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.