From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Some US observations (was compulsory voting)
Organization: Monash University
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:29:20 GMT

In article <tas.720988268@tasman> tas@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Tas van.Ommen) writes:
>
>I shall begin by stating my position so that the reader can "filter"
>my comments with allowance for my acknowledged bias - I believe that
>despite the apparent imperfections in a system which forces a
>disinterested or uninformed person to vote, the alternative (non-compulsory
>voting) is worse.
>
>First, and this point has been made, it is invariably the poor and
>uneducated who comprise the bulk of non-voters.  This group, for
(who are the very ones - non-voters - who are being forced
against their will to vote)
HE THEN GOES ON TO SAY (see ****)
>A further anecdote which illustrates another subtle concern comes from
>a discussion I had with a very well educated, politically and socially aware
>young professional.  When he heard that voting in Australia was compulsory
>he thought a while, and said that he had worked long and hard at
>examining the issues and forming his opinions in preparation to vote
>and that he would be alarmed if some people were forced to vote.  This
>is subtle indeed - it sounds rational, but underneath is the premise
>that *I* know what is best for the poor and uneducated.  It smacks
 *******************************************************
>of paternalism.  It is anyone's right to vote with as little or as
 ************** 
>much thought as they desire.  It is the challenge of our leaders and
>media to inform people about political matters.
>
>I expect Mr. Suter will have something to say ;-).
When you try to have it both ways, i.e. make a paternalistic
argument for forcing the non-voters to vote and THEN criticise
those alarmed at the increased noise this generates as paternalistic:
I would be surprised if you expected me to hold my tongue.
Before we get emotional about the down trodden rights of
those poorer members of society let's get my position straight.
1) I agree anyone has the right to vote without having to qualify
based on  an assessment of how much thought those people have put in. 
Such has never been suggested by me or anyone else. The
crucial point is whether they should be FORCED to vote if THEY themselves
recognise that they haven't good reason to vote.
2) To say that there are social inequities in the US and to say that
the US has non-compulsory voting does not establish a causal relationship.
Those people that suggest our compulsory voting system is the difference
between us and the nasties of US society are plainly wrong (listening
Phil). In Victoria (which I think you will all agree has compulsory
voting) we have just elected a Liberal govt that the VERY SAME people
who are claiming this causal relationship are labelling further
right than Attila the Hun. You simnply can't have it both ways in
this respect either.

I simply can't understand how we have come to the situation where
as soon as someone paints a certain postiion as opressing the poor
we instantaneously throw logic out of the window and dismiss
any further need to justify a causal relationship and FACTUAL
evidence to support that claim. The politically correct police
seem to dictate the very principles of logic in this day and age.
All one has to do is to mention your support for poor, black, gay, 
women, disabled, whales, trees (preferably in the same sentence),
the crimes the US has committed against the same, and the 
fact that your proposed policy differs from that of the US, and your
position is instantaneously unassailable.
Yesterday, Phil told us that compulsory voting has solved completely
the problems disadvantaged groups have in being considered by the Governement
(obviously John Halfpenny has yet to hear) becuase it ensures they
all vote and therefore ensures that the governement has to take notice
of them (almost his exact words). He also claims the poor
representation of Blacks, Women, Gays, Hispanics in the US is
due to non-compulsory voting. Now Britain has had non-compulsory voting
and has had a women leader - have we? No I forgot, conservative
women leaders don't count becuase you can't mention support
for blacks, gays, trees, women etc in the same breath. Besides which, she
was obviously unrepresentative becuase you can't mention
these things in the same breath. We hear the the number of elected
US people in these groups (well, cut out the Gays, whales and trees -
I didn't see figures on those) has doubled this election. Couldn't
have happened since the US doesn't have compulsory voting now
could it? This US election CLEARLY demonstrates that democracy works
in the US at least as well as it works here. The difference in the
social justice situation (usually magnified) are due more
to historical and cultural factors than voting methods. As much
as you may not like the Thatcher/Bush regimes they were popularly
elected in a democratic fashion (same as Kennett here). Compulsory
voting makes no measurable difference either way. The only differece
is that here we "mask" the apathy/undecided vote becuase it makes
some of us feel better to say 49% support our governement rather
than 25% support our government, 12% support the opposition and
the rest are undecided/apathetic. We can then kid ourselves that
our government is more representative.
Above all else, our present system is just plain dishonest. At least
give us a recognised "non-of-the-above" box on the ballot paper
if you still can't bear the thought of not forcing us out of our
houses on election day.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics