Why is voting compulsory? Why force people to vote?
Published 1 year ago in Uncategorized.Why is voting compulsory? Why force people to vote? Not voting is a form of expression: it’s a way of telling parties that no one is offering policies that appeal to you. If only 30 per cent of people voted then parties would realise they had disconnected with the public and the bastards would have to work for your vote.
24 Responses to “Why is voting compulsory? Why force people to vote?”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
Do you like living in a democracy mecontramundum or would you prefer to live in a dictatorship so that you don’t have to make the effort to go an vote occassionally???? Laziness, indifference and mob mentality errode democracy and freedom of speech.
So if it means keeping people engaged in our democracy rather then letting them ignore it and allow it to slowly slip away over time then I am all for forcing you and everyone else to go out and vote very occassionally.
Politicinas will behave more and more unscrupulously if they think most people don’t care any more.
If you don’t like the choice between Labour and Liberal then why not think outside the square and vote for minor parties or independants.
These will never form government in their own right but if enough Australians registered such protest votes then the major parties might be forced to significantly compromise with them, in order to form government, rather than getting an easy ride into power and doing as the please as Howard has done over the last federal term.
‘mecontramundum’ you have either not lived long enough, or totally ignorant, or totally stupid to argue the way you do. Here is an extract from the Australian Electoral Commission
“What happens if I do not vote?
Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.”
In any case the only thing you need to do to avoid a penalty is to attend the polling booth and get your name struck off the list that you have attended. What you do with the voting papers you receive afterwards is totally up to you: you can spoil it, throw it into the rubbish bin or whatever.
My view of non-voters is that they are idiots not to express their wish for who they want to have in parliament. Do not complain to anyone if you suffer the consequences of your stupidity in getting into parliament someone you do not like, because you do not want to vote.
If it was not compulsory, as in Yanksville, then nobody here would turn up except the radicals on both sides. Thats how morons like Bush get elected. You can still show your feelings on the ballot paper either by not filling it in or writing a message on it, like “A pox on both your houses” or something like that. It is not a legal requirement to vote, only to be registered as having turned up on the day by having your name crossed out.
In fact there is a lot to be said for non-compulsory voting if you care to think it through. Name-calling (ignorant, stupid, idiot, someone who wants a dictatorship or radicals or George Bush), however, fails to advance the argument.
There are many arguments in favour of non-compulsory voting. The one I like is that under our system people who actually are ignorant or stpuid or idiotic or borderline insane get forced to vote (probably along with a few who actually are insane but haven’t been picked up yet). What percentage of the population can be said to be fairly ignorant of politics and policy, or ill-informed, or uninterested, or indeed just stupid - I don’t know, but let’s say 50 per cent, which most people would agree is conservative. What good does it do to the health of our electoral system if they are forced to vote? It means for every well-thought-out vote, for every informed vote, for every person who has actually bothered to think about what’s good for the country, you get a vote from someone who doesn’t care and who votes because they like Rudd’s nice shiny hair or Howard’s tracksuit or Hanson’s racism.
I agree that some people who are forced to vote might therefore make the effort to become informed. But I am sure that this group is much smaller than the numbskull vote, which currently effectively determines who forms government.
I agree with you mec, the anti vote is a vote in itself.
Forcing people to register to vote is just another form of control and information gathering. Also, if it is a democracy I believe it’s your democratic right to choose not to vote if you so desire, and to fine someone for doing so is abhorrent.
Forcing someone to vote doesn’t necessarily mean they even have any understanding of political parties, process or even know who their voting for.
Yes, that’s one argument, the idea that if you make lots of idiots or the ignorant vote you will only get idiotic and stupid results. You reap what you sew. And this is the reason for the superficial level of debate we have to endure at election time.
There’s also the issue of the donkey vote, which is scientifically proven to exist and which has been shown to have cost a lot of candidates the right to be elected in close elections. Donkey votes are generally lodged by people who are only voting because they are compelled to do so. It would virtually disappear under a non-compulsory system.
But I still maintain that one of the strongest reasons for abandoning compulsory voting is that under the present system you can’t register a protest vote by not voting - if you do a do you just get lumped in with the donkeys, the people whose votes are invalid because they have made a mistake and the people who just write “get stuffed'’ on their forms. But if, under a non-compulsory system, only 35 per cent of people voted it would be a powerful message to all political parties that they are not connecting with the voters and make them work a lot harder to get people’s bums of the couch.
The non-voting supporters do not understand what government is all about. Perhaps a banal example will clarify this. Everyone knows about a family. Assume that each few years the household of say 6 (2 parents and 4 adult children) vote and elect a head of the family to run its affairs. The head can collect money anyway he/she wants (taxes), and can spend it anyway he/she wants (government expenditure). And as an executive the head is allowed to make any rules and decisions however stupid (legislation). Then the fun begins.
The most hungry for power person may lobby the kids and say: ‘look you do not have to vote. It is boring. Go and have fun instead.’ But to one of them he/she may say: ‘you know you are clever and you should vote for me. I will reward you in kind if you do.’ With reduced voters to 3 you only need to convince one to become the head of the family. Would it not be wonderful ‘mecontramundum’, ‘vivavoce’ and ‘nooknook’ to be the head of your household and be able to rule everybody else! You would know what to do, i am sure. Some of the possibilities would be ‘oh i do not like fred, off with his head’, or just throw their belongings out, or put them in the clink for some misdemeaner.
Just in case you think this is a joke. Hitler did what he wanted to do, because people ignored the signs. Ignorance, is what made Hitler. Stalin was the same. And recently you had Idi Amin and Mugabe. There are plenty of other dictators that achieve power legitimately because of ignorance of voting public. Non-voters are ignorant of possible consequences.
Be a concerned and informed citizen and vote for the ones you think will do most good for you and your fellow citizens.
Said it before, will say it again. 70% of the population (excluding nooksters of course) are a bit thick. In this way, 70% of voters,who vote compulsorarily, are thick- ergo, governments are elected, in the main, by thick heads
shadowmaster
I am not in favour of the Westminster style of democratic government practiced in Australia but it seems to me that, having adopted it, then compulsory voting is the best way to make it work.
Oddly enough in the UK, home of Westminster style government, voting is not compulsory. Furthermore, they do not follow the Australian method of proportional representation. This combination leads to poor turnouts at the polls and, because of their three party ‘first past the post’ approach, means that a government can be elected with a support vote as low as 16% of the population. Is this right, proper and just ? Would you like to see a similar situation in Australia ?
The present system has been accepted by the majority and if you want to change it then you have to vote for change. It’s no good sulking and saying you’re not going to play because you don’t like the rules because, under the present system, that will just perpetuate the status quo.
Naturally, as a law abiding anachist I could never condone someone spoiling their ballot paper - but rebellious acts can sometimes strike a chord with those at odds with society….
There are in fact some arguments in favour of compulsory voting.
Your absurd family-of-six analogy, gleneira, is not one of them. It fails immediately because it assumes there is a difference between apathetic, ignorant voters and apathetic, ignorant non-voters. My point is they are both the same, and it’s better for everyone if they stay out of the political system or else wise-up.
Your lack of knowledge when it comes to politics pales into insignificance compared with your complete lack of comprehension about history. It’s hard to know where to start. Ignorance made Hitler? The exact opposite is true. He was locked up in the 20s for trying to seize power, he wrote his book in prison in the 20s, he organised his thugs and made them worship him, he gave speeches to mass rallies in the 30s, all outlining his racist ideology in great detail. THE WHOLE WORLD KNEW WHAT HE STOOD FOR, he was a major topic of political discourse for years before the war, and there were plenty who agreed with him (and not just Germans either). His heinous message struck a chord with the dispossessed, humiliated and poverty-stricken Germans, and they found a scapegoat, an old favourite. And when he put his long-established policies into practice there was no shortage of people willing to pull the triggers and load up the trains and the gas cannisters. And anyway, it’s an absurd stretch to cite his rise in an argument about non-compulsory voting! Lord, or Bill, give me strength!
and while we’re on the subject of voting if we are going to vote it should be one vote one value, preferrential voting is complete lunacy.
Non-compulsory voting does not necessarily mean a poor voter turnout - Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand and Sweden all have turnout rates of over 80 despite voluntary voting systems. But I believe Australia would be more likely to follow the US – at about 50 per cent – or, at best, the UK – at about 75 per cent. I doubt it would drop as low as 30 per cent. Prior to compulsory voting in Australia (1924) the turnout was about 58 per cent.
It is true that compulsory voting forces thick-headed, ill-informed dimwits to vote and you could argue that this is largely responsible for the low-brow level of debate and big $ signs during election campaigns. But at least the nuffnuffs HAVE to vote EVERY time and government’s can’t afford to ignore them, and nor should they. Dummies deserve representation too. Because they have to vote, they are not just lying dormant for some political machine to wield at their convenience, like a weapon of electoral mass destruction. At the last US presidential election GWB was able to muster support from huge numbers of pig ignorant Christian right wingers who NEVER vote. He owed them. To a large degree that one group owns the White House and its agenda. Of course the president is a pig-ignorant Christian right winger so his agenda and theirs is one and the same anyway.
I am also of the “civic duty’’ school of thought. If you don’t vote, don’t complain when governments do ignore you. If you have to put 1 beside someone’s name there is at least a chance you will ask what they stand for, read a policy statement or two, make a vaguely informed decision.
Besides, it’s just not that hard.
Ah, this is more like the nook of old. Defamatory remarks, veiled insults, emotions running high.
I don’t think Hitler has much relevance to 21st century politics but it is interesting to see someone’s interpretation of how Glen Eira council dishes out the household chores !
Ah Fossil - as usual you have hit the nail square on the head. Couldn’t agree more!
People have died for the Right to Vote. It is a priceless gem to be treasured. Whether one is Liberal, Labor, Greens, Democrats or A Single Issue voter. In Australia we have the opportunity, unlike most other countries in the world, to spit or polish that gem!
I’m in the very uncomfortable position of completely agreeing with you Mary Walsh.
We should have the right to vote and those who have died defending it are some of the greatest heores of our history.
It just shouldn’t be compulsory to exercise that right.
(And thanks Fossil for putting a well-reasoned argument up. I don’t agree with you but I accept that you have made some good paoints.)
I’m sorry I’ve made you “uncomfortable” nooknook.
I’ll be interested to see how many elderly folk vote Liberal because of the $500 “promise” without demonstrating any depth of analysis about a whole range of issues.
From the war in Iraq, to what happened to Channel 10’s Australian Idol with block voting by the Hillsong Church. Family First got a Senate Seat with 2% of the Primary Vote!
As a community I think Australians are basically too lazy to be “bothered voting” unless it affects their hip pocket and having made it to the Polling Booth accordingly, consider their verdict based on their whim of the moment.
hello everyone im doing a dabate on this topic. ‘ should it be compulsory to vote?’ please help me out
That is silly. Yes, the party wil realize the public don’t like their policies, but do you think they’ll care? Most people just wanna get elected.
also, those 30% will elect someone. Non-compulsory voting will get rid of the purpose of democracy if it doesn’t represent the publics view? Yes some people don’t wnat to vote, but half on of the people not vooting is just because they’re lazy. America is a good example of polititians making it hard to vote so the only people who do vote will vote for them.
To quote another forum:
USians make voting so hard because every usian political consultant’s dream is reducing the whole electorate to one voter for whom they can then produce the perfect targeted marketing campaign. preferably via television, so they can collect a lot of commissions on the advertising time they’re buying.
i really should read the comments before posting. But i agree with you marywalsh
Also i should comment all in one comment…..
Greg Boyles i agree with, infact thats pretty much what i was saying.
Grumpy old man is also correct.
I’d like to say that as an Australian, we don’t seem to be represented accurately here. Most Australians like to be a part of deciding our countries future, and not many people mind taking off one weekend to do that.
And if you don’t want to vote, then you can do a donkey vote. About 5% of people in Australia do a donkey vote. To those who say that as a democracy we should have the right to choose if we want to vote or not, don’t you want to have someone you want representing you or your beliefs or values. Take last years elections down here; we finally got rid of John Howard!! If we didn’t have compulsory voting, John Howard might still be in power, and then all the people who did not want, but didn’t vote, would kick themselves when they found out Howard was back.
That seems, and i hope i’m not offending anyone here, but that seems to be what happened in the USA, when George Bush kept getting elected.