Should People Vote?

[Fiona]

Because I don't want to

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Because I don't want to

Boo-hoo!

 

[Dinwar]

Um, what? You seem fixated on this for no sensible reason. Who says people haven’t done any homework before this point? People know they are expected to vote therefore few are still wondering about “the issues” in the polling line. Compulsory voting helps engender feelings of civic responsibility.

Stating something doesn't make it so. Neither of us has presented any data; however, I find it more probable that at least some peoplpe will be lazy than that everyone will do adequate research prior to ariving at the polling place. In absence of any actual data to the contrary, I'm going to have to continue to believe that people will act in the way history has demonstrated them to act: Some will be dilligent, yes, but some will not. I see no value in forcing those who are not dilligent to vote. You do.

This goes for people who vote in a voluntary system. So what?

You've yet to present any data indicating that this is not also the case for those in a compulsory voting system.

Last time I checked we weren’t about to run out of pencils or pieces of paper. I find the criticism that it wastes resources to be rather silly, and thoroughly unimportant.

It's not the only argument.

Nobody I know of spends that 30 minutes suddenly researching the issues.

Oh, well, as long as you have a good sample size....

So vote informally/don’t enrol/pay a fine/pretend you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.

So your solution to someone voluntarilly admitting that they dont' know enough to have an informed opinion is to force them to vote anyway, or to lie, or to punish them for their intellectual humility and honesty? Punishing people for behaving responsibly and rationally never ends well.

 

[Fiona]

Boo-hoo!

Don't cry, Sceptic-PK. Sometimes people disagree with each other: it is not all that sad, really. You will get over it quite soon, I am sure

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Stating something doesn't make it so. Neither of us has presented any data; however, I find it more probable that at least some peoplpe will be lazy than that everyone will do adequate research prior to ariving at the polling place. In absence of any actual data to the contrary, I'm going to have to continue to believe that people will act in the way history has demonstrated them to act: Some will be dilligent, yes, but some will not. I see no value in forcing those who are not dilligent to vote. You do.

I agree with you, some will be diligent and some won’t. People aren’t forced to vote, they are encouraged. If someone is as useless and lazy as you allege, they’re unlikely to bother filling in their ballot properly. It is far easier just to put their blank ballot in the box and leave the polling station.

You've yet to present any data indicating that this is not also the case for those in a compulsory voting system.

I was merely responding to your comment re ignorance in the electorate. I pointed out that regardless of system, this would continue to be the case. Democracy has unfortunately never been about informed opinion. I disagree that voluntary voting makes any difference in the level of ignorance at the polling booth.

Oh, well, as long as you have a good sample size....

Well, if it’s good enough for you to make an assertion bereft of supporting evidence then I am happy to provide my limited experience as a voter in a compulsory system as a counterpoint. FYI there is more than 70% of people in favour of compulsory voting in Australia. This suggests to me that at least 7/10 people don’t make up their mind on a whim while waiting in line. Compulsory voting encourages people to consider the issues, because they have to vote. If they choose to remain blissfully unaware, that is their choice and they can also choose to vote informally. Or just not enrol to vote at all.

So your solution to someone voluntarilly admitting that they dont' know enough to have an informed opinion is to force them to vote anyway, or to lie, or to punish them for their intellectual humility and honesty? .

Yes, the same way I would force them to contribute to superannuation or take a seat on a jury, regardless of their protestations or whether they agree that being forced to do so is a good thing or not.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Because once people are actually at the polling booth, most take it for the serious civic duty that it is.

Unsupported assertion. People can just as easily scribble "Mickey Mouse", "Lou Gehrig", cover their eyes, choose at random, or any number of other possibilities.

This has already been explained.

Not with anything beyond platitudes or unsupported assertions, it hasn't.

Because I don’t want my vote rendered meaningless by lazy or apathetic people.

Isn't that exactly what happens when voting is compulsory? People who wouldn't otherwise vote or haven't informed informed themselves, or taken an interest are forced to show up at the polls and vote along with those who are informed/taken an interest and want to vote.

I don’t want my political system skewed by voluntary voting.

How is anything being skewed? Voting is done by those who want to vote. Those who don't, don't. That's not skewed.

I don’t want politicians wasting their time on “vote drives” rather than policy discussion and debate.

Politicians themselves rarely hold "vote drives" - their staff members/volunteers do. Also, these "vote drives" are really "vote for me" pleas, which every politician does whether in Australia or the US.

Taking 15-30 minutes out of my weekend once every 3 years (or twice if we’re counting states) isn’t the end of the world. At least not for me.

If you're making your mind up about all the issues and candidates you'll be voting for in 15-30 minutes, I doubt you're at all informed.

Also, when voting in state/local elections - what if you just moved? What if you're a student or otherwise living in a locale temporarily? Why shouldn't one be able to abstain without going to the polls to do so? What if you don't want to vote because you don't see a viable candidate?

If someone truly doesn’t care or feels they are not well informed enough they can vote informally.

Why should they vote at all? (feels like this question has already been asked. Perhaps you can actually answer it).

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Why should I be forced to vote at times when I do not believe I am being offered a meaningful alternative? I see absolutely no reason why I should be made to behave as if there were real differences when the parties on my ballot have decided that they all agree on the issues which matter to me and agree in ways I find repugnant. I am not apathetic: I am disgusted

Careful, Fi. I offered up this same reason for not voting right before election day and I got piled on like the last lifeboat off the Titanic. I was even blamed for electing the "wrong" candidate because I didn't vote.

People really, really want you to vote for some reason.

Hang tough, sister. If you don't see someone you want to vote for, then don't vote. I've got your back, for what it's worth.

 

[Zep]

Unsupported assertion. People can just as easily scribble "Mickey Mouse", "Lou Gehrig", cover their eyes, choose at random, or any number of other possibilities.

In other words, vote informally.

Isn't that exactly what happens when voting is compulsory? People who wouldn't otherwise vote or haven't informed informed themselves, or taken an interest are forced to show up at the polls and vote along with those who are informed/taken an interest and want to vote.

Except that in reality most people who have to vote compulsorily DO get informed beforehand. As I mentioned above, the political advertising barrage here is intense and pervasive because the pollies need only concentrate on the issues berating each other, not attendance drives.

Also, something else: We seem to tend to take the notion of voting more seriously. It's sort of like having to follow the road rules: Since you are required to particpate, you need to concentrate and pay attention to what you are doing. Voluntary voting sounds more like a hobby: Only if you are really interested do you participate.

Also, compulsory voting does tend to give a truer yardstick for the whole electorate, not just those interested. Example: In our most recent federal election barely 5 months ago, there was an inordinately large informal vote count and a 50:50 split on the formal vote leading to protracted negotiations with minor parties to form a government. This is MOST unusual for Australia, where one or the other side usually has a decent win. The message the two major parties got was quite clear: We don't like either of you - pick up your game!

How is anything being skewed? Voting is done by those who want to vote. Those who don't, don't. That's not skewed.

So the 50% to 60% of non-voters are perfectly happy to not be bothered voting, and yet feel they can complain about the government they do get, elected by those who did bother? [NB. In their defence, I have to say that it seems most Americans on JREF do get in there and vote, and some even stand for office. That's heartening.]

Politicians themselves rarely hold "vote drives" - their staff members/volunteers do. Also, these "vote drives" are really "vote for me" pleas, which every politician does whether in Australia or the US.

Vote-drives in the US have to accomplish two goals, not one: (1) Making voters vote, and (2) make them vote for you. In Australia, only the second goal needs to be pursued.

If you're making your mind up about all the issues and candidates you'll be voting for in 15-30 minutes, I doubt you're at all informed.

True. But then some people do!

1) Also, when voting in state/local elections - what if you just moved?

2) What if you're a student or otherwise living in a locale temporarily?

3) Why shouldn't one be able to abstain without going to the polls to do so?

4) What if you don't want to vote because you don't see a viable candidate?

1) Change of address? Easy fix. Australian Electoral Commission www.aec.gov.au.

2) Absentee voting at any polling booth.

3) You can conscientiously object. And non-attendance fines are piddly anyway.

4) Cast a blank ballot.

Why should they vote at all? (feels like this question has already been asked. Perhaps you can actually answer it).

Why shouldn't I just ignore jury-duty calls?

 

[IchabodPlain]

In other words, vote informally.

Er, if you read what I was responding to, your response doesn't make sense. There is no evidence that compulsory voting gives one more of a sense of "civic duty" over voluntary voting.

Except that in reality most people who have to vote compulsorily DO get informed beforehand. As I mentioned above, the political advertising barrage here is intense and pervasive because the pollies need only concentrate on the issues berating each other, not attendance drives.

Evidence that most people get informed beforehand? Again, most any "attendance drive" is really a "vote for X" drive. There is little to no difference between the two.

Also, something else: We seem to tend to take the notion of voting more seriously. It's sort of like having to follow the road rules: Since you are required to particpate, you need to concentrate and pay attention to what you are doing.

Evidence? This is exactly what Sceptic argued, but has so far failed to support.

Voluntary voting sounds more like a hobby: Only if you are really interested do you participate.

Honestly, I'd rather that only the interested participate.

Also, compulsory voting does tend to give a truer yardstick for the whole electorate, not just those interested. Example: In our most recent federal election barely 5 months ago, there was an inordinately large informal vote count and a 50:50 split on the formal vote leading to protracted negotiations with minor parties to form a government. This is MOST unusual for Australia, where one or the other side usually has a decent win. The message the two major parties got was quite clear: We don't like either of you - pick up your game!

Non-sequitor. In 2000 the US had a 50:50 vote for the presidency and yet no one was forced to vote.

So the 50% to 60% of non-voters are perfectly happy to not be bothered voting, and yet feel they can complain about the government they do get, elected by those who did bother? [NB. In their defence, I have to say that it seems most Americans on JREF do get in there and vote, and some even stand for office. That's heartening.]

How exactly do you know this to be the case? If it were, then I would tend to agree, but I have a feeling you don't.

Vote-drives in the US have to accomplish two goals, not one: (1) Making voters vote, and (2) make them vote for you. In Australia, only the second goal needs to be pursued.

(1) is really only a pretense for (2), but "vote drive" sounds more non-partisan and wholesome than "vote for me drive".

1) Change of address? Easy fix. Australian Electoral Commission www.aec.gov.au.

I meant as far as local elections are concerned. If I have only lived in my current area for 3mo, I don't think one (me) learns enough about the city/area to have an informed decision. If I don't feel I do have an informed enough decision, why should I go down to the polls to say so?

2) Absentee voting at any polling booth.

Again, I'm referring to local level politics, not national or even state elections.

3) You can conscientiously object. And non-attendance fines are piddly anyway.

Why should I have to pay a fine? That makes zero sense. I don't pay a fine to abstain from any of my other rights.

4) Cast a blank ballot.

Again, why should I have to? What is the practical difference between not voting and casting a blank ballot? That I waste my time going to and from the voting booth?

Why shouldn't I just ignore jury-duty calls?

Because jury-duty is not a right - it's a duty/responsibility/law.

 

[gumboot]

You're arguing in the case of taxation, which is not a right, and applying the same logic as though it was a right.

If you read R.Mackey's post (and his response below) you'd see that in fact he was referring to the responsibility of voting, and indeed ended his post with

"Responsibility loses something when it's enforced." to which I was responding.

 

[gumboot]

I'm saying that ideally responsibilities shouldn't be enforced. Obviously the libertarian ideal is impractical.

Ah, got ya. I think I agree entirely (see the comments on the close-knit community where responsibility is self-enforcing).

Sure, it makes sense.

Taking a realist viewpoint, the question of whether to enforce any given responsibility depends on the social cost of doing so.

For voting in specific, I claim there is no reason to enforce voting -- choosing not to vote is a valid choice. And forcing people to vote results in screwed up election results, particularly if a majority of voters wouldn't otherwise be bothered, as has been claimed in this thread. Ergo, don't.

The alternative of denying some the right to vote, again, I don't accept at all.

This calculus does not apply to all rights, of course. To pick at random, some enforcement of responsible application of one's right to self defense is inescapable. But for voting, I just don't see the need.

Again, I am in agreement. While I was arguing the hypothetical justification for enforcing the vote, I myself don't support the idea of compulsory voting.

 

[gumboot]

Some may be willing, but be unable. What would you do with someone who was completely paralysed?

A very good question. I suppose I'd first be asking if there's anyway a completely paralysed person can contribute to society. I can think of a few such people today who do contribute, so it's an option...

If there was legitimately no way they could contribute you have a valid question. If you give them the vote, you're completely invalidating the concept that the vote should only go to those who contribute. If you don't give them the vote you're punishing them for something they have no control over.

 

[gumboot]

Makes no sense to me at all. We aren't talking about military service, or jury duty, both of which produce direct or indirect benefits to the society as a whole. I can't understand the logic behind forcing people to drive to a polling place, and get in line to stuff a blank sheet of paper into a ballot box. What is the benefit in that other than pissing off a lot of people and wasting lots of paper and other resources?

I think perhaps, and this is nothing but speculation, that in a society where voting is compulsory a more concerted effort might be made to educate everyone about voter issues to ensure that votes are informed, and over time the voting public may actually start to take more interest in how things run.

I guess the question is, in societies where voting is compulsory, what percentage of votes are blank, and how does that compare with rates of non-voting in non-compulsory jurisdictions?

If we take Australia, for example, where convictions for failing to vote are rare and the penalty - $20 - is laughable, there's a 95% voter turn out and informal or blank votes account for about 5% of all votes. That means, on the face of it, you have voter participation of roughly 90%.

By comparison in New Zealand, which has a very similar culture, political climate and general set of values, but where voting is not compulsory, turn out is generally around 80%.

The benefit, then, would be that with compulsory voting a high percentage of the population is actively involved in the politics of the nation.

When you stop to think about it, compulsory voting criminalizes thoughts. If I don't think anyone on the ballot is fit to vote for, why should I pay a fine for expressing that opinion by not voting at all? You are being penalized for not expressing a political opinion, whether it's considered a right or a responsibility or both doesn't matter. You have the right to express your religious beliefs. Should I be fined for not expressing mine? Or for simply not having any? Just because you have a certain right does not mean that you should be forced to excercise it.

This isn't necessarily true. In Australia it's not illegal to file an informal (blank) vote. This is your way of expressing the opinion that no one is worth voting for. What is compulsory is really just the act of attending a polling booth and filing the voting paper. You could cross out every name and scrawl "you all suck dog poo" across it if you really wanted.

I'm not sure if I should look at this as something from George Orwell or Alice in Wonderland. I'm an American, so I obviously have a very different perspective on such an issue than someone in Australia might have.

I think, were I an American, it would alarm me that voter turn out is so abysmally low. Now, compulsory voting isn't the only answer - there's plenty of nations such as my own that do not have compulsory voting but which have far higher voter turn out - but in the case of Australia at least it does appear to actually work.

Now don't get me wrong, I voted in the last elections here, although it was of course a complete waste of time in my Congressional district. I live in an area that is so lopsided Republican, that voting anything else is like taking a piss on the Great Chicago Fire. Seriously-----my state gov't is so overwhelmingly Republican that the few Democrats that are in office are nothing but ineffectual window dressing. They never get anything they want, and never get anything accomplished without the permission of the Republicans. It's pathetic. They are completely ignored by the majority. I have zero representation here. None.

So I completely understand why some people don't vote. They see no point in it given their circumstances. They will tell you that their votes don't count, and at least in the U.S. system----they may well be quite correct.

That's precisely the sort of attitude that kills democracy. Although it does raise another interesting point, which is that a two-party political system inevitably leads to political polarisation, which is an instant killer to the democratic process. If I had to single out just one dominant feature of US politics, from my foreign perspective, it would be the level of polarisation, which I find quite disturbing and alarming.

 

[Dinwar]

I agree with you, some will be diligent and some won’t. People aren’t forced to vote, they are encouraged. If someone is as useless and lazy as you allege, they’re unlikely to bother filling in their ballot properly. It is far easier just to put their blank ballot in the box and leave the polling station.

And easier still to not require them to show up in the first place.

I was merely responding to your comment re ignorance in the electorate. I pointed out that regardless of system, this would continue to be the case. Democracy has unfortunately never been about informed opinion. I disagree that voluntary voting makes any difference in the level of ignorance at the polling booth.

I've never asserted that it does. In fact, my system is to DIScourage people from voting, so that only those who really care do. I agree that ignorance is a problem; I fail to see how requiring those who are ignorant to vote solves the problem.

Well, if it’s good enough for you to make an assertion bereft of supporting evidence then I am happy to provide my limited experience as a voter in a compulsory system as a counterpoint. FYI there is more than 70% of people in favour of compulsory voting in Australia. This suggests to me that at least 7/10 people don’t make up their mind on a whim while waiting in line. Compulsory voting encourages people to consider the issues, because they have to vote. If they choose to remain blissfully unaware, that is their choice and they can also choose to vote informally. Or just not enrol to vote at all.

I haven't made any assertion bereft of evidence. I've said that the American system includes a lot of voters to vote when they don't have an informed opinion (and provided a recent example demonstrating that, which can be easily looked up; really, though, just look at any election that's close and you can see what I'm talking about). I've stated that I don't see enough evidence to conclude that compulsory voting does anything to decrease the amount of ignorance in the voters.

Yes, the same way I would force them to contribute to superannuation or take a seat on a jury, regardless of their protestations or whether they agree that being forced to do so is a good thing or not.

Well, you and I disagree on more than just voting, then. I disagree with compulsory welfare savings, and I'm not sure at all what I think of jury duty (neither of which is the subject under consideration).

Voluntary voting sounds more like a hobby: Only if you are really interested do you participate.

I'm not clear how this is an argument against voting. I would rather that only the interested participate--I see no value, and no one has proposed any value, to uninformed opinions. If this is a trait shared by hobbies, okay; it's also a trait shared by marriages in the Untied States (only those interested get married), for whatever that's worth. Besides, as I've said before, voluntary voting provides more opportunites for the exercise of intellectual humility and civic responsibility--if you know you don't know enough to vote you can more easily opt out of voting in a voluntary system.

 

[Dinwar]

I think perhaps, and this is nothing but speculation, that in a society where voting is compulsory a more concerted effort might be made to educate everyone about voter issues to ensure that votes are informed, and over time the voting public may actually start to take more interest in how things run.

I guess the question is, in societies where voting is compulsory, what percentage of votes are blank, and how does that compare with rates of non-voting in non-compulsory jurisdictions?

If we take Australia, for example, where convictions for failing to vote are rare and the penalty - $20 - is laughable, there's a 95% voter turn out and informal or blank votes account for about 5% of all votes. That means, on the face of it, you have voter participation of roughly 90%.

By comparison in New Zealand, which has a very similar culture, political climate and general set of values, but where voting is not compulsory, turn out is generally around 80%.

The benefit, then, would be that with compulsory voting a high percentage of the population is actively involved in the politics of the nation.

