Helen, a good article, but there is something fundamental missing – the absolute right that we all have to vote for no candidate if we feel that no candidate deserves our vote or if we feel that the voting system is so flawed as to possibly make one’s vote count where the voter doesn’t want it to, by way of compulsory preferences in the lower house and senate if you vote below the line or pre-allocated preferences in the senate if you vote above the line.

In short, there are VERY good reasons indeed for lodging a blank ballot paper or marking your paper but deliberately nullifying your vote.

As well as these fundamental and quite disgustingly antidemocratic vote-stealing flaws, our voting system is fundamentally flawed in not offering us the formal option to vote for no candidate.

There should be a box on every ballot paper for ‘no candidate’!

I commend Latham for getting up and saying shortly before a federal election the very simple thing that a blank or null vote is an option well worth considering.

If there is to be any legal challenge over Latham’s actions then we should consider it in the context of one of the most basic principles of democracy: the right to not vote for any candidate, to abstain, to lodge a null vote, to lodge a protest vote, or however you might say it.

The real legal infringement here is surely the implementation of a voting system that doesn’t formally give voters this option, and which can…. unbelievably…. take your vote and make it count where you don’t want it to….which is such a profound perversion of democracy and of the very purpose of voting!

For as long as this situation exists, we should ALL lodge null votes in strong protest!!

The faults in Helen's argument are the failure to define "mark" and the idea that not putting a number beside someone's name is not voting. I can write something on my ballot paper without putting a number beside someone's name and thereby mark it. I also believe strongly that putting a preference beside a candidates name is, in effect, an endorsement of that candidate. When no candidates are available that have a serious, credible policy on the critical issues facing this nation - such as future energy supply, food security and population - then my "vote" is to not endorse any of the candidates. a protest vote is still a vote and Helen is arguing for the removal of my democratic right to object to any of the candidates. I believe strongly in compulsory voting and in the right to cast a "blank" ballot.

Very good article.

This disproves what you often hear people reply about compulsory voting "Voting isn't compulsory, it's just compulsory to turn up and put a ballot paper in the box."

This is incorrect. The law is quite explicit: you have to mark the paper with your vote and put it in the ballot box and you are breaking the law if you don't.

The fact that no-one can prove whether or not you did it, because voting is secret, goes to evidence, not law.

And presumably if a robber puts a gun to your head, and tells your to hand over your money so you do, that's fine, the robber is just "representing" you.

oops. Then I guess I better go surrender myself to the authorities. Post haste!

More specifically than the other comments here, I objected to the requirement to number every box. This rule is arbitrary, and a conspiracy of the major parties to disadvantage minor candidates.

I object to Labor's contemptuous attitude to Green preferences - that they've got nowhere else to go, so the merest crumbs can be thrown to Greens while they pursue the Coalition to the extreme right, to exploitation of fear, and into the gutter of spin, deception and manipulation.

So, in the lower house, I voted "1" Greens and left the other two unnumbered.

<< I believe strongly in compulsory voting and in the right to cast a "blank" ballot. >>

I’m with you there michael.

.
<< The law is quite explicit: you have to mark the paper with your vote and put it in the ballot box and you are breaking the law if you don't. >>

Yes Peter and isn’t that the pits of antidemocracy! This law has GOT to be changed!

.
<< oops. Then I guess I better go surrender myself to the authorities. Post haste! >>

Er…yeah, me too, bitey! ( : >\

.
<< So, in the lower house, I voted "1" Greens and left the other two unnumbered. >>

Which of course meant that your vote didn’t count Geoff, as it is compulsory to mark every square. So, your intention was crystal clear, but a corrupt and scurrilous voting system nullified your vote. Wonderful!

I like the idea of one option always being "No candidate"

A statement that a voter would prefer to go unrepresented in Parliment than be represented by any of the nominated candidates.

An invalid or blank ballot paper does not give that option, it just add's greater weight to the views of those who might have differing views to yourself on which is the lesser of the evils.

Likewise for not being required to give preferences or have them assigned based on party preference deals.

R0bert

I quite like the Abstain/No Candidate suggestion too, but surely the simplest way to overcome antipathy to preferential voting would be to remove the compulsion to vote?

Am I missing something here?

Fifteen hundred words to determine that there is a difference between making a mark on a ballot paper, and leaving it blank.

And having established that there is a legal difference between the two, to point out that this has no impact on the result of the election.

Wow, Helen.

Fortunately, the discussion that followed has ignored the thrust of the article (which was to suggest, I fancy, that someone prosecutes Mark Latham), and turned our attention to the core issue.

Which is why we are forced to vote for something we don't believe in.

Or alternatively, having placed a vote for something we do believe in, have that expression of support transferred, nolens volens, to something we don't.

This election has added another level of iniquity onto an already outrageous situation.

None of the people who voted either for Tony or Julia is now represented in parliament. The majority of Australians has now been disenfranchised.

Which is what I shall point out to the next person who tells me that "Anyone who does an informal vote this weekend should not then complain about who does come into power. You will get what you deserve."

The vast majority of Australians who placed a valid vote this weekend cannot complain that laws will only be passed if the representatives of a tiny minority approve.

Apparently, we got what we deserve.

How does that work, again?

A great many people like to refer to voting as a "right", even an "absolute right"; Ludwig considers the requirement to mark the sheet to be "the pits of antidemocracy".

Helen quoted from John Stuart Mill opposing secret ballots. (And by the way, Mill was not absolutely opposed to secret ballots; he said secret ballots were beneficial whenever there was a real risk of coercion, which he said had included England just thirty years earlier.)

Quoting from the same text http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter10.html we can see why voting was made compulsory in Australia; why voting is a duty like jury duty, not a "right"; and why returning a blank paper is not good enough:

"Those who say that the suffrage is not a trust but a right will scarcely accept the conclusions to which their doctrine leads. If it is a right, if it belongs to the voter for his own sake, on what ground can we blame him for selling it, or using it to recommend himself to any one whom it is his interest to please? ... His vote is not a thing in which he has an option; it has no more to do with his personal wishes than the verdict of a juryman. It is strictly a matter of duty; he is bound to give it according to his best and most conscientious opinion of the public good."

Democracy is a right, but not in the way most people think. Consider juries: you have a right to a trial by jury if charged with a criminal offence. That doesn't mean you have a right to be on a jury (which would be a strange right with little benefit for you).

In a similar way, you have a right to be ruled by a government fairly elected by all eligible voters marking the page according to their best judgement. If you fail to exercise that judgement, then it is you who are abridging the rights of 22 million other Australians - their democratic right - to be ruled by good and responsible government.

<< A statement that a voter would prefer to go unrepresented in Parliment than be represented by any of the nominated candidates. >>

R0bert, I don’t think too many null voters would prefer to be unrepresented. Not wanting to be represented by any of the nominated candidates does not indicate a preference for non-representation, it indicates a feeling that there is no one on offer that is good enough to be their rep.

.
<< …but surely the simplest way to overcome antipathy to preferential voting would be to remove the compulsion to vote? >>

CJ, there is not much antipathy towards preferential voting per se. But there is a growing antipathy towards compulsory preferential voting, as opposed to optional preferential voting.

The solution is dead simple – implement OPV, which is just so profoundly different to CPV in that it IS democratic, IS a true representation of the intention of the voter and does not take your vote ‘nolens volens’ and place it where you don’t want it to count, and IS a perfectly good tried and proven system that has been used in many state elections in Queensland and New South Wales.

Helen Pringle

You say that Latham’s voting blank and the implicating suggestion to others to do likewise is wrong but you certainly mean illegal (unless you are preaching to your readers); as illegal as was Albert Langer’s refusal to vote?

If so why Latham has, so far, not been impounded by the same State’s servants who gave hell to Langer (man who, I am told, still carries a suspended sentence after his jail spell)?

Ms. Pringle, you are of the Castle, as Kafka would say, and we have to hope that you will come out of it and see how voting is surrendering your power to a charlatan, if you are lucky, or an insane criminal, if you are not, who can dictate to you at will and, if the case arises, send your child to be slain in a war.

In a real democracy, the vote, the unit of socio-political power, is in the hand of every citizen not the pockets of criminals, and giving it to anybody, or even lending it, is paramount to refusing your duties towards the community of humans and the rights that go with those duties.

In a democracy there are policemen armed with knowledge and compassion to help people in need and carrying no killing weapons.

When will universities stop being shops for forming people like you and regain the universality and broad vision they had in Galileo’s times when they challenged a state with a servant church?

Please do not confuse that last post by "skeptic" (with a K) with my earlier post by "sceptic" (with a C). Completely different persons.

My point was that voting is a duty, like jury service, and that the democratic "right" is the right to live under democratic government, rather than to do as you please with the ballot paper.

To avoid confusion, I am going to change my online nickname to "federalist".

Helen I think you are misreading the act

'retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper;'

does not specify that you have to vote for anybody on the ballot paper, just that you should mark your vote on the ballot paper. You can therefore mark the paper how you wish or not at all. The act does not specify that you must vote for anybody on the paper you have in front of you.

COMPULSORY and SECRET like illicit SEX?

Gawd, I agree with Morgan. For the first time in my adult life I exercised my option to not participate in the process. I not only didn't vote, I didn't bother to enrol. "Anarchy!!" some will scream,but I note that the world has not failed to continue turning and the political rats have not yet starved in their gilded cage, deserving as such a fate may be.

I am undoubtedly in breach of the law that requires me to participate but does not require me to do so meaningfully. Pfft, if the only choice offered is the one that Hobson prefers then I'll take Shank's pony gladly and I'll even pay for the privilege if that's what it takes to make Hobson revise his business model.

For the first time in my life I can say I don't care about the outcome. All of the rhetoric offered by both parties was about people in groups that I simply don't belong to. It's all about sectional interests and pork-barrelling, which I simply can't condone.

As any who know me will attest, principle is important to me. I didn't take the $900 handout offered by Rudd because it was based on a precept that I don't condone - that the government's role is to subsidise retail enterprises and because I simply didn't need it. The idea of having it offered genuinely offended me. The same goes for "family tax benefit", which I have never claimed my entitlement to. If having children is so expensive for middle-class people that it requires subsidy, then there is a structural problem. I don't agree that this structural problem exists, therefore the "benefit" is nothing more than a handout, with all the baggage that accepting a handout entails.

If I am able to make decisions like this and have the Government accept them (noone has been around to compel me to accept these handouts), then I am surely able to make a decision not to participate in a self-serving farce by the political class.

A pox on all their houses.

Ludwig, 'Not wanting to be represented by any of the nominated candidates does not indicate a preference for non-representation, it indicates a feeling that there is no one on offer that is good enough to be their rep."

That's pretty much how I was thinking of it. As it stands an informal vote does not contribute to no one getting elected to the seat, someone will still be elected.

Optional preferential voting with one of the options always being "none of the above" sounds like a great approach.

R0bert

I think there isn't much for me to say, as everyone else summed the situation up nicely.

A question- would it be democratic if we were forced to vote for ONE particular party? What about two? What about ten?

Otherwise, I'll leave for now, adding that quoting John Stuart Mill (a rather anti-democratic and bigoted individual) and the South Australian parliament as a good example of governance really doesn't help.

Hi Ludwig - my big problem with optional preferential voting is that it favours the Laberals and works to keep smaller parties and Independents out of parliament, particularly in electorates where many candidates stand. On the other hand, I'm not persuaded at all that any theoretical benefits that derive from forcing unwilling citizens to vote outweigh the undemocratic aspects of compulsion.

