Dear Banjo,

I am already enrolled to vote in Australia.
I regret having done that, but I was young, ignorant and new in Australia at the time: no use crying over spilt milk.

These were the times when I was once asked by a friend, "Please vote Labor because the candidate in our electorate is my uncle and my family really needs this job to pay our bills": who doesn't like to help their friends, so I did. I cannot recall whether these were state or federal elections, nor did I probably knew the difference at the time. That uncle, BTW, lost that elections despite my vote.

Now telling me that information particular to Australia, is trivia, not philosophy.
We were asking here, what possibly can improve democratic elections and make them more just and fair.

We already discussed the compulsion to vote or otherwise and the percentages required to consider the votes as proper - yet we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided.

Without this crucial initial step, elections can be perfectly democratic, yet still grossly unjust and unfair.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « … opinion is the name of the game here on Online Opinion; and after the human brain matures, opinions rarely, if ever, change. Attitudes can change, but not opinions … So, all the arguments here are really a waste of time »
.

I guess we all have our reasons for coming here, ttbn. If I understand you correctly, you come here to waste your time – maybe to ward off boredom … (?)

Whatever the reason, that is not why I come here. As I already indicated elsewhere on this forum, my formal education ceased at age 13, at the end of primary school. Since then, I have never stopped learning – not what any teachers or preachers might have dispensed but what I personally chose to learn, guided by my own curiosity, interest and necessity.

That should ring a bell with you, ttbn – voluntary education, not compulsory education. Independence, not subordination. Freedom, not coercion. Democracy, not autocracy.

It has been and continues to be a lifelong journey of self-education. OLO plays a useful role in this process. It helps me to formulate my ideas and bounce them off the minds of others for refinement and validation or rejection.
.

2. « … it is still my opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic, no matter where it is enforced, no matter what "gems" of information you find, or invent … »
.

To vote is to express the electors’ choice of candidates and options. But it is inept to oblige them to choose among candidates and options they consider all to be totally unacceptable.

That is why I preconise the creation of a blank vote (vote for nobody) to be introduced and recognised as an officially valid vote to be counted and published in the final results.

In this schema, by casting blank votes, electors would be deemed to have respected their legal obligations – thus avoiding the massive abstentions associated with voluntary voting.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided. »
.
Well, Yuyutsu, if we had Albanese and Dutton as candidates for the position of Prime Minister of Australia and 75% of Australians voted for Albanese and 25% voted for Dutton, Albanese would be declared to have won the election with a comfortable majority.

Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?

.

BP,

I am certainly not wasting my time. Nothing recorded is a waste of time.

I am bored by the puerile arguing of some posters. I am also bored by certain posters making personal attacks on the messenger rather than expressing an opinion on the subject.

I keep posting despite personal attacks and the inability of some posters to accept that everyone doesn't agree with them, because there are many people out there who read, but do not post themselves. The message gets out. Billions of words are written, and absorbed without comment, in books, essays, the press and media, mainstream and social.

We should never be put off by some idiot jockstrap who gets his kicks out of badmouthing us.

You should be proud of your continuing education. Most people stop learning after so-called education in schools and universities. Formal education doesn't prepare anyone for life: particularly in today's battery hen indoctrination centres.

Dear Banjo,

«Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?»

Sure - it is the sample, the selection of those who get to vote, among whom some majority is to prevail.

In an indirect democracy, people supposedly get to vote who will represent them in setting the rules and regulations by which they will subsequently have to abide. A majority of voters somehow elects these representatives, but who elects the list of voters? Not the voters themselves, who never in a lifetime received an opportunity to accept or decline that list.

In Australia for example, a list of around 18 million people was compiled (excluding those under 18 and prisoners, and why is that) which happen to live in a certain arbitrary area, most of them not only do I not know, but am also unlikely to ever meet in my lifetime, let alone know them well enough to trust and wish to associate with in any way. Then you say, "The majority of <<you>> decide and is authorised to make laws as to how <<you>> must live your lives".

That <<you>> is the arbitrary factor.
Why particularly the people within this whole continent (which does not occur in any other continent)?
Why the people living in the island of Tasmania - Yes, Auckland - No, Norfolk Yes, Vanuatu No...
Why only those over 18, why not 10? 16? 21? 30? 40? 50?
Who is to tell who is mature enough to vote?
Completely arbitrary!

You could have just as well arbitrarily included all the frogs in Australia, then the majority would vote to turn this land into a swamp... why the frogs but not the mice, humans but not penguins? Your sample is just arbitrary and therefore means nothing and devoid of moral justification.

The bottom line is, some people dictate to others what they must and mustn't do in life, without the victims ever getting a real opportunity to influence the forces which govern their lives. This may technically be a democracy, but in fact it is a sham: cruel, unjust and unfair.

Hi BP,

The idea of a "blank vote" was adopted by the Greens in candidate selection many years ago. Members always had a choice of two with "no candidate" as an alternate choice. I only recall one instance where "no candidate" was successful. It was only a minor position, I think branch delegate to the State Conference or some such thing, but there were legitimate reasons why the person who had nominated was over looked. The membership in general felt she didn't reflect the views of the majority, and therefore was unsuitable for the position.

What I think is a real problem in our system is the general lack of beforehand knowledge the electorate has about local candidates. I am fortunate in that through volunteer work I've got to know all 3 local members. I'm still getting to know the new Federal Labor Member, she's only been in the job a month, will take time. There has been 2 events in recent weeks, and she's been at both, so a good start. Our Councillor LNP, and State MP Labor, both working hard for the local community, and I would vote for them next time. p/s Got an all woman band now in politics locally.