A recent article on ABC online advises that compulsory voting was imposed on Australians in 1924. Why? Well, according to the forgettable academic who wrote the article, our politicians were “proud of Australia’s reputation as a democracy”. She doesn’t expand on that, nor does she say what the ‘pride’ of a few federal politicians has to do with forcing people to vote under pain of penalty.

Just in passing, of course, the plebians of 1924 were not actually asked if they wanted to be made to vote, or if they wanted their descendents to be made to vote. Our current not-so-proud politicians wouldn’t get away with such undemocratic behaviour now without a referendum. And records show that there were no referenda on anything at all between 1919 and 1926.

No, the politicians kept this one to themselves, voting in favour of a private member’s Bill put by a Senator Payne from Tasmania. Yes, Tasmania!

With whole-hearted approval of compulsory voting, our elitist academic prattled on to say that it “that it makes it easier for ‘new entrants’ to contest seats”, using the single-issue activist and recently elected Member for Wentworth as an example. Grrrrr! Of course, that other highly shonky business of preferential voting got that one in.

Our academic goes on to tell us, rightly, that there is now not so much trust, pride and confidence in our politicians which, amazingly, is another reason (94 year old pride being the only other one) for compulsory voting. Without it, she says, many “disillusioned (people) would stop voting altogether”!

Get it? We have compulsory voting because Australians had trust and confidence in government (not that they were asked); but now, when she admits that there is a lot less trust and confidence in government, we need compulsory voting”. She finishes with, “It’s a very good thing”.

Hey. They don’t trust us? Make the buggers vote! Hang on. We don’t know if they actually do vote when they get into the polling booth. Let’s put in surveillance. A Tassie Green could put up a Bill.

ttbn,
I think people should be required to have a license to vote. To just vote because mum & dad voted so & their school teacher told them to vote so too is nothing more than sabotaging the whole election.

Voting is compulsory by law and that is a good thing, but no one has to actually cast a vote, one can write anything at all on the ballot paper.

One thing that it does do is cut down the number of multiple votes, the system of vote early, vote often doesn't pertain.

Individual,

If you are suggesting that some people are too dumb to vote, I agree with you.

Is Mise,

Yes. We all know that. Someone always brings it up every time the matter of undemocratic compulsory attendance is brought up. Not turning up at a polling station is a political act that is denied to Australians, and the inhabitants 17 countries who fine people for not turning up. It is significant that two thirds of OECD countries do not have compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is totally undemocratic.

Please see my comment to my individual. We would get! better governments if voting was voluntary.

We would get! better governments if voting was voluntary.
ttbn,
I believe that not only would we get a better Govt but better citizens also if we threw in a Non-military National Service !

Weird. I would expect dumb-arse leftist children and/or academics (somewhat interchangeable categories), with their disapproval of the dreadful imperfections of democracy (it allows neo-liberalism, after all), to go for voluntary, or even no, voting - after all, once a Utopian Blueprint has been drawn up, and the right Party is in power, with its almost-divine Leader (hey, I've been there, done that), what does anybody need democracy, or voting, for ?

But no. Conservatives here opposing compulsory voting: what next ? Yes, like any system it has its weaknesses and defects and imperfections, and to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system except for all the others.

So you want only a handful of 'knowledgeable' people voting ? Perhaps none at all, since - with the right party in power - why change it at all ? And after all, such a system lasted in the Soviet Union for more than seventy years; such a system in China has lasted nearly seventy years - 140 years between them, so clearly dictatorship is durable. And do we see Chinese people complaining, rising up and trying to overthrow the system ? No ? Why's that ? Could it be because they are happy, contented, that they don't need democracy or voting ? How else can you explain it ?

Yeah, right.

Ttbn, etc., beware ! Your dumb-arse adolescent grandsons have just been listening to their teachers and have stolen your passwords !

Joe

Compulsory voting is no where near as bad as preferential voting.

Not only must I vote, but I must then watch it filter down to help elect someone I most definitely do not want.

First past the post is the only fair way of voting. It results in the person that the largest percentage of the population really wanted getting the victory.

Joe,

Most countries do not have compulsory voting. Half of those who do don't enforce it, and only 10 of 30 OECD compel people to vote. We are not talking about banana republics. You and many others wouldn't get off your lazy bums if you weren't forced to, and that would be a good thing in my book. Unintelligent voters voting because the have to is the reason why we have low quality politicians. The useless bastards don't have to get out and sell themselves. They drones we get from compulsory voting have nothing to sell, and tney know it.

Hasbeen,

Totally agree with you on preferential voting. That also keeps idiots in, not to mentioned the likes of Phelps who got fewer first preferences than Sharma in Wentworth.

Good ideas all.

Myself I favour compulsory voting at least for now...

Why- I agree that people need to understand civics to use their vote effectively for their own enlightened self interest and that this implies a meritocracy. I agree that many people understand politics only as deep as the biased media- so the media not being democratic can undermine peoples own enlightened self interest. Like the legal system, politics relies on contention between the opposing parties to bring out the truth- but it doesn't always work- especially when there are more than two sides- and the major ones are Locke Liberalist.

There are fundamental issues with official power...

Someone who have power will always try to use it to benefit themselves even those with official power. There will be a market for influencing those with power so those that have power get stronger. But there is a link between those with power and those that are capable- every society needs capable people. One of the best ways to get people to put their hearts into their jobs is to link it to their self interest- but how... There are examples in history- most (probably all) of them have limitations. I prefer a balance more in favour of local forms of power as they are less influential. If there is no definition or limitation on power it will always expand.

On preferential voting...

I'm a supporter but I don't follow voting cards and choose my own preferences and number all the boxes- I look at my first 5 and my worst 5 allocate them accordingly then fill in the middle. Admittedly I spend about 20mins in the voting cubical- and double check everything- I also do a fair bit of research on the candidates on the AEC website before I attend the voting centre.

Without preferential voting minor parties couldn't survive.

Preferential voting perhaps enables a smoother more stable transition of changes in public thought into the political sphere.

I can understand the feeling of the intelligent capable that they feel they are hostage to the dumb incapable. This seems to be the reason for the meritocracy solution.

A partial solution might be to give everyone a piece of land to live or die on- industrialism often doesn't require large pieces of land but good technology- with technology businesses don't need as many people either- but they need many customers and large growth markets to support ongoing business viability- but there are too many people in the world.

If businesses need many customers but not workers there is a problem with the economic industrial system. One solution might involve business outputs that have longer lifespans- but this means lower business profits- but they can do more with the money

I think compulsory voting is needed but it should also be compulsory that the voters can prove their understanding of who to vote for. We need to introduce voting licenses & the Constitution needs to be taught in schools. Not teaching the Constitution has given rise to the insipid Left.
What could stop this federal Govt from imposing this requirement ?

Re: preferential voting. Too many people don't understand it. Too many people think they have to vote the way their favoured candidate says they should. Too many people are 'donkeys', just marking straight down ticket. In short, too many people are too dumb to vote.

Coming generations will soon be illiterate if our current standard of education prevails; kids can barely read and write now. How on earth can they be expected to navigate their way through the tablecloth-size senate paper? I would bet that most people go 1 to 3 across the top,rather than deciding who they actually want in the senate, then putting in the 15 'preferences' in the body of the paper required to make their vote formal.

No. I remain convinced. Voluntary voting, and no preferential nonsense. It is bloody ridiculous to have to choose people you don't particularly want when you have clearly indicated who you do want.

Just to make compulsory voting sillier - there are, apparently , half a million eligible voters who haven't even bothered to register to vote.

Surely it is not too much to ask of a citizen that they trot along to the polling booth to have their name crossed off as a deterrent to multiple voting?

Is Mise,

Muliple voting seems to be your thing, but I don't understand how compulsory voting stops it. Multiple voting has always occurred, and is still occurring as far as I know. It is certainly reported periodically.

ttbn,

Multiple voting is much harder when an official crosses the names off; if one turns up to vote and finds that one's name has already been crossed off then there is a legitimate question as to who voted.

If one doesn't turn up then there will be no questions.

See? Simple really.

Compulsory voting nips multiple voting in the bud.

I have never heard of any checking to see if the same names were crossed off at a number of driftnet polling places with in an electret.

I can think of a number of contributors here, who would be happy driving around voting at as many pooling places as they could find.

Everything else is electronic so why not voting ? It would be impossible to vote twice.

Multiple voting is one of the weaker excuses for compulsory, anti-democratic voting. I have never heard the urgers using it, so rare is the practice. I reckon online voting would be the best way to fiddle with the system. Old fashioned mail would be better. That's what local government already does. Voluntary, but more convenient if you do wish to vote. Voting by post has increased council votes.

ttbn,

"Multiple voting is one of the weaker excuses for compulsory, anti-democratic voting. I have never heard the urgers using it, so rare is the practice. "

Thanks for that observation, it's because of Compulsory Voting that the practice is rare in Australia.
Under voluntary voting, as is used in Britain, multiple voting or voting in the name of those too lazy to vote is common.
In Northern Ireland, if one died within a week or so of the polls, and depending on the weather, one would be kept on ice (literally for those that could afford it) until the vote could be cast.
"Vote Early, Vote Often" was a war cry for both Republicans and Loyalists.

ttbn,

You said, "Compulsory voting is totally undemocratic"

If that is so then all the other compulsions by law on the citizens are also undemocratic, military service in time of war, taxation, vaccination, paying for passports, motor vehicle registration, council rates etc., etc.

Is Mise,

The things you mention have no similarity to voting. But, you are obviously hell bent on arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'll leave you to it.

ttbn,

"The things you mention have no similarity to voting..."

Quite right and very perceptive of you to notice, however, they do have similarities to Compulsory Voting, they are compulsory and that compulsion is imposed by the State.

ttbn,

"But, you are obviously hell bent on arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'll leave you to it."

Thus avoiding any further discussion on your undemocratic ideas about Compulsory Voting and automatically upholding the integrity of the vote.

Most of us on this thread appear to be relatively Traditional Conservative so we agree on a lot of things. It's just we don't all agree on Compulsory Voting.

But what do I know- I can't even work out the US College Voting System.

An interesting case study is the French they have recently changed to a non-compulsory system from a compulsory system and so it's possible to compare the results of both systems.

"Compulsory voting is totally undemocratic"
ttbn
So is compulsory contributing to paying tax for bureaucrats & hangers-on to misuse.

Another wacky academic points out this morning that compulsory voting ‘saves us from a Donald Trump’. To me that really means that we are PREVENTED from having a Donald Trump because of compulsory voting.

We are advised that Trump was elected with by only a quarter of eligible voters. Similarly, Brexit passed by only 37% of voters.

Intelligent people, genuinely concerned about their country, make the effort to vote without being forced to. It is the majority drones, voting only because it is compulsory, who are the ones keeping in the useless hacks who brought in compulsory voting because they knew that naturally unintelligent people are easier to manipulate.

ttbn said- naturally unintelligent people are easier to manipulate.

Answer- You have a good point there ttbn.

ttbn,

"...who are the ones keeping in the useless hacks who brought in compulsory voting because..."

I would think that they would all be dead by now, useless or not.

they would all be dead by now, useless or not.'
is Mise,
Wishful thinking but the reality is they bred like rabbits !