Hi Antiseptic - nice to agree on something, and to see you back.

I'd prefer we moved to Internet voting in any case. Hopefully this issue will become redundant in a decade or 2.

I object to compulsory voting, partly because line-ups for the booths are too long.

Would rather see a system where one can vote once for a party, and that vote continues "forever", unless one turns up at a voting booth (or completes a form at any time, not just near elections) to change their recurrent vote. It's an application of the old 80/20 rule - 80% of people would hardly ever change their vote (or do so only 1 out of 5 elections).

Yes I know, it would be considered by the pollies and Electoral Commission to be too difficult to organise and maintain privacy - but thats what we have computers for.

Here we go again: "... not persuaded at all that any theoretical benefits that derive from forcing unwilling citizens to vote outweigh the undemocratic aspects of compulsion."

Australia was the first country to recognize in its laws that voting is like jury duty - it is not a right, nor even a privilege, but a duty. A duty which helps safeguard everyone else's rights.

Serving in a jury is not a right; it is a duty that a citizen may be required to perform, to fulfill the rights of another - the right to fair trial by jury.

In the same way, voting is not a right; it is a duty a citizen will be required to perform, to fulfill the rights of all other citizens - the right to be ruled only by responsible, accountable government.

If you take issue with compulsory voting, it follows that you should also take issue with jury obligation. And if you take issue with jury obligation, it follows that you do not value the right to trial by jury enough to help safeguard it.

The only two countries in the world, which have compulsory voting, are Australia and the USSR, which bequeathed it to the present Russia.
It makes a mockery of Democracy for one main reason. It assumes that all voters are equal.
This is obviously not the case if you look around at the people you meet in everyday life.
Mostly (approx 40%) do not give a fig for the way the country is run and whether it is being run efficiently or causing the least harm to the environment.
The thing that concerns them most are the price of cigarettes, the cost of booze and the terrible price of petrol. Also they are very concerned about how their “footie” team is going and other non-vital concerns.
The election brings to the fore the main parties bribing mechanism, who endeavor to be the party giving the biggest incentive to vote for them at the last moment and sway the swinging voters into their camp for the day of the election.
After the election, all bets are off. The excuses for not enacting the pre election promises come tumbling out.
It does not matter. Those 40% who are up for sale have put the Government in for the next three years.
If by some miracle the voting act was changed and it was not compulsory, a large percentage (maybe 40%) would not bother to vote. These would be the same voters who give no thought to the reasons for voting for the parties on offer but only for the best bargain on offer.
If some of those same voters actually got off their butt and gave the pub a miss for an hour or what ever distraction was luring them at the time, it would take a certain amount of reasoning and this would be good. At least their vote would not be sold to the most enticing bribe.

[If you take issue with compulsory voting, it follows that you should also take issue with jury obligation]

I don't see why that is the case.

Albeit that it is reasonable to call voting it a "duty" (as well as being a right within democracies)- for jury duty the level of personal involvement and one's ability to affect the outcome far exceeds that of voting (apart from once in a blue moon). So to assume one should automatically also take issue with compulsory jury duty seems a bit misplaced to me.

Voting is an "unreal" thing, we tend to vote in an abstract sense. We vote for parties, not directly for individual policies (which is what would be possible with internet voting - all elections should include voting on major policies). Jury duty is not.

Hi federalist,

<< Australia was the first country to recognize in its laws that voting is like jury duty - it is not a right, nor even a privilege, but a duty. >>

Your analogy between jury duty and compulsory voting is based on your interpretation of J.S. Mill. That's fair enough and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but I'll just point out that his ideas didn't persuade the parliament of his own country, where voting is still not compulsory.

<< If you take issue with compulsory voting, it follows that you should also take issue with jury obligation >>

Only if I subscribe to your logic, which I don't. The negatives of compulsory voting are well expressed by sarnian above. I won't labour his/her points by repeating them.

Thank you for your replies. I'll try to be brief.

@sarnian: The intellectual inequality of voters is a good reason for free speech, universal education, and compulsory voting. Free speech enables analysts to suggest to voters why one government would improve the cost and standard of living better than another; education enables them to read and compare those explanations. That they will do so imperfectly - those who consider themselves brilliant just as much as the unsophisticated - is an argument for spreading the load as widely as possible. The set of voters most able to judge wisely, and the set of those most keen to have their say, have very little in common.

@jimhaz: As CJ Morgan says, my reasoning partly derives from JS Mill, please see http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter10.html

@CJ Morgan: "his ideas didn't persuade the parliament of his own country." Actually he did, but not always at home. Britain exported a lot of its best ideas - which were politically problematic in an old country that was set in its ways - to the US, Canada, and Australia where a fresh start was possible.

I'm with federalist on this.
I would as far to posit that a democratic society can't function to its potential without the responsibility of it's citizens to actively participate. The barest minimum is voting.

I agree that the symptoms of poor understanding/competence et al aren't failures of the voting methodologies but of other systems.
I for example abhor the PARTY system in that it disenfranchises the individual.

CJ

Tell me what do you consider your public responsibilities to be?
Currently, I smell a Green party Tribalist.

I mentioned elsewhere that the right to vote should only be given to mature people who are intelligent, politically aware, know the difference between State and Federal issues, and who put their country first.

The election outcome demonstrates they are clearly in the minority, more so than usual.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

I would agree on the precondition of some political sophistication for voting, to this extent: An elector who cannot even be bothered voting below the line for the Senate, or who when doing so cannot successfully count to thirty or eighty or whatever, is unlikely to understand the purpose of the Senate and should be left to run the risk of having their vote discarded as an informal vote.

Voting on party lines is all very well for the House of Reps - in which, after all, a majority government of some sort needs to form - but I don't see how any mechanism that gives big parties an advantage over small parties or independents plays any useful part in the election of Senators. We have grown too used to opposition leaders saying "we will allow it in the Senate," or "we will block it in the Senate."

How did we allow it to happen, that a member of the Lower House is able to dictate the voting of that House's own supervisor, the Upper House?

I'll try to respond to other points later.

But here is one of the things that perplexes me about what Mark Latham says. Surely if he wants to make an effective protest, he would simply not turn up at a polling place. He would then be sent a "please explain" and the following process would begin: "Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty. If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs."

That way, Latham could have his day in court, explain his reasons for not voting, express his protest publicly -- and pay the penalty/s, or not. Surely there is something of cowardice in "pretending" to vote by submitting a blank ballot. And in what sense is it the "ultimate protest vote", when those counting the votes can't tell what a particular blank ballot actually stands for? Wouldn't it be more courageous not to turn up at the polling place at all, and then to make a public demonstration of one's convictions? My great grandfather and his family were hounded for their conscientious refusal to vote, and while I disagree with their reasons for not voting (and for not doing jury duty or taking oaths or taking up arms for the state), I admire them for their courage and their open defiance.

Helen

@isabelberners - Or to be really courageous, Latham could have risked recommending the more original Charles Waterstreet method of manually inserting a whole new candidate and box to tick. ( http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/danish-turnover-20100821-139ng.html )

"The surprise election of Crown Princess Mary and Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark to Prime Minister of Australia and Deputy PM respectively yesterday was the result of one of the cleverest stealth political campaigns since Federation ...
Ordinary Australians wrote Princess Mary and Prince Frederik onto more than 80 per cent of their ballot forms, although there was no box for them ..."

So is there any practical hypothesis of WHY compulsory voting is better than NON?
Nothing more than "people aught to- because they should" on a matter of their own personal morals. Meanwhile, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and France are magically doing quite well without it (countries most people who bleat about the 'dangers' of voluntary voting seem too lazy to look into).

And let me tell you something about the Jury in this country. The jury serve an almost entirely ceremonial function. Judges are at considerable liberty to abort a trial at their own discretion, and cite a prejudiced view towards the jury's capacity to determine guilt. In Germany the jury system is now abolished and with no noticeable social impacts. So a jury's only function is to determine guilt or innocence if the judge actually allows it. Waste of time.

It is becoming more apparent that BOTH compulsions should be scrapped for quite practical reasons.

Re skeptic: "You say that Latham’s voting blank and the implicating suggestion to others to do likewise is wrong but you certainly mean illegal (unless you are preaching to your readers); as illegal as was Albert Langer’s refusal to vote?"

No, what I called "wrong" was Latham's interpretation of the meaning of compulsory voting. At least in the celebrated case against him, Langer did not refuse to vote. He put forward an interpretation of the requirement about numbering the squares (wikipedia has a useful short article on it, seems accurate). Also I try not to preach, but I do try to persuade, and I like a good argument.

Re Geoff Davies: "More specifically than the other comments here, I objected to the requirement to number every box. This rule is arbitrary, and a conspiracy of the major parties to disadvantage minor candidates."

On the contrary, full preferential voting usually (but not always) advantages minor candidates. Adam Bandt would not be the member for Melbourne without preferential voting, and probably not the member if there were only optional preferential. Also, from a comparative perspective, Al Gore would almost certainly have been president in 2000 if there had been preferential voting in the US. The LDP in England know what preferential voting would do for its parliamentary numbers. Finally, if full preferential voting is a conspiracy of the major parties, why does the Liberal Party periodically try to get rid of it?

Re sarnian: "The only two countries in the world, which have compulsory voting, are Australia and the USSR, which bequeathed it to the present Russia."

This is not the case. Many countries have compulsory voting, eg see www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf. I am open to correction, but I don't think that voting was compulsory in the USSR, and it isn't compulsory in Russia.

The best way to minimise informal voting would be to have a compulsory additional candidate on each ballot, namely "Vacant". "Vacant" would have preferences like any other candidate, and if "Vacant" won the election, the seat would not be filled for the duration of that Parliament. Even better would be to allow voters if they wished to be registered as a supporter of a particular party, and their vote would be automatically entered for it on polling day, without them having to attend. What a comment on the system to have voters who were registered "Vacant" for elections and "No" for referendums.

Another point that need to be mentioned on the subject of compulsory voting is Section 245 of the electoral act, which provides that if a person fails to vote, and is sent a request to state the "true reason" why, that if he states that he did not vote because it was against his religion, this statement must be accepted as conclusive, and no further action will be taken.

In other words, the whole thing is a joke.

Think also of the other benefits of informal voting; each informal vote means that a political party is deprived of $2.31 in public funding, and many people would consider this very worthwhile. People like myself seek out an obscure ungrouped candidate on the ballot papar to receive my first preference, in the hope that the candidate will receive less than 4% of the primary vote, and that no public funding will be paid to anyone.

isabelberners:"here is one of the things that perplexes me about what Mark Latham says."

Me too, which is why I chose not to participate at all. I did so inadvertently in the last State election, being unexpectedly far from anywahere I could vote on the day.It cost me $154 by the time the SPER extras were added. I'm happy to pay the same this time around,although I fail to see how fining me assists the democratic process. I'm also at a loss as to the why the only specified valid reason for conscientious objection should be religious. I objected in this election on the grounds that the party political system had produced a situation in which there was no useful way to determine a preferred outcome because narrow sectional interests have become the dominant influence on political decision-making.

I like the idea of a "vacant" box. If that had been available this time, I'd have voted.

Some of the replies are simply astounding and hard to understand in a country with a democratic tradition and civic and citizenship education.

examinator was right to draw attention to the Green tribalism apparent in some replies. The concerns about preferential voting or even that some people vote at all are more about partisan advantage, and any concern about rights or liberty is rhetoric to disqualify or failing that, discourage voters. Obviously the Greens protestations of concern for the disadvantaged doesn't extend to letting them vote. No surprise that one. With the Greens, it doesn't take much of a scratch to reveal to ugly totalitarianism beneath.

Maybe some voters are not as politically aware as some OLO members might credit themselves, but then again they are most likely more practical, have better common sense and are not bigots either. Which would most prefer voting or on a jury, the bigot who regularly denounces his fellow Australians as 'racists' and worse, or the smiling checkout chick whose vote is advised by rising prices and comments of the hundreds of people she meets a week?

On the far right, compulsory voting is opposed through hope that a change will advantage them and now the looney Left believe that abolishing compulsory voting will help them because activists vote often, but the supposed uncommitted plebs do not.

For others, what can explain the stupidity of deliberately wasting their votes or relinquishing their vote or preferences, when it should be apparent that their ideal candidate and party might only exist in their dreams? Has it entirely escaped their notice that it would be the rare candidate indeed who didn't put himself forward because he felt driven to serve his constituency and nation? Is it their sense of powerlessness and learned helplessness that cause them to be victims of their self-imposed limitations?

Australia does very well with its turn-out for elections. Is far better than systems where votes are bought and cars are despatched to pick up the votes for particular interests.

Green tribalism?

<< Obviously the Greens protestations of concern for the disadvantaged doesn't extend to letting them vote. >>

That's bizarre. Who's said anything about not letting people vote? I thought the discussion here was about whether or not voting should be compulsory. I've offered my personal opinion that I don't think it should be, and I have no idea whether the Greens have a position on the issue or not. I can't recall it being discussed.

Cornflower's visceral antipathy towards the Greens is well-documented here at OLO, but that's no excuse for just making things up.

examinator - there's a distinction between "duties" and "responsibilities" that goes beyond the semantic. Personally, I have few duties and many responsibilities, the former being stuff that I'm required to do by others and the latter being stuff I'm required to do by my own values.

Cornflower:"it should be apparent that their ideal candidate and party might only exist in their dreams"

You're missing my point, which is that the current party system has created a situation in which the actual candidate is irrelevant. Even the Greens, who supposedly value individual conscience, have been telling Bandt who he, as the duly-elected candidate, should support.

So much for representative democracy.

If I am sufficiently adult to vote, I ma sufficiently adult to decline. Hobson's customers always had the option of declining to do business.

federalist, I cannot follow your reasoning that -That they will do so imperfectly - those who consider themselves brilliant just as much as the unsophisticated - is an argument for spreading the load as widely as possible. The set of voters most able to judge wisely, and the set of those most keen to have their say, have very little in common.
This really makes very little sense.

Surely if someone has a mental problem or is retarded you would not advocate forcing them to vote especially if they could be in a position where they decide the result of the election?

I do not believe forcing anyone to do anything, makes it more democratic.

Then you go on later to say- I would agree on the precondition of some political sophistication for voting, to this extent: An elector who cannot even be bothered voting below the line for the Senate, or who when doing so cannot successfully count to thirty or eighty or whatever, is unlikely to understand the purpose of the Senate and should be left to run the risk of having their vote discarded as an informal vote.

Surely those are the very people who would not bother to vote so it would be self-regulating.

How to you equate democracy with forced voting if the only other country to use it is Russia?

Also as quoted by King Hazza, the rest of the world gets by quite well without compulsory voting especially the father of parliaments England.

You are on solid ground citing Bandt. I haven't looked recently but didn't he only get 20% of the vote and was swept in by preferences from both sides - only allocated to him because that was the least worse alternative than each other?

Then good ol' Bob horned in to speak for him, notwithstanding the minor matter that the fellow had already expressed his opinion. That is love for you.

Added to that is Uncle Bob's assertion that he doesn't do deals, he 'negotiates' (pause for riotous laughter).

However my point is that democracy and any voting system are not ideal, but the present one is about as good as it gets. Could be better with a third mainstream party though and that rules out the Greens, whose very survival depends on never being accountable for any decisions.

There are pros and cons in the party system. If government works as it did under Howard, a small powerful executive that excludes more than it includes and abuses its powerful numbers in the house then yes, we wait until the next election for the system to self-correct.

What I am saying is that parties can forget public opinion and there can be abuses for a time, but the system is eventually self-correcting to a great extent.

Cornflower, you do of course realize that Greens have no compulsory election policy, and that I have spoken to some members, and they either support it, or have no stance?
So how exactly does this factor into their evil plot to nurture a totalitarian society where only Greens voters rule?
You might have to come up with a better "theory" now.

I don't suppose trying to convey a real reason why compulsory voting is BETTER than voluntary, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (or generally, little actual change in governance at all as most countries indicate), as opposed to try to build up a sinister strawman complete with a cloak-and-dagger conspiracy behind it is asking too much?

@sarnian - isabelberners has already corrected you last night about the number of other countries with compulsory voting, which does not include Russia (not that it would prove anything if it did). Here is the highly informative link she provided: http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf

I gather the reason for the 4-posts-in-24-hours rule on this forum (which prevented me replying earlier) is to encourage participants to spend more time reading others' posts than writing their own. Not to do so turns this discussion into a waste of time.

Anyway, that AEC pamphlet isabelberners referred to addresses many of the questions raised here, and even provides a better introduction to the subject of compulsory voting than the above article. I propose that we all read it before continuing.

@King Hazza asks: "So is there any practical hypothesis of WHY compulsory voting is better than NON?"

How about this: the more people vote, the harder it is for lobbyists and demogogues to distort the outcome by bribing or duping blocs of voters.

While most voters may have limited understanding of the effects of economics or law on their standard of living (just as King Hazza has little understanding of the reasons we have trial by jury, or the difference between "social impacts" and moral justice), most people given time to discuss among themselves are pretty good at detecting insincerity, loopiness, habitual lying, and other extremes of bad character which could otherwise play a much bigger role in ruling our lives.

