Why should anyone be forced by law to vote in elections?
Invariably, those who solicit our votes promise us the world before an election, then bend to the will of lobby groups and secret cabinet meetings after an election. Is this democracy in action or democracy inaction?

Because it is Australia. It is one of our unique features like kangaroos to have a democracy yet have compulsory voting.

One way of looking at it is that voting isn't just a right in a democracy, it's actually a responsibility.

The way our society functions, or is suppposed to function, is through lines of accountability. For example, a doctor is accountable to a medical board, and a medical board to a government and a government to the electors. If anyone in that line of accountabilty says, I can't be bothered to hold those to account in the line before me, then the system is less effective.

The duty to vote is not onerous. The law (or is it the constitution) requires only that you "cast a vote", which I interpret as sticking a ballot paper in the box (or in the mail). What you write on that paper is up to you.

The fine for not voting is pretty token as well. I've found from experience that if you send back a note with a halfway credible excuse they'll even waive that.

Mind you, I find compulsory voting in local council elections a (minor) pain, given that local politics is mostly about people with too much time on their hands squabbling about issues that interest me not one iota. Check the letters page of most local newspapers.

In a perfect world I would totally agree with you Snout, but unfortunately the responsibility you talk about is never matched by the politicians we elect accepting their corresponding responsibilities.

If we had a system whereby a politician would automatically be tried for perjury if they broke a campaign promise, I would gladly accept that my vote should be compulsory. Unfortunately it is a one-way street; we are forced to vote, but they have no incentive to keep their part of the bargain.

The good thing about non-compulsory voting is that it gives you an immediate measure of voter disaffection with the system, as opposed to disaffection with a particular political party.

I have registered a protest vote in every federal and state election for the past twenty years. I do however take the local elections seriously, because they have a very direct bearing on the amenities and security of my immediate surroundings.

Like you, Pericles, I am skeptical of campaign promises. I think the line of accountability from government to the electors is more retrospective rather than prospective. In other words it's the next election that keeps a government accountable rather than winning the previous. Knowing that they are accountable to all the electors rather than just those who can be bussed in to vote by the party machines (as in the US and elsewhere) might just keep the bastards that little bit more honest.

Problem is, you need a credible alternative in the opposition for this to work. Aye, there's the rub.

Most fairy tales do not begin with "Once upon a time" but start "If elected I will". The older I get the more cynical I become about politicians, the system and our so called democracy.

Actually one is only required to attend a polling place, verified by having your name crossed off the roll. You may do as you wish with the ballot paper.

I never saw much point in attending and not voting. My biggest decission is what major party to put last. I refuse to let either of the majors get the $2 for my vote.

Compulsory voting was created to ensure that the majority opinion of australia is recognised, not just that of our most vocal citizens. Today it is just another tradition.

Compulsary voting is nothing to do with promises being kept or not.
When you see the mess they get in overseas without compulsion then we
are in good shape. Many people would not vote if it was not compulsary.
When they get to the polls they then vote, well because they might as
well now they are there.
Elections are about being selfish, vote for the member who will do the
best for you. That way the majority get their wishes.

Anyone who suggests doing away with compulsion has just not thought it through.

To me the good thing about compulsory voting is that it forces the various parties to appeal to the majority, and seems to make capture of politics by the crazies (of any persuasion) less likely.

Also, I feel much more entitled to whine about the poltical situation when I've voted, I feel kind of invested, whether it went the way I wanted or not. Which I think is (broadly) a good thing

I wouldn't mind voting if we had a democracy, but we don't. In a democracy, if twenty percent of the population want a particular party, then that party should get twenty percent of the seats. here they get none -- ZERO.
A true democracy would have no political donations, no political parties and no executive. Every electorate would elect the representative who best represents their wishes, then all representatives would sit in the parliament and debate -- not hurl personal abuse-- until a consensus was reached.
Consensus politics means no rushed or ill thought through decisions, no party pressure, a slow, measured approach to change, impervious to pressures of big business, but caring of minorities. However, as we have no independent media, there's no hope of us having anything like a democracy!

OH reaqlly ybgirp ? While ever there are more than two people talking about something there will be a party.
So live with it.

Proportional voting leads to a large number of minority parties.
Preferential voting insures that parties that are not wanted by a majority do not get in and make a nuisance of themselves.

