a TS+ clearance for many years. However when I filled out the gory details on a jury service form about 5 years ago and sent it off, I never heard from them again.
It looks like convicted voting felons are considered unsuitable for jury service.
Grant B
5 Jan 13 at 10:28 am
But we already have that. At the last election the government, that rules over all voters, only got 50.1% of the 2PP vote. Now if you think the 2PP measure itself is illegitimate (as I do) the government only got 38% of the vote. So 62% of voters wanted something other than an ALP government. So by definition we always have a government that represents less than 100% of the voters.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 10:34 am
May I note my thanks to Dover for posting. I also recall him schooling Jarrah on the meaning of the word voluntary on a thread a couple of weeks ago. Well said. That Jarrah hasn’t shown up here is merely a coincidence.
Another level of compulsion is that, irrespective of arriving at the polling booth voluntarily (or not), one is constrained by the ballot paper into voting for a limited set of candidates. Why can’t you nominate someone else, if you so choose, and not be ruled invalid. IIRC, a certain precedent was set when scrawling NO DAMS on the ballot paper was considered acceptable, provided you still formally voted for the candidates. That these votes happened to assist labor and Hawke and the left generally had nothing to do with it, I’m sure (sarc).
Keith
5 Jan 13 at 10:38 am
Still think Barnaby Joyce is right, you’d have to put bomb under a lot of Australians to get them to vote. A lot would be busy with family activities and think it doesn’t matter if they personally don’t vote but half the population would think the same.
But for sure you’d have the far right and far left out there, because they’re motivated being zealots about a cause.
candy
5 Jan 13 at 10:48 am
I still maintain that the government will become less representative were voting to be voluntary.
I’m worried that we would receive a government worse than now, elected by voters spurred into action by getup, trade unions, or in Melbourne somekind of Grand Mufti whilst ordinary citizens who are for the large part apolitical, stayed at home or at work.
Combine Dave
5 Jan 13 at 10:57 am
“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.”
Yawn. Heard it before, Gramps.
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 11:15 am
Voting was voluntary for the first nine federal elections.
Turnout %:
1901 56.68
1903 50.27
1906 51.48
1910 62.80
1913 73.49
1914 73.53
1917 78.30
1919 71.59
1922 59.38
Of which Labor won two elections.
Gab
5 Jan 13 at 11:19 am
There’s absolutely no reason why voting can’t be put online. The eCensus indicates what can be done.
Keith
5 Jan 13 at 11:20 am
One of these days I’ll tell you all the tale of how the Kandy Koala Kiddies Party* missed one vote because I was cruelly disenfranchised by the military-industrial complex’s duty requirements on election day.
*was and unless otherwise convinced, the only ACT local government party ever worth voting for.
lotocoti
5 Jan 13 at 11:25 am
@sdog
I take great amusement from the fact that you are so obsessed with what I post that you’ve trawled back to find this.
I’m in your head…..a very weird and scary place to be…..
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 11:26 am
1735099
Gab
5 Jan 13 at 11:29 am
It was like all of 6 weeks ago, Gramps. Us younger pups apparently hve better short-term memory – and Google skillz – than you’d give us credit for.
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 11:30 am
Please Spuds, another superhero story. I am very upset about your voting story.
Why didn’t you just Rambo your way out, vote to keep yourself out of the war even though you wanted to be there because only nashos were real fighters and only nashos were real men? You are deadset a sacked public servant who has never done anything in your life. You would have been bashed at any reunion.
Tiny Dancer
5 Jan 13 at 11:41 am
“sacked public servant”
“bashed at any reunion”
If you had a reasonable turn of phrase you might have a future in writing fantasy. Unfortunately your literacy skills aren’t really up to it.
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 12:05 pm
“There’s absolutely no reason why voting can’t be put online.”
I’ll give you just one to start with – any fraud moves from retail to wholesale.
Jarrah
5 Jan 13 at 12:09 pm
And Spuds, if you were a teacher then I’m a rock star.
