FlindersStudents

Well over here it's compulsory and in the US it ain't.  What are your thoughts? 

There are upsides and downsides for compulsory and non compulsory voting.

Which method do you think is best?

As a leftie I have a firm belief in the worth of all individuals (and their opinions) and I believe all citizens have an obligation to engage in participatory democracy. By having compulsory voting we are telling people that they (and their opinions) have intrinsic worth and that they are responsible for society.

Normally countries that have non-compulsory voting have governments that are more authorities, more right-wing and have a more defined social class system. This comes about because percentage of electoral participation  goes up with sociometric status. This is because the higher classes have more leisure time to engage in political debate while the lower classes do not and the lowest class are too preoccupied with the task of merely living too engage in the political process (refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). This disproportionate engagement in political system leads to the entrenchment of class systems since those that benefit from them will be ones who dominate the political process.

I have lots more to say about that, but perhaps it would be an idea to hear the other side. :)

I have never really thought about it. But after reading your post Dave I am with you.

I strongly believe we should have compulsory voting.
It shows everyone that their opinion counts.
And after all, if you REALLY don't want to care, you can put a blank slip in the box.

Im not really one way or the other for it, but voting is a right, not a duty, as it states in the constitution. Free speech is also a right, you dont see people being forced to give their opinion, nor are people obliged to exercise their right to silence. I would rather have a politician who is elected by people who care about and have enough knowledge on the issues enough to vote, rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry who turned up because they had to. Filling out blank ballots doesnt help anyone


New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Canada and Sweded are just a few of the countries that don't have compulsory voting, and they have arguably better governments than we are ever likely to see in this country, not to mention better healthcare and public transport systems.

Benny you make the claim that you would prefer that only people who are politically educated should vote. Political education (and all education) is a social commodity which distributed throughout society unevenly in a manner that is tied to socioeconomic status.
If we don’t require everyone to vote the result will be that only those who are politically educated will vote. ( in my opinion this is an unacceptably arrogant position as it presumes that the “educated” minority know what is best for the majority) this encourages a stratified society.

Yes some countries with non-compulsory voting do have leftist governments. But I was talking in general terms and you have cherry picked a handful of countries out of a much larger group. That aside I would argue that Australia can hold it’s own against New Zealand, Canada and the UK in terms of healthcare and education systems (especially if you exclude the last 10 years of howardism), in the Scandinavian countries (such as Sweden) the leftist policies of the government and the high rates of political participation are due to a cultural emphasis on collectivism (unlike our individualism) rather than the presence or lack of a compulsory voting system. Finally in Switzerland the percapita wealth level drives the services rather than political participation.

It has been documented that generally the political spectrums of countries shift to the right when compulsory voting is abolished and the left visa-versa.

Yes, there are many other countries with non-compulsory voting, including Japan, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, which obolished compulsory voting in 1970. Sure, thats only a handful, but with so many non-compulsory voting countries, why haven't you given an example of one that has shifted to the right (besides the US) for that reason? Why do so many other countries not have compulsory voting? Australia is well behind these places in many ways, especially because we can't exclude the last 10 years of Howardism. We aren't talking about domestic services here either.

Being left or right winged is determined by many factors, the least of which would be compulsory/non-compulsory voting. Its more to do with the way people vote, which is usually influenced by your socioeconomic factors, domestic and foreign policy, global/local events, etc. Sure your case is well documented, so is communism, terrorism, and just about anything else anyone has an opinion on. Whether or not something is well documented has very little to do with the merits of the argument

I did not say, or 'make the claim', that I prefer people who are politically educated to vote, caring about and having knowledge on issues in no way implys that someone is politically educated. I was simply saying that I'd rather people who know what they are voting for, I don't see how you can infer a preference for politcally educated voters. Non-compulsory voting doesn't stop anyone from voting, it just means that everyone who wants to exercise their right to vote can. Its not free speech if people are obliged to vote, and it definetly isnt respecting our right to silence. Sure people can post an empty ballot, but why waste the resources on processing votes that either don't have an effect on the result or end up having a negative impact?   

I haven’t mentioned specific countries because I don’t think any one example can a true representation of all countries in which it has occurred. However since you asked for one I can give you… …. … Austria (although I want to point out that what I am talking about is not an instant cause and effect relationship but rather a general trending)

Thanks for making the distinction between politically educated and politically passionate. I would argue that while they are distinct there is a definite link between the two. What do you think?