By diluting the effects of voting blocs who may be duped, bribed, or agitated into hysteria, and also by preventing fraudulent votes on behalf of eligible non-voters, the citizen body thus protects us from the worst extremes of demogoguery which we sometimes see in democratic countries with high complacency and low voter participation.

Australia's version of democracy - the best in the world - requires individuals to give up an hour or so of their precious time, once every three years, as a price to pay for being a citizen in a free country.

This is the point at which I find I cannot no longer join the dots...

>>Australia's version of democracy - the best in the world...<<

If this is the case, federalist, what is it about our "version of democracy" that has brought about the current state of affairs, where a generally-accepted poor, and vision-free campaign from both sides leaves us in the hands of a few political fringe-dwellers for the next three years?

When only policies acceptable to the tiny minority who voted Green, will make it through the Senate?

How is that justifiable in "democratic" terms, when their policies were rejected by nearly 90% of voters?

If this is what the best democracy in the world produces, who exactly are you comparing us with?

King Hazza,

Refer to my earlier post: "Australia does very well with its turn-out for elections. Is far better than systems where votes are bought and cars are despatched to pick up the votes for particular interests."

The Australian compulsory voting system does its level best to encourage people to engage with politics, to participate and feel part of the final consensus (compulsory voting + preferential voting = as near to a consensus as is realistically possible) on who will represent their interests. The link posted by isabelberners and mentioned by federalist is relevant.

However it isn't just the voting that counts, voters should also avail themselves of opportunities to discuss their opinions and needs with elected members during the term of the parliament and they are free to influence policy and administration either through public agencies or direct to ministers.

For rather obvious reasons it is critical to keep people, especially the young, engaged with the political process and government.

this one looks like it will go on forever. but a few late random thoughts,

the electrical act doesn't require a person to vote "for" or "against" any candidate, just to rank the candidates who nominated in order of preference. Unreasonable maybe and certainly helfpful to the majors.

I think it does require a voter to mark a full preference order (as opposed to its instructions to the scrutineers after polling in assessing formality) and we could go chapter and verse if there was any point. Clearly, it can't create a meaningful offence for not marking a full set of preferences without abandoning the secret vote. That has not been the intention since shortly after the Eureka Stockade.

Is the Oz tradition of compulsory voting and a 95% turnout, or thereabouts, part of the reason why the supporters of losing parties do not turn to violent protest? Does it also mean we get boring parliaments because we do get the least detested by the vast majority of the voters?

@Pericles:
[[ This is the point at which I find I cannot no longer join the dots...
>>Australia's version of democracy - the best in the world ...<< ]]

I'll refine my wording: The legislative architecture of Australia's democratic institutions - the best in the world (though still not perfect) - requires individuals to ..."

There's only so much founding fathers can do; the rest is up to us.

* We've failed to teach our children about affairs of state such as political heritage, economics, and the rule of law.
* We've allowed parties to become supreme while individual character and integrity go out of fashion.
* We've forgotten what the Senate is for (the use of PR for Senate election has seduced us into thinking of it as just a House of Alternative Parties).
* We've forgotten almost the entire theory of state federalism, which was recognized by the end of the Enlightenment as the magnum opus of Western political architecture, and after allowing it to be broken down over decades we now frequently call for its abolition.
* We've indulged the media in the lazy practice of covering politics the same way racing commentators cover a horse race, instead of demanding that newspapers interrogate politicians on how they plan to advance Australia, and then explain their answers to us.

And in spite of all these failures of ours, our century-old political institutions have still offered us, on Saturday, what could be an elegant solution to problems of our own making.

That doesn't mean it's perfect or that no further refinement is called for. But I don't think simply aping our peers or abolishing compulsory voting would be a step forward. I think comparisons to other democracies are a case of tall-poppy syndrome, where Australia is the tall poppy.

Very well said Pericles. I can only answer this part:
"If this is what the best democracy in the world produces, who exactly are you comparing us with?"
I would guess:
-countries that don't actually have elections, so even if our system isn't particularly good we shouldn't be pointing it out
-A quick look at the USA and quickly assuming "Well MY country is better than that" (without asking why).

Anyway Federalist, sorry to burst your bubble but politicians have a strong ear to lobbyists regardless of how many people vote if they feel so inclined.
By the well could you point me to a huge act of court injustice in a German criminal court to remind me why we "need" to force people to sit as juries?

Cornflower, unfortunately those benefits are only based on theory. Our voter turnout is naught but a superficial statistic. The amount of politically-engaged people would change not a single bit. I've tried to see if the theory of engaged voters out of compulsory elections were true, but I'm instead seeing unengaged people going to the polls anyway and making decisions based on hearsay.

I admit I was wrong about the only two courtries who have to vote but…..
I am still convinced that it is wrong to force everyone to vote.
Maybe you should have to pass an IQ test when you register?

Now here's a thought.

By the end of Saturday night, I seem to recall that the total number of votes that had actually been counted was less than fifty percent.

But the pundits, the press, the politicians, were calling the result, down to the last few percentage points.

Please explain how a turnout of only, say, fifty percent of the electorate, would have affected the end result?

Would people who turn out to register a vote voluntarily, be of a different nature to those who choose not to?

If so, in what manner?

And would this actually be a better or worse outcome, than forcing the unwilling to vote for the least-worst candidate?

Just askin'.

There's an interesting article on this topic over at 'The Drum' today from Chris Berg of the IPA. Strange times indeed when I find myself agreeing with him!

<< Don't blame Mark Latham's 60 Minutes spot for the increase in informal ballots last Saturday.

