“Compulsory voting does not just mean a duty to attend a polling booth but, more so, it also implies a moral duty to cast an informed vote. Voting is a precious right that is the basis of democracy but needs to be exercised thoughtfully to be really effective.”

Absabloodylootely!!

Voting should be compulsory. And every voter should be required to have a minimum knowledge of what they are voting about.

I’ve discussed this on other threads on this forum, such as; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=208.

Various reforms are needed. Just a couple are;

the change from compulsory preferential voting to optional preferential, so that the voter can declare their preferences entirely as they see fit, instead of being forced to mark every box,

and the formalisation of a null vote by way of every ballot paper having a box for ‘no candidate’, so that the voter can exercise their choice to vote for none of them if they feel that none deserves their vote.

An excellent article Klaas. But I do take issue with one thing:

“What an amazingly opportunistic reversal while we should all be searching for forms of effective decentralisation in Australia to spread the population and develop this great land. Why should we allow this madness to add to the growing problems of pollution, congestion and people concentration in Australian capital cities?”

Decentralisation is not the answer. It could be part of an overall strategy, but the most important thing is a cap to population growth and a paradigm shift away from continuous expansionism and onto a genuine sustainability platform.

For all the blather about climate change and other environmental issues, the current political setup absolutely promulgates never-ending enlargement of economy, resource consumption, pressure on our environment and in short, the race towards the precipice of enormous economic and social upheaval, and keeps the minor parties (which used to have some sense of sustainability) effectively out of the picture.

This is surely the greatest flaw of our current system.

I agree that the nation needs electoral and constitutional change, however, one of the obstacles to the implementation of any reforms is surely compulsory voting, where the ignorant and apathetic are compelled to vote. A necessary condition for reform in Australia is the abolition of compulsory voting.

Not sure how you arrive at conclusion that the Constitution is out-dated then say what a good job the Senate has done up to 2004 election (that being an indicator of a healthy constitution I would have thought) however, let's look at the nub of your article - the need for people to take voting seriously.

If you care to consider why 96% of voters chose to abrogate their voting responsibility in the Senate poll in 2004 you might just start to uncover the real cause of voter apathy - enforced compulsory preferential voting.

Twist a little bit of Party political self-interest into the mix and you have a voting system that (i) forces people to cast a vote for people they loathe and then (ii) gives them a simple way to abrogate responsibility for doing so by letting a political party choose how to distribute their preferences for them.

I would argue that since the group ticketing system commenced in 1983 there has not been a representative Senate elected in this country in the sense contemplated in section 7 of the Constitution.

I would also argue that forcing people to cast a vote is bad enough without then denying them the power to limit distribution of their preferences.

Anyone who wants to take the matter up with their local MP should go to www.myspace.com/savethesenate and check out the lobbying kit.

the right to vote is trivial. the important thing is deciding what to do. in oz, you get only one vote to express your feeling about who will best manage all the major functions of society. the result is voting to protect one's income by most of the electorate.

in a democratic society, the important questions would be decided separately, by direct election of ministers or citizen initiative. we don't have these powers, and until ozzies realize they don't have democracy, they can't strive to get it.

so don't refer to oz as a democracy, it's a parliamentary society, run by pollie gangsters. say so.

C’mon Klaus. You say “The dominance of the major parties is a curse on the body politic reinforced by compulsory voting” and then you imply C.V. is a good thing. Maybe on the planet Jupiter one might believe that everyone will spend hours at the local library researching the socio-political-economic system because ‘Gee! I have to vote anyway so I better go bone up on all the ramifications of my vote’ but back here on planet earth, the best bet is that someone who doesn’t care and doesn’t know before the election will, by the time of the election only have learnt that he still resents as much as ever having to act in what he sees as a charade.

Also, how can something that is a “precious right” also be a “duty”? Aren’t the two concepts contradictory. A right is something you can arbitrarily indulge in while a duty is something you cannot refrain from.
www.compulsoryvoting.org

Edward

This is an interesting forum. I agree that the right to vote is a valuable priviledge that few of us can afford to 'throw away' so I was quite surprised when I came across an article yesterday where a chap is selling his 'Federal vote' on Ebay ! (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22601398-5001028,00.html Since this article was published, the link to the actual ebay item is broken, but if you do a search on ebay, some other Federal Votes are on offer).

Does anybody know if this is a criminal offense under the state gov. or a Federal/Commonwealth offence ?

Thanks in advance :)

Peterg78

“…how can something that is a “precious right” also be a “duty”? Aren’t the two concepts contradictory.”

Not at all Edward.

It is a precious right inasmuch as it is the vehicle for the individual to have their input into their governance, compared to regimes where the common people have no input.

And it should be a duty in a real democracy for everyone of voting age (+/- convicted felons and/or the mentally incapable) to have this minimum level of input.

It is thus both a right and a duty. They fit together perfectly well.

Ludwig,

[[[[It is a precious right inasmuch as it is the vehicle for the individual to have their input into their governance, compared to regimes where the common people have no input.]]]]
Clever try at confusing the logic.
The right to do something is a different animal to the thing that is done. You have tried to fuse the two together.

Specifically, the mechanism for input into government (voting) is independant of whether or not such mechanism is employed voluntarily or compulsorily.

So you have done nothing to counter Edward's point.
.
.
.
.
[[[[And it should be a duty in a real democracy for everyone of voting age]]]]
Cirular reasoning via synonym: "It should be compulsory because it should be a duty"
.
.
.
.
[[[[It is thus both a right and a duty. They fit together perfectly well.]]]]
The only place they fit together well is in your imagination and question-begging logic. Try to avoid presuming the premise you purport to prove, then enroll in some basic tertiary logic and critical thinking.
Until then, your logic is something like your politics.

Finally, understand that a duty renders a right superfluous. Even the common uneducated man understands this, and we know you do to: we doubt you would consider paying a bank fee to be a right.
So then we must conclude your motives to be a little on the dark side: your intent is to force your will on others, like any good socialist, and to disguise such intent with an ostensible concern for your fellow man.

The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia – there is only compulsory attendance at a polling booth.

Once you have turned up no one can force you to vote. You can take your ballot papers, put them in the rubbish bin and walk out. No one forces you to cast a vote.

I do not want to vote for any of the candidates on offer and it is quite clear that I do not have to vote so what is the point of making me go to the polling booth? Only those who want to choose one of the candidates should go to the polling booth – anyone else should stay away. This is called integrity and it is more valuable than democracy. Why does our government force us to act in a way which is not consistent with the way we think and feel? We are not denying the rights of anyone else by not voting. That is totalitarianism by any other name.

It is not my duty to choose one or other of the candidates on offer unless I have freely agreed to accept it as my duty. A duty is something I choose for a good reason and not something imposed upon me. Compulsory ‘voting’ is just that – an imposition. Freedom to choose one’s duties is a much better value for a society to have than a full ballot box.

It is my right to vote but a right is not an obligation. A right is something I can take or reject and this too is a more fundamental value than democracy. If I have to do something and will be punished if I do not do it then it is hardly a right.

Whenever there is no good reason for a law such as compulsory voting it is usually because it is masking some unsavoury agenda. In this case it is probably some form of bullying by the major parties trying to get disinterested people to vote for them.

This brings us to probably the most contentious issue in this regard. If the right to vote must be guarded so carefully, following the same logic it is then surely wrong for the uninformed to cast a vote which has the same value as those cast by "informed" people. No, this is just a silly idea. If people want to spoil their voting papers they can and will. That's the meanng of democracy.

Liberty, Ludwig
The expression was "moral duty", why don't rights and moral duties as distinct from legal duties fit together? The exercise of neither one is compulsory.

Of course it is important that people treat voting seriously . . . but soon you have problems.

How do you determine if people are making an informed choice? Who do you exclude from the right to vote? While plausable to begin with, what you avocate pretty soon comes to seem very ill-considered.

Nc

Compulsory voting ensures that those that don't really care are forced to vote based on the latest sound bite that drifts through their head.

This leads to populist media driven goverments where rational long term policies are a liability.

If you don't want to have a part in selecting your goverment why on earth should you. Whimsical voting leads to whimsical government.

“Clever try at confusing the logic.”

Compared to your not so clever attempt to confuse the logic, eh Liberty?

I can’t make head nor tail of your post, and what’s with the whacky four-bracket business and the haphazard paragraph spacing, with variously four lines, one line or no space between them? (:>/)

Consider this: You see someone commit assault or robbery in the street. Is it not both your right to do something about it by way of going to the police and your duty as a good citizen to do so? Why shouldn’t voting be seen in just the same way?

A right and a duty are not mutually exclusive.

It might be hard enforce a good community spirit for everyone who witnesses unlawful activities, but it is not hard to get all eligible citizens to vote. Given that it is administratively practicable, it should be done.

I find it quite bizarre that anyone would think that a significant portion of the populace not bothering to vote would be acceptable.

If the vast majority of citizens voted of their own free will, then I wouldn’t be worried about making it compulsory. But with such a large part of the community foregoing their right, privilege or in-principle duty in countries where voting is voluntary, I think compulsory voting has to be upheld in Australia.

Ludwig,

Free speech is a right, but I am awfully glad it's not compulsory. Reporting a crime is a duty, but not compulsory. You are the one confused between a right, a duty and a law.

Charity is a right, some might consider it a duty. Income tax is compulsory.

The more the state dictates what you do, the less freedom you have.

This is why most modern democracies don't have this archaic system.

There are simply too many internal contradictions in this argument to count, which makes it extremely difficult to frame a response.

>>Compulsory voting does not just mean a duty to attend a polling booth<<

"Compulsory voting" in Australia does, in fact, mean exactly that: registering your attendance at a polling both.

Strike one.

>>it also implies a moral duty to cast an informed vote<<

Only, surely, if there is a concomitant "moral duty" incumbent upon politicians to both present their policies in an informative way, and then - when elected on those policies - to carry them out. Blatant shirking by politicians, over many years, of any inclination to do this has completely annulled any requirement for the electorate to be forced to vote for them.

Strike two.

>>Voting is a precious right that is the basis of democracy but needs to be exercised thoughtfully to be really effective<<

How is it both? That isn't rational. Surely, it is just as precious a democratic right, when you find yourself faced with no candidate worthy of your vote, to withhold it? Thoughtfully.

Strike Three.

You're already on your way back to the dugout, but this bit is too good to pass over.

"The importance of [the right to vote] is probably lost as a result of the massive over concentration on the major parties in the media. That imbalance needs to be addressed urgently."

The media are irrelevant to any discussion on the nature of voting, compulsory or otherwise, precious right or painful necessity. And their concentration on major parties surely only reflects that predominance of those major political parties on our electoral landscape?

Which brings us full circle to the reason that compulsory voting is a sham.

Tweedledum, anybody?

Or how about Tweedledee?

Phanto

“The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia”.

True. But if you were to blatantly drop your ballot paper in the bin or otherwise make it obvious that you were casting an informal vote, you could be charged. We are legally required to cast a legitimate vote.

Like you, I don’t wish to vote for either major candidate. And we can’t vote for minor candidates without our vote ending up counting for one of the two big mongrels. Thus is our rotten compulsory preferential system.

