Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 02-14-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ju'iblex
i think of it this way: if a person is not voting because they dont have to, then they forfeit their right to complain about the actions of whatever party is voted in.

I'm with Blexy on this! If you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the choices that were made!

Moon said:

Quote:

This assumes that all political choices are represented in one or another of the two major parties.

Umm ... how does it do that?

Michaelson · 02-14-2003, 02:12 PM

Melkor said:

Quote:

As far as banning political ads, never. Slippery slope, that. As far as I'm concerned, the only people political ads truly work on are those that shouldn't be voting anyway. Most people who have taken the time -- even a minimal amount of time -- to research the issues and the candidates won't be swayed by political ads, because they will already have made an informed opinion on such things, and are going to vote the way they feel is right for them.

So banning tv ads is a slippery slope, but having a criteria to determine who is worthy of casting a vote isn't? It's inherently discriminatory.

Being smart doesn't necessarily lead to making a good political decision. This is the thing not many people seem to grasp. There's no more consensus amongst the intellectual elite on most issues than there is among the proles. You refuse the uneducated the right to vote, and you're refusing (to a large extent) the poor the right to vote. You're refusing the poor the right to vote, and you're refusing certain isolated minority groups (in Australia it'd be Aboriginals predominately) the right to vote.

For your system to work, the people who you've determined are worthy of voting, you must also be sure will be so dispassionate in making their decisions that the rights of those minority groups aren't trampled on as a result of their having no political representation.

The government governs over everyone, so it should be elected by everyone. It's pretty much that simple..

excreationist · 02-15-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michaelson
Though I'm not positive, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. That's an invalid vote. A donkey vote is a valid vote with no thought put in to the choices.

You're right....
Votes that don't count are called "informal votes"... they are ballot papers that are either incorrectly filled out or blank. I just assumed that donkey votes were the same thing - I wasn't taught what donkey votes are since it isn't necessary to know if you're an ordinary vote-counter.
Anyway, there was an ad a while ago that said to fill your vote in correctly so that it counts. That implies that if you don't want your vote to count, you can simply not fill it in.

Some other stuff:
from the Australian Electoral Commission's "Compulsory Voting" page:

Quote:

....In a national survey carried out on behalf of the AEC by Newspoll Market Research on 3 March 1996, immediately after polling day for the 1996 federal election, 74% of respondents supported compulsory voting at federal elections. However, the AEC itself does not have an official view on whether enrolment and voting should or should not be compulsory: this is a matter for the Parliament to decide, and the AEC conducts all elections for which it is responsible according to the law in force at the time......

....The following 19 countries [besides Australia] also have compulsory voting, in some form or other: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Panama, Philippines, Singapore, Uruguay, Venezuela....

Perhaps they aren't all for federal elections or something.

from A compulsory voting article

Quote:

....It was commonly thought that compulsion would lead to a significant increase in the informal vote, as more indifferent or reluctant electors were brought to the polling booth. In reality, compulsion had little effect on the size of the informal vote. This suggests that most electors, once enticed to the polling booth by whatever means, choose to express their preferences....

Another response by some voters is what is called the "donkey vote", in which the voter simply numbers the candidates in the order in which they appear on the ballot paper. The candidate listed at the top gains an extra advantage which often amounts to several percent and can make the difference in a close election. The donkey vote is usually made by an uninterested voter, and is one response to the compulsion involved.

That's what you were talking about... now that I think about it, the governments that are in power (in the federal and state levels) would probably be the ones who can make a change like that on the ballot paper. They might use a less technical word rather than "abstain". Maybe it could say "it doesn't matter" (probably too informal). On the other hand, if the names are randomized on every single ballot paper, it makes no real difference if they number them conseecutively. And if you had an option of abstaining they would be more actively rebelling - perhaps it is good in a way to show the country's lack of faith in democracy, but it isn't that good for morale/national pride.

....Compulsory voting keeps down the cost of campaigns. The most expensive part of a campaign where there is no compulsory voting is having to 'turn on the vote'. [encouraging people to turn up?] A Senatorial campaign [for each senator?] in the United States costs from $3 million to well over $12 million. The very act of having to raise large sums of money leaves candidates and political parties potentially beholden to their financial backers and thus keeping down the costs of campaigns reduces the potential for political corruption.... [in Australia campaigns are (apparently) funded publically - not by corporations - who would only be doing it to get something in return - but politicians are meant to represent the people - which may conflict with corporate interests]

Quote:

....Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. It is used, for example, in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Italy, Singapore; in some cantons of Austria and Switzerland; for the French Senate; and in a number of other jurisdictions.....

....In the United States politics is characterised as 'the struggle of pressure groups versus the public interest'. Powerful lobbies such as the National Rifle Association dominate political life because they can motivate their members to get out and vote in numbers disproportionate to their real strength in the community.
Assume that pressure group X has the support of 5 per cent of the population, then in a compulsory voting situation it is likely to be able to influence 5 per cent of the vote. But if the number of people voting falls to 30 per cent and all the members of pressure group X vote, then their electoral strength is now 16 per cent. I believe pressure groups are proper and legitimate in our democracy but they should have no greater power to determine electoral outcomes than they actually possess in terms of real community support. Compulsory voting ensures this, while voluntary voting increases the disproportionate power of pressure groups.....

...An end to compulsory voting would not give the 'majority' a greater say by ending the current party campaign concentration on the marginal electorates and swinging voters. Instead of attempting to persuade them to vote for one party or another, the effort will now be to persuade them to vote at all. There will be no change of campaign behaviour, only a change of emphasis....

They are some of the reasons why some politically educated people support compulsory voting. (I hardly know anything about politics - except what I see on the news).

What are the main reasons for "compulsory voting/enrolment"? - that's on the same site, and it has a link to the case against compulsory voting.

excreationist · 02-15-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Per
....One thing that can be done for example to decrease the 'he has nicer hair' signifigance is forbidding political tv commercials.

The major candidates would still be on the TV news though... so the public would see their nice hair anyway.

View Poll Results: What's your view on compulsory voting?
For	18	31.03%
Against	40	68.97%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.