Blame compulsory voting. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2992137.htm

@King Hazza, I said maximum participation dilutes the distortions of sectarian organisation of voting; I didn't say it can eliminate it. The fact that it still exerts influence as you rightly point out, means it is a clear and present danger, and all the more reason to want to keep diluting it.

The importance of juries has nothing to do with whether their competence matches that of judges. The crucial point is that juries can and do simply refuse to convict if they consider the charge unjust. This has become a rarer occurrence over time, because the history of juries has taught legislators that it's very embarrassing to write an unjust law only to have it fail in the courtroom because of public disgust at the law.

@Pericles, you started out saying "None of the people who voted either for Tony or Julia is now represented in parliament. The majority of Australians has now been disenfranchised."

Assuming by "Tony or Julia" you meant people who voted for Coalition or Labor proxies for Tony or Julia respectively ... Yes, they are represented in the next Parliament. But an unusually high number of voters this time rejected both parties without giving a mandate to either.

Some of them may have done so for silly reasons, but in most cases it probably came down to people's native ability to judge character and sincerity, which to answer @sarnian, does not require an IQ test.

Despite the unfortunate fact that for many non-Green voters the Greens were the only third option on offer, I believe the aggregate in this case has shown some collective wisdom. They've brought about a situation in which both parties - which have failed abysmally - will have to clean up their acts. The men who'll require them to do so seem to be of a higher calibre than the faction leaders who've been calling the shots up until now.

I consider this a very good outcome, and one which probably would not have occurred if the growing mass of disenchanted voters had expressed their disgust by going fishing on Saturday.

Problem with that idea Sarnian is that it would be an easily corruptible process:
For example, this hypothetical Q&A
"Which group does NSW Labor stand for the most"
A- the working families
B- The Left Wing movement
C- The Unions
D- Business lobbyists trying to purchase public property
Which do you think would be accepted as the right answer in a poll, and which people would be excluded?

Pericles, "By the end of Saturday night, I seem to recall that the total number of votes that had actually been counted was less than fifty percent.

But the pundits, the press, the politicians, were calling the result, down to the last few percentage points."

That was a TV show and so was the electioneering, which never touched ground for fear that the cleverly packaged offerings would immediately be found wanting.

"And would this actually be a better or worse outcome, than forcing the unwilling to vote for the least-worst candidate?'

The candidates are the best who will come forward. Maybe the time is better spent suggesting ways to encourage better candidates to step up to the block if that is the problem. I'd like to see fewer levels of government and fewer pollies overall and if it takes better remuneration to attract quality candidates, so be it.

Voluntary voting gives no incentive to those who feel less involved and probably feel powerless, to vote or take part in the democratic process. Voluntary voting be no better and most likely worse at supporting and encouraging these people to take their part in the democratic process. That should be of concern.

Particularly in a country with the massive immigration programs Australia has maintained for decades, it is prudent to do everything possible to assist people to engage with the political process and feel that they have a stake in it and are listened to.

contd,

It is unfortunate that some parents and carers of teens do little to encourage and assist them to manage their transition to adulthood, a key part of which has to do with their civic pride and responsibilities. The law is the same, some young people are disadvantaged by parents and carers who, for whatever reason, do not explain to youth what responsibilities and accountabilities are involved in the transition from child to adult as far as the law is concerned.

If we are falling down at preparing youth for adulthood, then that is where there should be change. It would be short-sighted to accept our own failure and pretend it is the fault of the disadvantaged themselves. Similarly, disadvantaged groups, especially indigenous and migrant, should be helped and encouraged to take up their rights. That is most unlikely where voting is voluntary.

If there is 'disillusionment with the political choice' or if there is a 'negligent and apathetic section' of the population, maybe the politicians and political parties need to accept that they are as much likely to be at fault than the voters they criticise. It is reminiscent of unions who complain of worker apathy, but do not think of the services they should be offering but are not. What about the political parties thinking about some QA, continuous improvement and and 'criticism is a gift'? Because especially where youth, indigenous and the elderly are concerned, political leaders like to say they are listening, but so often their behaviour says otherwise. Apathetic voters? Who says? Even if there are apathetic voters that is more a criticism of the political parties and culture than anything else.

Frankly I detect political opportunism and Social Darwinism in some of the haughty replies to the thread.

Hmmm. I'm obviously having a bad day, as far as communication is concerned.

Federalist opined:

>>Assuming by "Tony or Julia" you meant people who voted for Coalition or Labor proxies for Tony or Julia respectively ... Yes, they are represented in the next Parliament. But an unusually high number of voters this time rejected both parties without giving a mandate to either.<<

That is, from every possible perspective, simply not true.

The two major parties between them collected the vast majority of the primary vote.

How can that possibly be an indication that they were "rejected"?

My point stands.

The Green Party controls the Senate, ensuring that they have the last word on enabling legislation. 89% of Australians who voted have thus been disenfranchised.

And I'm not sure whether you got my point either, Cornflower.

I was simply observing that the percentages attributed to each candidate changed extremely little, by the time counting reached the halfway mark. Even now, according to the official tally room, only 76.08% of votes have been counted, and the result is unlikely to be affected by the three million or so votes as yet unallocated.

My point was that if the election can be decided by 50% of the people - or 76.08% of the people - why is it mandatory for 100% of the people to turn out?

Why not just those who want to vote for their candidate, or party?

>>Voluntary voting be no better and most likely worse at supporting and encouraging these people to take their part in the democratic process.<<

I fundamentally disagree. If the candidates were faced with two challenges, instead of one, they are likely to be more energetic in presenting their case. First, explain their policies. Then, persuade the public that their policies are worth getting out of bed for.

This election, I'm afraid, lacked both dimensions.

And it shows.

Agreed Pericles.

It also seems that I'm having a hard time explaining the problem.

Federalist seemed to imply only that a conscripted majority will act as a buffer to special interest groups/communities by thinning down their vote.

Otherwise I'm still getting 'aughtas' and 'shouldas' attitudes that people simply SHOULD vote.

I say if you want to actually encourage people to vote, reform the political system to something that gives more people a stronger say. Then they'd be right to think their vote would actually mean something.

Just listening to 'Australia Talks' on RN on this very subject (in the context of a wider discussion about Australia's electoral system) right now. Fascinating - if you didn't catch it it'll be available online.

While I thought the election campaign was about the least riveting I've seen, the result is quite the reverse. There's all kinds of discussion going on about the actual nature of our democracy, which has to be a good thing.

I think that citizens should vote, but I disagree that they should be penalised for not doing so. Quite simple, really.

Now all we have to do is completely reform the electoral system so that people are actually represented in government, in which case they might be more inclined to do exercise their democratic right without the need for the threat of the big stick. Multi-member electorates with proportional representation sounds good.

I'd vote for that :)

The question that has to answered is:
Is the present system working?
The answer is: NO.
None of the really vital problems that need a lead from the Government such as Peak oil, global warming, water supply, energy, were tackled by either of the major parties in this last campaign. All we had was the usual pork thrown out to the undecided to attract their votes.
Population was discussed but was bypassed into “boat people”. The Overpopulation issue was only brought up by Dick Smiths video and a strong reaction to Rudds “Big Australia or it would have also remained a non issue.
Paid parental maternity leave, less tax, money towards school books in fact all of the bribes on offer were only to entice the nonthinking voters.
We are going to continue down the path to total mayhem if this continues.
Abbott was asked his thought on peak oil and said he did not think it was an issue, Gillard as far as I know was not asked. We all know what Abbott really thinks about global warming: crap.
Gillard is a total wimp about it and will not do anything even if she gets back in.
The Rudd Government was allowed in because the thinking voters were conned into thinking he would do something about these issues and of course he was either bought off or wimped out.
All of this is because the so called leaders are only looking to the next election in three years time and pandering to the voters who might put them in the drivers seat.
This mindless auction every three years is the problem.
Stopping compulsory voting is not a panacea but it would help.

Agree entirely Sarnain and CJ

@Pericles,

I said that an unusually high number of people had rejected both major parties, not that a majority had.

Accordingly, one or other party - or both - will dominate policy. Once the new Senators come in, their only power will be to side with one major party against the other, and not even that if Labor and Coalition can agree on intelligent bills.

(Past behaviour shows the Greens do not even have the political acumen to play both sides down the middle. So for example they lost all their hard-won power in the HoR the moment Brandt declared he wouldn't work with the Coalition.)

I see your point that better generation and communication of policies would motivate more people to vote in a voluntary regime. But that's a lot of hard work for politicians, and there are lazier, more efficient ways of getting compliant blocs of voters out of bed.

Or of convincing undesired voters to stay in bed. See for example this famous piece of campaign-manager lore from California 1988, when Democrat polling detected a high level of voter alienation and realized they could exploit it to their advantage.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1glfCn6cbTIC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=caddell+%22piss+them+off+with+politics%22&source=bl&ots=LxXlvfZxYz&sig=E0byFyc0taSeCUJZladde-uSitg&hl=en&ei=daxDTObAPMyVceSL8eYP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=piss%20them%20off%20with%20politics&f=false

There are many failings in modern Australian politics. Cornflower discusses some of them above, and I listed some others on Tuesday. I see no evidence from overseas that voluntary voting produces wiser outcomes.

Messianic democrats sometimes believe that democracy inevitably leads to good government, and any failure of good government must result from the process being "not democratic enough" in some way. Actually democracy is just one of the institutions used to keep government under control. In the absence of public responsibility, education in politics and economics, journalists acting as channels or communication instead of horse race commentators, and students being tought to listen when they don't know what they're talking about instead of endlessly "expressing themselves" ... problems in the political system will follow.

It doesn't all come down to some failure of the democratic feedback system to perfectly gauge the mind of the public, and its inspired understanding of exactly how it should be governed.

Federalist:"I see no evidence from overseas that voluntary voting produces wiser outcomes."

Who said anything about "wiser"? I'd be satisfied with "less inadequate".

And out of curiosity, which countries?

Helen you obviously, like most others, do not understand that voting is not compulsory at all, the AEC just pretend it and you all are falling for it! It amazes me that with my crummy English, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?

The Australian Electoral Commission electoral backgrounder number 17 on compulsory voting, paragraph 24, states;

"Under subsection 245(15) of the Electoral Act the fact that an elector believes it to be a part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for not voting.'

Therefore, not against the law to not vote, hence not duty bound to vote.

One also has the right to accept the punishment for non-compliance. It is more practical to not attend roll call, which will, for registered voters, result in a small fiscal penalty. Which can be paid or easily waived by making reference to s245(15). Staying off the roll is a useful option and very easy to achieve. This can have some more serious consequences, including being jailed by the Sheriff until one registers. However one must practically picket the Electoral Commission and taunt them with no-compliance for this to happen.

As I succesfully submitted on 19 July 2006 to the court section 245(15) is unconstitutional as it infringes s.116 of the constitution unless "religious objection" includes "secular objection"!
.
You find that the AEC concealed from its brochure and that it was comprehensively deafeated by me on 19 July 2006 and one then has to ask is the Australian Electoral Commission deemed to be IMPARTIAL where it conceals relevant details that the Court upheld one cannot be forced to vote?
.
People should not be fined in the first place by a government department because that is the function of a court to do, as I also then successfully suiubmitted to the court.
.
And why should anyone have to confront a court where in the first place no fine can be legally justified?
.
Fact is the Commonwealth took me twice to court for FAILING TO VOTE and lost both cases against me!
.
As like anyone else who lost a case and is bound by the court decision so is the AEC and as such I view it fraudulently obtains people to pay fines, etc, well aware they have no constitutional right to do so!