NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently learned that in Australia it's mandatory for everyone to vote in elections.

Perhaps this is a good idea, but I know may people in the rest of the West will be surprised to learn this. Many will think it's a troubling curtailment of individual freedoms.

What do our Aussie NSers think of this law, and would anyone else here want to live under it?

Im a aussie & i dont care since i cant vote yet anyway

Of course mandatory voting is a good idea. It is derived from the 19th Century principle of "one man, one vote".

If you do not wish to vote, then you have several options:

1. Don't vote and risk a fine
2. Vote informal (wasted vote)
3. Draw pretty pictures on ballot forms (I have wtinessed some pretty funny pictures)

You have to register your vote but you can spoil your paper if there is no one you want to vote for.

I like it. As in some of my local elections last year we had a 15% turn out!

Im not sure that FORCING people to vote is not missing the point.

Look, America gets crappy leaders becuase hardly anyone votes. Australia gets crappy primeministers because everyone votes

do you se my point?


(I am actuually all for mandatory voting. It makes the system far more legitimate)

Yes, you arent forced to vote, only to register.

As an American who has been studying this semester in Australia, I have had a first-hand account of what mandatory voting does. Instead of having to waste millions of dollars on simply trying to get people to register and vote, the government actually makes money by fining those who don't, and ad campaigns can focus instead on why an individual candidate is a good choice. I'm fully in support of mandatory voting since - as has been stated - you can choose to simply abstain (or draw pretty pictures or write swear words) if you don't want to actually vote. But you still have to take those 5 minutes to actually vote.

I believe implementing something like that in America would be incredibly beneficial.

~Merric

Frankly. I dont see how it helps either way. But I find that people against Mandatory voting are Apathetic about government and simply complain because they dont like doing it.

if you don't have to vote then who votes?

the nutters and party loyalists. there becomes no middle ground. this is hardly representitive is it?

a study in finland (which also has compulsory voting) showed that the people that most want/need change (youth, immegrants, the poor) are those least likely to vote as they do not feel as if they are a part of the community.

in oz the immegrant vote is very important to both major parties. not many people are not covered in the australian political realm.

Errrr... i don't seem to recall us aussies getting crappy prime ministers, cos we have always had medicare, family welfare, the pension , etc etc.

Back to the subject - yep its a good idea, because it makes the prime minister the majorities opinion, not just the few literate americans opinion (i know there are more literate americans then illiterate ones, its just that in comparison)

I mean, look at the results - America : Massive military budget, many homeless people, worse human rights, not as much 'helping hand' , totally unbalanced wealth.

Now lets look at Australia - Medicare, pension, family support, heaps of money spent on education and the highest literacy rate in the world - I believe if people were made to vote in america, the presidents would think about the poorer people and not as much about the 'voting class' .

Interesting facts about American voting - 1 year, there was only a total of 8.3% of people voting!!!!!! Because of this, some people don't even consider America civilised (i visited america 3 years ago, was not a pleasant experience) I may not be australian born (originally american for 10 years) but the pollution, crime, and human rights situation over there is a bit *coughhorriblecough*

ANSWER - VOTING SHOULD BE MANDATORY

As an Aussie, and this been my first year voting,

( Wow, perfect timing, 18 in an election year ! :D )

I think its great, yes it mandatory to register, but if you do not vote you get fined. As you should, no point in making laws to be ignored after all, its not the N.S.U.N. after all ...

:roll:

A-hem, yeah, if you don't want to vote, you still need to turn up, and "donkey-vote" as I remember it, basically some-thing to invalidate you ballot slip/s. Like writing one of those political slogans over the top of it. But really, what the point of living in a democracy if you don't exercise the right to vote.

Oh, and Vote Liberals ! A Green vote is to recycle your ballot paper !

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Now lets look at Australia - Medicare, pension, family support, heaps of money spent on education

In case you havnt heard Howard is Phasing out all of those things.

Now lets look at Australia - Medicare, pension, family support, heaps of money spent on education

In case you havnt heard Howard is Phasing out all of those things.

1. Bulk-billing rates are on the rise since the introduction of MedicarePlus

2. $37 billion has been injected into families in this budget

3. Federal spending on public education has risen 60% in this budget (even though it is a state responsibility)

You were saying?

All technicalities.

Statistics meant to win over voters in an election year. Why did it take this long for howard to "Fix" medicare. And you forgot about the pension.

My personal opinion, I'm not in favour of it. I don't care for politics at all and would definitely not vote if I had the option. Although I can't vote yet, it doesn't change my opinion.

I'm not particularly concerned about the whole freedom thing, I'll just chuck in a random ballot when I have to and be done with it.

All technicalities.

That's a weak answer...Howard has done Australia the world of good. Those who complain are easily stopped in their tracks.

o.0

I think mandatory voting is a horrible thing (like most mandatory government things). It forces you to put a sanction on the regime. I reserve the right to not have any part of their dirty game.

They work for us, not the other way around. They have no right to demand we vote.

This guy (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/73680/page=display_nation/nation=libertovania) has it right. Might as well make your 'vote' count!

Now lets look at Australia - Medicare, pension, family support, heaps of money spent on education

In case you havnt heard Howard is Phasing out all of those things.

1. Bulk-billing rates are on the rise since the introduction of MedicarePlus

2. $37 billion has been injected into families in this budget

3. Federal spending on public education has risen 60% in this budget (even though it is a state responsibility)

You were saying?

4. $2.2 billion over 5 years to increase aged care places; $878 million to carers of aged people (incentive) & quality of aged care facilities.

4. $2.2 billion over 5 years to increase aged care places; $878 million to carers of aged people (incentive) & quality of aged care facilities.
WTF is an "aged person" and "aged care place"?
Do you mean OLD PEOPLE and OLD FOLKS HOME?

4. $2.2 billion over 5 years to increase aged care places; $878 million to carers of aged people (incentive) & quality of aged care facilities.
WTF is an "aged person" and "aged care place"?
Do you mean OLD PEOPLE and OLD FOLKS HOME?

Older Australians (aka senior citizens) & Nursing Homes (Retirement Villages)...And there is no need to swear!

Older Australians
senior citizens
Nursing Homes
Retirement Villages
aged Persons
aged person place

AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
*runs, screaming at the insanity of the world*

Ahem, whilst I might dislike the hypocrisy of people saying you have the right to vote but we'll fine you if you dont register for the vote. I do agree mandatory voting to a degree is good, yes it gives a majority rule rather than those that can be bothered how ever since none of the parties in the election phases of my country have anyone I want to vote for I go there and draw pretty flowers or a tank blowing up a school or something stupid.

But as for hte medicare thing, have you guys read it properly? bulk billing to children under 16 and elderly people and stuff, my family is in the position where the new medicare does nothing for us, neither does the old one, sure I've gota healthcare card and that gives me bulk billing but my parents pretty much have to pay for most stuff.

and that 300 or something dollars from the government covers your entire family not individual people, it's basicly the same as it is now only the government pays doctors more to bulk bill people under 16 and on centerlink concessions and pensions that's really it from what I've read.

They emphasize the word strengthen to make people blind to the fact if you have no kids under 16 and not on a pension you're still the same off.

I personaly this voting year might vote for Mark Latham but I'm unsure his only point to winning my vote at the moment is his promise to give us a new republic referendum vote in 3 years, but unforunately I probably wont be living in Australia anymore when it comes around.

Anyways my point is for a majority rule it's good, but to say we've got the right to vote sometimes means yes we also have the right to register not that we gotta register or we'll break a law.

I personaly this voting year might vote for Mark Latham but I'm unsure his only point to winning my vote at the moment is his promise to give us a new republic referendum vote in 3 years, but unforunately I probably wont be living in Australia anymore when it comes around.

If you truly read up on the issues (as you claim with Medicare) then you would not cast a vote on one issue.

Think about this:

1. Labor proposes a Republic which will cost $200 million for the referrendum alone!

2. Labor wants to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This endangers thousands of jobs.

3. Labor's higher education strategy strips $1 billion from our universities. They will be worse off.

4. The State Labor Governments (mismanagement) are indicative of a Federal ALP government.

5. Every time Labor has been in federal government (Whitlam, Hawke and Keating) Australia suffered recessions, high unemployment, high interest rates (making home ownership impossible) and spent what they didn't have.

6. Labor's oil policy will mean petrol will cost $3 per Litre.

I think mandatory voting is a horrible thing (like most mandatory government things). It forces you to put a sanction on the regime. I reserve the right to not have any part of their dirty game.

well, you don't have to sanction them, do you? that is what opposition parties are for. if everyone trully voted for what they believe in then we would have a much great democracy.

They work for us, not the other way around. They have no right to demand we vote.

as a citizen it is your responsability to ensure that they do their job to your satisfaction. they are not the ones demanding you vote, it is the constitution which was written in an age where voting and having responsable government was a thing worth striving for.

If you don't like them, vote for another party. simple.

there's too much talk of rights and not enough of responsabilities.

I personaly this voting year might vote for Mark Latham but I'm unsure his only point to winning my vote at the moment is his promise to give us a new republic referendum vote in 3 years, but unforunately I probably wont be living in Australia anymore when it comes around.

If you truly read up on the issues (as you claim with Medicare) then you would not cast a vote on one issue.

Think about this:

1. Labor proposes a Republic which will cost $200 million for the referrendum alone!

2. Labor wants to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This endangers thousands of jobs.

3. Labor's higher education strategy strips $1 billion from our universities. They will be worse off.

4. The State Labor Governments (mismanagement) are indicative of a Federal ALP government.

5. Every time Labor has been in federal government (Whitlam, Hawke and Keating) Australia suffered recessions, high unemployment, high interest rates (making home ownership impossible) and spent what they didn't have.

6. Labor's oil policy will mean petrol will cost $3 per Litre.

that's why you'll note I said I'm unsure I'm in the process of gathering all I need to vote, if as you say all this I might just blow up more schools with a pen again.

Its because he Lifted it from the Liberal website

And Kyoto does not endanger thousands of jobs. The way I see it could create jobs, people to be employed to think and deal with ways to reduce them. All that aside, how much trouble could the economy be in if the climate turns violent, as it certainly seems to be doing.

as a citizen it is your responsability to ensure that they do their job to your satisfaction. they are not the ones demanding you vote, it is the constitution which was written in an age where voting and having responsable government was a thing worth striving for.
The only ways I could ensure they do their job to my satisfaction is if I a) killed them, or b) imprisoned them for the length of their term. I don't want them to devise and implement their "vision" on my behalf. I want them to:
1) Enforce legal contracts.
2) Protect my right to my life, liberty, and property.
3) Organize a military force to defend against foreign enemies.

That's it. Every time they come up with a new tax, a new health care system, a new education scheme, a new labour law, or whatever, just makes me want to dissassociate myself from their whole racket. One way to do that is to not vote, if I so choose.

there's too much talk of rights and not enough of responsabilities.
Uhm, no. There really isn't. I don't owe the government or the people anything except my respect of their rights (again: life, liberty, property). The fulfillment of any responsibility beyond that must be voluntary on my behalf. As soon as government starts proposing voluntary taxation for programs I'll start encouraging democracy.

Ahem, whilst I might dislike the hypocrisy of people saying you have the right to vote but we'll fine you if you dont register for the vote. I do agree mandatory voting to a degree is good, yes it gives a majority rule rather than those that can be bothered how ever since none of the parties in the election phases of my country have anyone I want to vote for I go there and draw pretty flowers or a tank blowing up a school or something stupid.

Cahlos, I love ya, but I'm confused.

How is 50% of the populace drawing pretty pictures of n00ks on their ballots (thus spoiling them) any different than 50% of the people saying "screw it" and staying home? If half the people don't really vote, how is it majority rule?

And wouldn't it be cheaper for everybody if people who don't want to vote weren't wasting time and ballots screwing around, and simply stayed home?

Ahem, whilst I might dislike the hypocrisy of people saying you have the right to vote but we'll fine you if you dont register for the vote. I do agree mandatory voting to a degree is good, yes it gives a majority rule rather than those that can be bothered how ever since none of the parties in the election phases of my country have anyone I want to vote for I go there and draw pretty flowers or a tank blowing up a school or something stupid.

Cahlos, I love ya, but I'm confused.

How is 50% of the populace drawing pretty pictures of n00ks on their ballots (thus spoiling them) any different than 50% of the people saying "screw it" and staying home? If half the people don't really vote, how is it majority rule?

And wouldn't it be cheaper for everybody if people who don't want to vote weren't wasting time and ballots screwing around, and simply stayed home?

we don't get 50% casting invalid votes, the theory is that if you are there you may as well vote. maybe 5% are invalid...? (not 100% sure of that figure)

Its because he Lifted it from the Liberal website

And Kyoto does not endanger thousands of jobs. The way I see it could create jobs, people to be employed to think and deal with ways to reduce them. All that aside, how much trouble could the economy be in if the climate turns violent, as it certainly seems to be doing.

No...from a variety of sources.

And...

Reasons why Australia should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Only advanced economies are subject the demands of the protocol (annex 1 nations). Developing economies such as China are still allowed to pollute unconditionally.

(b) Increasing regulations will see many industries move offshore to countries like China. Investment will be redirected to developing nations which will pollute to a greater extent as they progress.

(c) As a result, global emissions of CO2 will likely increase.

(d) Australia will have lost jobs and industries. Economic recessions will become commonplace.

...When you have read the protocol then you can debate the issue. Until then it is always best to refrain from comment on issues you cannot comprehend.

As for the climate turning violent...all the theories on global warming point to Australia becoming a paradise - with lush rainforests in the interior. Now...what is so bad about that? Also, global warming is exaggerated anyway (The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

The only ways I could ensure they do their job to my satisfaction is if I a) killed them, or b) imprisoned them for the length of their term. I don't want them to devise and implement their "vision" on my behalf. I want them to:
1) Enforce legal contracts.
2) Protect my right to my life, liberty, and property.
3) Organize a military force to defend against foreign enemies.

