NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a report on the BBC site today concerning a think tank suggesting that Britain needs compulsory voting.

Britain 'needs compulsory voting'

Britons should be forced to vote in elections, a think-tank has said.

Think-tank The Institute for Public Policy Research's report suggests those who do not vote should be fined to combat low turnout at the polls.

The research comes just days before local elections in England, where turnout is expected to be low.
More... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4961532.stm)


In Brazil we have compulsory voting. The election turnouts are high, but the price is, in my view, far too high.

One effect of compulsory voting is that politicians no longer need to motivate people to vote for them. They just have to make sure that people vote against their opponents.
the outcome of this is that all political campaigns are reduced to mudslinging. After two presidential election campaigns and five parliamentary/senate campaigns here, I am none the wiser as to the political position of the majority of the candidates and parties. Where there is compulsory voting, political issues are drowned out by attacks on the person of the opposition candidate. I know far too much about the personal lives of our politicians and not enough about what their economic, social, and political beliefs are.

So I would recommend anyone and everyone in the UK to oppose this move.

However there may be arguments out there for compulsory voting. If you support it then please tell me what I am missing here.

America could use some compulsory voting, or a swift kick in the ass of the voters :D

The mud slinging idea is a good point. Another one against compulsory voting is that it just encourage people to be dependent on the government.

if you make people vote that normally wouldn't, they'll just vote for random people or vote down party lines, which is worse than not voting.

Maybe if Anarchy was on the ballot more people would vote. EDIT: "They're all jackasses" would be fine too.

Maybe if Anarchy was on the ballot more people would vote. EDIT: "They're all jackasses" would be fine too.
or legally change your name to "None of the Above" and run. i'm sure you'd win!

wait, didn't someone already do that?

Dare I say it?

BNP victories?

Look, if you force votes out of millions of unemployed Old Labour people in the slums who have stopped doing so because they have lost faith in the political process (and rightly too, because let's face it, the main parties don't represent them), then you know to whom their protest votes will go.

people usually dont vote because they either dont give a shit, or hate all the candidates too much. if you force people to vote they will only vote for someone stupid like the BNP. thats why these polls always have s comedy option. to avoid those people fucking everything up.

THeres local elections in england now and im not voting. they sent my polling card to my home rather than uni address. if it was compulsory I would have to travel 7 hours to avoid a fine.

One effect of compulsory voting is that politicians no longer need to motivate people to vote for them. They just have to make sure that people vote against their opponents.

This is interesting. In Australia we have compulsory voting but out elections seem to involve less mud slinging and negative attacks than in the U.S. which doesn't have compulsory voting. Maybe Brazillian politics is just going through a negative phase?

the outcome of this is that all political campaigns are reduced to mudslinging.
That's how it is in the US and we don't have compulsory voting.

Wouldn't compulsory voting defeat the purpose of freedom of choice? (not sure of laws in UK)

I seem to remember something several months ago (possibly up to a year ago) about this in the UK, and they said something at the time about the possibility of having a 'None of the Above' option. I could be wrong...

Doh crap! You Brits are so screwed...

I am not saying that the only possible cause of mudslinging is compulsory voting, but I have to admit to being suprised by the comments from the land of Oz. (What system do you use there - PR, first past the post, what ?)

My understanding is this:
The average voter sits at home, not giving a damn about politics.

Under voluntary voting he stays there unless someone can persuade him that he ought to be arsed to go and vote FOR that person. He isn't going to be bothered to go and vote negatively, he just won't bother voting at all.

Under compulsory voting he has to be arsed to go and vote. Now how is he going to decide (remember he doesn't give a damn about politics)?
Is he going to weigh up the positions and platforms of each party/candidate and make an informed decision; unlikely. (A smal percentage of the apolitical population will, but most will not.)
Will he vote for someone who promises him cheaper beer - if he believes them. (Most people who are apolitical are so simply because they do not believe any politician).
What is most likely to get him to vote for you is to persuade him that the others will be worse than you are. (He is already prone to distrusting politicians remember.)

This is what has happened here. It may be that the educational level of the country on average has an effect, and the lower this is the more negative or personal the campaigning is.

My opinions are based on having lived in the UK where politics was about platforms and convictions, and then moging here where politics is about personality and scandal. I know which system I prefer.

Wouldn't compulsory voting defeat the purpose of freedom of choice? (not sure of laws in UK)

What you lose in freedom of choice you would more than gain in actual freedom. A political system in which everyone votes will represent what the population voted for, for good or ill. Without compulsory voting politics tends to end up dominated by the elderly and those with more extreme views. I say the population will get more freedom from compulsory voting than it loses.

The average voter sits at home, not giving a damn about politics.

In Australia there are certainly people that don't give a damn about politics, but they are not the average voter. These people can submit a blank voting ballot if they want. In Australia the law just says you have to turn up at a polling booth. You don't actually have to vote.