Tiny Dancer
5 Jan 13 at 12:12 pm
HTF did this thread get from the integrity of the electoral system to numbers in fucking vietnam.
On the face of it the prick had already slimed a deferrment hoping it’d be over before he had to turn up.
Back to topic, at the very least Commonwealth Electoral Act ought be Optional Preferential irrespective of compulsory or voluntary.
Arguments put to Standing Committee,
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Fc0000368.sgm%2F0000%22
JimD
5 Jan 13 at 12:35 pm
Happy New Year to you to Currency Lad. And all. Auld Lang Syne (we’ll find new things to fight about).
Adrien
5 Jan 13 at 1:25 pm
Dover –
My arguments are not motivated by any such thing and as the US and Britain, for instance, clearly attest, voluntary voting does not prevent left or centre-left parties from achieving government.
Well no. You are enunciating a principle. But the principle and the argument are convenient to baser interests. For example:
Fisky is being facetious as always, but the view is held that voluntary voting would result in the politically inept not bothering; these inept are equated (for good reason) with the economically and/or intellectually inept. And they’re all ‘lefties’.
If freedom of religion (or right to vote) mean anything it must also involve the liberty to refrain from participating in any religious attendance (or voting at elections).
Yes but being compelled to sit thru Mass is not the same as being compelled to participate in the electoral process. It’s not the same, that is the common sense picture.
It is amusing how effortlessly principle is forgotten.
I’m not forgetting principle. I’m exercising it. One of my principles is to conceive of the consequences of a policy. I would think that Mr Oakeshott would agree. Be cautious about changing some well-established tradition because of an ideal or a particular interest. The actual motivation for voluntary voting is to undercut the enemy’s support, the ideal argument has to do with liberty. The benefit of the system as it now stands is that our governments actually do exercise popular sovereignty, a claim hard to make when almost half of your citizens don’t bother.
Australia is a well-governed place. Compulsory voting is a long-standing part of that. I don’t see any good reason to change this. Arguments from liberty are specious because there are much greaters threats to freedom than getting fined if you don’t show up.
Adrien
5 Jan 13 at 1:41 pm
No, saying what you want about political parties is about freedom of expression not an element of democracy. It is just that the freedom of expression supports the ideas of democracy in that we are all eligible to vote for who we want to. Voting for a party is an element of democracy because it is a necessary part of a democracy occurring. You can still have censorship in countries but be allowed to vote for whoever you like. Therefore, compulsory voting can not be equated to freedom of expression.
In a democracy it is because a democracy is where the people who are elected to run our country have the support of the majority of people. This is why having more people voting makes the results more legitimate.
Andrew
5 Jan 13 at 3:06 pm
Adrien – your last sentence. I’m not sure if it’s a strawman or a non sequitur. It’s certainly meaningless in the context of compulsory voting.
Grant B
5 Jan 13 at 3:20 pm
@JimD
Volunteered, did you?
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 4:04 pm
Irrelevent as usual numbers.But yes, 1962. Get off that shit and onto topic.
R U for or against compulsory at state level.
R U for or against compulsory at federal level.
R U for or against optional preferential at state level.
R U for or against optional preferential at federal level.
Deep breath,concentrate on the target, squeeze the trigger and fire some fucking relevent answers.
JimD
5 Jan 13 at 4:51 pm
You brought it up…..
For.
For.
Against.
Against.
“shit”
“fucking”.
Feel better?
1735099
5 Jan 13 at 5:01 pm
Four straight yes/no Q’s.Didn’t even call for the why. But you don’t answer.Ripped a page out of the red tramps book have you.
“Feel better?” [OTT. Sinc] If you’d answer a question, any question, and not go awandering, maybe.
JimD
5 Jan 13 at 5:28 pm
Um, Sinc?
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 5:44 pm
Um, sdog?