So as I said in my first post, essential reforms are needed – the abandonment of compulsory preferential voting and the formalisation of the null vote, for example.

I agree that our government is basically forcing a lot of us to vote in a way that is not consistent with how we think or feel. But this shouldn’t mean that voting be made voluntary. It means that urgent reforms are needed within the compulsory voting system.

“It is my right to vote but a right is not an obligation”.

I respect this view. But I personally strongly feel that a core principle of democracy should be an obligation for citizens to do certain things and act in certain ways, for the common good. Democracy does not mean total freedom. It means living under considerable restrictions and practicing communal responsibilities so that a reasonable degree of fairness and a half-decent quality of life can prevail for all citizens.

One of the obligations must surely be to have a certain amount of input into how one’s society is run. I don’t think it is fair and reasonable for any normal citizen, let alone a large part of any society, to not have this basic input. Voting is perhaps the most tangible and the least arduous way of ensuring that all citizens have at least this minimum degree of input.

But of course along with compulsory voting, we MUST be able to direct our vote and preferences to where we want them to go, uncoerced in any way.

Ludwig,

Telling me you can't understand my post is simply evasion.
The question-begging of your arguments has been revealed to all, as well as your false motives in deliberately confusing a right with an obligation.

The notion of a right is redundant when accompanied by an obligation to the same end.
As I have pointed out, I doubt you would consider paying a speeding fine a right.

And I doubt that the hundreds of nations around the world which maintain voluntary voting consider voting less of a right because it is not obligatory.

Your intent is decidely dishonest, playing semantic games and insulting even the most basic of intelligences. Ultimately, you are a socialist, and like all socialists, like to paint your ideas as philanthropic, when in fact all you are interested in doing is forcing your will on others, and sending them to jail when they do not comply.

Phanto,

[[[[The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia]]]]
Eh.....like saying it is not compulsory to obey the speed limit when there is no policeman around.

The legislation states that we must vote, and not simply that we must turn up to a booth.

Furthermore, your intent is deliberately tangential: you are not addressing the issue, but are seeking to support compulsory voting by tangentialising to whether or not it can be enforced anyway.

59 people went to jail in Australia for not voting in the 2nd last Federal election. I doubt any of the 59 would consider voting to be not-compulsory after there overnight stay in a cell.

And your implication is sillyness: you would have us believe that compulsory voting should be allowed to continue because it is somehow a good exercise of our time to show up to a booth.

The mind boggles.

One good thing about so called compulsory voting is down the track, no one can say they did not vote for anyone. Responsibility for any government being put in place stays with the whole voting population.

We all need to take our voting rights very seriously. The right to vote is not only a priveledge but a obligation.

The complete sentence from which the title of Klaas' article has been taken reads: "Voting is a precious right that is the basis of democracy but needs to be exercised thoughtfully to be really effective." The sub-title, "Compulsory voting does not just mean a duty to attend a polling booth - it also implies a moral duty to cast an informed vote", seems somehow misleading. Klaas is not advocating compulsory voting at all.

Klaas has made his position quite clear with respect to compulsory voting in a previous OLO article, "Voluntary voting is long overdue", published on 4 April 2007. He opposes it. The 82 comments on that article can be viewed at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5679 if your primary focus is that of the rights or wrongs of compulsory voting.

I suggest Klaas may have confused symptom with cause in the real subject of his article, which he sees as being about the dominance of the major parties, the federal structure of government, an allegedly archaic constitution, and functional amateurism of ministries.

Klaas wants change in all these areas. By linking poor performance in governance to the compulsory aspect of voting and its evident unpopularity, perhaps Klaas hopes that the changes he sees as being desirable will be more readily approved by voters at large.

phanto nails it in the ninth post to this thread when he says "Whenever there is no good reason for a law such as compulsory voting it is usually because it is masking some unsavoury agenda". phanto is at the least superficially correct in suggesting that agenda may be a desire by the major parties to maximise their vote. There may be an even more unsavoury explanation: that compulsory voting has provided a believable explanation for routinely high apparent voter turnout in Australian elections ever since its introduction (Federally) in 1924.

What if those apparently high voter turnout levels in truth constitute a reflection of sustained electoral fraud? Such sustained fraud would have operated to degrade genuine representation and competence across the board. Is this not what we see?

Ludwig

Even if there were changes to the system I would still not want to vote. I do not like any of the candidates so why should I have to go to a polling booth for no reason. I am not going to vote even if I go into a cubicle so what is the point of forcing me to go? What is achieved by it except to show that a government can bully its citizens into attending a certain place at a certain time for no reason?

It is the same for people who do not care. You may think that they should care but they do not and there is no way you can force them to care by making them vote. Caring is something that has to come from within and even if you torture people into voting you will never change their compliance so what is the point? Any government that takes a mandate from forced voting should be ashamed of itself.

“a core principle of democracy should be an obligation for citizens to do certain things and act in certain ways, for the common good.” Sure, but for a good reason. We are all forced to drive on the left side of the road for a good reason and most people agree with that but what is the reason why I should be forced to go to a polling booth when I am not going to do anything when I am there?

“One of the obligations must surely be to have a certain amount of input into how one’s society is run.” This should not be an obligation. How can you enforce it anyway? Even if I mark the ballot paper in exactly the same way as a student of politics how can you tell that my input is considered and studied. If I do not vote I must accept the government we end up with and the consequences of that but you can never force me to consciously choose something I do not want to choose.

To me it's a given that voting is an important democratic right and that along with this right comes the responsibility to be at least reasonably well informed. As pointed out by Ludwig, the two are not mutually exclusive and actually fit together extremely well. But then again I haven't done a 'tertiary logic and critical thinking' course.

I agree with Shadow Minister that requiring people to vote means we end up with a government largely decided by uninterested voters who are easily persuaded by simplistic sound bites. I still consider it the best system though. Optional voting would only increase the volume of advertising and reduce it to even more inane levels. Hip pocket giveaways and political pork barrelling would become the order of the day as the major parties fought just to entice us to the ballot box.

I like the idea of not having to distribute all preferences. I would much prefer not to have to put any sort of mark in the box beside some candidates' names. The simplification involved and the feeling of having more autonomy in the voting process might actually woo back some disaffected voters too. I don't think it would help the minor parties though. Uninterested voters would just vote for the majors and leave it at that.

It is an important democratic right to vote and everyone in this country has that right. It should be just as important a democratic right to not vote and to not go to the polling booth. The right to make choices that do not impinge on the rights of others is even more fundamental than democratic rights. Even communist countries allow their citizens the right to make these choices. If a democracy has to deny its citizens the right to refrain from voting in order to guarantee its existence then there is something wrong with democracy. Freedom is more important than any democracy and governments who have the welfare of their citizens at heart will want to allow those citizens as many freedoms as possible so long as they do not impinge on the rights of others. Some people may not like the fact that I do not vote but in no way am I denying them any of their rights. I am not trying to deny their rights to vote either.

You can be extremely well informed and still make a choice not to vote – you could even be a lot better informed than many people who do vote.

Optional voting may well bring about more advertising and other annoying consequences but this is not a good reason to deny many people the fundamental right to not vote.

Shadow Minister, from your first post;

“Compulsory voting ensures that those that don't really care are forced to vote based on the latest sound bite that drifts through their head.”

Compulsory voting helps ensure that a greater portion of the populace develops a view on who to vote for and hence on what is happening in the governance of their country than would otherwise happen. If they have to vote, most will be prompted to think about it, whereas if voting was voluntary, many will just be totally apathetic.

Surely compulsory voting works towards improving awareness in the general community about government, policies, future directions, etc. And surely that is a good thing.

“Whimsical voting leads to whimsical government.”

A lot of people cast a vote which is not based on much understanding or consideration of what is on offer. This certainly needs improvement. But if 25% or perhaps 50% of the populace didn’t vote, do you think things would be better?

One problem with optional voting would be that those without a strong feeling about the candidates/parties/policies would be less inclined to vote while those with strong views on single issues would still be inclined to vote, based only on one issue.

For all of the somewhat whimsical nature of a large part of the voting public, I think that they can see past single issues and on to the big picture, at least to some extent. So in short, compulsory voting would give a more holistic outcome than voluntary voting.

From your second post;

“The more the state dictates what you do, the less freedom you have.”

Not at all. The highest level of freedom for the average citizen is gained with the right balance of laws/restrictions. And the right balance is that which suppresses all of the things that would be undertaken by the powerful, aggressive and criminalistic that would undermine our freedom in the absence of those laws, without unnecessarily restricting us.

Stronger governance, with what may appear to be more restrictions on the surface, could well improve average freedom, security and quality of life.

Jees Liberty. You’ve just joined OLO… and I think you should leave already. Come back under a different pseudonym, with a considerably better attitude.

You seem to be totally intolerant of anyone who has a different view to your own. Any one who doesn’t agree with you apparently has sinister motives, as is evident in these statements in response to me;

“So then we must conclude your motives to be a little on the dark side: your intent is to force your will on others, like any good socialist”

“…as well as your false motives in deliberately confusing a right with an obligation.”

“Your intent is decidely dishonest, playing semantic games…”

and in response to phanto;

“…your intent is deliberately tangential”

“And your implication is sillyness…”

It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who is quick to accuse others of dodgy motives without any foundation for doing so is very likely to have dodgy motives themselves.

Why not just debate the issues in a decent and tactful manner.

---
“Even if there were changes to the system I would still not want to vote [for any of the candidates in the forthcoming election].”

Me too phanto. No candidate has a platform that I endorse, or think is sufficiently good to deserve my vote. But that is no reason to make voting voluntary, and it is every reason for the likes of you and me; people who give a damn about our governance; to fight hard for reforms in the system.

Our differences are clear. They are the same differences that have existed in this debate for decades. Neither of us is going to concede. But I will say this; ultimately I there is not a great deal of difference between compulsory and voluntary voting. One works fine in Australian and the other works well in the USA.

I consider reforms that would allow a voter to cast their vote and preferences totally as they see fit to be much more important.

Sorry Bronwyn but you just can’t play the “I’m dumb and not ashamed of it” card. The issue at play is “are rights and obligations compatible or not” Either Liberty or Ludwig is right but the final judgement must rely on analysis of argument.
You give the impression that you are saying that you agree with Ludwig because you want to agree with him and if his method is qualifying something by simply stating it, then so be it. And if that is irrational then “Call me irrational, I don’t care”
Liberty gave the argument and then the analogy:
“The notion of a right is redundant when accompanied by an obligation to the same end.
As I have pointed out, I doubt you would consider paying a speeding fine a right.”
He may be wrong but if he is then it can only be proved by giving a countering argument, followed by a countering analogy

Edward Carson

I don't intend to get caught up in the pedantics of what I consider to be a fairly pointless debate, but yes I did agree with Ludwig and no I didn't expand as I had nothing further to add to his explanation. And you can call me whatever names you like.

In a civilised society such as ours it is perfectly natural that we all have rights and along with those rights come responsibilities. I can't see any value in your argument. To me some of you on this thread are too hung up on claiming your rights and too little prepared to consider your responsibilities. Any society functions best when the correct balance is achieved between the notion of personal freedom and the idea that we all need to forgo some freedom in the interest of the common good.

I can't see how exercising your right not to vote in any way helps the society in which you live. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. Surely we all have a responsibility to keep abreast of politics and to hold our politicians to account by casting an informed vote.

And no I wasn't playing the “I’m dumb and not ashamed of it” card. I was referring to Liberty's earlier questioning of Ludwig's logic and his patronizing advice to him to 'avoid presuming the premise you purport to prove, then enroll in some basic tertiary logic and critical thinking.' I have read many of Ludwig's posts in the past and have always found them extremely lucid and logical.

Is it a 'right' or an 'obligation' (moral duty)?

Make up your mind.

And whose morality? Do l have the right to make my own moral judgements or must l cede to your sactimony.

Informed? By what, by whom?

Is your information morally superior to the next person?

What informs your moral sanctimony.

Is it not enough for the voter to inform themselves of what information is relevant to their own interests, propelled by their own morality?

Or must they defer to your superior judgement?

Why even bother, in the face of such overt pretence?

Lets not even begin to decipher the sham.

Bronwyn said:
“I can't see how exercising your right not to vote in any way helps the society in which you live. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. Surely we all have a responsibility to keep abreast of politics and to hold our politicians to account by casting an informed vote.”

It helps the society just as much as voting. You can spend many hours a day ‘informing’ yourself about politics and come to the conclusion that you do not want to vote for any of the candidates. This should be a valid choice but compulsory voting does not acknowledge this choice in the same way it acknowledges the choice of those who choose a candidate. It does not allow people who do not want to choose to have the freedom to stay home on election day. That would be the logical thing to do. Why go somewhere at a certain time to do nothing. If you want to choose then you go to the polling booth – that is the logical thing to do in that case.

This may produce all sorts of fears about people abusing the freedom to stay home, the validity of the mandate and the end of democracy as we know it but these are all problems that must be solved by other means and not by forcing people to do something that is totally illogical.

Politicians need to present something that makes people want to get out and vote instead of forcing many people to get out and vote out of fear of being fined. It is like any relationship. It is much better to be together because you want to be rather than because you are forced to be.

Bronwyn,

[[[[In a civilised society such as ours it is perfectly natural that we all have rights and along with those rights come responsibilities.]]]]

There are a number of logical errors in this statement. Here are a two:

1. You state that reponsibilities come along with societies which are "civilised", while also implying that a society is civilised if it comes with responsibilities. That is IF A, then B, and if B, then A. Circular reasoning, or colloquially: "pulling yourself off the ground by your own bootstraps".

2. You tacitly declare that "responsibilities" includes an obiligation to vote. This is presuming the premise you purport to prove (aka "Question begging"). Or as some put it, "restating your position as ostensible defence of itself".

Bronwyn, argument is purely about logic. All the opinions in the world contribute nothing. If you choose to enter a debate, then you must employ valid logical argumentation only. Anything else is simply that which clutters up the thread.

Phanto, your position seems quite paradoxical to me. No offence, but it seems rather strange for someone who is obviously interested in politics to be willing to not be involved in the electoral process if they didn’t have to be.

You have formed the view that neither major candidate deserves your vote. Presumably this is not because of apathy but is based on a pretty good understanding of what they have to offer and how their national management styles compare to your ideal. So if you have come to that conclusion, how then can you just simply opt out?

How come you aren’t out there howling your concerns to whoever will listen… and many that won’t?

We most definitely don’t need a voluntary voting setup if there are many people who would simply forego their right to vote if they didn’t like the offerings. If this was to happen, there would be a real danger of government becoming more out of touch with the constituency.

So how about lobbying for a formalised vote for no candidate instead of for voluntary voting. At least that way, we would know that a null vote would be a protest about what is on offer whereas a no show under the voluntary system would be a mixture of protest and apathy/laziness….mostly apathy/laziness with the protest component disguised and indeterminate.

yes but what is more precious is the rareity these days for citizens to creaet new political parties that are pro Catholic, and hence pro Jesus Christ , in terms of their policies to protect the unborn children whoa re killed at the rate of 100,000 per year in Australia; also the lack of a real 'labor' party that would control the finance sector along the lines of the great Bob Santamaria and the DLP.

Sadly we only have Protestant groups who are closer to business interests rather than the old Irish and traditional Catholic teaching that looks after ALL areas form morals through to trade unions.
To put 'family first' we need such a political party that would cause the kind of healthy conflict that we need to have in Australia; the nation that kills 100,000 babies each year but is jingoistic the rest of the time about silly sports. What a weak bunch we Aussies are.
Time for a political party that not only blames politicians but also has a shot at the dills in the electorate too who accept liberal govts and are about to put in Rudd who is really just another Lib compared to true Labor bread and butter issues.

Liberty

I mightn't be a student of logic as you so obviously are but I certainly have a better understanding of debating etiquette.

You criticise me but you have contributed nothing new to this debate. All you have done is denigrate other posters and nit pick over trivialities. You can't spell, you can't punctuate, your language doesn't flow, you have few ideas to contribute and your rudeness is surpassed only by your arrogance.

I don't usually make personal attacks like this, but I strongly resent your patronizing tone. I'll contribute to debate when and how I see fit and hopefully I won't be told again that I'm cluttering up the thread. Who appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes good debate? I can figure out for myself whether or not I'm cutting through. I don't need you to point it out for me.

I don’t think this debate is about politics. It is about freedom to choose my own behaviour instead of the government telling me what to do. The same principles could apply to many situations. All I want is the government to give me a good reason why I must vote or must attend the polling booth. No one can prove that compulsory voting gives a ‘better’ result than voluntary voting. The first situation impinges on my right to choose and the second does not. So all things being equal, unless proven otherwise, then the better thing in principle is to allow the freedom to choose.

If people want to be apathetic then let them be apathetic. Apathy might well be the most appropriate response – those people may have more integrity than all the ‘well-informed’ voters. No you cannot tell if people’s absence from the polling booth is apathy or ‘informed’ protest. In the same way you cannot tell if the votes that are cast are ‘informed’ or uninformed. Many people cast a ‘donkey’ vote. You cannot tell if an unmarked ballot paper is a protest, a mistake, apathy or whether the voter just left their glasses at home.

Once again you cannot quantify any of these things nor prove them so all things being equal it is wrong of the government to take away the freedom of choice. Compulsory voting takes away a freedom and voluntary voting does not.

Yeah Liberty, she’s got you there!

You’re rude, arrogant, patronizing and lack etiquette.
Obviously we can deduce from this that Bronwyn must be correct in her analysis of the issue, and thus compulsory voting is actually a good thing.

We voters are to often affixed to a party and to our right through the vote to ostrasize poor politicians. In this regard, consider Tony Abbott in Manly. Despite our failing Health System, how many with vote for a coalition rather than again a poor Health Minister. Historical, the same is true of Dawkins on the other side of politics.

Herein, in Manly, we have voters, who on behalf of all Australians can vote to Abbott or sack him for failing to announce a plan to make PET scans more accessible and affordable:

ABC 7.30 Report

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1973995.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2043989.htm

The second URL seems more stable

Ludwig,

The concept that “Compulsory voting helps ensure that a greater portion of the populace develops a view on who to vote for” is extremely fanciful.

You can lead a man to vote but you cannot make him think!

Your comment that: “Stronger governance, with what may appear to be more restrictions on the surface, could well improve average freedom, security and quality of life.” Is an argument made by dictators. If you are willing to give up freedom for security, you generally end up with neither.

I know of no other law that makes me physically do something without a court order or warrant. This ranks with conscription which can only be justified in a time of war.

I take my “duty” to vote very seriously, but find some archaic law telling me that I must, both demeaning and insulting to the point where I am torn between voting and becoming a conscientious objector.

Next will be compulsory church attendance where you don’t have to believe, but just turn up. It’s for the public good!

Phanto,

You hit the nail on the head.

Hi all,

It is amazing how much interest is there in the issue of compulsory versus voluntary voting.
But what has happened here is that somehow a different title was given to this article than what I intended. I favour voluntary voting for reasons set out in a previous OLO article which correspondent Forrest Gumpp (20/10) correctly picked up. The original title of this article was "Non-major party issues and the 2007 election" . What I sought to demonstrate is the need for voters to vote for non-major party candidates if they want MPs who will voice views on these non-major party issues. To achieve that voters need to carefully examine what is on offer as there really are alternatives. That requires a little bit of research and reading the material in the weeks leading up to the election.

Perhaps you want to respond to particular theme!

Klaas Woldring

Shadow Minister

“The concept that ‘Compulsory voting helps ensure that a greater portion of the populace develops a view on who to vote for’ is extremely fanciful.”

Not at all. Far from it. If people are required to do something then they will generally have a better consciousness of it than if they are not required. That’s pretty straightforward surely. It wouldn’t be the case for everyone but it would be for a large portion of the population. There can be no doubt about it; compulsory voting produces a better level of awareness, understanding and appreciation of governance than voluntary voting does, all else being equal. Just how significant it might be is hard to tell. But it certainly isn’t fanciful.

“ ‘Stronger governance, with what may appear to be more restrictions on the surface, could well improve average freedom, security and quality of life’. Is an argument made by dictators.”

That’s a bit silly. It is all about finding the right balance between restrictions and freedom. There is no point in projecting things to the extreme. Obviously we must have laws that restrict our freedom in some ways for the collective good. Neither democracy nor a coherent society could exist without this.

“If you are willing to give up freedom for security, you generally end up with neither.”

Not at all. It is a matter of getting the balance right. Foregoing a little bit of freedom in order to increase security may well be eminently sensible, depending on the circumstances.

“I know of no other law that makes me physically do something without a court order or warrant.”

Speed limits make most of us physically drive at a sensible and safe speed, or at least safer than many of us would drive without them. There are all sorts of laws that physically lead us into certain courses of action.

Those who oppose compulsory voting mostly don’t object too much to the lawful restrictions that they are subjected to every day. But they object to something that requires a minimum of effort once every couple of years!

continued

“This ranks with conscription which can only be justified in a time of war.”

My Goodness! Compulsory voting is about one millionth as significant as conscription in the grief, worry and inconvenience that it causes!

“Next will be compulsory church attendance where you don’t have to believe, but just turn up.”

I see a fundamental flaw in reasoning with this sort of statement. To me it indicates that some people can’t understand the concept of balance, or the concept of a little bit of something being ok while a lot of it would be far from ok.

Compulsory voting is ok. But compulsory church attendance would not be. And of course the idea of compulsory church attendance, or of conscription, has completely nothing to do with compulsory voting, apart from the very loose connection of being compulsory.

Ludwig,

The points I was trying to make appear to have gone completely over your head. Simply repeating that compulsory voting makes people more politically aware does not make it so. There is no evidence what so ever that this is true, only wishful thinking.

Yes, conscription is more drastic than compulsory voting, but likewise the theft of $1000 000 compared to the theft of $1. They are both theft and both wrong.

A speed limit of 60 simply says that you cannot drive above 60kmph. It does not force you to drive at 60. You can drive at 50 or on a different road. It is simply a regulation not a compulsion. At no point will you get fined for not driving at 60 on Anzac parade on Nov 24. The difference is not even subtle.

