Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:35:25 CST
 <1992Nov6.004312.10717@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Nov9.104806.165040@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov9.022219.8337@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.104806.165040@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>You have still failed to address why you should be allowed
>>to devalue someone elses vote by not turning up. A few
>>percent could and would make the difference between the 2
>>biggest political parties next election. Such a distorted
>>result would be bad for the country.

>Quite frankly your theory of the value of a vote is stupid.
>Using your theory, everyone's vote, except those that voted for
>the winner in a particular seat/election, turns out to be wasted.
No, not at all, but on a blind trial before the election
each should have equal potential.

>I have heard others voice similar - "what's the point in voting
>Labor in Kooyong" etc. I am sorry but
>there is no polite way of putting - such attitudes are plain stupid.
Your example is simply an argument for larger, multimember
electorates as in Hare-Clark, and reflects an inherent problem in our voting
system. Kooyong is an interesting example because the Doug
Anthony All Stars ran a candidate there the year Peacock was
running for PM. Despite it being his home seat the DAAS got
10% of the primary on the platform of I have no policies, I
want a big super payout (and while MPs wages are slightly
underpaid, their supper is to say the least generous), and
I'm in it all for myself.

>Now what you appear to be saying is that I should vote for
>someone (EVEN AT RANDOM) rather than no-one so that everyone
>is comforted by the fact that they may just get
>the numbers to win. 
Not quite, your random vote (along with others) is still
useful in preventing an extreme group (e.g. a religious
fanatic and his followers) from claiming more of a mandate
than they have. I have no need to claim that 100% of the
people voted because it would be shocking if they don't.
I recognise the high level of informal votes. However
compulsory attendence does encourage more people to actually
vote, to vote sensible and in fact gets them involved in the
political process so they do become more litterate about
politics, and so most people do actually have some opinion
in this country which is a good thing at minimum cost.

>A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
>once (no more no less). Whatever I do with my vote (including withholding
>it) it makes no difference to the value of your vote. What on earth are you
>doing PERPETUATING these MYTHS.
Unfortunately in Oz about 45% of votes just don't count, as
in you Kooyong example.

>If 5% vote for party X and 95% vote for party Y
>then the 5% votes are not wasted or devalued. The same holds
Currently I would not say they are wasted or devalued, if
this occured entirely in one electorate. However, if this is
a national trend they it should not be up to the electoral
system to silence that 5% but rather 5% of the parliament
should be X and 95% there. Any silencing should happen in
the parliament on a per issue basis.
Your example is an argument for proportional representation,
not against comp. voting.

>if 5% vote for party X, 25% for party Y and 70% is informal/abstain.
>It makes no difference whether compulsory voting coerces the 75% to
>go for party Y (or even to split), 5% have still registered their
>displeasure with party Y.
Yes, and under your desired system that 5% would gain more
power than it should because it would have > 5% of the votes
case. Now change it to X=45%, Y=55% and you can see that
such distortions could actually change the outcome.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au