From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory voting (Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?)
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:24:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.150018.164987@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>Most people would agree that to have a truly democratic
>system	
>	Everyone must have the right and practical ability to vote
>	Everyone's vote must count equally.
and     Everyone has the right to abstain.
End of argument.
>I also strongly reject the argument that it is someones
>democratic right not to vote because quite frankly there are
>many areas where we as citizens have responsibilities
>commensurate with our rights. I.e. we have  a right to a
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This keep cropping up. We've got a right
so therefore we'd better invent a responsibility. A person's
responsibility is to make sure that they vote only when they
have good reason to vote for a particular party. Believe it
or not - there are people out there who FOR GOOD REASON cannot
choose a party that is clearly in their interests. Those reasons
include 1) not being able to asses to relative reliability of
the promises (I'm sure you can accept that) 2) not being
in posession of enough information 3) the sheer complexity
of weighing up - well party A is better for X party B for Y and
party C for Z but then I don't trust party X as much as .......
If you recognised this simple fact (put another way, we are not
all political zealots who will vote
for a particular party for no clear reason, 
or in posession of infinite resources
to make an informed decision) then you are arrogant in the extreme.
On occaisions (rare) I haven't thought I was in a position to
clearly choose a particular party - why the bloody hell should I
then be cajoled into going to a polling booth and then deceived
into believing that if I don't cast a valid vote I will be fined?
At least change the situation so that ABSTAINING is recognised
for what it is - and intelligent reaction when the alternative
is to toss a coin and be wrongly counted as supporting something.
SURELY that is a fundamental right.
>democratically and fairly and we have to put some effort
>back into that system, and voting once in three years is
>such an impossition. No one would seriously suggest that
>people should have the free choice to opt out of the
>taxation system because they don't like it's style.
No they wouldn't so why drag it in?
>
>I have many problems with the current method of elections
>and also the quality of many candidates, but I also have a
>responsibility to the rest of the electorate to vote in the
>most informed way I can. 
Which includes abstaining where appropriate. Jesus, otherwise you
can be quoted as supporting the bastards!
>
>Some of the arguments for optional voting are:
>	Get rid of the donkey vote
>		This effect can be removed by randomising
>		the order of candidates on individual ballot
>		papers. This is done in Tasmania and also
>		the pleasant side effect of preventing the
>		gross wastage associated with how to vote
>		cards. The first time this was used the
>		informal vote jumped markedly, but then
>		settled down to a level well below previous
>		ones.
>
>	None of them are worth voting for
>		Firstly, if you opt out of the system, you
>		are letting these people get away with it.
>		Also if you consistently vote against the
>		sitting member, you are saying I want something better.
>		At anyrate turning over the sitting member
>		each election really stuffs up their
>		super.
Its not a question necessarily of *worth* its a question of,
with the evidence you have, do you have any VALID reason
for SUPPORTING a particular candidate/party. Just sayinf
if in doubt kick the buggers out is not good enough. I don't
consider that an intelligent response.
>		
>I think this is just a case of the problem of the commons,
>it would be nice if we only had to vote if we cared to, but
>if we want to ensure everyone can vote effectively, then
>everyone must vote.
Oh, I see. Because someone may take the STUPID attitude
that they may as well not vote because their party has no
chance of winning  - *I* am denied the intelligent
option of abstaining when I've tried to find a good
choice but can't and must be lowered to the STUPID
reaction of choosing someone at random. You do
have a good way of reducing everyone to the lowest
common denominator. 
Worse than that - we have people like Brendan Jones and John Collier
saying that I am simply lazy, take ALL of the good things of a democratic
process and take NONE of the responsibilities where if I simply
succumb and cast a random vote I am presumably meeting
thier standard.
It's mindless sheer hypocracy!
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