From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:17:33 GMT

In article <haines.76.712316172@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> haines@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113) writes:
>>I am saying: 1. There are a large number of people who don't want to vote 
>
>I don't see any evidence for that.  If you mean the informal vote rate (5 -
>10% ?), it's hardly "a large number" and can be explained by complexity of 
>the voting system and disillusionment (probably more with the parties/
>candidates on offer rather than the electoral system). 
If you don't see any evidence for that then you would not be concerned
at the prospect of letting voting be compulsory. In any case, 10%+ is a large
number of people by most scales.
>
>>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.
>
>Threat of a $20 or so fine is hardly a major "crime".  And if compulsory 
>voting is agreed to have more pluses than negatives (as was decided at the 
>original Constitutional Convention), then it SHOULD be a crime.
Firstly, I NEVER said major. Secondly, your last assertion is obviously
false. You have to take inbto account the actual pro's and con's of
MAKING IT A CRIME. Jesus - your simplistic approach we'd have the law
books absolutely the size of the universe.
>
>When the law was first introduced agreed.  But now it's in, my (admittedly 
>conservative) view is: The onus is on those who want to change the law to 
>show why their change is better. (ie if it ain't broke don't fix it!)
If it ain't bad - then don't punish it is an even better maxim.
>
>Unless the electoral system is so corrupt that compulsory vs non-compulsory 
>becomes irrelevant, you will still have to turn up to vote in person.  But 
>with compulsory voting it is clearer that voting is an OBLIGATION to the 
>State, rather than a RIGHT that you can sell.
Irrelevant rubbish. Are you really wanting to suggest that all
rights that aren't made obligatory are offered as trading commodities
solely because of this? 
>
>Sorry.  Hadn't noticed a hugely better grade of politician in the U.S. 
>than here myself.  Thought I'd even heard rumours of general dissatisfaction 
>with sitting members.  Must have dreamt it.
In the fist case - I don't think one can establish that any set of
politicians (US or Aus) are better than another. In the second case,
who cares. More accurate measure of the people's feeling ---> better
politicians was never my contention. I'm happy with the first part
(to the left of the arrow).
>
>>In any reasonable election process for most bodies I can think of, 
>>to abstain is not considered a crime - in fact a positive.
>
>So let's ALL abstain.... that will maximise the positive :^)
Again, you are being rediculous. So are you so arrogant as to 
believe that everyone HAS to have formed a strong view on which 
party will be best for the country. Can't you just concede that
the process of obtaining the information and deciding can be too
much - or that the end result can still be that there is no
clear distinction from certain people's perspective. After all -
the platform of each party is likely to contain certain things
that appeal and certain things that don't. If party  A offers me 
X and Y and party B offers me Z and W, and if I don't like Y and W
but do like A and Z - why do I HAVE to be able to make a choice between
the parties and thereby register a positive vote for that party?
Your position encourages dishonesty and a distortion to the true
level of feeling.
>>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. 
>
>Don't agree that it IS the de-facto situation.  And just "turning up" IS 
>pointless.  The question is to VOTE or not to VOTE.
Well whether you agree or not - it is true. As many people
will testify, even though it is considered illegal - the de-facto
situation is that you can just turn up, grap a voting slip
and stuff it into the box without marking a valid vote on it.
>
>>In addition, on the ballot paper, lets have a "none of the above" choice.
>
>AGREED!  Then we'll see how many votes are REALLY informal/can't be bothered 
>and how many are "don't like any of the mongrels".  I'd even propose a 
>compulsory new election where "none of the above" get's the majority.  (Sort 
>of like the former U.S.S.R. where occassionally the SOLE candidate was 
>sufficiently disliked to fail to be elected).
Well nice to get some common ground. However, I don't really see how
this can be reconciled with your position given above.
>
>>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!
>
>I am NOT concerned with "getting a 90% turn out".  I AM concerned with 
>living in a viable society.  For a healthy democracy I believe that it is 
>better that voting is seen as an OBLIGATION as well as a RIGHT.
And I think that it's better for society and democracy if we have less
people around inventing obligations for the rest. 
One that point I think I'm going to have to just agree
to differ with you.

d.s.
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian