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.