it's wrong to vote. it's right to be forced to vote

[dudalb]

Of course, the trouble with this is that it's exactly what happens anyway.

Agreed, but why make a bad situation worse?

 

[The Fool]

There you go then, The Fool. Compulsory voting doesn't force you to vote, it just forces you into a position where the marginal cost to you of voting is zero. You can still withold your support from all the candidates if you want to.

Dave

Compulsory voting removes my ability to not vote.......Not vote.....as against "stuff up my compulsory vote". I understand I can just dribble on the paper and walk out if I wish.....but thats not what I wish. I may wish to indicate my views by boycotting the election.


But anyway....whats the justification of it being compulsory?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Compulsory voting removes my ability to not vote.......Not vote.....as against "stuff up my compulsory vote". I understand I can just dribble on the paper and walk out if I wish.....but thats not what I wish. I may wish to indicate my views by boycotting the election.

If you submit a blank paper, you have indicated your views very clearly: that you didn't find any of the candidates worthy of a vote. The total of people who've done so is reported in the election result, so it's clearly visible. If you simply don't turn up, that's rather less visible, because there are other reasons than apathy for failing to turn up - for example, illness or accident.

But anyway....whats the justification of it being compulsory?

It reduces the marginal cost of voting to zero, thus removing any spurious disincentive to vote.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

Agreed, but why make a bad situation worse?

Isn't that pretty much the whole point of politics?

 

[latent aaaack]

My actions don't matter statistically when viewed in isolation, therefore nothing I do matters and I should just kill myself.

What? Perhaps it's because it's 2:30 in the morning here, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If I voted wouldn't I be part of that "large amount of people"? [that it's good voted]

This gets to what I'm saying. I used to think like this too. I thought that it's wrong to not vote in an election that's important because if everyone behaved that way than it would be against your interests and the wrong candidate might win. But your decision to not vote actually has no effect on whether others vote. Not voting is an undesirable, harmful trait when lots of people exhibit it but not at all when just one more person does, which is all you'd be guilty of.

This is different from a situation like your town having a 'clean up the trash day.' Participating in this would have a real but small effect, so that is justifiable since your efforts would still make the town a little tiny bit cleaner. But with an election, at least in the US, your effort only has any effect at all if an astronomically unlikely event occurs - that it comes down to only one vote.

I think what I'm saying is a lot like 'the tragedy of the commons.' In 'abstract morality world' it's wrong to keep chopping down the island's trees when they're in terminal decline and it's wrong because everyone is doing that. But in reality, if you don't keep helping yourself to trees, someone else definitely will, so it's right to do so, but only for an individual, not a society. That's why a law is needed. It's the same thing with voting. It's not in your rational self interest to vote and it has no effect on anything, except if a one-in-a-billion event happens.

But I'm not saying a law is now needed to make sure people vote. I'm saying if they all realized what I realized, then there'd need to be a law cause everyone would stay home.

 

[theprestige]

If you submit a blank paper, you have indicated your views very clearly: that you didn't find any of the candidates worthy of a vote. The total of people who've done so is reported in the election result, so it's clearly visible. If you simply don't turn up, that's rather less visible, because there are other reasons than apathy for failing to turn up - for example, illness or accident.

Of course, now you have a system where everybody who doesn't vote is now responsible for proving to the satisfaction of the state, upon demand, that they have a good excuse for not voting.

Not only did you fall ill or have an accident on voting day, but now on top of everything else you have to fill out affidavits in triplicate or suffer substantial consequences.

I assume the consequences would be substantial, otherwise people would ignore election day just like they do now.

It reduces the marginal cost of voting to zero, thus removing any spurious disincentive to vote.

On the other hand, as I pointed out above, it substantially increases the marginal cost of not voting. It also incurs other costs upon the state in terms of enforcement, and expands government bureaucracy.

Besides, I can figure out which incentives to vote or not vote are "spurious" all on my own, without the hand-holding of your nanny-state. Why would you want a government that treats you like a child?

Of course the precocious child behaves itself without having to be much told, and naturally thinks itself superior to the troublemaking children who are always drawing mommy's ire. But at the end of the day, they're all still locked in the same playpen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course, now you have a system where everybody who doesn't vote is now responsible for proving to the satisfaction of the state, upon demand, that they have a good excuse for not voting.

No, it's a system where everybody who doesn't turn up at the polling station is now responsible for proving to the satisfaction of the state, upon demand, that they have a good excuse for not turning up. As I've pointed out extremely clearly, there is a perfectly workable mechanism for choosing not to vote: simply enter a blank ballot paper.

On the other hand, as I pointed out above, it substantially increases the marginal cost of not voting. It also incurs other costs upon the state in terms of enforcement, and expands government bureaucracy.

See above; there is no marginal cost of not voting. And let me just point out that it's nonsense to say that it increases the marginal cost of not voting, but eliminates the marginal cost of voting; these two conditions cannot simultaneously be true. Agreed, it incurs costs upon the state. Every action has a cost, and I'm not arguing that the benefit necessarily outweighs it. I'm just pointing out that there is a specific benefit.

Dave

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Isn't that pretty much the whole point of politics?

Hush you, only the people who understand the issues should have a voice!

And by "understand", I mean hold beliefs I find reasonable .

 

[theprestige]

No, it's a system where everybody who doesn't turn up at the polling station is now responsible for proving to the satisfaction of the state, upon demand, that they have a good excuse for not turning up. As I've pointed out extremely clearly, there is a perfectly workable mechanism for choosing not to vote: simply enter a blank ballot paper.

I apologize for the confusion; I understood voting "blank" and turning up at the polling station to be synonymous for all practical purposes. I think my point still stands, and for exactly the same reasons: Show up, or else.

See above; there is no marginal cost of not voting. And let me just point out that it's nonsense to say that it increases the marginal cost of not voting, but eliminates the marginal cost of voting; these two conditions cannot simultaneously be true. Agreed, it incurs costs upon the state. Every action has a cost, and I'm not arguing that the benefit necessarily outweighs it. I'm just pointing out that there is a specific benefit.

It doesn't just increase the cost to the state; it increases the cost to the citizen. And yes, I think the two marginal costs are very different:

Under the current system, the citizen can opt not to vote turn up at the polling station for free.

Under your system, the citizen incurs a substantial cost to himself, to the state, and by extension to his fellow citizens.

So what's the benefit, exactly? That people who value something other than turning up at the polling station must give up something they value, in exchange for something they don't value, at cost to themselves (either way) and at cost to everybody else (since everybody else has to pitch in for enforcement)? What's the benefit?

 

[Wildy]

This gets to what I'm saying. I used to think like this too. I thought that it's wrong to not vote in an election that's important because if everyone behaved that way than it would be against your interests and the wrong candidate might win. But your decision to not vote actually has no effect on whether others vote. Not voting is an undesirable, harmful trait when lots of people exhibit it but not at all when just one more person does, which is all you'd be guilty of.

If I vote I'm not trying to influence how other people vote. I'm voting for who I want to represent me in parliament. My decision not to vote does affect the outcome.

This is different from a situation like your town having a 'clean up the trash day.' Participating in this would have a real but small effect, so that is justifiable since your efforts would still make the town a little tiny bit cleaner. But with an election, at least in the US, your effort only has any effect at all if an astronomically unlikely event occurs - that it comes down to only one vote.

I hate the bolded bit. It's a cheap and lazy way to justify not voting.

I think what I'm saying is a lot like 'the tragedy of the commons.'

Only in reverse.

In 'abstract morality world' it's wrong to keep chopping down the island's trees when they're in terminal decline and it's wrong because everyone is doing that. But in reality, if you don't keep helping yourself to trees, someone else definitely will, so it's right to do so, but only for an individual, not a society. That's why a law is needed. It's the same thing with voting. It's not in your rational self interest to vote and it has no effect on anything, except if a one-in-a-billion event happens.

But in order to easily exploit an electoral system you would need to encourage fewer people to vote.

But I'm not saying a law is now needed to make sure people vote. I'm saying if they all realized what I realized, then there'd need to be a law cause everyone would stay home.

And you probably would find that you'd end up losing the right to vote.

 

[theprestige]

Dave Rogers, after re-reading the thread, I realize I misunderstood you: When you are talking about the "marginal cost of voting", you mean the cost of actually registering a meaningful opinion, as opposed to skipping the proceedings entirely. Since you're forced to attend anyway, you might as well actually vote. Not only that, but at that point even your abstention would be a meaningful abstention, since you could just as easily have voted as not.

That makes sense, and I imagine in this context some of what I wrote previously must have seemed like gibberish to you. Sorry 'bout that.

However, my main objection still stands: You're forcing people to go to the polling place, even if they don't want to. You question the ability--perhaps even the right?--of citizens to decide for themselves how important the election is to them. If it's not at least as important to them as it is to you, then they should be made to act like it is.

You would increase the record-keeping and personal-business-justification burden on every citizen. You would increase government bureaucracy, and add one more item to the list of things which the government has power to enforce. You would add one more item to the list of things for which citizens may be punished by the State.

All in the name of what? Greater voter turnout? Personally, I'd rather have opt-in partisan politics than mandatory State-run voting activity.

 

[bjornart]

This gets to what I'm saying. I used to think like this too. I thought that it's wrong to not vote in an election that's important because if everyone behaved that way than it would be against your interests and the wrong candidate might win. But your decision to not vote actually has no effect on whether others vote. Not voting is an undesirable, harmful trait when lots of people exhibit it but not at all when just one more person does, which is all you'd be guilty of.

If lots of people exhibit it, it's because each of them individually decided to do so. They were just one more person, that's all they'd be guilty of, all they could be guilty of.

You're arguing consequence ethics in a situation where you can't accurately predict the consequences. Sure, it's highly unlikely in many elections in the US and other places that a sufficient number suddenly will suddenly adopt your idea and it'll come down to one vote. But to me that doesn't make it an ethical choice. On this topic I'll go with Kant's categorical imperative.

Let's say a wave of change hits your electoral district. At what point do you start voting again? And have you taken into account the effect already existing non-voters are having on the imbalance you rest your decision on?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave Rogers, after re-reading the thread, I realize I misunderstood you: When you are talking about the "marginal cost of voting", you mean the cost of actually registering a meaningful opinion, as opposed to skipping the proceedings entirely. Since you're forced to attend anyway, you might as well actually vote. Not only that, but at that point even your abstention would be a meaningful abstention, since you could just as easily have voted as not.

That makes sense, and I imagine in this context some of what I wrote previously must have seemed like gibberish to you. Sorry 'bout that.

That's fine, I think we understand each other now.

However, my main objection still stands: You're forcing people to go to the polling place, even if they don't want to. You question the ability--perhaps even the right?--of citizens to decide for themselves how important the election is to them. If it's not at least as important to them as it is to you, then they should be made to act like it is.

You would increase the record-keeping and personal-business-justification burden on every citizen. You would increase government bureaucracy, and add one more item to the list of things which the government has power to enforce. You would add one more item to the list of things for which citizens may be punished by the State.

All in the name of what? Greater voter turnout? Personally, I'd rather have opt-in partisan politics than mandatory State-run voting activity.

Yes, this is an accurate and fairly thorough summary of the costs involved in mandatory voting. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not they outweigh the benefits, although I must admit that I'm comfortable to live in a country that doesn't place this obligation on its citizens. All I'm trying to point out is that there are some benefits; in other words, it may not be the right system, but it's not a no-brainer that it's the wrong system.

Dave

 

[latent aaaack]

If lots of people exhibit it, it's because each of them individually decided to do so. They were just one more person, that's all they'd be guilty of, all they could be guilty of.

You're arguing consequence ethics in a situation where you can't accurately predict the consequences. Sure, it's highly unlikely in many elections in the US and other places that a sufficient number suddenly will suddenly adopt your idea and it'll come down to one vote. But to me that doesn't make it an ethical choice. On this topic I'll go with Kant's categorical imperative.

Let's say a wave of change hits your electoral district. At what point do you start voting again? And have you taken into account the effect already existing non-voters are having on the imbalance you rest your decision on?