I am not arguing that compulsory voting is the sole determining factor in determining a country’s political leaning but it is a factor, along with cultural values, economic conditions and all the rest of it.

Just at the end of your post I think you are making the argument that voting is a civil right rather than a civil duty. Is this what you are saying?

As for your final point I think it would be interesting to compare the waste of Australian compulsory voting to the waste of the campaigning that occurs in countries like the U.S.

at 50, I have never voted in my life, probably some sort of virus I picked up in the 70s along with herpes and the clap (those were the days), anyway, despite that I think we should all vote.., I would but Im afraid I would have to pay a fine for never voting. Im in a dilemma of conscientious thinking..??

I don't understand why you keep refering to people who are poltically educated or politically passionate, how do you keep infering different things from the same sentence?. Just because someone cares about or has knowledge on an issue doesn't mean they are either politically educated or passionate, it simply means they care about or have knowledge on an issue. I know many people who are passionate about certain issues, it doesnt automatically make them politcally passionate, most people can't stand politics. I myself prefer science anyday!

Voting is not a duty, how is that consistent with the freedoms associated with being in a democracy? It infringes our right to silence, and to be apolitical. In Australia we don't have a bill of rights, so the constitution gives us the basic freedoms of humans, voting is one of them. Not one country in the world has a bill of civic duties

Wastage you say? How about the fact that campaigning makes politicians reach out to their electorate and actually seek votes by doing/promising things for the electorate? Compulsory voting favors established parties because it obliges loyal voters, no matter how apathetic, to turn up and vote for a party without them having to spend anything on pursuading their voters. It drowns out the minor parties and independants, whose followers are likely to be more enthused anyway.
The money spent on campaigning in the US, as in other democracies where voting is optional, doesn't come from taxpayers. I thought that was obvious, especially in the US. Compulsory voting might keep the cost of campaigning down but its outweighed by having to process almost the whole country on election day. Besides, isnt campaigning what being a politician is about? In relative terms Australia wastes alot more taxpayers money holding compulsory elections. That money could be put to better use by the goverment, as opposed to some oil tycoon in the US who decides to buy himself a learjet instead of contributing to politics. Its more about taxpayers money being wasted, campaign money, whether from taxpayers or not, is seldom wasted. You don't upset a millionaire corporate director by wasting his campaign contribution

Ok let’s define some terms then.

Politically educated – Someone who has the knowledge needed to understand the political process and engage meaningfully in political debate.

Politically passionate – Cares enough to engage in the political process. (Doesn’t mean they care about politics, but they care enough about something to make them turn up and vote)

I hope you can see what I mean when I use these two different terms. Some people are politically educated but lack passion, others visa versa.

*************
I might put a rule utilitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_Utilitarianism) argument against your supposition that democracy guarantees us the right not to vote. (don’t assume that I am a rule utilitarian though, I am not but I think their perspective might be valid in this case)

What would happen if everyone in a democracy exercised this supposed right not to vote?  ???

Discussion is fun!
Is that a likely scenario, that everyone will choose not to vote? What ifs dont matter unless they are likely to happen

Why do we need to define incredibly obvious terms? What do they have to do with your arguement or mine? Ive already told you that your inference was completely off track, I was saying i prefer people with knowledge or who care about issues, not the whole political process! But anyway, if you want to get off topic...

Are you trying to tell me the definition of politically passionate is someone who cares enough to engage in political process? Id hardly call that passionate at all.The Maquarie dictionary describes passion as a strong feeling or emotion, such as love, anger or grief, hardly something that cam be implied from simply casting your vote and certainly not what you are describing. By your logic, every one is politically passionate in Australia, apparently we all care about politics because we all engage in the political process. These terms have no bearing on the issue at heart, is there a particular reason you keep bringing them up?

Its common sense, free speech entails the right to remain silent, just as to vote should imply the choice not to vote. Rule utilitarianism "judges actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action". What is the goodness of forcing people to vote? If people want to be engaged in the politcal process they will. Forcing people only begrudges those that have no interest in politics.

What do you say to the shift working single mum who doesnt have time to watch the news or question time? Should she have to vote even though she has no idea who or what she is voting for? Why make people like that go through the process to just fill out a blank slip anyway, or worse just end up voting for the current govt. IMO this is the only reason Howard is still in power, god knows he's done everything to make us vote against him

You’ve misinterpreted my meaning of politically passionate. But I don’t want that to distract from what I am trying to say.

In terms of the single mother that resolves to a necessity to provide adequate wages and income support for those who need it so that they have time to be informed. Perhaps the reason that Howard has been returned so many times is that the working (and to a degree the middle) classes have been too busy working and haven’t had time to devote to political thought. To imply that these people are merely wage “serfs” with inconsequential political opinions is wrong and goes against everything I stand for as an educator. However I don’t also don’t want that to distract from what I want to place emphasis on.


The main point.
I know that it unlikely that no one would vote but using by using this hypothetical we can derive the reason why we must vote (at least according to the rule utilitarians ;) ).

Rule utilitarianism dictates that the right thing to do is that which when applied consistently would lead to the greatest good (and of course the reverse applies). So the rule utilitarian doesn’t kill people they don’t like because if everyone could kill as they saw fit the world would be a pretty empty place.

So to apply that to our argument.
If no one was to vote then democracies would not exist (I know you agree with this however unlikely it might be). As long as we assume that democracy is the system which brings about the greatest good, this substantiates the need to vote.


This might be a bit off track but do you realise that there exists a logical inconsistency with all citizens having the right to vote and not vote concurrently. Consider, that a clear majority of citizens exercised the “right” not to vote, this would result in the denial of the right to vote to the minority since the elected government would be ineffective and lack the popular support to govern. The result would be that either that society would splinter or that the government would maintain order through the use of force rather than the populace’s consent (tacit or otherwise).

 I believe that we actually can see this occurring in America with subgroups disengaging from the political process and forming communities that do not recognise the central administration (these groups are small but there are plenty of them). The central administration only keeps these groups from growing through the use of physical force and of course media coercion.

Are you sure that you want political parties to rely on big business for their funding. I would prefer that they not. After all if political parties are getting the money they need to function from big business then it be big business that has the major influence on what policies the political party follows.

I did not in any of my post refer to anyone as wage 'surfs' or state that anyone's opinion is inconsequential. Once again your putting words in my mouth. You are proving my point, if those people who had been working and dont have enough time for political support are forced to vote, they vote for the govt, as you stated. Is that a true reflection of what voters want? Thats a direct result of compulsory voting. What you seem to think im implying is utter crap, I dont imply things mate, Im very straight forward

You obviously believe in the right to silence, how is being forced to vote respecting that right? Have a look at the AEC website or think about what SA gave women the right to do in 1895. Voting is a right, not a duty, and as such it has entailed in every democracy on earth that for every right, people have the right to abstain. Thats what the definition of a right is; straight from wiki, "a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society". Pretty clear cut and logical, isnt it?

If we have the right to vote, we have the right not to vote. How is there any logic in what you have stated?
 
"Consider, that a clear majority of citizens exercised the “right” not to vote, this would result in the denial of the right to vote to the minority since the elected government would be ineffective and lack the popular support to govern"

How does exercising the right not to vote deny votes to the minority, but also make the elected government ineffective because it lacks popular support? The fact that you can acknowledge the right not to vote and believe people have rights, but also apply rule utilitarianism, is just plain contradictory.
If a government lacks popular support, it has no right to govern. Thats the whole idea behind campaigning; to do things for your electorate to gain support and become elected. Politicians in Australia should have to do more for our votes, not just spring issues on us towards an election, as Howard has done every time. And its worked, children overboard, Tampa, Iraq; he has given them all to us before an election and in all the confusion the majority of people believe the government, and give them their vote

Rule utilitarians killing people? You are taking everything to the extreme. Look at the aforementioned countries that are not compulsory voters? They all have successful democracies and they dont feel that its the greater good to make people vote. Why is that? Because they clearly recognise voting is a right

Benny,
Answer Karl’s point.

Good argument guys. So far I think my worm of opinion is solidly on the side of Dave. I think that Benny has been a bit sketchy on a few of his points and has failed to break new ground. Rather he has been relying too heavily on the notion that compulsory voting is an unneeded imposition on those who have no time and is wasted on the uneducated. Both these viewpoint were annulled by Dave pretty early on in the piece when he effectively pointed out that non-compulsory voting leads to stratified societies” and” that it is unfair to assume that anyone’s opinion is not valid.

However I am sure my opinion can be swung back.

Benny perhaps you need to start breaking new ground.

Keep it up boys.

DING DING * round 2

Neither of you can give an example of any society which demonstrates this.

Big buisness participation in politics is a whole other issue, do you really want yet another thread to slide way off topic?

I haven't bothered breaking new ground because I cant get a decent rebuttle on the main point ive made; voting is a right, and the definition of a right is that one can abstain from exercising said right. Instead, Dave hase gone off on a tangent about ideoligies and implying that I think people who don't vote at non-compulsory elections are worthless.

Compulsory voting favors the government in power, thus increasing the number of safe seat electorates and giving no incentive for politicians to do more for their constituents to keep/win votes, as is the case in marginal electorates. Compulsory voting also increases the risk of the true political preference of an electorate by forcing those who are uninformed or don't care for politics to the polls. Im trying to argue with facts here and not draw people into a discussion about ideoligies and principals, or a reiteration of something ive read and feel the urge to express

My main rebottle against your claim that voting is a right has already been made. I will reiterate it in a short more concise form.

Voting is not a right but a civic duty. If individuals wish to enjoy the freedoms of democracies then they have a civic duty to engage in maintaining that democracy.

(there is more to the argument than that, but I will leave it at that for now and let you focus, otherwise you might start accusing me of going on tangents or simply rehashing what I have read )

compulsory .... people who truly dont care still can do their democratic duty and have the right to intentionally fudge their ballot

I say Non compulsory,

Why should people be forced to vote if they don’t want to have an opinion. Some of us see both sides as corrupt, why should I support either.

Benny and Dave are both right, because there are dangers on both sides of the argument. If there is compulsory voting we may indeed, as I believe we do currently, have a whole bunch of people voting who have not the slightest idea about the policies and ideology of the political party they are voting for. In America for example it seems (I can reference this if anyone asks) that only 3% of people vote and express opinions that is consistent with an ideology and that do not continually contradict themselves; that is, there is a whole bunch of voters who don't think through their decisions in much depth. This is a problem. I think this best supports Benny's argument because not only is it correct that we should be able to exercise our right or not, but we don't want a whole lot of apathetic, uneducated voters and voters who cannot see past their own selfish affairs. Essentially, democracy becomes a farce at this point; a popularity contest over which the mainstream media exercise considerable influence - a big danger.
Dave puts forward an equally powerful argument: how can we guard ourselves from the outcomes of class? This is not an equal playing field, so democracy, when everyone participates, seems to level the field because everyone is equal to just one vote and everyone has to vote so it eliminates the likelihood that there will be more representation from specific classes.
To me, there are pitfalls on both sides. The common problem is the uneducated, irrational voter. This is why I believe that universal education, health care and other forms of social support that reduce the effects of stratification and inequality are important if we want to stimulate a rational democracy.
If we have such an educated democratic society, it should not matter whether voting is compulsory or not because people will most probably want to and if not, we can count on that decision being a more thought out choice than otherwise would be the case.

Thanks revolution,
You have summarised the argument in a way that I never could have.

I firmly believe that uneducated and ill informed voters are a major problem for democracy. However it is a problem that is resolved using universal education and programs and policies designed to engage people, as opposed to voluntary voting.

I suppose that I might have this particular bent because I am a teacher and a strong universal education program ensures that my employment prospects remain bright. 

Dammit you guys, every time I decide on an opinion one of you posts and makes it harder for me to stick with that opinion.  :)  At the moment I'm more for the compulsory voting side, though.  Although you're totally right, RevolutionByNight (hey that rhymed) that there are definitely pitfalls on both sides. 

But then again there's always a downside to everything in politics.  I'm sure there are some left-wing values that not all left-wingers agree with and the same with the right-wingers.  Like an anti-war supporter who doesn't believe in gay marriage.  Pretty crappy and general example but you get the idea.

If you respect an opinion of an individual, then how FORCING those strongly opposed to voting is respect of their opinion?


You do realize that it is a total lie eh?

By the way, "lefties" are all about "people" (i.e. groups), which is an opposite of Individual. When you focused on FORCING your opinion of what each individual should do, it is anti-individual, and it sacrifices an Individual (rather than respects). And  as such thing as a group or society r just a bunch of individuals, this approach eventually destroys the whole Group of Individuals , one by one.