That's it. Every time they come up with a new tax, a new health care system, a new education scheme, a new labour law, or whatever, just makes me want to dissassociate myself from their whole racket. One way to do that is to not vote, if I so choose.

Uhm, no. There really isn't. I don't owe the government or the people anything except my respect of their rights (again: life, liberty, property). The fulfillment of any responsibility beyond that must be voluntary on my behalf. As soon as government starts proposing voluntary taxation for programs I'll start encouraging democracy.

If you don't like them, vote them out. how can you expect change if you aren't going to make the effort to effect change? :roll:

voluntary taxation? :lol: well, goodbye to hospitals, public transport, roads, education etc etc etc

it seem you believe that the world owes you a lot but you owe nothing in return. unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

I think mandatory voting is a good thing because then you do get the perpective of the entire population not just the party faithful and minority groups looking to push their barrow.
If people want to waste their vote drawing pictures then thats their prerogative. Having elections with 15-30% turn outs is hardly representative and in Australia our informal vote is not high.

As for people who say they don't vote and then complain about who their Prime Minister/President is..... :roll:

The only downfall is that weirdos, bludgers, psychos and lefties vote...For example, the people who appear on those current affairs programs vote! That is a scary thought :shock:

(The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

Really?! A movie based on a book by Witless Shriber and Art Bell isn't factual?! :shock: :!:

(The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

Really?! A movie based on a book by Witless Shriber and Art Bell isn't factual?! :shock: :!:

Oh, I thought Michael Moore wrote it.... :wink:

voluntary taxation? :lol: well, goodbye to hospitals, public transport, roads, education etc etc etc

Goodbye public hospitals, public transport, public roads, public education, etc.

Except not. Public hospitals will still exist because people can pay the government for memberships. Public transit will exist because people pay for use even today. Roads will get built and maintained just like buildings do. Useless government road projects to Nowhereland, Canada, will end. Public education will still exist because, like hospitals, people can pay the government for memberships. But the fundamental right to choose how to spend your money will be given back.

We had hospitals and schools before the government started stealing from us to pay for them, and we can have them again outside of the tax system.

it seem you believe that the world owes you a lot but you owe nothing in return. unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.
Oh I pay my own way, trust me. But aren't voluntary relationships much preferable to involuntary ones backed by violence?

I recently learned that in Australia it's mandatory for everyone to vote in elections.

Perhaps this is a good idea, but I know may people in the rest of the West will be surprised to learn this. Many will think it's a troubling curtailment of individual freedoms.

What do our Aussie NSers think of this law, and would anyone else here want to live under it?

It's perfectly sensible, as it ensures that the views of everyone are accounted for. Anything else is undemocratic. Besides, the individual is nothing compared to the needs of the group.

I recently learned that in Australia it's mandatory for everyone to vote in elections.

Perhaps this is a good idea, but I know may people in the rest of the West will be surprised to learn this. Many will think it's a troubling curtailment of individual freedoms.

What do our Aussie NSers think of this law, and would anyone else here want to live under it?

It's perfectly sensible, as it ensures that the views of everyone are accounted for. Anything else is undemocratic. Besides, the individual is nothing compared to the needs of the group.

Well said!

Its because he Lifted it from the Liberal website

And Kyoto does not endanger thousands of jobs. The way I see it could create jobs, people to be employed to think and deal with ways to reduce them. All that aside, how much trouble could the economy be in if the climate turns violent, as it certainly seems to be doing.

No...from a variety of sources.

And...

Reasons why Australia should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Only advanced economies are subject the demands of the protocol (annex 1 nations). Developing economies such as China are still allowed to pollute unconditionally.

(b) Increasing regulations will see many industries move offshore to countries like China. Investment will be redirected to developing nations which will pollute to a greater extent as they progress.

(c) As a result, global emissions of CO2 will likely increase.

(d) Australia will have lost jobs and industries. Economic recessions will become commonplace.

...When you have read the protocol then you can debate the issue. Until then it is always best to refrain from comment on issues you cannot comprehend.

As for the climate turning violent...all the theories on global warming point to Australia becoming a paradise - with lush rainforests in the interior. Now...what is so bad about that? Also, global warming is exaggerated anyway (The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

Thats funny. You must have missed the news that the climate has changed. A pressure system has moved further south meaning that much of the rain falls on the ocean instead of the land as it used to.

All that aside, are you against measures to stem climate change in general, or just against the Kyoto protcol. The whole thing is kinda pathetic. It was supposed to be a first step, not the magical solution. But opponents have procrastinated and stalled and moulded the issue to make this treaty the line in the sand.

voluntary taxation? :lol: well, goodbye to hospitals, public transport, roads, education etc etc etc

Goodbye public hospitals, public transport, public roads, public education, etc.

Except not. Public hospitals will still exist because people can pay the government for memberships. Public transit will exist because people pay for use even today. Roads will get built and maintained just like buildings do. Useless government road projects to Nowhereland, Canada, will end. Public education will still exist because, like hospitals, people can pay the government for memberships. But the fundamental right to choose how to spend your money will be given back.

We had hospitals and schools before the government started stealing from us to pay for them, and we can have them again outside of the tax system.

it seem you believe that the world owes you a lot but you owe nothing in return. unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.
Oh I pay my own way, trust me. But aren't voluntary relationships much preferable to involuntary ones backed by violence?

do you not realise how much (public & private) schools, public transport, hospitals etc are subsidised. the way taxation works is that business and high income earners subsidise the poor. if you remove this then what do you have? if everyone had to pay what schooling really cost then most people could not afford it.

you pay a subsidised rate for public transport. you pay a subsidised rate in a hospital. who's going to pay for this infrastructure? there is no way that people will pay for railroads, roads, buses, water suply on their own.

so in answer, you do not pay your way. the rich and big business pays your way. that is how society works. without this system we will have fuedalism again with the wealthy having free reign to do as they please.

Its because he Lifted it from the Liberal website

And Kyoto does not endanger thousands of jobs. The way I see it could create jobs, people to be employed to think and deal with ways to reduce them. All that aside, how much trouble could the economy be in if the climate turns violent, as it certainly seems to be doing.

No...from a variety of sources.

And...

Reasons why Australia should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Only advanced economies are subject the demands of the protocol (annex 1 nations). Developing economies such as China are still allowed to pollute unconditionally.

(b) Increasing regulations will see many industries move offshore to countries like China. Investment will be redirected to developing nations which will pollute to a greater extent as they progress.

(c) As a result, global emissions of CO2 will likely increase.

(d) Australia will have lost jobs and industries. Economic recessions will become commonplace.

...When you have read the protocol then you can debate the issue. Until then it is always best to refrain from comment on issues you cannot comprehend.

As for the climate turning violent...all the theories on global warming point to Australia becoming a paradise - with lush rainforests in the interior. Now...what is so bad about that? Also, global warming is exaggerated anyway (The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

Thats funny. You must have missed the news that the climate has changed. A pressure system has moved further south meaning that much of the rain falls on the ocean instead of the land as it used to.

All that aside, are you against measures to stem climate change in general, or just against the Kyoto protcol. The whole thing is kinda pathetic. It was supposed to be a first step, not the magical solution. But opponents have procrastinated and stalled and moulded the issue to make this treaty the line in the sand.

He merely stated how the Kyoto protocol was flawed and that it could in fact make things worse.
By making developed nations toe the line while other nations are free to pollute as they please it is no great leap to see industry moving from developed nations to those that are not restricted under the protocol. This means that those nations not restricted in their emissions will accumulate more industry producing more pollution and therefore it may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions over time.

If you read things with an open mind rather than with only one eye open you find you get more out of these debates.

and to add to that, the rich and big business pay our way so that we can buy their products. this creates money. if we had to pay the true price for things we could not afford to buy other things therebye stopping the flow of capital. expect starvation to follow.

Its because he Lifted it from the Liberal website

And Kyoto does not endanger thousands of jobs. The way I see it could create jobs, people to be employed to think and deal with ways to reduce them. All that aside, how much trouble could the economy be in if the climate turns violent, as it certainly seems to be doing.

No...from a variety of sources.

And...

Reasons why Australia should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Only advanced economies are subject the demands of the protocol (annex 1 nations). Developing economies such as China are still allowed to pollute unconditionally.

(b) Increasing regulations will see many industries move offshore to countries like China. Investment will be redirected to developing nations which will pollute to a greater extent as they progress.

(c) As a result, global emissions of CO2 will likely increase.

(d) Australia will have lost jobs and industries. Economic recessions will become commonplace.

...When you have read the protocol then you can debate the issue. Until then it is always best to refrain from comment on issues you cannot comprehend.

As for the climate turning violent...all the theories on global warming point to Australia becoming a paradise - with lush rainforests in the interior. Now...what is so bad about that? Also, global warming is exaggerated anyway (The Day After Tomorrow is not factual people)

Thats funny. You must have missed the news that the climate has changed. A pressure system has moved further south meaning that much of the rain falls on the ocean instead of the land as it used to.

All that aside, are you against measures to stem climate change in general, or just against the Kyoto protcol. The whole thing is kinda pathetic. It was supposed to be a first step, not the magical solution. But opponents have procrastinated and stalled and moulded the issue to make this treaty the line in the sand.

He merely stated how the Kyoto protocol was flawed and that it could in fact make things worse.
By making developed nations toe the line while other nations are free to pollute as they please it is no great leap to see industry moving from developed nations to those that are not restricted under the protocol. This means that those nations not restricted in their emissions will accumulate more industry producing more pollution and therefore it may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions over time.

If you read things with an open mind rather than with only one eye open you find you get more out of these debates.

I am all for a cleaner future. Like the PM said, should the protocol be amended to place all nations on Earth on a level playing field, then I would not oppose Kyoto.

The fact is, Kyoto is not a first step. It will achieve quite the opposite of its intensions.

[quote="New Astrolia"][quote="Thuthmose III"][quote=New Astrolia](postings. I hate it when quote threds run long)

He merely stated how the Kyoto protocol was flawed and that it could in fact make things worse.
By making developed nations toe the line while other nations are free to pollute as they please it is no great leap to see industry moving from developed nations to those that are not restricted under the protocol. This means that those nations not restricted in their emissions will accumulate more industry producing more pollution and therefore it may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions over time.

If you read things with an open mind rather than with only one eye open you find you get more out of these debates.

As I said. This was supposed to be a first step. Other treaties would have let them catch up a little and then pull them into line. If this treaty was such an economy killer, then why did western nations vote for it. Could it be because they were purpously attempting to Sabotage it?

As I said. This was supposed to be a first step. Other treaties would have let them catch up a little and then pull them into line. If this treaty was such an economy killer, then why did western nations vote for it. Could it be because they were purpously attempting to Sabotage it?

A lot of leaders who signed the protocol are left wing. It is then no surprise that they signed up for a job destroying agreement. Hey, it is a fact!

And what assurances do you have that those annex 2 nations will be pulled into line? Who is going to tell China or Indonesia what to do? (I'd like to see you try :lol: ) The point of Kyoto is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With developing nations pumping toxins into the atmosphere without restraint CO2 emissions will only increase - despite advanced economies cutting back at the cost of thousands of jobs.

As I said. This was supposed to be a first step. Other treaties would have let them catch up a little and then pull them into line. If this treaty was such an economy killer, then why did western nations vote for it. Could it be because they were purpously attempting to Sabotage it?

But if the first step is backwards why take it? I am personally thankful that our government did not blindly sign to the protocol because "everyone else did".

As I said. It was a first step. There would have been others but opponents manipulated the issues.

As I said. It was a first step. There would have been others but opponents manipulated the issues.

The protocol was flawed, the facts are that everyone was supposed to blindly sign on. After China got its industry flourishing and its economy skyrocketing do you really think they will then sign on and limit their emissions? No chance.

As I said. It was a first step. There would have been others but opponents manipulated the issues.

The protocol was flawed, the facts are that everyone was supposed to blindly sign on. After China got its industry flourishing and its economy skyrocketing do you really think they will then sign on and limit their emissions? No chance. :roll: Enough of this rhetoric.

Enough of this rhetoric.

I wouldn't call it rhetoric. It is a logical conclusion based on the Kyoto protocol.

This has nothing to do in a true democracy. However, Democracy might not be the best way to govern a nation anyway.

This has nothing to do in a true democracy. However, Democracy might not be the best way to govern a nation anyway.

true democracy does not exist, but it does encourage a certain level of civic responsability and political awareness.

This has nothing to do in a true democracy. However, Democracy might not be the best way to govern a nation anyway.

Definition of Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

Therefore I would say the greater the percentage of the population that voted the more democratic the system. So mandatory voting would be the most democratic of systems.

This has nothing to do in a true democracy. However, Democracy might not be the best way to govern a nation anyway.

Definition of Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

Therefore I would say the greater the percentage of the population that voted the more democratic the system. So mandatory voting would be the most democratic of systems.

true democracy is the democracy of the inventors, ie athenian greeks. in that democracy everyone, (so long as they were male, over a certain age and a citizen, ok, not everyone) could vote and had the right to have a say on all issues.

what democracy is today is representitive democracy.

i'm not saying that our system is not democratic. it certainly is but the other guy claimed that it was not true democracy (which no longer exists).

in fact i can't think of too many more democratic systems than the australian. the US has that stupid electoral college system. maybe finland could compare? :wink:

do you not realise how much (public & private) schools, public transport, hospitals etc are subsidised. the way taxation works is that business and high income earners subsidise the poor. if you remove this then what do you have? if everyone had to pay what schooling really cost then most people could not afford it.

you pay a subsidised rate for public transport. you pay a subsidised rate in a hospital. who's going to pay for this infrastructure? there is no way that people will pay for railroads, roads, buses, water suply on their own.

so in answer, you do not pay your way. the rich and big business pays your way. that is how society works. without this system we will have fuedalism again with the wealthy having free reign to do as they please.

The ends does not justify the means.

