From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:42:20 GMT

In article <brian.721368211@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
In relation to my suggestion that his linking of the compulsory voting
debate to the non-compulsory registration and examples of voter
disenfanchisement in the US was promoting a conspiracy theory to
support his cause.
>>>	Really?  Where did I make such a statement?  Unless you can produce 
>>>such a statement from me I'd recommend that you apologise.  I do believe that you
>>>have, in your zealous rush to attack all and sundry who have offered an
>>>alternative opinion to your own, you have mixed me up with someone else. 
>
>	As you don't seem able to offer such an example I presume that you
>will apologise? 
>>OK so you tell me why you mentioned obstacles being put in the way
>>of people voting in the US if you weren't trying to suggest the same
>>was going to happen here? If you weren't suggesting the possibility
>>of a conspiracy then why did you mention it?
>
>	As a means to illustrate what could be the possible outcome of
>your seeming headlong rush towards a voluntary voting system of the style
>which is favoured overseas (and apparently by yourself).  You seem to
So the possible outcome could be a open the doors to a conspiracy
to defraud voters of their basic rights. I owe you no apology.
You attempt to scare people in the hope that they will miss the
essential difference between defending a right and making the
exercising of that right an obligation (and in so doing remove
or denigrate the right to abstain).
One can support or uphold a right just as strongly and effectively without
turning it into an obligation (or seeming to be an obligation).
>
>Compuslory Voting:	Doesn't exist here.  As I, Brendan and others have
>pointed out, we don't, despite what you might like to believe, and what
>the government and its agents (the electoral commission) might like to
>portray it as.
So its ok to hoodwink the ill-educated and unaware into believing otherwise?
Funny, I thought you were interested in protecting them from such 
dis-enfranchisement. It's ok to "treat them as sheep" almost a verbatim
quote from your earlier posting, and get them to surrender that most
basic right (to abstain) purely because they aren't aware that they
can do so without punishment.
>
>Compuslory Registration:	Yes, we do have this, and it is handled by
>a federally controlled and funded commission.  I used the example of the US
>as a means of illustrating what some of the possible dangers could be if
>we followed their example and made voting, attendance and registration 
>voluntary.  You seem unable, or unwilling to understand that such systems,
>as the US example shows, can be open to flagrant abuse unless tightly
>controlled.
And you seem to be unwilling to realise that the principle of a *RIGHT*
to vote can be defended if society chooses to do so. One can point to
numerous countries that abuse rights we respect and in none of those cases
is the difference that we make exercising that right compulsory.
>
>Compuslory Attendance:	Yes, we do have compuslory attendance at the polling
>station.  You are required to have your name marked off.  You are not 
>required to cast a vote if you don't wish to.
Although as admitted by you, you are led to believe otherwise. Clearly,
the intention of the government (and yourself, judging from your remarks)
is to goad people into voting no matter how reluctant they are and
no matter how good their reasons are for not wishing to vote. In the process,
clear and justifiable abstensions are either converted into random
type votes (and hence clear statements of support for the party "chosen")
or counted as informal. As I have stated, if the real basis of
the legislation and of the written explanations of the legislation
were to only require compulsory attendance and to legitimise
abstensions then I would have less cause for complaint. 
>
>	Now, can you confine your remarks to these three items, rather than
>lapsing into personal abuse of anybody who you don't agreee with?
Well if people can confine their responses to my objections to
reasoned defenses of the system instead of (to paraphrase):
"You must have some hidden agenda in wanting to disenfranchise the poor"
"You are shirking your responsibilities and deserve to have your democratic
rights taken away"
then I will respond in like manner (*reasoned* attacks on the *system*).
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454