From: haines@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.024031.20827@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>In article <haines.73.711943785@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au haines@eng2.eng.
>monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113) writes:
[Re: Other ways to ensure your right to vote]
>>There are some things important enough to deserve some multiple 
>>redundancy - perhaps this is one of them.
>Perhaps isn't good enough.

My intention in using "perhaps" was to invite further debate, and to avoid 
making a dogmatic assertion one way or the other.  

>>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!).

Not quite right.  Speaking for myself, I believe I have rational, but 
normally not strongly held views (some might say the two are 
incompatible :^).  Someone with strongly held views is NOT likely to be 
easily discouraged - but someone with merely rational views might be.  

>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). 

>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.

>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.

Ahhh.  But in deciding whether or not to have compulsory voting we have to 
weigh up the pro's and con's.  State of play to date - you don't like my pro'
s and I don't like your con's :)

>>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.

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!)

>>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.

No, don't bash about the bush, tell me what you REALLY think! :^)

>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.

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.

>>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.

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 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 :^)
>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.

>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).

>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.

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