Civil liberty is the right to make your own choices irrespective or race, religion, gender etc. In a free country for anyone to be compelled to do something, there should be an overwhelming argument in favour of the national good. I have yet to see anything substantive let alone overwhelming.

While you agree with me on compulsory church attendance being bad, the difference is not in principle, only in magnitude.

Losing a little freedom is like being a little pregnant. It is the thin edge of the wedge and can form an argument for further erosions of freedom later.

Interesting to see that Klaas' article was editorially re-titled.

'Re-badging' of articles could be seen as a means to suppression of certain topics of discussion, to the extent that decisions to view a thread may be based upon viewer perceptions as to its subject matter. That is not to say that such may be OLO editorial policy, but it is an area that bears watching.

One of my own experiences may illustrate the dangers to forum credibility that can be posed by editorial rejection of a contributor's article or new discussion topic on the apparent basis of its title. On 16 October I submitted an opening post for a general discussion thread I had titled "Fudging the issue: getting around the law.", relating to the announcement of the Federal elections, the issue of the writs, and the roll closure legislation of 2006.

Perhaps the most contentious point of my submission was the suggestion that the Prime Minister may have advised the Governor-General to post-date the writs, thereby getting around the provision that rolls were to close at 8:00 PM on the day of issue. I suggested that such advice, if given, would have been demeaning of the office of Governor-General. My proposed topic was rejected with the words "This is a nonsense post. Sorry."

As it has transpired, the proclamation of the prorogation of the Parliament in a separate proclamation to that of even date dissolving the House of Representatives three days later has caused quite a degree of public comment. There has been published a Senate Procedural Bulletin with respect to these matters, see: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/proc_bul/bull_217.htm . Significantly, Bulletin 217 states "For the 2007 election, two instruments were signed, with the prorogation and the dissolution occurring on different days. It is not known why this process was adopted, ....".

Clearly this matter was not considered nonsense by the Clerk of the Senate. Given the AEC's 14 October announcement of the issue of writs as being 17 October, suspicion of post-dating was reasonable.

Shadow Minister

“The points I was trying to make appear to have gone completely over your head.”

Wow! I directly addressed your points about wishful thinking. You have simply repeated your assertion without addressing the points that I made!

So let me put them in question form;

If people are required to take a course of action, will they or will they not generally develop a better consciousness and understanding about it than they would if they were not required to do anything?

If they develop a better consciousness and understanding, will we or will we not be likely to get a better standard of governance and/or a truer representativeness of the peoples’ wishes, all else being equal?

“It does not force you to drive at 60”

Obviously the intent of the law is to force drivers not to exceed 60 in a 60kmh speed zone. But you still have the choice of obeying the law or risking a heavy penalty.

Similarly, you can still choose not to turn up to a polling booth and pay the penalty. So perhaps compulsory voting should be called regulated voting instead!?

“In a free country for anyone to be compelled to do something, there should be an overwhelming argument in favour of the national good.”

I disagree. If a little increase in the requirement for the populace to do certain things can change the balance in favour of the national good a little bit without significantly reducing personal freedom, then it should be done. There does not have to be an overwhelming advantage in increasing restrictions or required actions.

There is a constant balancing act going on here, between everyday freedom and the security of the vulnerable, between a high standard of living now and that in the future, etc, etc. It is the very essence of government to deal with all these multifaceted balancing acts.

“It is the thin edge of the wedge and can form an argument for further erosions of freedom later.”

This thin edge of the wedge thinking is the great flaw in your argument. It's all about balance.

Ludwig

You keep repeating this view –
“There is a constant balancing act going on here, between everyday freedom and the security of the vulnerable, between a high standard of living now and that in the future, etc, etc. It is the very essence of government to deal with all these multifaceted balancing acts.”

No one here is denying we need a balance between freedom and restrictions in general but how do we arrive at this state of affairs if not by examining each freedom and restriction in particular. We have to look at each on its merits. We need to examine it to see if it is logical and reasonable in its own right. We should not have to make comparisons with other situations. If we have a good argument it will stand on its own merits according to the rules of logic and reason.

Continuing to appeal to the general principle adds nothing to the particular debate in which we are engaged.

“If people are required to take a course of action, will they or will they not generally develop a better consciousness and understanding about it than they would if they were not required to do anything?”
This depends on the course of action. How much consciousness and understanding do you need to get your name ticked off the roll or make a donkey vote. It is not like people are attempting the HSC. They will make as little effort as necessary to fulfil their ‘obligation’ which is probably the same amount they would make if they stayed at home.

Ludwig,

In answer to your question

"If people are required to take a course of action, will they or will they not generally develop a better consciousness and understanding about it than they would if they were not required to do anything?

I said that there was no evidence what so ever that it makes any difference. I say it yet again.

Have you got any evidence / study etc that supports your assertion other than wishful thinking? The ancient Greeks by sitting down decided that heavier objects must fall faster than light ones as it seemed logical and was generally accepted until a thousand years later Galileo showed this to be false.

Likewise there is no evidence proffered anywhere that compulsory voting leads to a better selection of government. In a discussion at work on the subject, the only people that supported the concept were about 50% of the Australians. The best that the migrants could say about it was that it was quaint and equated it to the show of hands in some Swiss Cantons.

This would lead me to believe that the only reason people have for keeping compulsory voting is because of resistance to change. Maybe it is time for the Australian electorate to emerge blinking into the 21st century.

Compulsory voting is like an appendix, it has no use. The argument for keeping it is that it is mostly harmless.

“No one here is denying we need a balance between freedom and restrictions…”

I’m glad you think so phanto, but it is pretty obvious to me that Shadow Minister doesn’t appreciate this balancing act, with comments like;

“Losing a little freedom is like being a little pregnant. It is the thin edge of the wedge and can form an argument for further erosions of freedom later.”

You write;

“…how do we arrive at this state of affairs if not by examining each freedom and restriction in particular.”

We must most definitely examine each restriction on its own merits. That’s why I think suggestions that compulsory voting could lead to compulsory church attendance or is in principle no different to conscription, or is the start of a slippery slope towards much stronger restrictions are just silly.

“If we have a good argument it will stand on its own merits according to the rules of logic and reason.”

There aren't compelling arguments either way. It comes down to whether you believe that voting is a right only or both a right and a duty.

The fall-back position is NOT voluntary voting. If you strongly believe in voluntary voting, then you’ve got to justify it just as much as you think I need to justify compulsory voting. I don’t think that you or shadow minister have done that at all.

So how about a compromise. I mentioned regulated (regulatory) voting in my last post. Maybe we could have a voluntary voting system with considerable incentives to vote. The idea of compulsory voting might be offensive to some people who are staunch advocates of minimised impositions upon us. But most of them would probably still think that a high voter turnout is better than a low turnout.

I could go with a model like this, if it produced a voter turnout of say at least 75% of the eligible constituency. What do you reckon?

Shadow Minister

“…there was no evidence what so ever that it makes any difference.”

I find this assertion extraordinary.

Students know that they will be required to sit exams and to get a certain score in order to pass a subject. Don’t you think many students would be far less inclined to learn if they didn’t have to face the requirement to pass a test?

Business people know that need to have a handle on their financial management. Don’t you think many of them would fail if they didn’t have an incentive to manage income and expenditure efficiently?

There are a million other examples where people do things much better if they have an incentive to do so or are required to undertake a course of action.

There can be no doubt about it; a requirement to vote acts as an incentive to learn a bit about politics. Not for everyone, but certainly for most. To what extent and whether it improves the quality of governance are harder things to perceive. But the required action / better consciousness / more informed populace / better contribution to governance linkages are just plain obvious.

Alright. Enough of that. That particular point of debate has become totally circular. We are not going to agree.

“The argument for keeping it is that it is mostly harmless”

Do you believe this? If so, why are you apparently so vehemently opposed to it?

Incidentally, try dropping a helium balloon and a lead weight of the same size and shape together. Try dropping a feather and an exact iron replica of that feather together… in the real atmospheric world and not in an artificial vacuum.

Ludwig said:
There aren't compelling arguments either way.

Exactly. Anyone who gives up their freedom of choice without a compelling argument to do so is quite simply a fool. Since you agree that there is no compelling argument in favour of compulsory voting why would you expect anyone to give up their freedom of choice. All we are asking is that the government either provide that compelling reason or give us back our freedom to choose. Who knows we may even choose to vote!

There cannot be a compromise between two mutually exclusive positions. Either it is voluntary or it is compulsory. A voluntary voting system with considerable incentives to vote is still a voluntary system. If it has to have a 75% turnout then it is compulsory.

You just cannot have it both ways no matter how much you twist and turn and play with the English language.

The argument for freedom of choice in the matter of voting cannot be stated more clearly than it has been in this thread and it is pointless to continue discussing it.

Ludwig

"Maybe we could have a voluntary voting system with considerable incentives to vote."

What incentives? The risk here is that we are likely to end up in the position where our vote is being bought.

Phanto, you asked;

“…why would you expect anyone to give up their freedom of choice.”

I answered this a few posts back. I’ll say again;

‘If a little increase in the requirement for the populace to do certain things can change the balance in favour of the national good a little bit without significantly reducing personal freedom, then it should be done. There does not have to be an overwhelming advantage in increasing restrictions or required actions.’

And a requirement to vote really does amount to a minuscule decrease in our freedom.

“There cannot be a compromise between two mutually exclusive positions.”

Of course there can be a compromise.

It was you who said in you first post on this thread; “The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia”

It is really voluntary voting with a strong incentive to vote, or disincentive not to vote if you like. So there really is a sliding scale all the way from totally unfettered voluntary voting to what is effectively compulsory voting, depending on the magnitude of incentives, or coercions, or whatever you may like to call them.

I actually thought my compromise might have appealed to you. It is very disappointing that you seem to have rejected it outright.

O well, I guess we won’t be hearing from you again on this thread phanto. So thanks for the discussion.

.
Bronwyn

“What incentives?”

Well I guess the most straightforward incentive is a cash payment when you’ve had your name crossed off, have been into the voting booth and are walking out the door.

Maybe you could call it neutral vote-buying. But it is totally different to a particular party or candidate paying money or favours to voters, which is what I would call vote-buying.

So do you think it has any merit? Or should we stick with the legally compulsory system, which must have a penalty for those who then break that law?

Ludwig

I like the way you have tried to find some middle ground here. But no I don't like your incentive suggestion at all. To me it would be a very sad day if our vote had a price.

I'm happy with compulsory voting. I see voting as a privilege and can't understand people getting so hung up about it being a legal requirement. But then again I'm no rabid libertarian either.

Bronwyn

“I don't like your incentive suggestion at all.”

That’s fine by me. I’d much rather see it stay as a legal requirement, with small fines that are just big enough to get the vast majority of people to vote.

You are in favour of compulsory voting, but you are not too fussed about it being a legal requirement?

This seems to be contradictory. It can’t be compulsory unless it is a legal requirement, can it?

Ludwig

Of course it's contradictory. You need to do some re-reading!

Bronwyn

Righto. I had misread your last post and got the opposite message to what you had intended. No worries.