Michaelson

Well, the option not to votewould be legitimized. People turn up and feel compelled to vote, as an earlier poster in this thread said. The result is donkey votes. If the abstain option was printed on the ballot, and the 'how to vote' ads indicated that you aren't actually compelled to lodge a vote, you'd get maximum voter turnout and maximum representation without any donkey votes or merely apathetic votes.

echidna

I can't be bothered checking if someone's already pointed this out, but Michaelson, you realise that you'll never find out the true picture of people's attitudes here, unless you make this poll compulsory.

Per

Are you suggesting that there are people who do not consider turning in a blank ballot legitimate? Do people actually think that? If that is the case (??) wouldn't a simple official informational campaign eliminate that problem?

Michaelson

Well, that's actually what I had in mind and intended suggesting in my previous post. I just thought suggesting an abstain option was easier, and also would add greater legitimacy to the option. Plus you could get concrete numbers on those who choose not to vote.

I don't think the Australian system is set up to accomodate such publicity campaigns, though. According to what the public is told, we don't have a choice in whether or not to vote. Beats me why this is the stance taken, but in the 70s (I think) a bloke named Albert Langer suggested that people vote no. 1 (preferential system) for the candidate they cared to vote for, no. 2 for their second preference etc, but once you felt improper actually voting for the rest of the candidates fill in the same number for the rest.

For instance:

Labor: 1
Democrats: 2
Greens: 3
Liberal: 4
One Nation: 4
Legalise Marijuana party: 4

This way, the vote was counted as valid unless your preferences reached the stage where they were being distributed to candidates you could not in good conscience support. In the above example, the vote would count unless Labor, the Greens and the Democrats were all discounted, in which case your vote couldn't be distributed any further. Perfectly legitimate at the time (though I think the system has since been changed.)

Thing is though, despite the fact that it was a legitimate voting method at the time, he was thrown in jail for publicly promoting it. To me it seems absolutely absurd, and I'm not sure what the response was as I basically know this information second hand.

However my point is, that the system of voting in Australia seems to rest on the principle that everyone should vote and that everyone should vote in a particular way, hence the common attitude amongst people that if they don't want to cast a ballot, they will fill out a donkey vote instead. I think it's crazy, and so my question is whether compulsory voting with an abstain option should be encouraged?

excreationist

Donkey votes are just votes that are filled out incorrectly... e.g. the boxes could all be blank, or all ticked, etc. BTW, I've worked in state and federal government elections.
There are "how to vote" instructions... and it says that if you don't vote correctly then your vote isn't counted.
BTW, I think the fine for not voting is AUS$50 (US$30). The election for my mayor isn't compulsory though.
There are probably good reasons why many countries like Australia have compulsory voting. I am under the impression that countries that don't have compulsory voting (the U.S. is the only example I know of) have "worse" governments in general than those that do (like Australia and much of Europe). By "worse" I mean their education and health systems, etc, are less accessible to the poor. In Australia we don't have to pay most of our fees for our university courses (about US$3000 a year max) until we're earning about US$15,000 a year. And the loan amount only increases with inflation (no extra interest). And several years ago university courses were free. They're free in some European countries I think.
I don't really know anything much about why compulsory voting is a good idea but I think there are probably some good reasons for it... (a politics student might know)

excreationist

Rich people (theoretically) have to pay 47% tax for their income that is over about $60,000 (US$35,000). They'd probably want to vote for a party that would decrease that.
BTW, you can do postal votes - I'm not sure if you need a good reason or not to do that. Also, it is open from about 8am(?) to 6pm... so people should be able to get there. And many voting places are extremely quiet at certain times of the day.

excreationist

Michaelson:
You can write an email to the Australian Electoral Commission if you want to contact someone who is involved in making those decisions. BTW, I've written to people like the John Howard and Kim Beasley (I chatted to Kim by email quite a bit). I think someone else replied to my email to John Howard.

The idea is starting to grow on me...

Per

To Michaelson's last post: I think we should separate the issue of preferential voting from compulsory voting. Afaik, the only country where both are in place is Australia, and I don't really see the relevance of speaking of them both in a discussion about compulsory voting.



Actually, countries with compulsory voting are very much in the minority among industrialized western countries. Other than Australia, Belgium and Italy, compulsory voting is almost only found in latin america.

Michaelson

Well I was only discussing the preferential system in terms of giving an example, which was to show that in Australia the government doesn't seem to want people to know they've got an option but to vote.

But I also think in any good look at the issue the type of voting system will come into play. I had a good think about this a while ago when I was arguinng a few guys on a news group. One person telling me I was a fascist for suggesting the idea, and a few other people telling me I was just stupid. Anyway, they were all American, and I wondered why there would be so much objection to the idea from Americans in particular, and the obvious response is that it's infringing on the personal rights of the citizen by making them vote. I was repeatedly told that I was reducing the right to vote to a duty.

However, I think another reason that (in the past) any American I've brought it up with has found it such a hard concept to grasp, is because it's first past the post in the US, right? The concept of being made to vote, or made to turn up to abstain, has completely different connotations if there's only the option to vote for one candidate. Under a preferential system you're asked to give a list of how you'd prefer the candidates to be elected, under most other systems you're asked to nominate the person you believe should be president or congressman or whatever. It's a different process psychologically, IMHO.

That said, I still think compulsory voting with an abstain option would suit most systems.

Ensign Steve

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I don't know exactly what that means, but I like to toss it in to this type of discussion.

My real question: What's donkey voting? I kind of get it by the context, but I haven't heard of it, and I would love an educated explanation if anyone would be so kind. Thanks!

Jen