I've written about this previously on my site, so feel free to read my thoughts in greater detail, however Australia continues to be an oddity in the world in that most democracies have voluntary voting whether they are Japan, Canada or Finland. Australia actually had voluntary voting until 1925. If you want to see politicians fight for your vote then you should support voluntary voting. Otherwise, stop complaining about the system that we currently have.

An article titled "Compulsory Voting: Democracy at Work" by Greg Barnes, was posted on this forum on Wednesday 8 December 2004. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2807 In the article the author says: "Australia was the first English-speaking country [to introduce compulsory voting] when the state of Queensland passed legislation in 1914. Ten years after Queensland's law was passed, Australia's national Parliament followed suit. Intriguingly, the law to make voting compulsory apparently passed through the Parliament in only 15 minutes. Where voter turnout had been below 50 per cent in elections before 1924, that number increased to more than 90 per cent in the 1925 election and has been 95 per cent to 98 per cent ever since."

The author's statement as to voter turnout before 1924 being below 50 per cent is simply not true. Voter turnout as a percentage of electors enrolled at, for example, the 20 December 1917 referendum was 81.84 per cent. This is clearly stated on page 812 of the Commonwealth Year Book for 1922, in a table showing the voter turnout for the 1917 referendum. That is about as official a figure as you could get. Voter turnout for the 1922 Federal elections was 58 per cent of total enrolments, and this was the worst for many years. These claims to turnout rates of less than 50 per cent in the absence of compulsion are huge errors of fact upon which conclusions, and online opinions, have been based. Clearly it is time for this whole subject to be properly revisited, notwithstanding the chorus from (taxpayer funded) academe to the effect that compulsory voting is absolutely desirable. And all the more so when it is considered what perfunctory consideration compulsory voting was given by the Parliament when it was introduced!

It is a shame that voting has to be made compulsory. Everyone should realise that voting is the only power the ordinary people have. In every government system in the world whether it be communist or democrary there is always a group of people who grab power and make sure they get more wealth and benefits than anybody else.
This domination of the wealthy is also true in Australian society but at least the vote of the people does put some brakes on this as the politicians do have to pay some attention to mass public opinion if they want to stay in power.

I know the vote in Australia doesnt really give voters much choice when it comes to parties and the politicians are skilled at smoke and mirrors but the right to vote isnt very common in history and it was hard won from the Kings and ruling groups. The people should never surrender that power by not voting.

I’m in favour of compulsory voting.

But we’ve simply gotta have a box on every ballot form for the donkey. In other words, if we feel that none of the candidates/parties deserves our vote, then we should not be obligated to vote for them.

Stuff this notion that it is ok to vote for the lesser or least evil. We have to feel that they deserve our vote!

We should require every citizen of voting age to make the effort lodge a vote. But we need to legitimise the donkey vote!!

I think Snout is right; voting is not just a right, it’s responsibility in a democracy.

Pericles;

“The good thing about non-compulsory voting is that it gives you an immediate measure of voter disaffection with the system, as opposed to disaffection with a particular political party.”

I don’t think this is true. Apathy or laziness or better things to do on the day become significant factors if we are not compelled to vote. Also, the feeling that you are one amongst several million voters (for federal elections in Australia) and therefore your vote doesn’t count for diddly squat anyway, would mean that many people just wouldn’t bother voting if they didn’t have to.

We would get an immediate measure of disaffection if we legitimised the donkey vote.

Banjo;

“Actually one is only required to attend a polling place, verified by having your name crossed off the roll. You may do as you wish with the ballot paper.”

Effectively this is true, but technically it isn’t. You are required to mark one or more boxes in the optional preferential system or every box in the compulsory preferential system.

“My biggest decision is what major party to put last.”

Ah yes. And this is all-important in the compulsory preferential (totally undemocratic complete rort of a) system, that we have at the federal level and in some states.

Ludwig,

Good to see you on this thread. Very interesting idea to formalize the donkey vote. You have given concrete form to the heresy that electors should be able to express disapproval of the general state of the political and electoral process in a secure and formal manner. The ballot paper so marked is safer than an unmarked ballot paper, which can be unlawfully filled in later if scrutiny at the count is lax.

An interesting consequence of this idea is that it would provide a basis for denial of public funding to political parties at the discretion of the individual elector. If you used the 'none of the above' box, then no political party would get the $1+ per primary vote payable under the present formula. Wouldn't that be good! But more important, it would offer the prospect of denial of the carte blanche legitimacy falsely claimed by governments on so many occasions.

