From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:03:59 GMT
Organization: Monash University

In article <1992Nov11.093527.165070@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>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.
And they do. Every vote has the potential to count as one vote
with 100% certainty.
>
>>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.
You wrongly assume that I agree with those that think their
votes are wasted voting for anything but the dominant party
in a given electorate. My example is not an argument for a change
to anything (including the compulsory voting issue) but a rebuttal
of your misconception of how a vote can have a different value.
>
>>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.
You claim a lot. Has any exit poll been done to determine
just how many wouldn't have attended and have now cast a vote and
whether those people can really be said to have become more
literate in the process? I can cite a rather huge number of anecdotes
where compulsory voting has done none other than turned a valid
"I don't care" or "I don't know" into an effectively random vote
(not pure white noise but coloured white noise). Until you can
produce such a study, you have no real case for believing
that compulsory voting achieves anything (other then to make
the figures look better - Oh it is nice to
say with pride that here in oz we get 95% voter turnout where as
those nasty stupid yanks (example drawn from Brian) only
get less than 45%. So what. They KNOW 55% (or whatever) hasn't
been moved by the policies of any party. We don't have a clue
what the true disaffected with "all of the above" rate is hewre in oz
because we legislate peoples right to tell us away. Smart move Oz.
Contrary to your assertion, the noise 
may actually improve the standing of your fanatic. I'm sure he or
she is prouder to state we got 10% of the vote when that is 10%
of the total population than they would be
to say we got the same percentage when that is only as a precentage of 45
one hundredths of the people.
>
>>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.
That is where you are WRONG. Every vote counts at every stage
of the distribution of preferences. If you didn't vote for the winning
party then you did just that - record a vote against them. Jesus,
what more do you want from your vote?
>
>>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.
Not at all. I'm not the one claiming that the 5% have lost anything.
They have registered their preference. There has been no
devaluing of votes whether its on an electorate or an a
national/state trend. 
>
>>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.
Come again? How is it a distortion? If a party has a majority
of the votes cast then that party has the majority of opinion
becuase those that abstain are neutral. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with a situation where 95% don't vote (in itself),
3% vote for party X and 2% vote for party Y. What is wrong with the situation
is not the voting policy that allowed it but the policies
of the parties that caused it!
Party Y (and likely X)
will now take a look at themselves and realise that they need
to address this 95% better or risk party X similarly targetting
them and swamping them at the next election. Here in Oz
we'd go blissfully along becuse the 95% aleinated vote gets covered
over and we're comforted that the vote was 47% to 42% say.
You simply can't lose information - just how many really couldn't 
blue root for either party, and claim the system is better.
That's indeed what you people seem to prefer.

I'll concede that its not a scientific piece of evidence but
my observations of the American and the Australian school
systems is that they give their students more political
literacy stuff then we do. (I'd also say, that partly because of this
they don't give them enough real stuff like Calculus - but that's
just showing another bias I admit).
I'd also say that they tend to 
have more politically motivated populace. This makes your
claims seem to me ludicrous. The compulsory voting system in
Oz hasn't raised our political literacy much (if at all)
and the reason we get 95% VOTES is exactly because of the illiteracy
of the people in not realising the electoral office has hoodwinked them
into believing they have to vote. The Americans at least know
the size of their illterate/alienated electorate, we've hid
ours to allow you people say say smug things about how good
we've done, quietly forgetting that we achieved that through
a stick and not through education or the relevance
of the policies of our parties.
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