In Australia the average person has an opinion but it might not be strongly held. Or they might have strong opinions but they also realize that their vote is just a drop in the ocean and probably won't make a difference. Without compulsory voting they may end up not voting but there is nothing wrong with their decision making ability.

Although there are people who will just vote for the most handsome canidate, I think these people may be a minority as most of our politicians are kind of ugly.

What you lose in freedom of choice you would more than gain in actual freedom. A political system in which everyone votes will represent what the population voted for, for good or ill. Without compulsory voting politics tends to end up dominated by the elderly and those with more extreme views. I say the population will get more freedom from compulsory voting than it loses.

I think you may be confusing freedom and representation here.

If I have to vote, I have lost the freedom of choosing whether to vote or not, that much is clear. What compensatory freedom (not representation) do I gain from the obligation to vote?

I believe cumpulsory voting would force people to become more involved in the political process. Apathy is the REAL enemy of Democracy. Once people stop caring about the issues and leave it up to the other guy, things always take a turn for the worst. Look at the US. A war mongering corporate whore in the White House. Need I say more? :sniper:

I believe cumpulsory voting would force people to become more involved in the political process. Apathy is the REAL enemy of Democracy. Once people stop caring about the issues and leave it up to the other guy, things always take a turn for the worst. Look at the US. A war mongering corporate whore in the White House. Need I say more?

How does having to go and mark an X in a box once every couple of years make you invlved in the political process? What compulsory voting does is take away from the politician the onus of getting people to go and vote. It thus, in my view, alienates the ordinary person in the street even further from the political process. There is no longer any need for the politicians to have to make the effort to explain their role, why they exist, what they do, and why supporting the process is important.

For the majority of people here, this will make no sense. After all they are voluntarily participating in a political game and contributing to its forum. However the vast majority of the world pays little or no attention to politics most of the time. If these people have to vote, it is a chore, not partcipation in a process. It only becomes participation surely, if they understand the point of the process and choose to take part in it.

I think you may be confusing freedom and representation here.

If I have to vote, I have lost the freedom of choosing whether to vote or not, that much is clear. What compensatory freedom (not representation) do I gain from the obligation to vote?

I'm not exactly confusing them. There is evidence that democractic societies are better at preserving freedom than nondemocratic societies. I think compulsory voting makes for a stronger, healthier democracy which is more likely to preserve your freedoms in the future. So what you lose by having to turn up at the polling booth you gain by having a democratic government that is more likely to survive.

As an example of how I think compulsory voting makes for stronger democracies, in Australia since everyone votes I think we feel that we "own" the political process more than the average American might. I think it is one reason why we are more politically involved on average. We complain about politicians all the time, but our complaints are often not as violent as those heard in the U.S. because in the end we all had our say about who gets to lead.

America could use some compulsory voting, or a swift kick in the ass of the voters :D

What about those of us who have no interest in politics and don't want to vote?

I disagree with the idea of compulsory voting. It simply creates a tyranny by majority, which is not even good for the majority. In fact, I think voting rights should be limited. As government is, no matter how you see it, coercion (that's what its policies are for- to make people do things, whether or not the effects are beneficial), voting is a way of making government move to coerce others as we see fit. There is no right to coercion, and such a "right" is probably the most extreme positive "right" imaginable, that others are somehow obligated to serve you in some way. This is especially bad as voting rights are determined largely by an accident of birth, and nothing else. Although it is better than a dictatorship, oligarchy or what have you, it is still a bad system to run a country by.

Since government is coercion, we must have those leaders in power who will limit coercion to its minimum, to a point where it protects rights andorganizes what could not be otherwise organized, but otherwise leaves everyone's liberties intact. I propose we do this by creating a system of service to gain suffrage, a la Heinlein. Those who wish to be able to vote and hold public office, which is coercion of others through government, must first prove that they A.) want to help others and B.) are willing to sacrifice of themselves and their liberties to do so. They must cherish their free decision to help other people, as it will keep them in mind of how important liberty is. All people who wish to vote or hold public office must serve a term of service for a set amount of years, and it could be anything beneficial- building levees, serving in the armed forces, going to an impoverished nation to help children- anything that shows altruism, self-sacrifice, and a love for freedom, which are essential in a true statesman, instead of a self-centered politician as we are plagued by currently.

I disagree with the idea of compulsory voting. It simply creates a tyranny by majority, which is not even good for the majority...

How is compulsory voting more likely to result in a tyranny by majority than non compulsory voting? And can you give real world examples?

...I propose we do this by creating a system of service to gain suffrage, a la Heinlein. Those who wish to be able to vote and hold public office, which is coercion of others through government, must first prove that they A.) want to help others and B.) are willing to sacrifice of themselves and their liberties to do so...

Ah, like Bush's national guard service. You have to bravely prop up a bar in Houston before you're a real citizen.

What about those of us who have no interest in politics and don't want to vote?

You will have to turn up to the voting place and get your name marked off the role. After that you don't have to vote if you don't want to. If you don't want to turn up you pay a small fine.

An alternative would be to pay people to turn up. If you get your name marked off the role you get $10 dollars deposited in your bank account. That way you are compensated for your time.

As an aside I will mention that I have never had to wait to vote in Australia whereas people sometimes have to wait for hours in the U.S. This makes compulsory voting not much of a pain.

How about this for a plan? Give everyone in America $20. Then fine them $20 if they don't vote. That way non voters don't actually lose anything.

You will have to turn up to the voting place and get your name marked off the role. After that you don't have to vote if you don't want to. If you don't want to turn up you pay a small fine.

An alternative would be to pay people to turn up. If you get your name marked off the role you get $10 dollars deposited in your bank account. That way you are compensated for your time.

As an aside I will mention that I have never had to wait to vote in Australia whereas people sometimes have to wait for hours in the U.S. This makes compulsory voting not much of a pain.

Well I'm glad 1) I live in the US and 2) Not of voting age. I'm not even going to register to vote.

How is compulsory voting more likely to result in a tyranny by majority than non compulsory voting? And can you give real world examples?

Well, it's kind of obvious. If everyone has to vote, then you get all sorts of people who would otherwise not care but go to the polls based on loose, poorly defined definitions. Seeing as how, according to statistics by political scientists, the vast majority of voters in the United States vote based on 1.) Group identification (I love God so I vote Republican), 2.) Soundbytes and rumors (I heard that the economy is bad or something), or 3.) based on personality (Bill Clinton is the kind of guy I'd like to have a drink with- that's why I voted for him), we'd not be getting good policies based on good, rational thought but rather vague impressions. Those with apathy who don't care to vote tend to lean towards the less intelligent, rational reasons for voting (i.e., in a recent survey, when a survey asked college students what they liked and disliked about the Republican and Democratic party, the most common response was "nothing in particular" to all questions, and most college students said they did not vote.) We'd be getting much stronger, herd mentality voting, akin to tyranny by majority.

Is that real world enough for you?

Ah, like Bush's national guard service. You have to bravely prop up a bar in Houston before you're a real citizen.

Yes, throw out George Bush randomly, that's a winner.

I'm not saying it would be perfect, but it would be superior to our current system. Better one guy be a sub-par altruist and be able to vote than have a system where ten (twenty, thirty, forty...) people vote without any real logic, who wouldn't have voted anyway unless they were threatened with penalties to get off their lazy asses. I assume you think that there are more idiots and scumbags in the service than there are in the general population, which would validate your argument- which is interesting, considering how the armed forces have a much higher voter turn-out than regular citizens, as they have already sacrificed for the country while cyclical, uninformed non-voters ride from the benefits thereof.

I'm not exactly confusing them. There is evidence that democractic societies are better at preserving freedom than nondemocratic societies. I think compulsory voting makes for a stronger, healthier democracy which is more likely to preserve your freedoms in the future. So what you lose by having to turn up at the polling booth you gain by having a democratic government that is more likely to survive.

In what way does making someone go and mark an X in a box make for a stronger democracy. I truly believe that it actually weakens democracy. A true democratic state is one in which the control of the country is decided according to the 'demos', correct? The term 'demos' does not translate directly into the term people. It is far better translated by the term citizen where a citizen is someone who takes some interest in their country, their government etc. A citizen is active in society and not just a passive recipient of state actions. Under a compulsory voting system the active citizenry are lost in the crowd of apolitical people. Those members of the society that are interested in the defence of the democratic system are buried under the sheer numbers of those more interested in their own wellbeing. Democracy loses out to popularism. If voting is optional, on the other hand, the unmotivated masses who don't really care anyway do not unwittingly destroy the democratic function of elections.

As an example of how I think compulsory voting makes for stronger democracies, in Australia since everyone votes I think we feel that we "own" the political process more than the average American might. I think it is one reason why we are more politically involved on average. We complain about politicians all the time, but our complaints are often not as violent as those heard in the U.S. because in the end we all had our say about who gets to lead.

A factor I would throw at you as a counter to this claim is the size of the electorate. Certainly each Australian will feel more politically empowered than each US citizen, but that is becase their vote is more influential, by a factor of ten or more. Another question I would ask is whether you are typical of Australians. I am certainly not typical here. Do all Australians really feel involved, and want to feel involved in the political process, or is it only those that want to be in contact with their governance that feel more in contact?
Ask some non political friends what they feel about compulsory voting.

Voting is illogical behavior for an individual. An individual voter has almost no control over the results and no guarentee that their voting choice will actually be the best option. If having the political party you like win is worth $1,000 dollars to you but there is only a one in a hundred million chance that your vote will affect the result, then voting is only worth a thousandth of a cent to you. Logically you are much better off using your time to work instead of vote or to do something you enjoy.

Compulsory voting is helpful because it encourages logical people to vote.

Yes, throw out George Bush randomly, that's a winner.

But he makes it so easy.

Voting is illogical behavior for an individual. An individual voter has almost no control over the results and no guarentee that their voting choice will actually be the best option. If having the political party you like win is worth $1,000 dollars to you but there is only a one in a hundred million chance that your vote will affect the result, then voting is only worth a thousandth of a cent to you. Logically you are much better off using your time to work instead of vote or to do something you enjoy.

Compulsory voting is helpful because it encourages logical people to vote.

People, however, are not logical, and it is people that vote. (The use of 'encourage' to describe compulsion is plain wrong!)

People, however, are not logical, and it is people that vote. (The use of 'encourage' to describe compulsion is plain wrong!)

By logical people I mean people who are more logical than average rather than Vulcans, in much the same way as strong people means people who have are stronger than average rather than the Superman or the Incredible Hulk.

There is a fifty dollar fine for not turning up at a voting place for a federal election in Australia. You can chose to pay the fine instead but it cetainly encourages people to vote, or at least turn up. It sort of depends on how you value your time. Is the half hour or so it takes to vote worth the 50 bucks?

There is a fifty dollar fine for not turning up at a voting place for a federal election in Australia. You can chose to pay the fine instead but it cetainly encourages people to vote, or at least turn up. It sort of depends on how you value your time. Is the half hour or so it takes to vote worth the 50 bucks?

That is not really compulsory then. Here, if you don't vote you effectively lose your job and all chance of being employed again until after the next election. Even if this means that you have to lose a small fortune by stopping what you are doing to go and vote.

Your employer has to pay social security contributions on your salary, but to do this your voting record has to be up to date. The fines for the company are severely punative if the contributions are not paid. (This derives from the belief that a large number of Brazilians are illiterate and the only way to ensure that they vote is to make the literate ones - the employers - enforce this.)

And the concept that voting takes a half hour or so shows that you have a very surburban mindset. It can take six hours here just to get to the nearest polling station, the same I would imagione applies there in some regions.

That is not really compulsory then. Here, if you don't vote you effectively lose your job and all chance of being employed again until after the next election. Even if this means that you have to lose a small fortune by stopping what you are doing to go and vote.

Holy crap!

And the concept that voting takes a half hour or so shows that you have a very surburban mindset. It can take six hours here just to get to the nearest polling station, the same I would imagione applies there in some regions.

Actually no. Everyone is either close to a polling booth or able to postal vote if they aren't. Australia seems to have this well organized.

Actually no. Everyone is either close to a polling booth or able to postal vote if they aren't. Australia seems to have this well organized.
We just don't trust our postal service. (All state run services are headed up by political apointees - makes putting votes in the post suspect here.) :(

Okay, I am in favour of Australian style compulsory voting and against Brazillian style compulsory voting.

Okay, I am in favour of Australian style compulsory voting and against Brazillian style compulsory voting.

I still oppose any form of compulsory voting, but I could live much more comfortably with the Australian version.

I am also Australian, and I also favour compulsory voting.

Three things:

1. Under our system, voting isn't compulsory - turning up to a polling booth or sending in a postal ballot is. You can get your name crossed off and then go home. Of course, most people stop and vote - about 10% register "informal" ballots - voting slips filled in wrong - either through mistake or deliberate "none of the above" choice

2. Our actual voting system is more complicated than most others - we are no mere "first past the post" draw an X in the appropriate box - every Australian Votes for Every Candidate in their Electorate - we just vote in preferential order, from most preferred to least. This is the true genius of the Australian System - We get stability through "Large party rule", but we get true democracy by allowing "small party debate"
Basically I can go to the polls and vote Communist, then Liberal, then Conservative, then Socialist, then Labor, then Independent.
The Communist Candidate has no cahnce of getting 50% +1 vote, but I have at least expressed my Communist sympathies

3. The system of Compulsary voting falls down because it is often the responsibility of the Government in power to arrange to fine those who didn't turn up - usually they don't, because if you fine someone this year it is unlikely they will vote for you next year. So we get 99% turnout without actually having to fine anyone at all.

There is a report on the BBC site today concerning a think tank suggesting that Britain needs compulsory voting.



In Brazil we have compulsory voting. The election turnouts are high, but the price is, in my view, far too high.

One effect of compulsory voting is that politicians no longer need to motivate people to vote for them. They just have to make sure that people vote against their opponents.
the outcome of this is that all political campaigns are reduced to mudslinging. After two presidential election campaigns and five parliamentary/senate campaigns here, I am none the wiser as to the political position of the majority of the candidates and parties. Where there is compulsory voting, political issues are drowned out by attacks on the person of the opposition candidate. I know far too much about the personal lives of our politicians and not enough about what their economic, social, and political beliefs are.

So I would recommend anyone and everyone in the UK to oppose this move.

However there may be arguments out there for compulsory voting. If you support it then please tell me what I am missing here.

We have it in Belgium as well. Works just fine. The only severe mud slinging comes from extreme right. That's what they thrive on for lack of substance. The others parties do critisize each other, but in a quite decent way. Explaining and defending their own program keeps taking precedence, though.

America could use some compulsory voting, or a swift kick in the ass of the voters :D

Am I correct that registering to vote in the States actually costs you money?

This is interesting. In Australia we have compulsory voting but out elections seem to involve less mud slinging and negative attacks than in the U.S. which doesn't have compulsory voting. Maybe Brazillian politics is just going through a negative phase?
While I was not a big fan of Latham at the time (although his policies were fine, i didn't like him much) the campaign from the Liberals was mostly FUD and attacking Lathams past and less about their policies.

Even after the ellection I still didn't know what they were planning. Nor do I know how the hell they won when they gave out next to no solid information about what they planned to do if they won. But whatever, it's done and their scare mongoring won it for them in the end.

That was perhaps the most disgracefull campaign I've seen in terms of attacks.
The next would be for IR which was a complete waste of tax-payer money.
But now I'm rambling.



I don't like compolsary voting. On the occasions where I haven't liked anything to offer, i just tossed the vote by writing "they all suck" on the ballot paper or willingly filling in the ballot incorrectly.

If they institute compulsary voting, it's just a matter of time before a political party emerges that puts abolishing compulsary voting on its agenda. And they'll get an overwhelming majority, and then the cycle can start anew.

If they institute compulsary voting, it's just a matter of time before a political party emerges that puts abolishing compulsary voting on its agenda. And they'll get an overwhelming majority, and then the cycle can start anew.

It seems pretty stable here in Australia. Sometimes the conservatives mutter about getting rid of it, but there doesn't seem to be any real support for dumping it.

the outcome of this is that all political campaigns are reduced to mudslinging.

Very true, speaking from recent experience as an Australian.

While I was not a big fan of Latham at the time (although his policies were fine, i didn't like him much) the campaign from the Liberals was mostly FUD and attacking Lathams past and less about their policies.

Even after the ellection I still didn't know what they were planning. Nor do I know how the hell they won when they gave out next to no solid information about what they planned to do if they won. But whatever, it's done and their scare mongoring won it for them in the end.

That was perhaps the most disgracefull campaign I've seen in terms of attacks.

I totally agree.

Compulsory voting is not a solution, because people randomly selecting a canditate in order to get the voting done can screw up the votes just as musch as someone not voting. there is no solution.

Compulsory voting is not a solution, because people randomly selecting a canditate in order to get the voting done can screw up the votes just as musch as someone not voting. there is no solution.

Well, you can have an abstention or "none of the above" option, so that people that dont care or dont want to vote any of the choices can choose to do so.

But I am not in favour of compulsary voting. I think they should provide a "none of the above" option regardless, so you if you want to make a protest you have the option to be counted spereately from the lazy sods who couldnt even be bothered going down to the polling station. Apathy and those protesting against the current system shouldnt be counted in the same group.

Compulsory voting is not a solution, because people randomly selecting a canditate in order to get the voting done can screw up the votes just as musch as someone not voting. there is no solution.If they vote randomly, it should average out. Chances are the 'extra' voters will vote more populist parties, rather than balanced ones.

I think they should provide a "none of the above" option regardless, so you if you want to make a protest you have the option to be counted spereately from the lazy sods who couldnt even be bothered going down to the polling station.Ideally, you should have the option to just list the parties in order of how much you prefer them (in decreasing order), and put in the 'none of the above' option at the appropriate place ;)

I will welcome our new Monster Raving Loony government with open arms.

I will welcome our new Monster Raving Loony government with open arms.

New?

3 words on compulsory voting:

'boot

effin'

Time!

New?
Yeah; not quite as crazy as New Labour.

I will welcome our new Monster Raving Loony government with open arms.
It's possible (and far from the worst thing that could happen), considering our present overlords have an overwhelming majority despite only 22% of the electorate voting for them.

We have local elections soon, apparently. I probably wouldn't bother voting (local elections? What does it matter which moron's wasting cash on speed bumps? They all would), but I don't think we've received any voting papers yet, so it's kinda moot. You can understand why; the people in villages will vote against the people currently on the council (mostly Labour, herabouts) so it's not in their best interests to post them their papers.
EDIT: Oh, apparently there's no election here. That would do it too.

It's possible (and far from the worst thing that could happen), considering our present overlords have an overwhelming majority despite only 22% of the electorate voting for them.

And what was the turnout at the last election? 61%?

If half the 40% who are apathetic voted Monster Raving Loony, there's your official opposittion, right there.

And what was the turnout at the last election? 61%?

If half the 40% who are apathetic voted Monster Raving Loony, there's your official opposittion, right there.
It'd make Prime Minister's Questions more fun, that's for sure.

Am I correct that registering to vote in the States actually costs you money?You are incorrect.

its better to have an informed minority voting,than than an uninformed and disinterested majority, who will end up voting for whoever the tabloid newspaper editors tell them to

Australia has compulsory voting (provided you enrol), and you get fined if you don't. The good thing is you DO NOT have be legally enrolled for voting, but if you do, then you get fined if you foroet to vote (if they bother catching you)

Australia has compulsory voting (provided you enrol), and you get fined if you don't. The good thing is you DO NOT have be legally enrolled for voting, but if you do, then you get fined if you foroet to vote (if they bother catching you)What's the point of enrolling then?

What's the point of enrolling then?

You get to vote and by voting you get the right to complain about what lousy buggers politicians are.

You get to vote and by voting you get the right to complain about what lousy buggers politicians are.But:
The good thing is you DO NOT have be legally enrolled for votingIs he mistaken?

But:
Is he mistaken?

By law, you don't have to be enrolled to vote. However, if you aren't, you cannot vote at all. The catch is, by voting once, you are fined if you do not do so again.

So you vote all the time, or not at all.

But:
Is he mistaken?

Nope. You are not forced to enrol but they do encourage you to. God, sometimes they ask friends and family to dob you in if you're not.

You have vote in federal, state/territory, and local council elections, not just federal ones.

I totally agree.

Sorry, but there really wasn't that much mudslinging per se. It was an issue of trust. Lets face it, the Libs have always been better at the economy than labor, and so the whole "we can manage the economy better and the other guys really arent that good at it" was largely true.

Sorry, but Jerusalem is wrong. It's compulsory to enrol and to vote.

Enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral roll has been compulsory since 1911. Eligible citizens include all Australians citizens who are 18 years of age or over. There are some exceptions, for example in relation to some prisoners, and people of unsound mind (see below). Anyone who fails to enrol may be punished on conviction by a fine of up to $50 (section 101 of The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) .

AEC website.

Sorry, but Jerusalem is wrong. It's compulsory to enrol and to vote.


I stand corrected, maybe the enforcement is awfully lax.

Funny, I wasn't enrolled until I was twenty something around 1996. Didn't bother when I was 18 ...

You don't need to enrol until the upcomming election.

Sorry, but there really wasn't that much mudslinging per se. It was an issue of trust. Lets face it, the Libs have always been better at the economy than labor, and so the whole "we can manage the economy better and the other guys really arent that good at it" was largely true.

Yes, we all trusted Johnny after the children overboard thing, didn't we? Sigh.

I'm not a Labor supporter either. It's common sense that what's good for the rich and steps upon the commoners is good for the raw figures of the economy, no?

You don't need to enrol until the upcomming election.

Make sense, but I wish I could un-enrol. I've worked out they use the electoral roll for Jury duty candidates.

Make sense, but I wish I could un-enrol. I've worked out they use the electoral roll for Jury duty candidates.

I don't think it would be so bad, really. I think I can get out of doing it on a day I have uni, and if it's a day when I have to work, I get paid the full amount plus a little extra for it.

But then, i could always pretend to be a christian fundie and they would avoid putting me on the bench.

I don't think it would be so bad, really. I think I can get out of doing it on a day I have uni, and if it's a day when I have to work, I get paid the full amount plus a little extra for it.

But then, i could always pretend to be a christian fundie and they would avoid putting me on the bench.

Mmmm, I'll just wear an image of the Pope on day ...

Mmmm, I'll just wear an image of the Pope on day ...

Or maybe not bathe for a week and wear a poncho there. :p

Lets face it, the Libs have always been better at the economy than labor, and so the whole "we can manage the economy better and the other guys really arent that good at it" was largely true.

Actually I think this is debatable. I'd have to look at the evidence before I went one way of the other but both parties seem a bit of a mixed bag. It's not just a matter of how well the economy did while one particular party was in power. No matter who was in power Australia would have had a lousy economy in much of the eighties and a good one in the nineties. The libs deserve credit for budget surpluses but Labour deserves credit for microeconomic reform through the eighties which we benefit from now.

Actually I think this is debatable. I'd have to look at the evidence before I went one way of the other but both parties seem a bit of a mixed bag. It's not just a matter of how well the economy did while one particular party was in power. No matter who was in power Australia would have had a lousy economy in much of the eighties and a good one in the nineties. The libs deserve credit for budget surpluses but Labour deserves credit for microeconomic reform through the eighties which we benefit from now.

Labour did start all those reforms, but now going too far. Too many Free Trade Agreements being signed lately by Johnny Coward and co. :(

Compusary voting eliminates the only factor the aristocracy has going for it anymore. Plato believed that government should be more or less left to those who have the highest education and are the most likely to actually know what they're doing. Because voluntary voting usually means that people with better education who are more informed are more likely to vote, it is the closest thing we have to Plato's model. Of course there are plenty of good arguments why Plato was wrong (after all, he's been dead for two and a half millenia) but the fact remains that compusary voting has absolutely no demonstrable benefits.

Compusary voting eliminates the only factor the aristocracy has going for it anymore. Plato believed that government should be more or less left to those who have the highest education and are the most likely to actually know what they're doing. Because voluntary voting usually means that people with better education who are more informed are more likely to vote, it is the closest thing we have to Plato's model. Of course there are plenty of good arguments why Plato was wrong (after all, he's been dead for two and a half millenia) but the fact remains that compusary voting has absolutely no demonstrable benefits.

Well, he was right. Compulsary voting gets all the sheep to vote for the one with the biggest fear campaign.

the fact remains that compusary voting has absolutely no demonstrable benefits.

I can actually think of one, and only one, benefit of compulsory voting. It would mean that, in a straight head to head election, the winner could claim a true mandate from the people. i.e they would have the support of more than 50% of the adult population.

I think if there was compulsory voting introduced in the UK, they'd be looking to follow the Australian model with a none of the above/abstain option on the ballot papers.

I think if there was compulsory voting introduced in the UK, they'd be looking to follow the Australian model with a none of the above/abstain option on the ballot papers.

We don't have that. If you want to make a protest you can easily scribble naughty words on the slip and pop it in the box.

Better to vote for a minor party though.

We don't have that. If you want to make a protest you can easily scribble naughty words on the slip and pop it in the box.

Better to vote for a minor party though.
Ah Well, effectively the same thing. On the bright side, perhaps the MRLP will win with this system:D

I can actually think of one, and only one, benefit of compulsory voting. It would mean that, in a straight head to head election, the winner could claim a true mandate from the people. i.e they would have the support of more than 50% of the adult population.

It also forces people to get involved in the political process and increases political awareness. Any serious student of politics will tell you that the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to compulsory voting.

It also forces people to get involved in the political process and increases political awareness. Any serious student of politics will tell you that the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to compulsory voting.

Those serious students of politics completely misunderstand what it is to be involved in the political process then. The vast majority of Brazilians are not involved in any way in the political process. In fact they are excluded from itand hve minimal political awareness, and this is a situation that is exacerbated by compulsory voting not alleviated by it.

If the onus is placed on the politicians to motivate people to go and vote, then they have to ensure that the people understand the process, and get involved. Where the onus is not there, then the politician only has to ensure that people vote for him. This is done in many ways, only one of which has anything to do with the political process.

Please tell me what political activity is encouraged by:

Slandering the opponents
Promising immediate benefits
Threatening reprisals
providing transport to the polling station
reminding people what your uncle did


Where is the political awareness in any of this? Perhaps the serious political students should get their heads out of the text books and go and look at what happens in the real world.

It also forces people to get involved in the political process and increases political awareness. Any serious student of politics will tell you that the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to compulsory voting.

Hey, while we're at it, let's have compulsory employment. How about compulsory diets? Maybe compulsory television shows, too?

It flies in the face of free choice. Let the people who actually care enough to vote do so and leave the others out of the system.

Ah Well, effectively the same thing. On the bright side, perhaps the MRLP will win with this system

I wish we had a party like that sometimes. But meh, i'd probably vote Greens anyway.

It also forces people to get involved in the political process and increases political awareness. Any serious student of politics will tell you that the benefits far outweigh the negatives when it comes to compulsory voting.

I'm a serious student of politics, and I disagree. Not only do I believe that people shouldn't be forced to vote, much less fined if they do not, I don't think it forces people to get involved in the political process or increases political awareness at all. Most people here still don't give a shit, and because they have to vote, they are more likely to take the easy path and vote along with whatever the mainstream media "tells" them (or whatever political scare campaign is currently running) rather than do their own independent research. Some people simply have no interest in politics, and uninformed voting is detrimental to the system.

If people choose not to vote, than that factors into the tally of votes. It is their freedom, and therefore their choice, as to if they want their future run by others' decisions. If you don't care enough to go out and vote, than they should not complain when they do not like the candidate that won. Forcing people to go and place an X on a sheet of paper so they don't get fined is against the whole idea of the very freedom that the democrating process supports. And paying people to vote... Sounds nice, but don't we have enought fiscal problems without having to add one more free handout that will only mean charging hard working people more taxes. How would you like seeing voting tax added to your income tax. No thanks.

Ideally, you should have the option to just list the parties in order of how much you prefer them (in decreasing order), and put in the 'none of the above' option at the appropriate place ;)

Is that single tranferrable vote?

This is interesting. In Australia we have compulsory voting but out elections seem to involve less mud slinging and negative attacks than in the U.S. which doesn't have compulsory voting.

That makes sense. The point of negative attack ads is to drive down your opponent's voter turnout. Attack ads never change anyone's mind, but they do affect people's willingness to vote at all. If people are forced to vote, attack ads would have no effect.

And yet I'm still opposed to mandatory voting. If people can't be bothered to care enough to vote, they can't be bothered to care enough to make an informed decision.

Bring in compulsory voting. This will then give a true reprisentation of the people rather than part of the population. Hopfully the Conservatives will be back in after the next election. :D

That makes sense. The point of negative attack ads is to drive down your opponent's voter turnout. Attack ads never change anyone's mind, but they do affect people's willingness to vote at all. If people are forced to vote, attack ads would have no effect.


The experience here is the opposite. As people have to vote, all we get is attack ads. The people are constantly being warned of the dire consequences of voting for X or Y, and never told of the supposed benefits of voting for Z.

Compulsory voting is a bad idea because it acts to enforce the status quo and reduce or eliminate change.

Simply put, about forty percent of the populace has the interest, intelligence and wherewithal to study politics in some way and make something like an informed decision. The remaining sixty percent, for whatever reason, is politically incompetent; they get involved in politics only at the most blatant and immense events, or on issues that specifically affect them.

The end result, in Australia at least, has been an entrenchment of the big two parties - Labour and the Liberal/National coalition (and the Nationals are looking more like the "country Liberals" with every election). 35% of the population ALWAYS votes Labour, 35% conservative. Always.

Take away compulsory voting, and that would probably drop to about 10% apiece. In addition, in the lower house of the national Parliament we use Preferential Voting, which also favours the major parties. It is all but impossible for a third party of any kind to get representation in the House of Representatives - so the big parties have no real competition, and at this rate, never will.

Compulsory voting prevents change. Even when you need it.

I think compulsory voting is a good idea, however with one stipulation. If compulsory voting is to be in effect, then there needs to be some addition on the ballot that indicates a non-vote, vote. This way the voter still has a voice if all candidates (or solutions/issues) are unacceptable to them. It also shows that the citizen was not to lazy or apathetic to vote, but is dis-satisfied with all choices presented. :)

I think compulsory voting is a good idea, however with one stipulation. If compulsory voting is to be in effect, then there needs to be some addition on the ballot that indicates a non-vote, vote. This way the voter still has a voice if all candidates (or solutions/issues) are unacceptable to them. It also shows that the citizen was not to lazy or apathetic to vote, but is dis-satisfied with all choices presented. :)

So why should they have the freedom of choice as to whether to vote or not taken away then? Let's make it compulsory for everyone to go to a brothel - if they have sex is up to them - but they have to go.

Bring in compulsory voting. This will then give a true reprisentation of the people rather than part of the population. Hopfully the Conservatives will be back in after the next election. :D

Erm... the Tory voters are the ones that turn out in greatest numbers and most consistantly. They get 35% of the vote. They wont get much more than that if everyone fotes, as more Labour voters have been dissillusioned and stopped voting than tory ones.

Now... smaller parties might get more votes though. Unfortunately some of them would include parties like the BNP, NF and UKIP.

I think this quote from a NationStates Issue sums up what I feel about compulsory voting.

"Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide," says civil rights activist Prudence Wong. "You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."

So why should they have the freedom of choice as to whether to vote or not taken away then? Let's make it compulsory for everyone to go to a brothel - if they have sex is up to them - but they have to go.
Because requiring people go to a whore-house has nothing to do with long lasting national decisions that will effect everyone in the country.
*wonders why she is responding to such non contextual stupidity to begin with...and trails off*
;)

If we didn't have compulosry voting in Australia, nobody would vote. At all. Seriously, there would be like 6 people in the country who actuall voted. One of them would have actually just been trying to claim a free upsize to his Whopper meal. The other five would be the religious right who actually believed the shit thaie pastor was spewing forth, unlike the rest of their congergation, who just goes for the free tea and biscuits.

Seriously though, despite the very apt point of the encouragement of mudslinging, I still support comulsory voting. Otherwise, only christians Or anyone else with a political agenda) would vote, and we'd end up with someone like Bush in charge. The only real way to get an evenhanded result which represents the interests of all of the country is to include everyone.

I think this quote from a NationStates Issue sums up what I feel about compulsory voting.
That is only true if democracy and freedom were inextricably linked.

People throughout the world have died and are dying for the right to elect their government.

Yet here we have people whinging about having to give up 30 mins in front of the goggle box every couple of years in order to participate in the democratic process. People have become so used to the freedoms democracy has given them that they have forgotten what a priviledge having the vote is.

Compulsory voting should be put in place in order to protect democracy in this country (UK). I don't care if people have become "disengaged" (aye right ... for this read smug and lazy) they can turn up and put a line through the ballot if they are that "disengaged".

By the way, in Australia (and this may be an urban myth) I read that one woman didn't vote one year because, she told the authorities, she had met a guy who was giving her the best sex she had ever experienced and she wasn't going to stop for anything. Apparently she was let off the fine on the strength of this :) . God bless Australia.

Some people have said they don't think people who currently don't vote will not make good decisions, even going as far as calling them sheep. Do you have any evidence for this belief? While I think choices made by Australian voters have not been perfect I think there is evidence that they definitely chose better than Americans generally do. (No Reagan, no Bush, voters allow Prime Minister allowed to recieve blow jobs, etc.)

You are incorrect.

Sigh!

Sigh!

You dug up a three day old thread to say that? :headbang: