BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Should voting be compulsory?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Loomis
09:14 / 05.05.06
Considered putting this in Switchboard but it’s more of a Convo-style thread I think. Mods feel free to move if you like.

Voting in Australia has been compulsory as long as I’ve been voting so I’m just used to it. Because of that I remember being quite shocked when I learned that it’s not compulsory in either the US or the UK but people both politically-minded and otherwise have argued that it shouldn’t be compulsory.

My personal view is that it should be compulsory, as it’s not a representative democracy unless everyone has a voice. Particularly because as far as I can see most of the people who don’t vote are the ones who need representation. People with low incomes, minority groups, people who are more likely to be working at the time. Which is another thing – why are general elections in the UK held on a weekday? Wouldn’t you get more people along on a Saturday?

So what do you think?

** Note 1: you can still put in a blank vote, but you just need to get your name marked off so they know you’ve had your say.

** Note 2: I'm thinking mainly of general elections but you could include state/local if you like.
 
 
Mistoffelees
09:25 / 05.05.06
I´m against it, but that´s probably because of recent german history.

West-Germany had voluntary voting, in East-Germany you had to participate. And of course, the party always won by about 98%.

The moment the wall came down and they had their first new election, the socialists got far less votes than they were used too.

If voting was not voluntary anymore, that to me would look as if the government had lost faith in the people. There should be other ways to convince us that to vote is important than to force us.
 
 
Smoothly
09:29 / 05.05.06
I’m not sure that I want people who don’t care to vote voting.
Given that one vote always cancels out another, and there’s no reason to believe that someone who wouldn’t vote unless forced would care enough about the process to leave their ballot blank rather than crossing a random box, I think I’d really rather they didn’t.
 
 
Char Aina
09:30 / 05.05.06
how would you answer those who are politically opposed to voting who might say that what you suggest is a form of tyranny?

i know several folks who think they should be able to make up their own mind and who quite purposefully dont vote.

i guess they might see elections as an exercise in titanic deck chair management?

i'm not one of them, incidentally.
while i think i should have the choice, i would always spoil my ballot rather than not turn up.
i am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people to do it, however noble the thinking behind it.

i also have aproblem with the 'if you didnt vote, you cant complain' school of thought.

bullshit, i say.
i can say anything i like about the government of the country i live in, no matter how i voted(or didnt).
you should feel justified in commenting on any situation that involves you whether or not you were involved in its inception.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:30 / 05.05.06
No, it shouldn't be compulsory, because then you're essentially criminalising people for not voting, and that's something we can all do without whether you think that's plain repressive, or just believe it's a massive waste of resources and manpower to police it.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
09:36 / 05.05.06
Voting in Australia has been compulsory as long as I’ve been voting so I’m just used to it. Because of that I remember being quite shocked when I learned that it’s not compulsory in either the US or the UK but people both politically-minded and otherwise have argued that it shouldn’t be compulsory.
Do you think if there were no compulsory voting in Australia that your government would be very different?
 
 
Loomis
09:44 / 05.05.06
Maybe “force” is the wrong word. There are lots of things that are compulsory for members of society. A big book full of laws that you have to obey or else you are criminalised, so I’m not particularly concerned all this stuff about tyranny. It’s not like we’re running free in the forest at the moment and this would force us into some horrible oppression. And like I said, you don’t have to vote for anyone so it doesn’t prevent you remaining uninvolved if that is your choice.

I’m not sure that I want people who don’t care to vote voting.

I think there’s a fallacy at work there somewhere. Having voting optional puts a barrier in place because you have to make an effort and a conscious decision to be political and for many people that is a critical mass that they will never reach. Whereas when you know that you will have to vote anyway then it becomes something that is part of your life and you’re more likely to “care to vote” for someone. What I want to do away with is precisely this distinction between those who are interested in politics and those who aren’t. It’s precisely the people who aren’t political that should be getting their voices heard. Not just your hardcore followers of parties and your politics watchers but everyone.

Do you think if there were no compulsory voting in Australia that your government would be very different?

I really have no idea. If there’s a chance of getting rid of Howard then I’m willing to give it a try! Sadly I think our fucked up conservative govt is just what the majority of Australian want. That’s democracy for you I guess.
 
 
Spaniel
09:49 / 05.05.06
Oh god, Idon'tknowIdon'tknowIdon'tknow. I appreciate all the counter arguments here, but I can't help thinking that many people who don't vote do so out of a feeling of impotence, but frankly in a democracy one of the few ways to exercise any power over the direction the country's headed is to vote. Also people tend to forget that voting isn't just about national issues, it's about your local council and what the fuck they're doing, and the fact that local government can and does make a difference in all sorts of ways, but I worry that unless people are given some incentive to actually look at what voting could do for their community it won't occur to them that local power structures count for much in the first place.

But BUT I don't know...

Waffling worked up Boboss.
 
 
Ariadne
09:53 / 05.05.06
I think boboss should be forced to make a decision.
 
 
Loomis
09:55 / 05.05.06
It's his right to spoil his post if he likes.
 
 
Loomis
09:57 / 05.05.06
It's his right to spoil his post if he likes.
 
 
Loomis
10:00 / 05.05.06
But strict security must be in place to prevent people from posting twice.
 
 
Loomis
10:02 / 05.05.06
But strict security must be in place to prevent people from posting twice.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
10:04 / 05.05.06
I don't wanna stereotype my own people, but I'm pretty sure if you told Americans they had to vote they'd shoot you in the face.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
10:06 / 05.05.06
Not you Loomis, but whatever superhero registration act guys who were telling us we had to.
 
 
■
10:10 / 05.05.06
I could only go along with compulsory voting if there was an option given equal weight with all the other candidates with "None of The Above". If this option got the majority vote, none of the candidates could stand again, and the whole thing would start over.
Otherwise, no. There are few enough ways to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo, and forced to legitimise it would be wrong.
 
 
Smoothly
10:15 / 05.05.06
Loomis, I think there’s a difference between making voting easier (in the sense of more convenient) and encouraging people to take an interest in politics, and making voting compulsory. I’m all for the former, but I don’t think it is (a) achieved by the latter, or (b) in anyone’s interests to compel people to routinely present themselves to a government official if they really don’t want to. There’s something about that aspect of it that makes me feel uncomfortable. It bothers me a little that the Census is compulsory, for example. Quite possible I’m being wrong-headed about this though.
 
 
Triplets
10:16 / 05.05.06
But Iron Man has a metal face.
 
 
Char Aina
10:24 / 05.05.06
and he cant feel it anyway, if his latest album is to be believed.
 
 
sleazenation
10:41 / 05.05.06
There are few enough ways to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo, and forced to legitimise it would be wrong.

The trouble is, I don't think failing to vote ever registers as a disatisfaction with the status quo in any meaningful sense. The voting carries on nontheless and the results remain legally binding. Your disatisfation is completely ignored.

Outside of that, s it’s not a representative democracy unless everyone has a voice. I think that a true rigorous democracy needs a lot of things to thrive - I even started a thread on the subject in the switchboard, which promptly sank without trace - perhaps I should have made replying compulsory there...

As for what day people vote - I know in the US the presifdential election date was fixed some time in the past to a date favourable to farmers and agricultural workers being relatively free - this was back when most people worked on the land to some degree - perhaps it is time to rethink the setting of the date, but of course the hassle amending the constitution and electoral rules might make this more hassle than it is worth...
 
 
sleazenation
10:54 / 05.05.06
... but even if you do have a nice shiney democracy, with voting and everything, doesn't mean the results are necessarily going to be anything other than arbitary The Lib Dems have managed to win control of a council by picking the longer of two pencils
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:21 / 05.05.06
I don't think it should be compulsory, purely because I completely forgot what day it was yesterday (I remembered in the morning, then promptly forgot again, thinking it was a Wednesday) and therefore didn't, and I'd hate to get busted for that.

Weaving's point above about not wanting people who don't care to vote is also a good one, though this could be mitigated by the "None Of The Above" option (yeah, I know you can spoil your paper, but a lot of people probably wouldn't do that, as they'd see it as "wrong", whereas having the option presented to you would be okay).

But, y'know, if you REALLY don't care, it seems a bit of a waste of time traipsing all the way to the polling booth to announce this. Kind of like calling a phone poll to register a "don't care" vote.
 
 
Loomis
12:06 / 05.05.06
While I can kind of see why people don't want an increase in obligations and officialdom, I'm having trouble understanding the level of shock this subject often generates, as though people are being asked to do something really onerous like giving up their tube seat. Why is it such an affront to have to vote but not to have to follow every other law in the book? You have to be part of society, follow government regulations and “legitimate the status quo” all the time. At least there's a tangible benefit in this law. I can’t help wondering how much of this is just resistance to change. Look at all the uproar about the smoking ban. “You want us to go outside? Never!” And now that it’s gone through in Scotland it’s last month’s fish wrapping. I can assure you that in Oz it’s not considered a terrible burden, it’s just like any other necessary task like renewing your driver’s licence and I think it would be the same anywhere else if it were already in place. It’s just the change that puts people off.

I completely forgot what day it was yesterday . . . and I'd hate to get busted for that.

Aha! But if it were compulsory it would be a much bigger deal and everyone would be doing it and it would be impossible to miss. And I’d be happy for voting to be made easier. In theory it would be great if everyone could vote online or via post, but I’m not sure that system will ever be totally safe. Time will tell.

To continue on the theme of people who don’t care, I’d like to explore that a little more.

Firstly, do you think it’s right that only people who care about politics should be making these decisions? Maybe we should restrict voting only to those people who can demonstrate an awareness of all issues and maybe a degree in political science. Or maybe restrict it only to political editors of major newspapers. I thought the whole idea was to represent all the people, not only those with an interest in politics.

And secondly, do you not think that the current state of millions of people “not caring” is a result of the current system rather than its cause? It seems reasonable to me that if it were compulsory many people who currently don’t vote would not all go and spoil their vote. I think that a great deal of them would actually think about it and vote for someone if pressed, and that’s a good thing isn’t it?
 
 
Brunner
12:11 / 05.05.06
Rather than make voting compulsory, perhaps it would be better to ensure that the votes of those who bother to vote actually mean something. In terms of the general election anyway, I think the first past the post system is unfair. All this "tactical voting" to ensure the Tory's don't get in rubbish is, well, rubbish. I know proportional representation has its problems, but it would be a fairer system. And that could have a knock on affect for the numbers that actually bother to vote!
 
 
ibis the being
12:22 / 05.05.06
how would you answer those who are politically opposed to voting who might say that what you suggest is a form of tyranny?

i know several folks who think they should be able to make up their own mind and who quite purposefully dont vote.

I used to be one of those people. I purposely did not vote until the last presidential election, when I finally realized my un-vote really did not make a statement but merely disappeared, and that only a vote against something/one is truly a vote against something/one. To that end I agree with cube's suggestion of a "none of the above" option. And the truth is, when I wasn't voting, "in protest," I wasn't really following the politics of elections... I'm sure I would have snapped to it if voting were mandatory.

Isn't voting a necessary correlation to taxation? It was to the founders of the US at any rate. Taxation is compulsory, so why shouldn't voting be? I don't see voting as a privelege or just a right (though it is a right), it (unlike giving up your tube seat) is a civic duty. I'm a lot more troubled by the fact that American males 18+ still have to register for selective service than I am with the concept of a compulsory vote. I don't think anyone would suggest a prison sentence for breaking such a law, more likely it would be a fine. At the same time I am uncomfortable with the way a monetary penalty would affect the financially disadvantaged. Also, down to what level would voting be compulsory? Local elections can get down to such minutae and small-time political quibbling that I'm not so enthusiastic about a compulsory vote on that level....
 
 
petunia
12:22 / 05.05.06
Yeah. What the above said.
I forgot about yesterday's vote too, tho it has to be said that I had barely registered the event anyway. It would suck to be criminalised for my forgetfulness/apathy.

I agree with the sentiment that spoiling a vote or not voting at all should be more influantial in deciding governments. My figures may be wrong, but i hear that Bush got 50% of the votes, but that only 50% of americans actually voted, so he only has the explicit approval of 25% of the country. There's something pretty wrong with that.

The problem is that at the moment a non-vote counts as 'apathy' and is outside of the voting system. This means a person is subject to a system that they chose not to be a part of (yes, apathy/non action is a choice.) Here democracy ends up an enforced regime agaisnt its own tenets. Similar to the Iraq situation where the 'coalition' forces imposed a democracy on a country.

The voting system should definitely have legislation that resticts the power (or shares out the power) of any government that doesnt actually have the majority of its public saying they want it in place. I really like the idea of a 'none of the above' box; wonderfully simple yet nicely radical.

But democracy is (meant to be) all about choice. This means I should have the option to vote or not vote in anyway i choose. If i choose not to be politically informed, i can do so. If I choose to avoid the voting process as an archaic system of choosing a temporary king, I can do so. If I choose to vote conservative and rally others around to do so, I can. At it's most extreme, democracy should involve the option to abolish democracy - it's a choice the public should be able to make (70% spoiled votes/non-votes should mean 4 years of local government/anarchy.)

So yeah. A truly representative democracy involves people who don't vote, but should probably take into account those non-voters more than democracies do at the moment. It seems wrong to force people to vote because it's contrary to the idea of freedom of choice which is the basis for democracy.
 
 
Ariadne
12:24 / 05.05.06
My initial reaction to this, when I first heard of it was horror - you can't force people to vote, it has to be their free choice.

But I started wondering about it yesterday, On another forum, the subject came up of whether or not people had voted, and there was a lot of 'oh, was it today?' type reactions. And these from intelligent people who I know get involved in some political activity if it interests them (ie. if it relates to cycling!).

I get the feeling that reading reports of low voter turnout has actually made people more lethargic - if no one else is arsed, why should they be?

As for the Saturday voting - well, I can see the point, but the polling booths are open from very early until pretty late, here, so it's not all that hard to get there if you want to. And I used to enjoy the day off school!
 
 
Loomis
12:34 / 05.05.06
It seems wrong to force people to vote because it's contrary to the idea of freedom of choice which is the basis for democracy.

Nonsense. Freedoms are limited all the time in order to make society fairer for the majority. Imagine if we didn't have driving licences, and then someone raised the idea of introducing them. Can you imagine the outrage? "It's my right to drive where I want and what I want and you can't take away my freedom to do it. Freedom of choice is the basis of democracy!" There are plenty of legal hoops you have to jump through to do most things in life, and you have to register things like births and deaths and pay tax. What happened to your freedoms in relation to all those things?
 
 
ibis the being
12:35 / 05.05.06
But democracy is (meant to be) all about choice.

Ah - here is where I strongly disagree. You are welcome to your interpretation of what democracy means, but that's not what it necessarily means and has not historically always meant that. In fact I think the idea that democracy means "freedom" might be an American invention (does anyone know if that's true historically?), and is extremely problematic. Carried to its logical conclusion, this idea is not democracy but rather libertarianism, which is quite a different beast.

In its narrowest definition, democracy is rule by the people (as opposed to the monarchy). That doesn't mean that all the people always vote, but maybe it should, particularly in a society like ours (I'm going to speak only for Americans here since I know less about UK politics) where certainly everyone has the ability to be informed about politics. We are not a primitive agrarian society with some members living out in the country with no access to the news of the day nor to a voting booth, where the sensible thing to do would be (was) to have a certain body of people doing the voting.

Again, I'm not saying your concept of democracy is wrong or impossible, just that it's not the only or the "true" one, and also that I disagree with you about it.

So yeah. A truly representative democracy involves people who don't vote, but should probably take into account those non-voters more than democracies do at the moment. It seems wrong to force people to vote because it's contrary to the idea of freedom of choice which is the basis for democracy.

Again, I disagree, not only about freedom of choice being the basis of democracy, but also that "truly representative" democracy means some people don't vote. What does it represent about those people? That they don't care or disapprove of politics? That's not an opinion that participates in any way with the political process, so I fail to see how it's represented - it merely exists, outside of politics. How could democracies take non-voters into account? Only by speculating about what non-voters want to happen, not by knowing.
 
 
Smoothly
12:54 / 05.05.06
Compulsory voting would, I assume, also make it compulsory to be registered on the Electoral Roll. Does that not bother anyone?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:05 / 05.05.06
Well, yes, it bothers me. The fact that we are very far from "running free in the forest" seems to me to make it more important that not voting is not criminalised, not less (as if to say "oh well, we don't have many freedoms or much privacy anymore - why not give a bit more away?"). But I might hold back from contributing further to this thread until some of the other Australian members of the board have provided their perspective.
 
 
Loomis
13:24 / 05.05.06
Would being on the electoral roll involve providing information to the govt that they don’t already have? I’m not sure that I see the civil liberties argument here.
 
 
petunia
13:43 / 05.05.06
Imagine if we didn't have driving licences, and then someone raised the idea of introducing them

Your example is one of legislation made in order to protect the wellbeing of others. We have driving licenses to limit the amount of damage a person in control of a car can cause. I don't see how legally forcing people to vote ensures the safety or wellbeing of others. I can accept the need for laws that make a country a safer place to live in, but laws that arbitrarily impinge on freedom of choice seem a bit counterproductive to me.

There are plenty of legal hoops you have to jump through to do most things in life[...] What happened to your freedoms in relation to all those things?

I didn't say I was too keen on these laws either :-)
Just because I have to put up with a lot of laws that take away my freedom, doesn't mean I want more of them.

Ibis -

You make some very good points about democracy and i think you're right about it in many respects. I should have been more explicit that i was stating what democracy means to me, rather than the historical definition of the concept.

However, i do feel that if we consider more modern forms of democracy (as opposed to say, athenian democracy), we can see certain elements of the ideal of self-determination within it (them). Why would people have overthrown monarchs and emporors if it weren't for some wish to choose their own legal system?

In its narrowest definition, democracy is rule by the people (as opposed to the monarchy).

Doesn't this narrow definition still have room for freedom of choice? As i see it, the very fact that the people, rather than a monarch, make laws (choose the laws) is an implicit recognition of the freedom humans have to choose their own society and its laws.

I have my problems with the libertarian position, but i do think that their approach of having laws only to prevent coercion (violent or otherwise) seems to be quite a good grounding for the consideration of laws. I also think that as it is still a system of rule by the people, it counts as a democracy.

It just seems that those who have implemented democracy and advocated it over other forms of political system (anarchy notwithstanding) tend to do so with an ideal of freedom in mind. The times when governments 'get it wrong' seem to be those when those governments take away the freedoms of the people and leave them with less choice about how to go about their lives.

As such i feel that freedom to not vote should remain as-is.

I do think you're right tho about my points about non-voters. It seems rather impossible to involve them in the political process specifically because they aren't part of it. Does this then mean that those who choose not to vote essentially choose to be subject to whatever rules come their way?

I just feel that it's important that people are able to show their dissapproval of the political system, but it's a strange catch 22 in that you have to become a part of that system if you want to do so.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
14:11 / 05.05.06
I'm not sure if compulsory voting would benefit anyone except the political classes. Certainly, it would make those characters feel even more special and important than is currently the case, since simply just ignoring them, if you were so minded, would no longer be an option. And I suppose the fines levied on people who forgot to vote, or just had something more pressing or interesting to do that day (I'd include anything upwards of spending the time required to vote sitting in the pub instead,) would help out with the government du jour's advertising budget or whatever.

But surely one of the points of a democracy is that we, as the electorate, tell them what to do, and not the other way round?

Admittedly, that does sound hopelessly naive these days - five minutes in office, and all thoughts of public service seem to go flying out the window, to be replaced by the far more attractive alternative of leadership - but ideas-wise, it's sort of in the mix somewhere, isn't it?
 
 
Dead Megatron
14:29 / 05.05.06
But democracy is (meant to be) all about choice.

Well, not exactly. Democracy is about choice, yes, but it is also, and I think foremost, about participating. About taking resposability for the fate of your nation, and your people. So, if you don't vote, you're not being "democratic".

Besides, if you are not required to vote, and if authorities don't make it easy for you to vote (by placing election day in a normal working day, thus forcing the voter to sacrifice hir lunch break to go vote, like I reckon is in the USA*), then what you got is that only the people who are really radical about their political views, which mean good, moderate people (the majority of the poplation, I believe) end up under-represented. Which kinda screws the "democratic" part of democracy.

In Brazil, voting is mandatory (there are fines and you're not allowed to run for office or get a passport or a public job if you're behind with your voting obrigations), but you get the day off in election days. Which is quite a sweet deal if you ask me. Go to vote early in the morning, then you can hit the road for a extended weekend at the beach. Woo-hoo democracy!

*and this two parties system of the USA is also very un-democratic, if you ask me, specially if both parties are right-winged. One is moderate righ-wing, the other is radical right-wing, as Gore Vidal would put it. I'd say one in wimpy and the other is fanatic, but that's jut good old cynical me. And this is a whole other debate here
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply