From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:40:31 GMT

In article <haines.73.711943785@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> haines@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113) writes:
>There are some things important enough to deserve some multiple redundancy - 
>perhaps this is one of them.
Perhaps isn't good enough.
>> 3. Ultimately, the greater good has to be related to
>>the number of INFORMED and ACTUALLY REASONED votes. All these statements
>>about the relative numbers that turn out are irrelevant when you can't
>>establish whether those that are forced (NOTE I SAID FORCED) to turn out 
>>actually improve the electoral process rather than adding a bit of noise (
>>random zero mean or biased) at the expense of inconvenience to them. 
>>Indeed, the case to suggest that the extra votes actually placed are rather 
>>likely to be just more noise is reasonably strong (i.e., if they
>>can't be bothered voting when some small impediment, such as
>>diverting their trip to the MCG via a polling booth; or if they
>>were even determined NOT to vote, then it's hard to imagine
>>that they feel strongly that a certain government is worth voting for).
>
>Sorry - I think you are trying to have it both ways here.  If making the 
>trip to vote is a "small impediment" what's the hassle with compulsory 
>voting.  If it is not, then there may be a lot of "informed and actually 
>reasoned" voters who DO need some prodding to make the effort.
Not at all. At issue is the relative size of your motivation to
vote. Those supporting compulsory voting are in effect saying that
there's a significant body of voters out there with strongly
held views who can easily be discouraged from voting by simple timing
of the election (or, indeed, as some have suggested, by the very
necessity to go to the polling booth at any time!). I am saying:
1. There are a large number of people who don't want to vote because they
  cannot see a reason (whether through apathy or a genuine case of any party,
  as far as can be reasonably determined) is as good. Forcing these to turn
  out, at best, adds some noise. At worst creates a "crime" out of what should
  not be a crime.
2. In no reasonable scenario is voting that difficult to deter those who
  actually want to vote. Sure, it's  also not difficult for those who 
  don't want
  to: but you CAN have it both ways. SIMPLY allow those to vote to do
  so and those who don't want to to go about their business free of threat.
>
>[Pauses, puts on Don Quixote outfit, prepares to tilt at windmills :-)]
>WHY does what the U.K. or the U.S. do on this issue matter to US?????
>WHY do so many Aussies find it necessary/comforting to copy them?
>[Get's down off high horse]
I didn't introduce the British analogy. But if you do then you have
just re-iterated part of my objection.
>
>I have yet to hear a single good reason AGAINST compulsory voting.
The onus is on those who want to make it an offense NOT to vote.
>One reason (you judge if it's good) FOR compulsory voting is it does 
>diminish potential vote buying.  ie the State promising to punish you if you 
>don't make the effort to vote reduces (some of) the attractiveness of 
>somebody promising to reward you if you make the effort to vote for them.
Rubbish. If I don't want to vote its EVEN MORE motivation to GIVE my vote
to someone else so my name gets ticked off. Thanks for adding to my case.
>
>Taking an empirical view, personally I think our compulsory voting works 
>reasonably well - certainly no worse than the U.K. or U.S. system.  (Any one 
>want to make guesses as to the voter turnout in the coming U.S. elections - 
>30% ?  Anyone going to claim that those 30% do a better job of electing 
>representatives than our 90 - 100% do?).
Yep. They are the 30% that actually have something they WANT to say.

In any reasonable election process for most bodies I can think of, 
to abstain is not considered a crime - in fact a positive. IF those
for "compulsory voting" were to actually legitimise the de-facto
current situation by changing the law to make just "turning up"
compulsory as an explicit requirement. In addition, on the ballot
paper, lets have a "none of the above" choice.
Then the stupidity of the whole
system would be readily evident and it would die a natural death. Instead,
many people who really don't want to vote  - don't even realise that
they can get their names crossed off and walk out, or
feel intimidated under the eyes of others  - so they place
an uniformed and ill-considered vote JUST to make people like you
happy that "we get a 90% turn out". If nothing else, the sheer hypocracy
and stupidity of it is downright annoying!
d.s.

Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.general,soc.culture.australian