My argument rests on the idea that it is ethical to ignore potential events that only have a 1 in a million chance of occurring. Even if you maintain that this is wrong, I'm sure you and everyone is guilty of adhering to this principle in your actions.

I am indeed arguing against a categorical imperative and in favor of consequence ethics - if it hurts no one than it's not immoral and your decision not to vote will never cause any harm or any change at all. Furthermore I think most people who vote don't vote because of a categorical imperative but because they really think they are having a small positive effect on something - but in fact they aren't and never will. And if that's bad for society as a whole then there should be a law.

 

[bjornart]

My argument rests on the idea that it is ethical to ignore potential events that only have a 1 in a million chance of occurring. Even if you maintain that this is wrong, I'm sure you and everyone is guilty of adhering to this principle in your actions.

I am indeed arguing against a categorical imperative and in favor of consequence ethics - if it hurts no one than it's not immoral and your decision not to vote will never cause any harm or any change at all. Furthermore I think most people who vote don't vote because of a categorical imperative but because they really think they are having a small positive effect on something - but in fact they aren't and never will. And if that's bad for society as a whole then there should be a law.

Let me reiterate:

Let's say a wave of change hits your electoral district. At what point do you start voting again? And have you taken into account the effect already existing non-voters are having on the imbalance you rest your decision on?

 

[Noztradamus]

If you don't support anyone, can't you simply enter a blank or spoilt ballot paper?

Honestly asking here, I don't know how the Australian system works.

Dave

Yeah, the voter gets to make a rational choice, to show up, get his name crossed off the list, and avoid a $20 fine,

The pollies are operating on the plan he will then make an irrational choice and say "Bugger it, I'm here now, might as well vote for somebody"

 

[latent aaaack]

Let me reiterate:

I thought I responded to that but I guess it got deleted.

I'm unsure what you mean by those two sentences. "Wave of change" in what way?

I would only vote if my individual vote had a significant likelihood of breaking a tie, at least like a 1% chance.

Why should I take into account the effect of already existing non-voters exactly? I should only be concerned with the consequences of me not voting. Are you saying that I should be concerned with the consequences of lots of people using that reasoning too? I think I'm misunderstanding, please expound.

 

[Wildy]

I would only vote if my individual vote had a significant likelihood of breaking a tie, at least like a 1% chance.

So why argue for compulsory voting then? Under such a system your individual vote would have an even less likely chance of breaking a tie.

 

[latent aaaack]

So why argue for compulsory voting then? Under such a system your individual vote would have an even less likely chance of breaking a tie.

Because I don't want the country I live in to become un-democratic and tyrannical, which means lots of people, especially people who have similar interests to mine, have to be represented and vote. But all the same any one vote has a 1 out of a 1 million chance of affecting anything, so it's not in a given person's interest to bother with increasing the vote tally for x candidate by 1 vote.

It's only in a person's interest for lots of people to vote and that can only be accomplished by a law or by people doing what they do now - mistakenly voluntarily vote out of the wrong belief that one person's vote alone affects anything except in 1 in a million weird coincidences.

 

[Wildy]

Because I don't want the country I live in to become un-democratic and tyrannical, which means lots of people, especially people who have similar interests to mine, have to be represented and vote. But all the same any one vote has a 1 out of a 1 million chance of affecting anything, so it's not in a given person's interest to bother with increasing the vote tally for x candidate by 1 vote.

Right, so to prevent your country from becoming undemocratic and tyrannical you don't vote, which helps those who are undemocratic and tyrannical get power. Truly you are a patriot.

It's only in a person's interest for lots of people to vote and that can only be accomplished by a law or by people doing what they do now - mistakenly voluntarily vote out of the wrong belief that one person's vote alone affects anything except in 1 in a million weird coincidences.

You really like this 1 in a million thing don't you? Lets just ignore the fact that each vote casts helps the respective party to reach the simple majority needed to win. Yep, clearly those people who actually can be bothered to vote are doing it because they think that their vote will cause a "1 in a million weird [coincidence]".