You might be interested to know that the Constitution itself effectively endorses exactly this principle. Section 128 of the Constitution, which deals with the manner and form of effecting change thereto, in specifying how the vote is to be counted at a referendum states that informal votes cast must also be taken into account in determining at what point any 'Yes' vote obtains a majority of ALL the votes cast thereat.

By giving expression to such potentially useful ideas you place yourself at profound risk of breaking out of the lockstep of the phalanx of academe on this issue. It worries me that serious mis-statements of fact such as the one I have highlighted in my post above may have been the bases for argument of the pros and cons of this issue. I fear we march on in the shadow of Godwin, but even the unmentionable subject of His law got his start in the ballot box.

I have been ambivalent about compulsory enrolment and voting. I still am. But I agree heartily with Snout and others that voting and concern for the integrity of the electoral process constitute a responsibility for all.

To seek to answer the question that is the topic, perhaps it would be helpful to first determine what the need was for the compulsion. The inference able to be drawn from Greg Barnes' paper referred to in a previous post is that voting was made compulsory because of voter turnout below 50 per cent in the years between 1901 and 1924. Yet this claim can be shown to have been incorrect: voter turnout in 1901 was 56 per cent, in 1903 47 per cent, in 1906 50 per cent, in 1910 62 per cent, in 1911 (at a referendum alone without an election) 53 per cent, in 1913 74 per cent, in 1914 73 per cent, in 1916 (at a referendum) 83 per cent, in 1917 78 per cent, later in 1917 (at a referendum) 82 per cent, and in 1919 71 per cent. All these figures come from the Commonwealth Year Books of the day. These, by the standards of the day, and even internationally to this day, were good turnout figures.

So was it that the level of enrolment as a percentage of population eligible was poor? Professor Marian Sawer, head of the Australian Research Council funded ANU Democratic Audit of Australia, has stated in a paper "Election 2004: How Democratic are Australia's Elections?" that 96 per cent of the eligible population was enrolled on the first Commonwealth electoral roll in 1903. If she is correct, then it looks as if enrolment was not merely good, but excellent, better than today's standard, so far as the official figures were concerned.

What was the need for compulsion in the circumstances? No wonder the private members Bill took the Parliament by surprise! Voter turnout, much less enrolment, simply had not been an issue. With nothing seemingly wrong with compulsory voting, perhaps the Parliament just viewed the proposal as a 'motherhood' issue that could not be opposed, and passed it accordingly.

But what if the high level of enrolment had been achieved otherwise than by genuinely eligible persons enrolling in accordance with law? You know, 'padding the rolls'.

Gday Forrest

Formalising the donkey vote would indeed be interesting when it comes to public funding for political parties. And I’m sure we can all appreciate that this point alone will be enough reason for it never to be implemented, despite the fact that it could be done within our constitution.

Matt@righthinker,

Formalising the donkey vote would take care of your concern about politicians having to fight for our vote.

Sharkfin,

“The people should never surrender that power by not voting.”

Agreed. But they should most definitely have the power to formally vote for no candidate if they feel that none deserves their vote.

This is the biggest problem with compulsory voting as it is now – compelling people to lodge a vote for one of the candidates, when many people would feel that none of the candidates deserve their vote. It gives us an awfully false indication of support.

I feel the need to express complete outrage over the compulsory preferential voting system, again, as I have done numerous times on this forum.

I find it really quite amazing that practically no one else appreciates the grave nature of this disgusting aspect of our governmental system.

Compulsory preferential voting has surely got to be an even bigger concern than compulsory voting or not being able to formally vote for the donkey.

This system steels your vote!!

If you wish to not vote for one of the two biggest candidates / parties, then tough luck, you can’t!! Even if you put them last and second last, your vote will filter down and end up counting for whichever you put second last.

Thus, Banjo’s dilemma; “My biggest decision is what major party to put last.”, really does become the most important thing for those who wish to vote against the big parties.

It is just horrible, totally antidemocratic, a complete rort of the system, a highly false indication of support, a violation of any trust that the people have in our decision-makers and in the system…. and it is totally unnecessary, when we have a perfectly good method with the optional preferential system.

Being compelled to mark every box on your ballot form has GOT TO STOP. We need to make that conversion at the federal level and in some states off the compulsory preferential system and onto the optional preferential system, as Queensland did under Goss in about 1992.

It is of course possible that the electoral rolls were 'padded' significantly in 1903, and continued in that state to some extent until 1922. The trend of steady increase in voter turnout from 1903 to 1919 may have been due to the superimposition of a carefully staged amount of fraudulent vote claiming over the top of a fairly steady level of genuine voter turnout of, say, around 55 to 65 per cent. But what explains the sudden return to a level of 58 per cent voter turnout in 1922? The absolute number of enrolments certainly did not decline between 1919 and 1922. And it does not seem to make sense that with rolls presumably padded to some extent that use would suddenly not have been made of such postulated 'padding' in 1922.

What might explain a sudden abandonment of at least the continued emplacement of electoral roll 'padding' is fear that its existing extent may render the rort liable to detection. Perhaps the electoral process was coming under closer scrutiny after the intense political fervour that accompanied the conscription referenda of 1916 and 1917. What could have made the postulated rort vulnerable?

The answer may lie in the source Professor Sawer has used to quote the 96 per cent enrolment level achieved in 1903. It was a 1904 Report of a Conference of Commonwealth Electoral Officers that contained this claim. If it was used as a baseline indicator to derive the proportion of the population eligible to enroll at any given later date, and officially recorded increases in net levels of enrolment by around April 1917 are taken into account, it would have appeared that the enrolment level as a percentage of the eligible had reached around 110 per cent by that date! That may have raised a lot of unanswerable questions. Better back off on the 'padding' rort. By 1922 the enrolment level had declined to 93 per cent.

It seems nobody, including Professor Sawer, realized the 1904 Report was wrong! The correct level in 1903 was around 86 per cent enrolment, and in 1917, only 101 per cent!

Ludwig,

I would love to respond to some of your points with respect to preferential voting, but I am trying to offer a somewhat quantified explanation, albeit an heretical one, for the adoption of compulsion in respect to voting and enrolment. If this explanation stands up, it may put many of the contentions relating to the present voting system into a different perspective. If once it can be shown that the reason behind the adoption of compulsion may have been to provide cover for ongoing fraudulence and electoral impropriety, then I think many of the reasons for keeping voting compulsory may have to be re-evaluated. In turn, voting systems may be seen in a different light: many undesirable effects may come to be seen as being a consequence of fraudulent distortions, rather than arising from the system of voting.

To return to the argument.

With enrolment in reality at a level of 'only' 101 per cent as at April 1917, rorters may have seen a need to back off substantially in emplacing names on the rolls. After all, there would have to be room left for the net growth from genuine new enrolments expected between 1917 and 1919 when the next elections were due. By the 1919 elections, the enrolment level had dropped in reality to around 96 per cent. Probably around 85 per cent of the genuinely eligible were enrolled, much the same percentage as has been researched do so today. The rorters would have known that as well.

But if the postulated rorters had failed to notice the error in the 1904 report of 96 per cent in 1903 as did Professor Sawer, then they may have continued to refrain from 'padding' in the belief that there were still 'too many' names on the rolls. They may also have refrained from using any 'padding' left at elections for exactly the same reasons. The postulated abstention from rorting at the 1922 elections may have resulted in a residual genuine turnout of 58 per cent (the international norm in non-compulsory voting regimes) of electors enrolled.

Forest,
I do not quite follow what you are getting at,so perhaps I will have another look in the morning. Did not The present Qld Government have an inquiry, called the Sheperdson inquiry, which was suspended after it began to find some very interesting matters. such as someone's cat being registered and some in the local cemertary also on the roll. This occured in recent years.

If I can use my bank account 1000kls from home, I do not see why a better neans of registration and roll checking cannot be devised. Each voter now has a tax file number, a good place to start.

Ludwig,
I agree with you abbsolutly about compulsory preferential voting, but I am afraid we are stuck with it as long as we have the two major parties deciding on voting proceedures. The simple fact is that they benefit, so why should they change it?

So you are not the only one that thinks CPV is completely rotten.
This plus the number to members needed to register means any new party is unlikely to get established. So the two party system remains.

One example of how principled our poiticians are. Heather Hill was elected into the Senate, a One Nation candidate to represent Qld. Heather was taken to court and prevented from taking her seat because she had duel citizenship. Now about 20-30 other Federal Parliamentarians were also duel citizens. But did any resign, as a precedence had been established, not on your sweet Nellie.

The younguns wonder why i am so cynical.

Banjo,

My posts on this thread constitute an heretical postulated history of the electoral process since federation. The numbers and percentages are all recounted or derivable from the official public records of election results and population in the relevant Year Books. Unlike most inquiry into anomalies and improprieties, this heretical history applies the advantage of hindsight in offerring explanations for apparent anomalies and the disconnection from the political process felt by so many people today, with the ship of state on so many occasions seemingly not answering the helm. I seek to show that the equivalent to a large unlawful disposable proxy vote may have been present in most elections over more than a century, and that policy may have been formed consistently contrary to the wishes of an otherwise genuine majority of electors with its aid. In doing this I am not pursuing identification and conviction of perpetrators of electoral fraud, but attempting to show how electoral results may be bent.

To return to the argument, with the 1922 elections out of the way, the postulated rorters, now knowing the real propensity of the genuinely eligible to enroll and vote, and having unnecessarily withdrawn or not exercised the use of roll 'padding' at that election, needed an explanation that would cover a high level of voting in future elections. The adoption of compulsory voting would provide the perfect cover.

By not exceeding the theoretical limit of enrolments imposed by the population statistics, and with a ready explanation for a high apparent voter turnout, the 'proxy' vote potentially available with little likelihood of detection was perhaps 15 percent of the theoretical maximum number of enrolments possible. This remained the probable ceiling until around the late 1940s, when, with the commencement of large scale immigration, the clear picture as to the maximum possible number of enrolments became increasingly blurry due to the effects of non-British citizenship on the equation.

That should be enough for the night.

Banjo

“The simple fact is that they benefit, so why should they change it?”

That’s exactly right…..and aren’t the major parties a colluding pair of vested-interest mongrels in this regard!

But what gets me more than anything else is how something so blatantly antidemocratic can remain virtually unrealised by the populace.

Even amongst the good thinking people who contribute to this forum, particularly on subjects such as this thread, awareness is practically non-existent!

It is really quite bizarre!

We can’t expect either major party to change the system as a matter of principle (although Goss did exactly that, to his great credit). We can only expect it to be changed if enough outrage is expressed within the general community.

So where’s the outrage? Are there many things that deserve a greater cry of outrage than this fundamental violation of democracy??

I agree with those who say that voting in Australian elections should not be compulsory. However, I'd go further and suggest that prospective electors should be required to demonstrate some basic knowledge of the Australian electoral system and of current affairs before being allowed to vote.

It seems ridiculous that our excuse for a democracy is dependent to a large extent upon requiring reluctant and ignorant voters to turn out every few years to elect candidates, about whom they know little, to parliaments and councils - about whose workings they know even less.

If you think this sounds elitist, just try discussing with your average citizen how preferential voting works, or their knowledge of the Australian Constitution.

Pretty much, everybody has said what needs to be said about this topic and of course every person has been completely correct, with respect to their own opinion. Isn't that nice?

We're lucky to live in one of (if not the most) peaceful nations on Earth and coincidentally enough, we're one of the few (perhaps only) nation that has compulsory voting. I wonder if that's purely a coincidence.

On a tangential point, one of the things that I find most peculiar about compulsory voting is the use of pencils to leave one's mark upon the voting form. Having spent a bit of time in vote scrutineering in the distant past, it became obvious that the opportunity for unscrupulous vote counters to smuggle in and use an eraser and pencil on some votes to change them was very much a possibility. Especial since the advent of "1" only voting.

Vote counting after polling booths have closed is hardly a very organised affair with party scrutineers rushing around all over the place in a seeming panic - votes are literally being handled by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Say no more...

Can anyone advise why we continue to cast our votes in pencil and not a more permanent scriber such as a ball-point pen?

CJ, I agree that voters should be required to show a certain level of understanding of the system, parties, candidates and policies, before they can vote.

But why would people bother to educate themselves? Surely if there was this requirement within an optional voting system, it would just mean more people opting not to vote.

And if voting was compulsory, it would mean that this level of knowledge would be compulsory, which would mean fines for those who didn’t pass the pre-voting test!

Such a system could discriminate against indigenous people, many immigrants and those at lower socio-economic levels, if the means of educating them or providing the information were not up to scratch. But with the right education and publicity setup, such a system would empower these groups.

I think that we have to have compulsory voting. So that means that if people are required to have a certain level of basic knowledge in order to vote, there would have to be a fine or significant penalty of some sort in order to get everyone, or the vast majority to hold that level of education.

It would also mean pouring a great deal of effort and money into education programs.

So which is the best option;

having system that enforces that sort of thing,

a system that obligates people who don’t understand anything about what they are voting for or who don’t give a hoot, to cast a vote,

or an optional voting system that places no requirements on its citizens to contribute to their governance and which basically fosters ignorance and apathy?

I’d suggest that the first option is clearly the best.

Maximus, you should get some kind of prize for this remark:

>>We're lucky to live in one of (if not the most) peaceful nations on Earth and coincidentally enough, we're one of the few (perhaps only) nation that has compulsory voting. I wonder if that's purely a coincidence<<

Australia has been involved in both World Wars, and in America's Vietnam War, over the past hundred years. I think there are quite a large number of countries who can boast a more peaceful past.

Switzerland, for example.

Officially neutral since 1815, apart from some internal troubles in 1847 Switzerland has been a haven of peace. But most relevant to this discussion is that it has dabbled with compulsory voting in the past, but has abolished it in every Canton except Schaffhausen. Even there, the fine for failing to vote (which, by the way, is strictly enforced) is a massive SFr3. Enough for a cup of coffee. A small one.

The reason Switzerland is relevant is that they are one of the - if not the - most electorally active countries on earth. Not only in parliamentary and Cantonal elections, but referenda by the score.

The arguments for compulsory voting are limited to those who fear change of any kind - there is absolutely no sustainable logic that supports coercion.

So we get a broader part of the community.
So as not just those partys with influence, but for all to stand and make their mark.

Why do you think i have been trying to create the Australian Peoples Party for a better choice.

This is at least i for one am standing up to the tunnel vision parties.

As i cannot post policies if you want you will have to email.

swulrich@bigpond.net.au.

Compulsory conscription just like Compulsory voting.
Being forced to do something is hardly democratic.
Tradition is wonderful,Ned Kelly had the Police abusing his family because that was a tradition within the Police Force at the time.
Wake up Australia.
You say you are a mature democracy,yet you let the Government force you to vote.

The argument against compulsory voting on the grounds that it is not “Democratic’ is such a lame one that I cannot believe people use it. I would much rather be in a society which has a government that is elected where over 99% of people have voted than one where 25% of the population determine the government, as in the U.S.A. If we didn’t have compulsory voting where would the minor parties be.

If you don’t vote don’t complain.

Rather than concentrating on compulsory voting maybe we need to have a change in how we can vote. I totally agree that we should have a formalised donkey or protest vote to get a better indication of voter dissatisfaction.

Oh and to Brock what has this to do with a cold blooded murderer. The only difference between Robin Hood and Ned Kelly is that we know who Ned Kelly was other than that Ned being a hero is a myth.

Ludwig,
Have you really thought about what you have said? Forcing a knowledge test upon all the people and punishing those who fail!
Wow. Talk about the virtues of this antipodal liberal democracy. Sounds like something straight out of a George Orwell novel. Imagine talking to the person next in line at Civic Compliance Victoria while waiting to pay your fine. “So what is the crime you’ve committed mate? Speeding, drink driving, parking in a prohibited area? “
“err no. Actually its being ignorant.”

There is nothing wrong with only 55% of the adult population voting. Or 45% or even 25%. It still adds up to millions of people and it is the people who, more than others, think about and bother to take an interest in our nation’s affairs.
Check out the below site for a voluntary voting FAQ

http//www.compulsoryvoting.or

Edward

Why would the requirement for voters to hold a certain basic level of knowledge about their country’s political system and current politicians, parties and policies be any different to the requirement for our children to have a basic education or for all drivers to have a basic understanding of the road rules and to have demonstrated a certain level of competency to drive?

I see the need for voters to demonstrate some limited level of knowledge, or interest, as just an extension of this fundamental philosophy. It is not Orwellian at all.

Ludwig,

Two things
It is true we compel children to attend education but I think the underlying premise is that we are acting on their behalf to gain something for them that they would volitionally engage in if they were mature enough to understand. Ie if we didn’t force education upon them then at the time of reaching maturity, they would probably complain to the state as to why they were not forced to attend school when they were young and too stupid to know better.

With regards to wannabe drivers, we don’t actually fine people who never eventually pass their driving test. And we don’t force people to get driving licences. There are the luddite type people (Mennonite or Amish) who, on principle just walk or ride bicycles or horses or there are the others who make lifestyle choices of never wanting to drive a car.

Second, even though I am opposed to conscription and the income tax, I agree to the principle that the government can force people to do things when it is the only way some ESSENTIAL need for the country can be accomplished.
However I find it rather a spurious argument that the electoral contribution of those who don’t know or don’t care is really that essential.
One of the themes of 1984 is the permeating oppression of Winston Smith being forced to do this, to do that, to listen to his propaganda tube 24/7, to attend meetings etc. etc. All for the alleged sake of the state or the people.

www.compulsoryvoting.org

Note: it’s not the compulsory voting that I find specifically Orwellian (even though it is wrong), it’s your suggestion that all people should be forced to do tests, and then fined if they give the wrong answers

Edward, you wrote;

“I agree to the principle that the government can force people to do things when it is the only way some ESSENTIAL need for the country can be accomplished.”

Essential only?

Would it not be reasonable for the government to force, coerce, or provide strong incentives to get people to do things that are BENEFICIAL for the county, and for themselves?

Afterall, practically all laws are implemented for these reasons, are they not?

Laws force us to undertake certain actions and to not undertake others, for the greater good, but not necessarily for essential needs of the country.

So then, would it not be desirable to implement incentives or laws that get the populace to take a greater level of interest in the whole political process, and hence in the governance of their country?

Is it really satisfactory for a large portion of the populace to take no real interest in the running of their country, apart from one or two particular issues that affect them or which they might develop some sort of a view over?

I don’t think it is at all. I think that everyone should be required to have a base-level input into their country’s management, and for me that minimum level would be the requirement to vote and to know what they are voting for, or against, by way of demonstrating a very basic level of understanding of the parties, candidates and issues involved.

Surely this is not too much to expect.

.
You are against income tax! Interesting. If you don’t mind moving away from the topic of this thread, could you elaborate on this.

Lugwig, Part I

Believe it or not, income tax is not a perquisite to modern society. It was only introduced around approx 1914 in western societies to finance wars or certain emergencies and then only intended on a temporary basis.
At that stage, law and order existed in society, people didn’t die of malnutrition or (to any significant degree) live under lean-tos in public parks. The big difference in standards of living of the poor compared to now is due to the state of technological development rather than political status quo.
A big thing at the time was non-profit NGOs such as benevolent societies, sometimes organised around professional associations, whereby members paid a modest amount per month, did some voluntary work now and again, and then could call upon them if they suddenly found themselves in straightened circumstances such as losing their job etc. Also churches and other organisations such as Rotary, the Freemasons etc were big in the welfare stakes. All of them being non-bureaucratic and part voluntary staffed meant that they could operate on a lot less funds that government social services run on today.
As is typical of most government decisions, when more taxes were to be introduced back then, the dumb decision was to go with taxing income instead of expenditure. So what happens: there is no great incentive to work harder or to enterprise because the more you earn the more tax you pay. (Unless of course you deal in the black market) But there is an incentive to blow you money on indulgences beyond the essentials because they are free of tax.
If it was the opposite the natural greed of people would be an incentive to work harder or longer. With their discretionary spending money, they could either have it taxed when buying booze and fast cars or not taxed when investing it in a home or the stock market.

Ludwig Part II

Abolish the income tax and services tax. Tax goods for sale plus an extra tax on booze, tobacco, fuel, electricity (easy to collect and keeps pollution/green house gases minimal) and water (Hey we’re running out of it anyway, so why not increase the price so as to maintain supply.)
Gradually phase out all government welfare (especially middle class welfare: the ABC, govt grants to academics, artists, businesses that go broke whether or not the owner is related to the PM, and farmers) and let it return to the providers who manage it much more efficiently.

Interesting stuff Edward.

I would be in favour of whatever system of taxation was most effective in providing funding to properly provide all the necessary infrastructure and services to the community and to get us to change our habits in line of the absolute imperative to become a sustainable society.

Beyond that, I’m not too worried about how it might be done, as long as it as fair as possible.

I can’t see that income tax really affects the incentive to work harder and longer. Afterall, as your income increases, you may pay more tax, even disproportionately more tax as you get into higher brackets, but you also take more money home. And besides, is working longer and harder necessarily a good thing?

I believe in high taxation and in strong state-owned or state-funded utilities. I’d hate to see the ABC go by the wayside, I would love to see funding for various academic and scientific pursuits greatly increased, and even though the arts and sport leave me pretty cold, I would like them to be well-funded.