Compulsory voting - yea or nay?

[platinumsage]

While in theory that may be true, in practice it is very much not. as I'm sure you know.

For example, in 1981, Mitterrand was under the impression he'd be able to take 12 industrial conglomerates and 38 banks into public ownership, and raise the minimum wage by 10 per cent. It turned out he was in fact not free to do so. Capital prevented it.

No, what we're allowed are "electable" parties like Tony Blair's New Labour. That's the reality.

Sure but what do you mean by "compulsory to provide meaningful choices". Who provides them, and to whom are they meaningful?

 

[redsquirrel]

In the Australian system spoiling your ballot is apparently enough to avoid the fine, but I don't think it counts towards anything.

In practice determining who spoiled would be such a nightmare that it is never enforced but there lawyers that believe spoiling your ballot should, legally get you fined.

 

[bcuster]

if you choose to vote it will be kept secret, refusal to vote could be publicized

 

[NoXion]

In practice determining who spoiled would be such a nightmare that it is never enforced but there are those that climb spoiling your ballot should, legally get you fined.

Interesting. So this would mean that in Australia it's not enough to simply turn up at the polling station and get your name crossed off, you have to get in the booth too?

What kind of person is saying that spoiling should be punishable?

 

[redsquirrel]

Interesting. So this would mean that in Australia it's not enough to simply turn up at the polling station and get your name crossed off, you have to get in the booth too?

What kind of person is saying that spoiling should be punishable?

You definitely have to go into the booth and submit a ballot. It's arguable whether you can legally spoil ('vote informally' in Australian lingo). I don't think anyone casting a spoiled/blank ballot would be fined - too much hassle - but the law is clear that you have to do more than simply turn up at a station and have your name marked off.

In the 2010 Australian election, Mark Latham urged Australians to vote informally by handing in blank ballot papers for the 2010 election. He also stated that he feels it is unfair for the government to force citizens to vote if they have no opinion or threaten them into voting with a fine.[39] An Australian Electoral Commission spokesman stated that the Commonwealth Electoral Act did not contain an explicit provision prohibiting the casting of a blank vote.[40] How the Australian Electoral Commission arrived at this opinion is unknown; it runs contrary to the opinions of Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, who wrote that voters must actually mark the ballot paper and deposit that ballot into a ballot box, and Justice Blackburn who was of the opinion that casting an invalid vote was a violation of the Act.[38]

Tim Evans, a Director of Elections Systems and Policy of the AEC, wrote in 2006 that "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions."[41] Yet, practically, it remains the fact that having received a ballot paper, the elector can simply fold it up and put it into the ballot box without formally marking it, if the elector objects, in principle, to casting a vote. However, the consistently low number of informal votes each election indicates that having attended, had his or her name marked off, very few electors then choose not to vote formally.

 

[xenon]

Catching up with thread.

I would say no. Except as like some others have said, there is an option to the effect of, none of the above. And that these are counted, percentages of NotA announced.

What do about


I might be persuaded on some form of PR as well but it's too hot to think about it.

But you'd have to deal with lobbying, MPs second jobs, hereditory peers, stuffing the second house with partizen nomarks as reward for loyalty.

 

[skyscraper101]

#dogsatpollingstations is all the incentive I need to go and vote TBH.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sure but what do you mean by "compulsory to provide meaningful choices". Who provides them, and to whom are they meaningful?

I was being facetious. The informal, invisible hand of civil society and business interests will always ensure nothing of the sort will be on offer.

 

[weltweit]

We have a conservative MP.

If there was compulsory voting I think we would have a labour MP.

The top management of our company (3 people) vote and they vote tory. The workers (15 people) don't vote, one of them even said to me once recently that's not for me, doesn't make any difference. I suspect this micro situation is repeated across the local area and wider across country. How many more labour MPs might there be if people votes, most people or even all people?

 

[NoXion]

We have a conservative MP.

If there was compulsory voting I think we would have a labour MP.

The top management of our company (3 people) vote and they vote tory. The workers (15 people) don't vote, one of them even said to me once recently that's not for me, doesn't make any difference. I suspect this micro situation is repeated across the local area and wider across country. How many more labour MPs might there be if people votes, most people or even all people?

Compulsory voting wouldn't make me vote Labour, though. The entire notion of compulsory voting implicitly assumes that any given voter will inevitably find someone worth voting for in the first place, and I also get the impression that ballot spoiling is only an option because said ballots are secret.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

All for compulsory voting. The penalty for not voting should be automatic membership of the libdems - that's harsh enough to make sure people get to the polling station and vote.

 

[brogdale]

I would only support compulsory voting if spoiled or blank ballots were counted in a 'none of the above' category (or if that category got added to every ballot). Then if 'NotA' got more than any other candidate the poll would have to be re-run.

(To add quickly, 'NotA' should be an option anyway, and there should be consequences if it wins in any ward, or in the country at large)

Think I'd be more interested in NOTA if it resulted in a genuinely unfilled post, rather than a RON.
Might be the way to vote towards anarchism?

 

[JimW]

Allow them to impose it if they can manage an attendance of 95% plus at all times in both houses for the duration of five parliaments.

 

[dessiato]

It should be compulsory but with a none of the above option

 

[brogdale]

It should be compulsory but with a none of the above option

...for the reason that...?

 

[redsquirrel]

If there was compulsory voting I think we would have a labour MP.

The top management of our company (3 people) vote and they vote tory. The workers (15 people) don't vote, one of them even said to me once recently that's not for me, doesn't make any difference. I suspect this micro situation is repeated across the local area and wider across country. How many more labour MPs might there be if people votes, most people or even all people?

Yeah the LNP has barely been in government since compulsory voting was introduced.

 

[dessiato]

...for the reason that...?

Sometimes it’s between the two, or more dislikeable choices, so, if there’s an obligation to vote, there should be an option to reject those listed.

 

[mojo pixy]

Think I'd be more interested in NOTA if it resulted in a genuinely unfilled post, rather than a RON.
Might be the way to vote towards anarchism?

Yes, for me a NotA option would be a massive step forward, as long as those votes actually counted for something. If None of the Above won, it'd be a big red signal that something was badly wrong and at worst you'd need new candidates - at best you'd need to rethink the system itself. Especially if it happened again and again, which it definitely would.

 

[geminisnake]

Yes, for me a NotA option would be a massive step forward, as long as those votes actually counted for something. If None of the Above won, it'd be a big red signal that something was badly wrong and at worst you'd need new candidates - at best you'd need to rethink the system itself. Especially if it happened again and again, which it definitely would.

The voting numbers on their own should already be a big red signal and it should have been for at least the last decade, probably all of this century tbh. Some council elections only get betwee 27% and 40% turnout, the last GE had slightly better figures iirc but if you want folk to vote they need to address Fptp now, but they won't cos it suits them that people don't vote

 

[friendofdorothy]

So whenever the subject of compulsory voting comes up on Reddit, I usually end up getting downvoted to hell for criticising the notion. Compulsory voting has always seemed an utterly absurd idea to me, threatening people with fines for choosing not to exercise their rights seems like something straight out of Bizarro World as far as I'm concerned. It would be like if the US started fining people for not exercising their free speech.

The usual defences revolve around more participation improving democracy, but is this really the case? Sure, as far as I know Australia doesn't have problems with gerrymandering, but at the same time I haven't seen any signs that politics in Oz is significantly better than in any other bourgeois democracies, who seem to manage just fine without threatening citizens with fines for not turning up at the polls.

How do the claims from the defenders of compulsory voting stack up, and what does the rest of Urban think?

It not a bad idea - but only if there is an 'none of the above - reopen nominations' option. I've always voted (people died for my right etc etc. ) though I have resorted to a drawing a cock and balls and scrawling 'none of them' on the paper,

 

[danny la rouge]

Sometimes it’s between the two, or more dislikeable choices, so, if there’s an obligation to vote, there should be an option to reject those listed.

You can do that now by not voting.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

though I have resorted to a drawing a cock and balls and scrawling 'none of them' on the paper,

as i've said on other threads, the local mp here (i refuse to call him 'my mp') is john redwood.

i have a fear that drawing a cock on the paper would be seen as a vote for him...

 

[Raheem]

It should be that if enough people draw a spunking cock, you get an animatronic spunking cock representing the constituency on the back benches.

ETA: "Enough" being approximately three.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

you get an animatronic spunking cock representing the constituency on the back benches

would we notice the difference?

 

[Raheem]

would we notice the difference?

Yes, in the front-benchers' hair.

 

[Sue]

If there were compulsory voting, it should be compulsory to provide meaningful choices.

Aye well...

 

[stereotypical]

The right not to choose to participate (in any way) with democracy is just as important as the right to choose to participate.

Not voting or not even showing up at the polling station in authoritarian regimes is a dangerous act of rebellion and something any democratic society worth its salt should strongly protect.

In my experience those who bang on about "you should vote" don't have clue what they're talking about.

Whether or not we have democracy is another issue altogether mind.

 

[redsquirrel]

Because I'm a boring sod and can't sleep in this hot weather I've worked out the % of time right/left (as in general liberal thought) governments existed from the 1st elections in post war UK, Australia and (West) Germany and same for president of French 5th Republic.

It's crude as I've just rounded things up/down. But anyone want to guess which country has the highest % of "left" wing governments in office?

Spoiler

Damn FPTP for letting the right in!

 

[bellaozzydog]

It’s the people who don’t vote that sway elections

If everyone had to vote in the U.K. we probably wouldn’t be in such a ficking state

 

[A380]

It’s the people who don’t vote that sway elections

If everyone had to vote in the U.K. we probably wouldn’t be in such a ficking state

The great unspoken truth in Tory v Labour electoral politics is its not about changing people's minds. It's about getting your vote out and stopping the other sides votes coming out. The number of people who ever change their vote election to election is small. Its why parties focus so much on telling on election day and why campaigning is so cynical.

Bringing compulsory voting, like moving away from FPtP, isn't in either of Labour or the Tory's interest so hard to see how it would happen. Perhaps another hung parliament and this time the yellow scum didn't try to sleaze a three way partisan system in?