Sinclair Davidson
5 Jan 13 at 5:51 pm
Just reckoned JimD was a bit over the top there, is all. Don’t want us to get Finkelsteined.
[Now that you mention it. Yes. Sinc]
sdog
5 Jan 13 at 5:53 pm
Thanks sdog and Sinc. Got the message. Wilco.
JimD
5 Jan 13 at 6:37 pm
Adrien:
Well no. You are enunciating a principle. But the principle and the argument are convenient to baser interests. For example:
We don’t want Labor riff raff deciding elections.
You have a rather appalling view of left or centre-left voters; namely, that a significant majority would not vote unless compelled to. And this seems to be based on minimal evidence, since many voluntary voting jurisdictions have recently had or have now left or centre-left governments.
Yes but being compelled to sit thru Mass is not the same as being compelled to participate in the electoral process. It’s not the same, that is the common sense picture.
You’re just being silly here. It doesn’t need to be the same in each and every part, it just needs to be the same in the relevant part, and that is the requirement to attend and to participate in the forms of the service, religious or electoral.
I’m not forgetting principle. I’m exercising it. One of my principles is to conceive of the consequences of a policy.
No, principles categorically qualify actions. Moreover, you seem to have not given much thought to the consequences of a policy of consequentialism which you’ve just enunciated.
I would think that Mr Oakeshott would agree. Be cautious about changing some well-established tradition because of an ideal or a particular interest.
No, he wouldn’t; and no, a 90-year old legal requirement isn’t a tradition.
The benefit of the system as it now stands is that our governments actually do exercise popular sovereignty,
They would exercise sovereignty whatever the number of citizens that have voluntarily voted. Legitimacy or sovereignty isn’t about numbers.
Arguments from liberty are specious because there are much greaters threats to freedom than getting fined if you don’t show up.
Erroneous use of specious, and we can argue for more than one amendment at any one time.
Andrew:
No, saying what you want about political parties is about freedom of expression not an element of democracy. It is just that the freedom of expression supports the ideas of democracy
This is confused. No, speaking politically is definitely an element of democracy. If the candidates and citizens cannot speak freely on matters political than you are not living in a democracy. Also, this distinction you’ve drawn between something supporting but not also being an element/ part is absurd.
You can still have censorship in countries but be allowed to vote for whoever you like.
Really? So if a government banned all political communication of all political parties other than the ruling party this would still constitute a democracy? No, it wouldn’t.
In a democracy it is because a democracy is where the people who are elected to run our country have the support of the majority of people. This is why having more people voting makes the results more legitimate.
No, a democracy is where representatives are elected by a majority of electors. You’re argument conflates the problems involved in a narrow electoral franchise with the purported problems that may arise under voluntary voting.
dover_beach
6 Jan 13 at 2:47 am
Australia is a well-governed place. Compulsory voting is a long-standing part of that. I don’t see any good reason to change this.
This standard unsubstantiated statement still doesn’t answer the perennial question: how is Australia any better governed than the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Switzerland or any of the other countries as ‘good’ as Australia but with voluntary voting, and how did Australian compulsory voting bring this about?
John Mc
6 Jan 13 at 3:03 am
John Mc, there is really a simpler test. Have left or centre-left parties fared any worse under a system of voluntary voting in US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Switzerland than those parties in Australia?
dover_beach
6 Jan 13 at 3:19 am
The screen shot endures for possible future reference….
1735099
6 Jan 13 at 9:48 am
Good grief, Patio Boy. An OTT comment was made, Sinc’s attention was drawn to it, and it was promptly snipped. All in less than half an hour. What more do you want?
Maybe you should chuff off, stick to less free-flowing moderated blogs where every comment is vetted before going up. That is, if there are any left that you haven’t already been banned from.
sdog
6 Jan 13 at 10:01 am
Well, what a grubby, vindictive little fellow – not a man, not by a long shot – but there’s no surprise in that, eh?
Mick Gold Coast QLD
6 Jan 13 at 10:23 am
And using a carriage service to make a death threat is what, a fine example of gentle moderation?
There are some deadset fruit loops who regularly post here who need to pull their bloody heads in.
And what do you call an individual who makes a threat from behind the anonymonity of a keyboard?
It comes from the same collection of behaviours which includes hoax calls along the lines of “There’s a bomb in the school”. We had a few of those in Townsville – possibly the same individual.
1735099
6 Jan 13 at 11:10 am
Gentlepeople – let’s all have a cup of tea and a lie-down.
Sinclair Davidson
6 Jan 13 at 11:29 am
Eh? Where? I cannot see one.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
6 Jan 13 at 12:01 pm
Snipped at 5.28 pm
Cold-Hands
6 Jan 13 at 12:09 pm
Oh, as in very swiftly Cold-Hands?
Sounds like a system about which there is nothing at all to complain of then.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
6 Jan 13 at 12:16 pm
Then we don’t deserve such a “good” Government. This is much like conscription in the face of an invasion.
.
6 Jan 13 at 12:44 pm
You just don’t get irony, do you numbers?
Huckleberry Chunkwot
6 Jan 13 at 1:38 pm
Could people please shut the hell up about Numbers’ military service; I mean its alleged non-existence? He served the country in war-time, apparently. While this doesn’t qualify him to comment on anything topical in particular, it does mean he’s entitled to not be attacked as some sort of fraud.
And Numbers, why do you come here? You clearly disagree with everything the majority of Catallaxians believe but you come here anyway to irritate and attack people. Grow up. How old are you?
C.L.
6 Jan 13 at 2:45 pm
I would like to point out that simply numbers created two false histories about his teaching career to score cheap points on a gun topic, now he calls people “fruit loops who need to pull their heads in”.
Ahem.
This is the level of “debate” supporting compulsory voting.
Clearly it is a bankrupt concept.
.
6 Jan 13 at 2:47 pm
what a grubby, vindictive little fellow = a carriage service to make a death threat and that is why the spudpeeler was never a teacher.
Tiny Dancer
6 Jan 13 at 2:59 pm
not old enough to have served in vietnam I say.
Tiny Dancer
6 Jan 13 at 3:02 pm
CL
But he’s a contemptible douchebag.
JC
6 Jan 13 at 3:07 pm
I still maintain that the government will become less representative were voting to be voluntary.
Speaking from a personal perspective, how can it be less representative? I remain off the electoral roll because there is nothing here worth voting for. By being on the electoral roll and turning up to donkey vote there is some illusion that I’m giving a level of endorsement to the democracy. I’m not, the candidates are all shit.
(Campbell Newman maybe the exception, I may register just to support his government, but I haven’t decided yet. For the record Abbott isn’t there yet, but I’ve already emailed him saying if he repeals the carbon tax he has my vote for as long as he is in office. But I’ll wipe my ass with the ballot paper before I’m forced to give an involuntary endorsement to a partially sham democracy.)
John Mc
6 Jan 13 at 3:21 pm
Who wrote this crap? It’s logically stupid.
JC
6 Jan 13 at 3:23 pm
Indeed. Silence gives consent.
If you don’t run against the candidates and cannot vote against them, then you consent, but do not approve of any of them.
Refusing to vote for fuckwits is entirely representative of the non fuckwit section of society.
.
6 Jan 13 at 3:30 pm
Tiny
Numbers was in Vietnam, he is known amongst Queensland vets.
He wrote a book “Jellybeans in the Jungle”.
kae
6 Jan 13 at 11:39 pm
“To irritate and attack people”
Interesting – so the readers and posters on Catallaxy are like a patch of sensitive weed – they’re prickly and curl up at the slightest touch?
1735099
7 Jan 13 at 9:17 am
Numbers, that was just a poor trolling effort. Re-submit your work.
You really need to take some time away to have a good hard look at yourself. Your efforts in 2013 are just not up to scratch.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 9:41 am