Edward, a few years ago I did a big paper at Uni on compulsory voting. I set out to prove my point that compulsory voting is undemocratic and has no place in a democracy. Compulsion of any kind tends to rankle with me! I compared three countries with very similar types of government, standard of living and education of the population but with differences in voting habits.

I compared the USA with never a compulsion, Australia with compulsion and the Netherlands with compulsory voting until 1975, since then no longer.

The research for this paper was an eye opener for me and the first time that I was forced to come to a different conclusion than the one I had set out to prove.

The Netherlands now has a severe drop in voter participation. This has created changes in the political landscape. Not only in the make up of political parties and the level of extremism, but also in the sort of person actually going into politics. Voter and political participation has been reduced to largely addressing a particular demographic group.

To cut a long paper with all the references short, the conclusion is that compelling all citizens to vote actually results in governance relevant and appealing to the majority of all its citizens. Compulsory voting is a great actual equalizer of all the citizens of a nation that a finely worded Constitution or indeed a Bill of Rights couldn't. Provided of course that we continue to have choice. Which is of course another debate again.

The AEC is an integral part of this set-up. That is why an article like Terry Gygar's is important. Any whiff of impropriety or concerns with integrity and independence in general should be pursued and rectified.

Yvonne,
A big build up to telling us what is wrong with voluntary voting and then where were the punch lines?
“V.V. addresses only one demographic.” Which one? If it was the demographic of concerned citizens then why is that a wrong?
“compelling all citizens to vote actually results in governance relevant and appealing to the majority of all its citizens. Compulsory voting is a great actual equalizer of all the citizens” Are you sure you couldn’t have made it even more vague? We’re talking about voluntary voting, not apartheid.

yvonne,

I am surprised that with all your research on compulsory voting you did not appreciate that with secret ballot, compulsory voting really means compulsory attendance at the polling booth. As electoral officials are specifically prohibited from revealing the vote of any elector, whether you choose to cast a formal ballot or not is up to you.

The fact that compulsory voting has remained in force since the 1920's, while governments have changed many times, shows who really benefits. The government of the day benefits. This is because no matter how hard they try, governments cannot avoid damaging the interests of some of their supporters. Many of these supporters are emotionally linked to a political party, and could not bring themselves to vote for the opposition, but, if voting were voluntary, they could choose not to vote at all.

What I think should happen is that compulsory voting should be replaced by compulsory attendance at the booth, which is an important factor in minimising fraudulent voting. When attending, an official should ask the vote whether they wish to vote, and proceed accordingly.

I am also amused by the procedure adopted when pursuing non-voters, who are asked to give the "true reason" why they did not vote. I understand that if the reason given is that voting is against your religion, no further action will be taken.

Plerdus, would there be any difference in how a government remains in power whether or not its citizen are compelled to vote, or attend a polling booth? A political party in government would generally have the upper hand simply because voters have an actual track record and the government of the day gets to call the election. Voters are asked to take a punt and believe what the opposition offers as an alternative. Of course there are die-hard party followers, usually because of deeply held philosophical convictions, but there are enough people who 'swing'.

Edward, I'm not all together sure what your point is. Do you think that it is OK for the health of a democracy, which is supposedly to be 'government for the people by the people' when only 45% of the eligible-to-vote population votes and the government is formed from the party elected by just over half of that small number of voters?

In Australia you have to make your way to a polling booth whether or not you are a highly educated professional, a small business owner, an unemployed person, a fanatical tree-hugging greenie (four simplified demographic groups for you) or anything in between.

Seeing that political parties are dependent on donations to get a look-in to govern who do you think are most likely to vote? Those with direct financial input and therefore input in political direction and those deeply passionate about a cause.

I do think it rather sweet though that you think that any nation would have enough 'concerned citizens' who will vote for the 'best government' without looking after number one first and foremost if not only.

Yvonne,
The crux of your argument seems to be that democracy is the ultimate good and that democracy is defined, thanks to that hirsute chap from the log cabin, as government, inter alia…“by the people”.
I agree with the first and disagree with the second.
I think democracy is defined as that system of government that the people want. (as feasible as that may be to attain)
I think a state is still democratic even if some choose not to vote because they believe the right government will get in anyway due to contemporary polling. I also think that what the people want is the same as what the people express no objection to. Thus I believe a country is still fully democratic if people stay away from the polls because either party winning is still viewed with the same level of acceptance.
There is a principle in common law called ‘Volenti non fit injuria’, which interprets as ‘there can be no injury to the willing’. A person cannot claim harm from any predicament that arises if he acquiesced to the situation in the first place. If a person decides not to vote then neither he, nor you acting for him, can claim the government of the day is not acting in his interests.

Non-democratic means that people are specifically denied an input. It is ridiculous to claim an election was not democratic because some boofheads would rather spend their half hour consuming another beer in the pub than standing in line at a polling station.

http://compulsoryvoting.org/donkey.html

P.S. Yes I am rather sweet, in a sour kind of way.

Edward,

Glad you are sweet, though a bit sour. Excellent combination of flavours in cooking nevertheless.

To throw in the merits or otherwise of democracy, or even the type of democracy, is another issue altogether. Australia is one, though there are some who would disagree with that! And hey, are you making fun of my loose translation of Greek? It's even older than Latin, so there.

'There is a principle in common law called ‘Volenti non fit injuria’, which interprets as ‘there can be no injury to the willing’.' Love your command of Latin and it creates a suspicion of at least a flirtation with law. I loved all that Latin, though the pronunciation was invariably excruciating. Like nails on a blackboard. Had much success with that one in cases involving say, Sadomasochism? I thought not.

Accusing fellow citizens of being boofheads just because they have the good sense drinking a beer in a pub rather than voting in bland political polls for another boring government is very judgmental. Not very sweet of you at all.

But just like we have laws to wear helmets (if only you knew how great it feels to have the wind howling through one's hear while riding a bike you'd know how undemocratic that law is) and seatbelts and pay taxes, found to be a rather good thing in a Utilitarian way, so it is to enforce a duty that is expected of a citizen, like voting.

What am I saying? An arguably Utilitarian law to combat majority voter apathy, the wonderful result of a stable, non-passion arousing political climate, is a good thing.

Vive our humdrum Australia with compulsory voting and a mainly independent AEC! Do we even need to do something about those dead voters? I know exactly what auntie Alice would have voted, even if she might be somewhat disappointed in non-union Kevin.