I'm not convinced that counting ballots is a valid way to gauge participation in politics. The non-blank ballots could just as easily be random choices, or worse choices based on invalid criteria (think the Nixon/Kennedy debate), neither of which I'd consider active participation in politics.

I think, were I an American, it would alarm me that voter turn out is so abysmally low. Now, compulsory voting isn't the only answer - there's plenty of nations such as my own that do not have compulsory voting but which have far higher voter turn out - but in the case of Australia at least it does appear to actually work.

I don't see why. The number of voters says nothing about the quality of the voters. If only 10% of people voted, but they understood all of the issues, could make informed choices about the candidates, etc., while the other 90% couldn't, I'd consider that a better system than if 90% of people voted but 90% of people were uninformed.

Which would you rather see: A small number of people making informed decisions, or electing people to control nuclear weapons via popularity contests?

That's precisely the sort of attitude that kills democracy. Although it does raise another interesting point, which is that a two-party political system inevitably leads to political polarisation, which is an instant killer to the democratic process. If I had to single out just one dominant feature of US politics, from my foreign perspective, it would be the level of polarisation, which I find quite disturbing and alarming.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers said pretty much the same thing. Washington was dead-set against political parties, for example. Doesn't help that it's been this way so long that we've got all kinds of laws written up that ONLY work for a two-party system (and, more importantly, THESE two parties).

 

[gumboot]

I'm not convinced that counting ballots is a valid way to gauge participation in politics. The non-blank ballots could just as easily be random choices, or worse choices based on invalid criteria (think the Nixon/Kennedy debate), neither of which I'd consider active participation in politics.

I'm not sure how you can argue "worse choices based on invalid criteria". Ultimately why someone chooses who they choose is up to them, and I don't think you can really make an argument that their choice is "wrong".

As to random choices, I don't see why any significant percentage of people would vote for someone randomly when they have the option of a blank vote.

I don't see why. The number of voters says nothing about the quality of the voters. If only 10% of people voted, but they understood all of the issues, could make informed choices about the candidates, etc., while the other 90% couldn't, I'd consider that a better system than if 90% of people voted but 90% of people were uninformed.

Which would you rather see: A small number of people making informed decisions, or electing people to control nuclear weapons via popularity contests?

Well who you let vote is a separate issue to who you make vote. It's possible that you could make voting compulsory, but not have universal suffrage. In fact that's exactly what the first democracy was.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers said pretty much the same thing. Washington was dead-set against political parties, for example. Doesn't help that it's been this way so long that we've got all kinds of laws written up that ONLY work for a two-party system (and, more importantly, THESE two parties).

From our experience, moving from a FPP system to an MMP system is a big first step. When we moved to MMP I was against it and after a few elections I felt it was a bad thing because it diluted the major parties so that they had to pass fringe legislation only a tiny minority wanted just to get in power, but now I am rethinking my opinion. I think it takes some time to realise that in an MMP system you have to approach voting totally differently. Now I think MMP is a great system.

My big issue with MMP is that it leads to a situation where you're electing a party to rule you, not individuals to represent their specific electorate. I'd prefer a system where formal political parties were banned (although informal voting alliances would still emerge such as did in Greece and Rome) and instead MPs went in solely as representatives of their electorate and not as a mouthpiece for some corporate ideology.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not sure how you can argue "worse choices based on invalid criteria". Ultimately why someone chooses who they choose is up to them, and I don't think you can really make an argument that their choice is "wrong".

As to random choices, I don't see why any significant percentage of people would vote for someone randomly when they have the option of a blank vote.

My point was partially that mere numbers don't imply anything one way or another about how the vote is cast--it could be a well thought-out choice, or it could be the role of the dice. And as for "invalid criteria", the Kenedy/Nixon debate is used fairly frequently in my experience to show the difference between substative political discourse and petty, superficial stupidity. Kenedy looked more "presidential", because Nixon had a cold. Neither are good reasons for picking someone to be in charge of a pigsty, let alone a nation.

Well who you let vote is a separate issue to who you make vote. It's possible that you could make voting compulsory, but not have universal suffrage. In fact that's exactly what the first democracy was.

Hm...I didn't express myself well. I'm not saying that we should only let 10% of people vote. I'm trying to raise the issue of quality of votes vs. number of votes. I'm not convinced that merely have a large number of people vote is a good thing, is what I'm trying to get at. A smaller number of more informed people would make a better choice, in my opinion. I'm not saying limit the voting to that small number.

Basically I'm asking why numbers matter at all. It's an easy metric to use, but it's not a GOOD metric to use.

 

[Agatha]

anyone who pays taxes should have the right to vote.

Is the corollary to this that non-taxpayers should be denied the right to vote?

Should children with sufficient taxable income (perhaps from trust funds) be able to vote? Do five year-olds have sufficient grasp of the issues?

 

[Uncle Otto]

I think perhaps, and this is nothing but speculation, that in a society where voting is compulsory a more concerted effort might be made to educate everyone about voter issues to ensure that votes are informed, and over time the voting public may actually start to take more interest in how things run.

I guess the question is, in societies where voting is compulsory, what percentage of votes are blank, and how does that compare with rates of non-voting in non-compulsory jurisdictions?

If we take Australia, for example, where convictions for failing to vote are rare and the penalty - $20 - is laughable, there's a 95% voter turn out and informal or blank votes account for about 5% of all votes. That means, on the face of it, you have voter participation of roughly 90%.

By comparison in New Zealand, which has a very similar culture, political climate and general set of values, but where voting is not compulsory, turn out is generally around 80%.

The benefit, then, would be that with compulsory voting a high percentage of the population is actively involved in the politics of the nation.





This isn't necessarily true. In Australia it's not illegal to file an informal (blank) vote. This is your way of expressing the opinion that no one is worth voting for. What is compulsory is really just the act of attending a polling booth and filing the voting paper. You could cross out every name and scrawl "you all suck dog poo" across it if you really wanted.





I think, were I an American, it would alarm me that voter turn out is so abysmally low. Now, compulsory voting isn't the only answer - there's plenty of nations such as my own that do not have compulsory voting but which have far higher voter turn out - but in the case of Australia at least it does appear to actually work.






That's precisely the sort of attitude that kills democracy. Although it does raise another interesting point, which is that a two-party political system inevitably leads to political polarisation, which is an instant killer to the democratic process. If I had to single out just one dominant feature of US politics, from my foreign perspective, it would be the level of polarization, which I find quite disturbing and alarming.

You are correct------the polarization is massive here. We basically have two sides that despise each other. It seems there is no middle ground. Minor parties here are irrelevant-----they have absolutely no input at all into the national fabric. But in neither your lifetime nor mine will they ever have any influence. And that is a fact no one can deny.

But who is to educate the electorate on the issues of the day----the only two parties we have? Hell's Bells what a joke. Would compulsory voting change anything?_______absolutely not. As long as we are saddled with the two party system----we are screwed. Filing blank votes is a complete waste of time and resources. So is voting for Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader.

 

[theprestige]

I live in Australia. We call it compulsory voting. But it is not actually compulsory to cast a valid vote. All you need to do is turn up to the polling station, get your name crossed off, tell the person you have not voted in that election previously. If you are not brave or stupid enough to walk out at that point, you can take a voting paper, go to a booth, put a mark on the paper (writing Informal vote is OK), fold, and without showing anyone the paper put it in the box provided. It is a secret vote, no one knows for sure who, if anyone you voted for. All what anyone knows is that a certain percentage of people voted for each candidate and another percentage cast an informal vote.

That's funny: We have the exact same system here in the U.S., only there's no penalties at all for casting an informal vote by "absentee ballot".