Should People Vote?

[gumboot]

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".

Problem is under the US system (and ours), and informal vote isn't secret, whereas under the Australian system it is.

 

[theprestige]

Problem is under the US system (and ours), and informal vote isn't secret, whereas under the Australian system it is.

How do you mean, "isn't secret"?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

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

Yes, they can. And we keep stats on informal voting, which has been between 3%-5% over the long term. That, to me, says that most people take it seriously. Of course, "taking it seriously" really just means filling out a form correctly, but that is far harder than just dumping a blank form in the slot.

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

You're right, they are assertions. I am sorry that the position(s) are unfalsifiable. But logic dictates to me that a party's platform must be more inclusive because everyone votes.

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.

Again, if people really are that disinterested, they may vote informally which skews nothing.

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

It is skewed because my vote counts for less due to the apathy/laziness of people who politically might agree with me, but don't bother to vote.

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.

Fair enough, point taken.

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.

I don't know why you and others are so unable to understand this particular comment. It has absolutely nothing to do with issues and candidates, and everything to do with how long it takes to line up and write on a piece of paper. I already know the issues, I already know most of the candidates. What's so difficult? Especially if we're talking about people who honestly do not wish to vote, it's even less time.

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?

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of your question.

If you move to another electorate 5 minutes before the polls, you are unable to vote. You must enrol to vote, and there is a time limit to do so before an election. In practice, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from never enrolling to vote. So, if you're a deadshit with no sense of obligation to the democracy you're lucky enough to live in, just don't enrol.

I feel the 15-30 mins once every 3 years is such a meaningless expectation that it isn't even worth bothering about. I'm sure many feel otherwise, as if their liberty is being forever raped and pillaged etc. Luckily I don't live in a country where such minor and insignificant concerns are whinged about.

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

People should be obligated to contribute to the society in which they live. Yes, I know this is a foreign concept to those that feel the individual is paramount, but there it is.

 

[gumboot]

How do you mean, "isn't secret"?

If you have to vote, everyone goes along to a polling booth and gets ticked off the voting register, so you don't have any idea who cast the informal votes.

If you don't have to vote you know which people didn't turn up (because their name isn't ticked off) so their ballot isn't secret.

 

[Uncle Otto]

If you have to vote, everyone goes along to a polling booth and gets ticked off the voting register, so you don't have any idea who cast the informal votes.

If you don't have to vote you know which people didn't turn up (because their name isn't ticked off) so their ballot isn't secret.

OK now I'm really confused. Is voting only mandatory for those who chose to "enroll"? Is "enrolling" optional? Am I reading this right------if you don't enroll you are not required to vote---correct? But here in the U.S. the only difference is that even if you are registered to vote-----it's not required that you do so. You are perfectly free to abstain if that is your wish.

If "you don't have to vote", just what ballot is it that isn't secret? The one that no one cast? What list is your name not ticked off of if you don't have to vote to begin with? If you are enrolled----can you "un-enroll"?

I think I've stepped through the looking glass.

 

[gumboot]

OK now I'm really confused.

It's really quite straight forward.

Is voting only mandatory for those who chose to "enroll"? Is "enrolling" optional?

No. Why would you think that?

Am I reading this right------if you don't enroll you are not required to vote---correct?

You're required to enroll, and you're required to vote.

But here in the U.S. the only difference is that even if you are registered to vote-----it's not required that you do so. You are perfectly free to abstain if that is your wish.

If "you don't have to vote", just what ballot is it that isn't secret? The one that no one cast?

Yes. Your informal vote, or vote for no one, isn't secret.

What list is your name not ticked off of if you don't have to vote to begin with?

In order to prevent voter fraud, there has to be some sort of system in place that records who has voted. I don't know how they do it in the USA, but in NZ, every polling station has a copy of the electoral role and when you go in to vote you give them your identity and they cross you off. Therefore once polling is finished they are able to identify which people have not voted (because their name won't be "ticked off").

If you have to vote, everyone's name gets ticked off, even the people that cast an informal vote (i.e. don't vote for anyone).

If you are enrolled----can you "un-enroll"?

I guess there's certain ways you can revoke your citizenship.

I think I've stepped through the looking glass.

I'm not quite sure why you think this is so strange or complicated. It's really quite straight forward.

 

[Uncle Otto]

In practice, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from never enrolling to vote. So, if you're a deadshit with no sense of obligation to the democracy you're lucky enough to live in, just don't enrol.

It's really quite straight forward.



You're required to enroll, and you're required to vote.-----------


I'm not quite sure why you think this is so strange or complicated. It's really quite straight forward.

Well between what you said and what Sceptic PK said------- In the U.S. this whole exercise in futility would be considered nothing less than bizarre on a good day. According to Skeptic you are not required to enroll----according to you -----you are, Which is it? If you never enroll, do the police come around and force you to sign up after your 21st birthday or something?

 

[IchabodPlain]

Yes, they can. And we keep stats on informal voting, which has been between 3%-5% over the long term. That, to me, says that most people take it seriously. Of course, "taking it seriously" really just means filling out a form correctly, but that is far harder than just dumping a blank form in the slot.

Which means you have to exclude votes (and have a committee formed with the task of setting up criteria to exclude votes). Fairly ridiculous to end up excluding those were forced to vote.

Also, you're still not making the electorate more educated about their choices. Forcing people to vote doesn't do that - education about their choices does that.

But logic dictates to me that a party's platform must be more inclusive because everyone votes.

Another unsupported assertion. Everyone in the US can potentially vote. Because of this, candidates and parties must attempt to appeal to everyone and inspire them to vote. Recently, President Obama did this to get elected.

People should be obligated to contribute to the society in which they live. Yes, I know this is a foreign concept to those that feel the individual is paramount, but there it is.

Problem is, as I've stated numerous times, people do contribute to society every day for the vast majority of their lives. By participating through school, working, paying tax, etc.. you contribute to society's general well-being.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't know why you and others are so unable to understand this particular comment. It has absolutely nothing to do with issues and candidates, and everything to do with how long it takes to line up and write on a piece of paper. I already know the issues, I already know most of the candidates. What's so difficult? Especially if we're talking about people who honestly do not wish to vote, it's even less time.

You're extrapolating from a single datapoint here. YOU know the issues, YOU konw most of hte candidates. However, there is nothing inherent in the system that makes voters who are required to vote necessarily better informed than those who are not. And my argument has always been that ininformed voting is a bad thing (incidently, this is also the reason why presenting percentages of people who cast acceptable votes isn't convincing to me). The issue with the time is that there is nothing inherent in your system that requires anyone to spend any more time than those 15-30 minutes to determine their vote--there's nothing forcing them to become educating about, well, ANYTHING on the ballot. Which means that in a manditory system, using the time it takes you to cast a vote (also extrapolating from a single point, but you're the only example we have in this case and there's no good reason to assume it's not at least common), you could have people who spend a grand total of half an hour educating themselves on the issue, picking which side they want, and casting their vote, for all issues and all elected officials.

I'm not convinced that produces better results than a society where 60% of people don't vote.

And we keep stats on informal voting, which has been between 3%-5% over the long term. That, to me, says that most people take it seriously.

Your claim is unsupported by the evidence. I don't consider 15-30 minutes (what we're using as the minimum time possible to cast an acceptable ballot) to be taking an election seriously.

 

[Zep]

Well between what you said and what Sceptic PK said------- In the U.S. this whole exercise in futility would be considered nothing less than bizarre on a good day. According to Skeptic you are not required to enroll----according to you -----you are, Which is it? If you never enroll, do the police come around and force you to sign up after your 21st birthday or something?

Let me explain with a few details:

1. When you turn 18 (18 is the voting age here), you are required to enrol to vote. This has no party affilliation whatsoever, and is managed by a statutory government authority (in Australia, the Australian Electoral Commission - AEC). This is simply a registration of your identity on the electoral roll and is permanent. It covers your ability to vote for federal, state and local elections. ETA: A tiny few choose to never enrol. However no-one can vote ever unless they are enrolled.

2. Your home address determines which federal and state electorates you are in. So one of the things we do when changing address, along with utilities bills, etc, is to inform the AEC of our address change so they can adjust our electrorates.

3. When an election is called, a set time before the voting date the AEC will close the rolls (usually about 2 weeks - enough time to compile and print the rolls). If you are 18 and not enrolled by then, you cannot vote. If you have not changed your address by then, you will be voting as though you were in your old electorate.

4. As Gumboot has described, when you turn up the polling booth to vote, the officials have a full list of the rolls and first you get your identity confirmed and your name ticked off. Then they give you your ballot papers and you go vote.

5. You can go to any polling place during an election because they all have the full rolls. If you absentee vote, you will be given ballots for your home electorate candidates. These will be sealed and mailed to that electorate for later counting (and these can have a dramatic late effect on close votes!).

Simple enough?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Sorry for the confusion, you are required by law to enrol. However it’s not enforced, and while people will get fined for not voting, I am unaware of anyone being fined for failing to enrol. Doesn’t mean it might not happen on occasion, but as far as I am aware this is uncommon. I spent a total of 4 years un-enrolled and never heard anything.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

You're extrapolating from a single datapoint here. YOU know the issues, YOU konw most of hte candidates. However, there is nothing inherent in the system that makes voters who are required to vote necessarily better informed than those who are not.

You’re right, it doesn’t make anyone do anything. It encourages. Given the ~40% of votes in 2008 for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it, I fail to see that optional voting ensures people that vote are more informed in the slightest. Ignorance doesn’t stop one being motivated to vote.

And my argument has always been that ininformed voting is a bad thing (incidently, this is also the reason why presenting percentages of people who cast acceptable votes isn't convincing to me). The issue with the time is that there is nothing inherent in your system that requires anyone to spend any more time than those 15-30 minutes to determine their vote--there's nothing forcing them to become educating about, well, ANYTHING on the ballot. Which means that in a manditory system, using the time it takes you to cast a vote (also extrapolating from a single point, but you're the only example we have in this case and there's no good reason to assume it's not at least common), you could have people who spend a grand total of half an hour educating themselves on the issue, picking which side they want, and casting their vote, for all issues and all elected officials.

Actually (just to add fuel to the fire!) people can’t spend a grand total of half an hour educating themselves on the issues, because there are no means at a polling station to educate oneself on anything (other than the voting preferences of the parties). People have 3 years to determine their vote, and they are encouraged to consider the issues by compulsory voting. Nobody says it works 100% of the time of course, you can’t make the horse drink after all.

Your claim is unsupported by the evidence. I don't consider 15-30 minutes (what we're using as the minimum time possible to cast an acceptable ballot) to be taking an election seriously.

Well, if you have some evidence that people wait right up until the second they’re in line at the polling station before deciding their vote, please present it.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Which means you have to exclude votes (and have a committee formed with the task of setting up criteria to exclude votes). Fairly ridiculous to end up excluding those were forced to vote.

I don’t know where you get this ridiculous idea from. Pure fantasy. Excluded votes are excluded at the time of counting and the stats are gleaned sometime thereafter. There are no “committees” or similar, and everyone knows what the criteria is for a valid vote (it never changes). Excluding a mammoth ~3% of votes isn’t particularly notable where I come from.

Also, you're still not making the electorate more educated about their choices. Forcing people to vote doesn't do that - education about their choices does that.

Again, it encourages. Nobody is saying that it is 100% effective. And (again) nobody is forced vote! Voluntary voting doesn’t encourage people to be educated about their choices either.

Because of this, candidates and parties must attempt to appeal to everyone and inspire them to vote. Recently, President Obama did this to get elected.

And how is your unsupported assertion working for you? You could say this about every single President in the US’ history, as they’ve been elected. It doesn’t necessarily follow they or their policies have had broad appeal with society at large (and I’m sure Bush had a significant influence on the outcome in 2008 too).

So, I’ll just add another assertion to the growing list; the influence of motivated minority demographics, such as the Christian Right, have a disproportionate influence in US (particularly Republican) politics due to their capacity to get people out and about on election day. Under compulsory systems, fringe demographics remain on the fringe. There is also a generally-accepted viewpoint that compulsory voting in Australia lends a 2% swing away from the Liberal party, which suits me fine . No, I am not alleging that the US would benefit from compulsory voting, my opinion starts and finishes with Australia, because it works here just fine.

Problem is, as I've stated numerous times, people do contribute to society every day for the vast majority of their lives. By participating through school, working, paying tax, etc.. you contribute to society's general well-being.

Good. So they should have no qualms taking half an hour out of their day once or twice every 3 years. And they don’t either, given that 70+% are in favour of compulsory voting. And the option to vote informally is always there if someone feels they are too ignorant, or simply don’t care.

 

[Uncle Otto]

My thanks to Zep for finally clearing up the Australian voting system for non-Aussies. It changes a lot of things for me, but in my mind, and I think most other Americans will tell you the same------it's one of the most anti-democratic things imaginable here.

I'm curious----when did the forced voting first go into effect, and after it did, were there any sudden, massive percentage changes in who votes for what party? I mean the total numbers say nothing----were there any substantive changes in the overall complexion of the Australian electorate as a result of the law? If so, how was this documented? How could you tell if any elections would have turned out differently than before the law took effect? I think I can safely say that forced voting in the U.S. would change nothing in terms of our polarization, and might actually make it worse than it is.

I'm still waiting for someone to post some evidence that this law has had any meaningful result beyond saying that more people vote now than did before the law went into effect. Other than that, what has changed, other than to force people to cast ballots they didn't want to cast in the first place? As for the notion of making the politicians more accountable----exactly how? Exactly what has changed? How are they more accountable now than they were before?

Somebody please post some concrete results of how this policy has changed anything in Australian elections since the forced voting went into effect.

 

[psionl0]

If I am getting this thread right, some people are saying that the right to vote in elections should be restricted to people who are able to make an "informed choice" about which set of buffoons to vote for???

How will that stop politicians from getting elected?

 

[gumboot]

Well between what you said and what Sceptic PK said------- In the U.S. this whole exercise in futility would be considered nothing less than bizarre on a good day. According to Skeptic you are not required to enroll----according to you -----you are, Which is it? If you never enroll, do the police come around and force you to sign up after your 21st birthday or something?

In the very same paragraph of Sceptic's post, which you quoted, they clearly state that you are required to enroll. Their point was that enrollment wasn't stringently enforced which meant while you were legally obligated to enroll, in practice you could avoid enrolling.

If you don't enroll to vote, and the government identifies you as someone who is not enrolled to vote, generally you'll get a fine. I am not sure how it's done in Australia.

 

[psionl0]

Somebody please post some concrete results of how this policy has changed anything in Australian elections since the forced voting went into effect.

It is difficult to quantify the effect of compulsory voting. However, the general wisdom is that (in the absence of a major issue) voluntary voting tends to favour the conservative side of politics. This is because the wealthy and the educated have more to gain or lose from government decisions and are more likely to vote. The less well-heeled tend to believe that no matter who wins an election, it will do nothing for them personally so they have less incentive to exercise their right.