I personally find compulsory voting an offence to personal liberty.

When I think on it I am reminded of Saddam's last "election" before the invasion and that old un-reformable communist, the USSR's Gorbachev last "election" where voting was compulsory. Guess what they both won by huge majorities: 99% and 98% of the vote each, respectively.

So why is it compulsory in Australia? A supposed democracy? Certainly not Saddam's Iraq or the USSR.

The only historical reason was, at first, to serve the interests of the Queensland Labor Party (it saved on door knocking), then, when Labor were kicked out in the election that followed the legislation, it was obvious to the other parties that it also served their interests. It then spread to other states on the same self serving basis, and then to the Federal Government.

So is the right not to vote, not as important as the right to vote, to you?

Yes, I think it is.

I refuse to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. If I don't like any of the candidates put before me, I will not vote.

I think that for a successful democracy, I must have choice. And if the choice put before me is unpalatable, I must also be able to choose to not pick from the poor offerings

That's how i see it anyways

@Dek

So what do you do come election time in NSW or Oz?

I'm not a citizen JR

Oh just a resident then? or an illegal?

The funny part about being a resident in Oz is that you'd get to vote if you went to the UK, in UK elections as a resident of A Commonwealth  country.(at least you used to)

Oh! That's strange....

Not a resident either - yet... applying to be one

Hey question - i have just become an aussie perm ressie but i'm not a citizen - do i have to vote???

Don't think so

Gotta be a citizen.... otherwise matters of the country don't concern you I guess

*shrug*

@Clay

Hey question - i have just become an aussie perm ressie but i'm not a citizen - do i have to vote???

Neither do you HAVE to vote, nor do you HAVE A RIGHT to vote to  elect the bastards who get to spend your tax dollars, until you are a citizen. (After passing a dumbass citizenship test)

lol

to be honest i would not have a clue who to vote for - not happy about these rent increases though - bar stewards!!

++++

Sorry guys, but can we get back to my basic question before this drifts wildly off topic (as it will) ?

Please.

I'd genuinely like to know how people feel.

Hey Clay, consider yourself spared!

JR - been here via some cunning and lots of slacking

oops

"not happy about these rent increases though"

Curious: How is that Government ?

mate i know nothing about politics

We have compulsory voting to ensure that the lazy bastards among us have to concern themselves (albeit infrequently) with their democratic rights and privilege's.

In non compulsory voting, the party with the most resources and who can muster the most followers (sheep) has a huge advantage.

Fair point, but it also applies to compulsory voting doesn't it?

No, because those who are not really interested in politics, or too bone lazy to concern themselves about voting, have to make an effort to engage themselves in the process. I'm talking (generally but not necessarily) about the lower socio economic groups of society here, and possibly the younger members of those groups.

Just look at how the Republicans have organised themselves in the Bible belt of the USA.

Hmmm... yeah, I see what you mean...

But I still think that the right not to vote is as important. I'd like to excercise it without the impending threat of fines (or is it jail?)

But I still think that the right not to vote is as important. I'd like to excercise it without the impending threat of fines (or is it jail?)

It's a small price to pay, for living in Australia.

Anyway you don't really have to vote if you don't want to, all you have to do is turn up and get your name checked off the roll. (no one would know if you placed a blank voting paper in the box).

without the impending threat of fines (or is it jail?) 

It's a fine, but if you don't pay it you may well end up with community service or a night in the slammer.  

But you see, that's the thing... Me not voting shouldn't go unnoticed....

say there is a population of 1000. And out of that, 200 won't vote based on reasons like mine. Don't you think that this statistic should be noted along with the reason behind it?

But you see, that's the thing... Me not voting shouldn't go unnoticed....

So you just want to be a recalcitrant then??

recalcitrant?

@Adromeda, I think you're missing the point. Dek's point is a very valid one.

It has little to do with laziness.

If people are not forced to vote, then in non-compulsory voting countries where you would notice a low turn-out, you'd also notice that you are not engaging the people in the process or the debate. In Australia a politician or anyone who cares, has no idea how engaged the voting public is because there is no measure. This is what Dek means when she says her not voting should not go unnoticed.

I watched people walk politically blind into the last Australian Federal election, but the politicians didn't care that many people didn't know what they were voting for or against because they don't need to make the effort.

 recalcitrant?

Yeah recalcitrant, because you want the gov't to notice your resistance to authority.

And I repeat...............

the lower socio economic groups of society here, and possibly the younger members of those groups.  Just look at how the Republicans have organised themselves in the Bible belt of the USA.

At the very least it makes them think about it for a little while.

It isn't resistance to authority....

It is just about making a choice, and if I don't want to pick what is presented to me, I'd rather pick none.

It is my way of letting all the parties know that their candidates are not good enough for my vote.

I have mixed feelings about compulsory voting.  Without it, you get decisions by a minority of voters, like here in the States.

Are we talking about Big Brother or Australian Idol here?

Currently we do get a decision by about 1/3 of the country, but nevertheless, if everyone did vote, you'd have that huge chunk of people who have no idea what they're doing who randomly vote for a person who, for example, might have authoritarian qualities (e.g. Cheney-Bush regime) without knowing it. Or, according to probability, that could tip the other way. But people should still have the right because you never know when the voting mandate could turn on you or your country.

Actually the voter turnout, whilst often around the one third mark in the US, the turnout in the 2004 Presidential Election was 55.3% the highest since 1992 (55.1%), which, in both cases, just goes to show what happens when the politicians and their helpers make the effort to engage the people, and get their 'vote out'.

Voter turnout, IMHO is an important measure of voter apathy. It was noticed in Britain in 1992 and then in 2001 and politicians did something about it. As was the case in the US, with the Democrats who in 1992 realised they would win if they engaged the people.

really? I thought bush and kerry together garnered about 120 millionish (62 vs 59 million), plus the extra few for any third party candidates, but that's only like 40 something %.

These are the figures I got from infoplease.com, (where you will find the rest of the chart below, back to 1960)

It also worth noting that the turnout of registered voters in 2004, was all but 70% (69.96%). And in 1992 it was 78% of registered voters.

"but that's only like 40 something %".

That would be 40% of all 300 million Americans. Not all of the 300 million of course, would be eligible to even register to vote.

I was afraid I was missing something freakishly obvious. Why can't I ever think straight?

lol Not to worry. It affects us all eventually.

55.3% isn't too bad.  Interesting in a non-presidential year no one goes to the polls.  Ho-hum!

Any one know the turnout figures for the 2006 mid terms? All I have is an overall general figure of 36.8% of eligible voters, but that's not totally trustworthy.

I take comfort in my non-voting policy, although I ain't no economist

Why Vote?
 

I think the right to vote and the right not to vote are equally important, I think it's also important to know how many people aren't voting and perhaps why. I feel compulsory voting would be a good thing, if the ballot paper had an "abstain" option. Therefore not voting wouldn't be a matter of laziness, but a matter of principal, and the government / relevant agency could accurately measure the number of people not voting - then, perhaps, come up with ideas on how to involve more people in the political process.

I agree with Erik:

I have mixed feelings about compulsory voting.  Without it, you get decisions by a minority of voters, like here in the States. 

I am a poll worker in the US, and I also work for the executive brance of the federal government. Rarely do I speak to a citizen that understands that we don't make up the laws; we just enforce them. They are surprised when I give them the email address, phone number and mailing address of their Congressman and Senator when they start complaining about how this law or that is unfair. They ask me, "What am I supposed to do with that?" Then I give them a basic American Government lesson, and they get bored and say "Forget it! It's not worth the effort!" So, does making voting compuslory cause more people to make educated decisions? No, I don't think so. I think it causes more people to make blind decisions, or base their decisions on marketing and publicity.

In summary, I think that

• volutary voting =  best publicity wins (because they compel the the largest turnout)
• compulsory voting = best publicity wins (because it's the name that the mindless drones recognize the most)

As Sir Winston Churchill said...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

But he also said...

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I disagree with churchill there. It's the best that we have now, but we can't be complacent. We can't think this is it, the best method, and therefore stop looking for other models.

I admit, I've given this a lot of thought, and I haven't come up with any workable alternatives yet, but that's not to say that we won't have another.
 

Compulsory turn out does not bother me. It's not such a big deal to get to the polls on average one Saturday per year accounting for local and State elections. The 6 weeks prior to the election is the unbearable part.

I always thought compulsory voting was that which was done with a gun in ones back.
 

I agree.... I can't stand election campaigns...

It's marketing at a whole new unbearable superficial level
 

Yeah I was watching Howard's launch on Tuesday night and it made me so optimistic I went out and bought a massive flat TV thingo, an espresso machine and booked a round the world trip. I didn't actually hear him say there would be rebates for all of those but at the rate he was going it was a sure thing and the shops were about to close.

HAHAHAHA

And what's with the launches this week, when they've been campaigning for at least a month already?? I don't get it

On top of that, technical difficulties pushed Rudd's launch back another half hour.

Idiots.

hahaha

Launches must be an Australian thing?

I think you may have misread Churchill there Dekrazee1. I think that those quotes fit right in with what you are saying.

On another note, it would be interesting to see a pure democracy in action. (In otherwords, the people vote on everything, not just elect leaders) With the technology we have now, there wouldn't be as much of a difficulty getting a real representation of the voting public. There aren't any nations doing this, are there?

For that to happen there would have to be a law that requires that every law be written in simple language, and each law written out individually. Otherwise special interest groups would still attach stupid laws to good ones.

How have I read the quote wrong?

My friend and I used to fantasize about 'universal democracy' when we were in uni. Our plan was to have a little voting box thingy installed in every household, and everyone would get to vote on everything.

We thought up of a few issues with it. Votes could be coerced, bought or stolen. Also, this idea really only works if the population is educated and well versed in issues being voted upon. We weren't sure that they would be bothered to make an informed decision. We wouldn't want a 'popularity' vote like we tend to see on some reality shows.

I had another issue with it. I was concerned that the minority voice would keep getting stubbed out. We'd have to take into account 'herd mentality' etc.

But it would be great if it happened!

 

you know, I'm thinking about how caotic it is trying to get all of our city council members to show up for a vote, or our congresspersons for that matter. Imagine how crazy it would be getting every citizen to get off their duff and walk over the the voting box!

From what I can tell, Aust have made it really easy. You can mail your votes in and they have booths set up for people away from their area.Not sure what else they have

Lamingtons at the booths.

hmmm.... Could those be considered bribery?

You have to buy them. Usually Lions or Rotary fund raisers.

Ahhh

@Ray Hollister: On another note, it would be interesting to see a pure democracy in action. (In otherwords, the people vote on everything, not just elect leaders)

We have that, it's called a Free Market economy.

If you were talking about matters of importance then God help us if your wish came to pass, voters - you & me -  people in general, are notoriously fickle, where do we draw the line? Would it be lower taxes this week until next week when people think - Oh it would have been better if US citizens through their government, spent some money on ...oooooh I dunno, at a guess.....maintaing bridges. ...or healthcare..... or maintaining levies in flood prone cities...... you know the stuff people imagine someone else will pay for until it seems obvious that the someone else is the taxpayer who voted for lower taxes.

America already has this amazing (to my mind) problem, in electing law enforcement officials, from the local state attorney to the dog catcher and whoever has the most populist platform at any given time, gets elected, regardless of the suitability of that platform in the longer term.
 

And professional politicians who've never had a real job in their lives are better?

I'll take the Governator any day over a political hack.

@Erik:

No I agree with you, professional - never had a job - politicians are God awful and this is a reason I have a lot of time for the US system - why not elect the dog catcher? I even like Arnie, he does seem to be growing into the job. However it's also the system that, in a Capitalist Free Market (and Gawd Bless it), has brought us vested interests and "Placemen" like never before. But, to me,  to elect LAW ENFORCEMENT officials based on the most populist platform is why you guys brought back - the ONLY Western Nation to not only bring it back, but actually STILL have it - Capital Punishment and are in severe danger of overturning Roe v. Wade, causing untold misery to young (usually poor) women by condemning them to the back street coat-hanger.

I was strictly talking about the notion that giving people a vote on every-last-little-thing will lead to any one of a number of things: Chaos - you can't please all of the people all of the time. - Look at the misery every year in Western Australia over daylight saving, on which there have been three referendums with a fourth in the offing. No one is ever happy and we now actually have politicians, I could name (as opposed to a general comment) saying one thing one year and another the next just to please the electorate on the subject.

We, as voters, want everything now and to pay for it never,whether we pay for it in taxes or in other ways. Give politicians license to "please" and this is what you will get - a lack of leadership. We elect our leaders to lead. To make decisions that are made collectively and firmly. Even when we disagree. When we do disagree heartily enough...well....that's what elections are for.
 

Boredom with the "chore" of the process leading to a failure to engage : I was listening to a conversation amongst some Australians about the forthcoming election and (almost) no sooner had it started it degenerated into a discussion about the return of Big Brother to Australian TV screens. As if the two were on some sort of equal footing. This is a nation with compulsory voting...and look what happens....It cheapens the vote. It cheapens the mental processes involved in making an informed choice
 

Then there is the Big Brother/Reality TV voting mentality - that voting is just not that important, it's just the latest bit of fun and that leads to a blase attitude to perhaps important matters.

Ross Perot....he proposed this shit, voting on every last little thing, and you can't tell me that having a shit load of cash makes you political leadership material, no matter what you think of young Mr Perot.

Look at Russia, they attain democracy only to throw it away through democracy itself, because it's "too hard"...Or worse yet, look at Nazi Germany. Hitler may not have won outright but 36% thought he was "the man" and eventually so did everyone else because it was populist enough and too hard to think otherwise.