From: haines@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.001733.23729@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
>In article <haines.76.712316172@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> haines@eng2.eng.
monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113) writes:

[You originally wrote]
>>>I am saying: 1. There are a large number of people who don't want to vote 
[I replied]
>>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.

Taking your statement as is : No, I am not concerned at the prospect of 
compulsory voting.  Taking your statement as what you probably meant "
prospect of letting voting be NON compulsory":  If there is NOT a "large 
number of people who don't want to vote" it doesn't affect my argument - 
but it does yours.  (Defining "people who don't want to vote" as people 
with a strong opinion that they don't want to vote, NOT as people without a 
strong opinion to vote for somebody).
 
>>>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.

By your first admission, the "con" is minor.  As to whether to have/keep the 
law we do have to weigh up the pro's and con's.  By definition, breaking the 
law is a crime.

>Jesus - your simplistic approach we'd have the law books absolutely the 
>size of the universe.

As opposed to your "simplistic approach" we'd have none at all? 

>>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.

I was refuting your claim that the onus is on compulsory voting to justify 
itself, rather than you to justify your objections.  And the whole idea of 
compulsory voting is that it IS bad to let people abdicate their right to 
vote to others.

>>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?

You were the one arguing that people might want to sell their vote to 
avoid turning up to vote.  I'm saying that voting is at least one right 
that should not be for sale, and that compulsory voting is one means to  
make it CLEARER that this is the case.  

>>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.

Despite your flat assertion to the contrary in the previous post?  (Or so it 
seemed to me).

>>>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.

Yes, I took your argument to the extreme.  And it is ridiculous.  You are 
right that there are cases when abstention is a positive (conflict of 
interest etc), but certainly not for the majority.

>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.

Not at all.  As I posted before, I don't have a strong view on that myself.

>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?

Why did you HAVE to choose between Weeties and Corn Flakes (or whatever) for 
breakfast?  Because a healthy body needs food.  And a healthy democracy 
needs voters who make rational, informed choices - the more the better.  
Perhaps in your example you marginally like X more than Y, or dislike Y less 
than W.  The whole point of compulsory voting is that YOUR vote is no less 
important than those who do have a strong opinion.  

>Your position encourages dishonesty and a distortion to the true
>level of feeling.

I don't see the first: you have to VOTE, not necessarily cast a valid vote (
though the expectation is that unless you do have strong feelings about not 
voting, you will attempt to cast a valid vote once you're there).  As for 
the second: only if you think that only people with strong opinions and/or 
deep feelings about who to vote for have a right to vote.

>>>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.

I DON'T see "none of the above" as equivalent to "abstain".  Putting an "
abstain" box on the voting form is almost equivalent to making 
voting non-compulsory (except that some people might finally make 
the effort to make a choice once they are there). I would see "none of the 
above" as a way for voters to say that they had decided that they didn't 
like the candidates on offer - not that they didn't want to decide.
Perhaps you might also choose "none of the above" if you had absolutely no 
reason to prefer one candidate to another.  But you won't choose it if you 
can't be bothered to decide who to vote for - because if 50% do that you'll 
be bothered by a new election pretty soon!

>>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. 

Agreed, I like my freedom too - but unless you are a hermit or a despot you 
will always have some obligations to society.  

>One that point I think I'm going to have to just agree to differ with you.

On whether or not compulsory voting is an acceptable obligation, it seems 
so.
 

Andrew Haines                       \ "You're all individuals!"
Computer Systems Officer              \ "WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia \ "I'm not!" Monty Python:Life of Brian