The public assumes that we have public services on the grounds that people would not be able to afford the same services under private operation. This is based upon the amounts the government spends on such services. But if you take into consideration how much of the money is wasted then you'll realise that the private sector can provide the services at a cost equal to or even less than the government. Before the money is even spent it is channelled through a series of beauracratic organisations who are deciding how the money is to be spent and giving it to those who will be doing the spending. This make consume anywhere between 20 to 40 percent of the money, depending on the number of levels of government and organisations it has to go through. The remaining 60 to 80 percent will probably be spent foolishly. A classical example is the first home buyers grant. Why give someone $7000 to go towards the purchase of a home if you are going to take away more than $7000 in stamp duty?

Prior to public healthcare in the 1970's, 90% of the population had private health insurance. If they did not make a claim throughout the year they would get a rebate.

If the reason why we have public services is to guarantee needs which we would supposedly be unable to afford if it were left to ourselves to choose then why is food not provided by the government? After all, for a family of four the yearly cost of food can be anywhere between five to ten thousand dollars a year.

I am a supporter of compulsory voting (as I live in a country that only had 59% turnout at the last election). I think compulory voting would ensure a more democratic state and a more representative government that was actually voted for by the people of the nation.

I'm an Aussie, and while I agree with compulsory voting, I don't agree with the preference system, which usually ends up with a person's second-last preference getting in, simply because the candidate wasn't put last. The only way to ensure that a particular candidate can't get your vote is to put them last, and you can't put more than one candidate last.

The ends does not justify the means.

The public assumes that we have public services on the grounds that people would not be able to afford the same services under private operation. This is based upon the amounts the government spends on such services. But if you take into consideration how much of the money is wasted then you'll realise that the private sector can provide the services at a cost equal to or even less than the government. Before the money is even spent it is channelled through a series of beauracratic organisations who are deciding how the money is to be spent and giving it to those who will be doing the spending. This make consume anywhere between 20 to 40 percent of the money, depending on the number of levels of government and organisations it has to go through. The remaining 60 to 80 percent will probably be spent foolishly. A classical example is the first home buyers grant. Why give someone $7000 to go towards the purchase of a home if you are going to take away more than $7000 in stamp duty?

Prior to public healthcare in the 1970's, 90% of the population had private health insurance. If they did not make a claim throughout the year they would get a rebate.

If the reason why we have public services is to guarantee needs which we would supposedly be unable to afford if it were left to ourselves to choose then why is food not provided by the government? After all, for a family of four the yearly cost of food can be anywhere between five to ten thousand dollars a year.

where's the accountability? when you give big business too much of a free run how can you be sure that your money is spent correctly? could we vote the ceo's out?

as for food, if you cannot afford to eat, there is the dole. that is what that is for don't you think?

The public assumes that we have public services on the grounds that people would not be able to afford the same services under private operation. This is based upon the amounts the government spends on such services. But if you take into consideration how much of the money is wasted then you'll realise that the private sector can provide the services at a cost equal to or even less than the government.

Then kindly explain why:

1. State governments are subsidising private bus companies?

2. Why the Federal government had to bail out Ansett (a private airline company)?

3. Why governments are subsidising private schools?

4. Why Australia's railways had to be built and operated by governments after private enterprise failed?

5. Why governments are subsidising healthcare?

...etc if private enterprise can match government or do better? Why is it a fact that many many private schools would have to close their doors if government support was cut?

As far as I am concerned with my local private bus company...it is more expense to travel per kilometre than on a government bus. So much for efficiency. In fact, over the past 2 years service has decline, with timetable being cut significantly. Yet government services are superior and cheaper.

Private enterprise works only in areas involving low maintenance (i.e. not essential services).

Why give someone $7000 to go towards the purchase of a home if you are going to take away more than $7000 in stamp duty?

Because the Federal government (the one who gives the $7000) has no control over state stamp duty tax.

So...in this case...the federal government gives and the state government takes.

Didn't you know? Governments never give up revenue by choice.

Compulsory voting is great, but unlike Europe you end up with Liberal or Labour government. Not much choice. A bit like the US, Democrat or Republican ...

Compulsory voting is great, but unlike Europe you end up with Liberal or Labour government. Not much choice. A bit like the US, Democrat or Republican ...

yes, the two party system is pretty bad, but it's fairly similar to the UK in that regard. Maybe it's cultural and not due to compulsory voting for, as you said, it's just like the US which doesn't have compulsory voting.

I recently learned that in Australia it's mandatory for everyone to vote in elections.

Perhaps this is a good idea, but I know may people in the rest of the West will be surprised to learn this. Many will think it's a troubling curtailment of individual freedoms.

What do our Aussie NSers think of this law, and would anyone else here want to live under it?Yeah, but its funny, cos theres a district in Australia which isn't fully part of the government or something, but voting is still mandatory.

That means that everyone has to vote in an election which doesn't count.

voluntary taxation? :lol: well, goodbye to hospitals, public transport, roads, education etc etc etc

Goodbye public hospitals, public transport, public roads, public education, etc.

Except not. Public hospitals will still exist because people can pay the government for memberships. Public transit will exist because people pay for use even today. Roads will get built and maintained just like buildings do. Useless government road projects to Nowhereland, Canada, will end. Public education will still exist because, like hospitals, people can pay the government for memberships. But the fundamental right to choose how to spend your money will be given back.

We had hospitals and schools before the government started stealing from us to pay for them, and we can have them again outside of the tax system.
Its not public hospitals if you have to pay membership for them.

I´m against mandatory voting. People should be free: and freedom means the freedom to vote and not to vote.
If people feel force to vote they may vote radical and extreme parties in protest. We don´t want to force people to vote. If they don´t want to and don´t know what to vote they should inform themselves or stay at home.

Mandatory voting applies to all elections in Australia, not just federal elections. Even lousy council elections.

I´m against mandatory voting. People should be free: and freedom means the freedom to vote and not to vote.
If people feel force to vote they may vote radical and extreme parties in protest. We don´t want to force people to vote. If they don´t want to and don´t know what to vote they should inform themselves or stay at home.

fortunately this is not the case in Australia or Finland (both with compulsory voting).

I don't think too many people are that irresponsable to mess with their country to that extent.

My point is that in countries where you can choose whether you vote or not it's the people that are extreme in their views that vote. ie in the USA, party faithful democrats or republicans will always vote for their party, those that do not vote are the ones that could tip the balance.

Mandatory voting applies to all elections in Australia, not just federal elections. Even lousy council elections.

i thought that council elections were only for land owners..? except in sydney city council where everyone has to vote.

Mandatory voting applies to all elections in Australia, not just federal elections. Even lousy council elections.

i thought that council elections were only for land owners..? except in sydney city council where everyone has to vote.

I think just recently I voted in a council vote here in brisbane, unsure but I think I might of.....was something to do with brisbane.......

Mandatory voting applies to all elections in Australia, not just federal elections. Even lousy council elections.

i thought that council elections were only for land owners..? except in sydney city council where everyone has to vote.

I think just recently I voted in a council vote here in brisbane, unsure but I think I might of.....was something to do with brisbane.......

Council elections are Australia-wide to my knowledge. We have them here in Victoria.

All Citizens and non-citizen land owners must vote in council elections, all citizens must vote in state and federal elections.

Nearly everybody in a democratic society benefits somehow or sometime from the state - think of police, roads, clean water, hospitals, etc. So it really doesn't seem too much to ask that everybody return the favour by at least chipping-in on Election Days and expressing a choice.

I doubt that most western countries' citizens will ever go for mandatory voting. But maybe everybody who votes should get a small tax Deduction for it. The deduction would symbolize that you'd made the effort to vote, and be a motivator to get people to make this small contribution to the society they live in.

*Something* has to be done to increase voter interest & participation. Low voter turnout always means bad governments. We especially need younger people and normal liberal-minded people to get off their butts and vote. Because the Fundamentalists, gunfreaks and other cranks always make the effort to vote regardless. The rest of us need to get involved.

Interesting read on one of today's papers. Someone was arguing about compulsory voting and how by law Australians are supposed to vote - not just have their name ticked off. But still, the law relies on people to have commonsense. If you go all the way to vote, why not make it count?

We don't have a two party system. One party ends up being the government, but since parliament votes on near-enough everything, every single party matters, this means the Democrats, the green party, the one nation party, and even the Fishing Party, they all matter. Consider this -

lets just Say that we had


35% labour
40% liberal
5% democrat
10% green party
5% one nation party
5% independants (we have independants, too. They vote for whatever they think best)
(our independant representative spends 10 hours a day visiting the populace)

Small, but interesting facts. Anyone who disputes mandatory voting is a complete fool. 1- some peoples' view seems to support anarchy, because, in effect, if noone in america voted. There would be no law, government support etc. Besides, if noone voted, there would be no hospitals, schools etc. everyone would just take what they want. if you need even more proof, consider a comparison - Australia and America :

Australian prime ministers ALWAYS have too worry about the view of the people, as since everyone votes, everyone can read, and everyone knows what has been happening.

American presidents care less about their people, because "who cares if the people hate me, my hardcore voters will get me out of trouble" "not many of them can read anyway"

I mean, where does america get off, with masses more fertile land then australia, more natural resources, richer nation, but can't even provide everything that Australia does. also, consider this - refugees think of australia as an equivalent to heaven. I mean, even in the effective prisons they are kept in, we always provide them food,shetler, water, health and education. America can't even do this for many of its own citizens.

2001 demographics.
Literacy - 91% (Australia - 100%)
lief expectancy, average - 66 years (average - 83 years)
Infant Mortality - 12 per 1000 (0.3 per 1000 )

The list goes on and on.