|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: compulsory voting
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
In the threads on the US Presidential election and the UK Brexit, several shipmates have expressed concern that the result has been / will be determined by who bothers to turn up to vote, and that a significant "silent majority" is left to regret that they did not vote.
Australia showed the way out of this problem long ago: compulsory voting. Strictly speaking to avoid the fine you don't have to cast a formal vote, just be ticked off the list at a polling station or put in a pre-poll or postal vote if you can't get there on the day, but the percentage of those actually voting is usually around 95%, not the measly 50-60% seen in other so-called models of democracy.
And the above is just one advantage. Coupled with the fact that polling day is always a Saturday , and most polling stations are in fact the hall at the local public primary school, voting day becomes a social occasion , with cake stalls, "sausage sizzles" (barbecues) etc catering to the assembled cheerful queues and raising funds for the school.
So are shipmates persuaded of these advantages and willing to campaign for them in their own countries and states?
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
There are some mutterings about this in NZ following the recent local body elections where postal voting achieved only a low turnout. The last one I can find stats for was 2014, where turnout was around 50% whereas for General Elections it's usually around 80%.
I think part of the reason people don't vote is that they don't feel involved in their communities, but how you make that happen I don't know.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have often had solid discussions with Usaians, who say that a citizen should be free to decide whether to vote or not. It's like jury duty for most of the community (as a lawyer, I am excluded, but Madame is not) - an essential facet of being a citizen. IIRC, the Athenians had very harsh penalties for an eligible person who did not participate in the body politic.
The Saturday voting similarly goes with full adult franchise and the secret ballot as an essential part of a democracy - or at least it was when most did not work on Saturdays.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I would be perfectly happy with compulsory voting with the proviso that one is permitted to register an abstention. I would be unhappy about being made to vote for someone I don't want. As long as people think about it and turn up to vote, that's enough, and I believe it would enhance democracy greatly.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I agree.
We need compulsory voting which includes a 'none of the above' box.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
No, no, no, no, no. I like the fact that we have to show a tiny bit of gumption to vote.
Me thinks my elite shipmates have not watched enough reality TV. See who gets the "votes," for America's Favorite Big Brother contestant or which dancer wins, "So You think You Can Dance." Watch them choose people with a faked adorableness, never noticing a manipulative personality underneath. Watch them shut out a dancer of rare brilliance because she "seems stuck-up."
Just look at this election. If the vote had been held a few months ago, mandatory through text messaging, Donald Trump probably would have won simply on greater fame, "Isn't he the guy who was on "The Apprentice?"
Forced voting = Kim Kardashian for President.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The appropriate comparison is really between places Australia where they do have compulsory voting and places which don't. I'm not an expert but I don't think Australia's political culture is particularly dysfunctional compared to the UK.
Personally, I dislike the idea because it appeals to a certain type of metropolitan bossy boots who thinks that everyone should be terribly enthused and energised by politics and can't understand why they are not. If politicians are failing to engage significant portions of the electorate they need to do things differently rather than passing laws demanding that everyone takes an interest.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If the problem is low voter turn out then compulsory voting is simply papering over the cracks, and doesn't address the underlying issues.
And, I think there are several issues. One is that for many people they feel their vote doesn't count - which in very safe seats would be true, no matter what way they voted the candidate for the party that always wins by a country mile will get in. For those people, the question is how do you make all votes count? And, be seen to count.
There is also a general disatisfaction with the political process - the perception (sometimes reality) that all the candidates (at least for the major parties) are as bad as each other. How do we get politicians who are seen to be doing their job, diligently, well, for the benefit of all their constituents? How do we dispel the image of politicians in it for themselves, taking their generous pay cheque and expenses allowance and doing sod all?
Just to start the list of reasons why many people don't engage in the political process.
Another issue with compulsory voting is that it emphasises voting every few years as the means of engaging in the political process. But, in a democracy, the actual election is but part of the democratic process. As important, possibly more so, is to be involved in politics between elections. Writing to representatives so your voice is heard on the issues of the day - being informed about what the issues are so that when a debate comes up in Parliament (or equivalent elected body elsewhere) you can let your MP know what you think. Getting involved in political discussion, talk about politics rather than the Kardashians down the pub or over coffee in the office. Sign petitions, go on marches, be active in politics. Exercise your democratic rights to disagree with your government, to disagree with what other members of the public are saying.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the problem is low voter turn out then compulsory voting is simply papering over the cracks, and doesn't address the underlying issues.
Sometimes, voting is easy. Sometimes, voting means you have to spend hours standing in a queue because your local administration has failed to provide adequate facilities. Usually, this happens in poor areas controlled by Republicans.
It is unreasonable to expect people to spend hours standing in a queue. If you're going to have forced voting, you must also size your voting facilities to produce an absolute maximum 20 minute wait time.
quote:
For those people, the question is how do you make all votes count? And, be seen to count.
You can't. If you live in a safe seat, the chance of your vote actually mattering is very close to zero indeed. And even if you argue that you want some kind of national PR that elects a government in proportion to the share of the national vote, your vote is still useless in elections for the council in your safe region.
In some cases, you might not even be offered a sensible candidate from an alternative party.
In theory, you might think that if you live in a Labour area, say, you might develop a choice between the Labour candidate and an alternative left-wing offering (perhaps TUSC or something.) But that doesn't seem to happen much. Partly, there's no mechanism for having multiple local parties that support Labour on the national stage. You do a bit better with US-style primaries: there are plenty of places where the real election is either the Republican or Democratic primary, with the actual election being a rubber-stamp process for whichever candidate got selected for the dominant party. That way you give the people an electoral choice between different strands of political opinion in the dominant party, without it looking like party disloyalty.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sometimes, voting is easy. Sometimes, voting means you have to spend hours standing in a queue because your local administration has failed to provide adequate facilities.
Clearly, it actually being difficult to vote is another reason why turn out is low. But, again, that's not going to be solved by compulsory voting.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's like jury duty for most of the community (as a lawyer, I am excluded, but Madame is not) - an essential facet of being a citizen.
I sat through a lecture on voire dire (the process of selecting jurors from the pool of citizens that turn up) in law school. I seem to remember that one of the points was that, if possible, you want to weed out and dismiss the folks who obviously don't care about being there. If you spent months preparing for trial, you definitely don't want it to come down to some guy who would rather be doing anything else flipping a coin.
I also strongly agree with the point that any compulsory voting law must come with strong protections for conscientious objectors.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Not waiting to vote, having alternate day or advance polls, automatic instant getting on to the voter's list right at the voting place, being able to walk (ie poll nearby) - all contribute to people voting. I'd want to see this before anything forced.
We have had federal and provincial elections, campaigns only about a month long for both, and upcoming municipal (city council, mayor, school boards) next week. I never expect to wait more than 10 minutes to vote.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
Large parts of population do not care to vote. In Poland for example there are no "safe seats" as in first past the post system so theoretically every vote makes a difference (but not much of a difference as it happens in proportional systems). Additionally, barely anywhere you need to wait to vote, hell, some elections can take place over 2 days, with postal voting readily available. It does not help much the attendance. Last election for parliament had 50% turnout, last election for the European parliament barely 20%.
For a second I'd like to consider why we want more people to vote. We want everyone to vote to take part in the democracy but also to chose better government. The goal of voting process is to have a good and fair government. It is a well known phenomena that if we average opinions of large groups of people, we get practically the right answer (that's why stock market is so hard to beat). However, is the governance in countries with compulsory voting much better than in those that do not have it? A few known countries are Argentina, Belgium, Brazil and Australia. I dare to say that only Australia has a decent governance record. Though you do use medieval methods to keep everyone away but that's beside the question.
Shouldn't we think of another way of choosing the electorate instead of trying to get everyone to vote? Clearly there are some philosophical problems with forcing everyone to vote and even if we did, those governments are not successful. In present system only those that want to go to vote and often enough the silent majority is pissed off that their preferred candidate lost. Lose lose. Shouldn't we look for a third way, an alternative that would result in better governance?
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
We need online voting, surely. Having to make your way to some church hall an inconvenient distance away in order to vote is as ridiculous as going to a post office to buy a stamp in order to walk to the post box to post a piece of paper with the stamp stuck on it. Or going to a bank to pay into your account the amount written on a piece of paper someone sent you using the method above. It's the twenty-first century!
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I also strongly agree with the point that any compulsory voting law must come with strong protections for conscientious objectors.
My father-in-law, who professed a strongly "separation from the world" theology, sent his objection, replete with biblical references, along to the authorities every election, and was never prosecuted.
As an Australian with a libertarian streak I object in theory to compulsory voting, but am overwhelmingly in favour of it in practice.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
We need online voting, surely. Having to make your way to some church hall an inconvenient distance away in order to vote is as ridiculous as going to a post office to buy a stamp in order to walk to the post box to post a piece of paper with the stamp stuck on it. Or going to a bank to pay into your account the amount written on a piece of paper someone sent you using the method above. It's the twenty-first century!
For technical reasons online voting is a terrible idea. One could write books about how bad it is. Basically, there is no way to make it secure. Yes, people can say that it is secure, just like banks are secure and Titanic was the most secure boat in existence.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the problem is low voter turn out then compulsory voting is simply papering over the cracks, and doesn't address the underlying issues.
Sometimes, voting is easy. Sometimes, voting means you have to spend hours standing in a queue because your local administration has failed to provide adequate facilities. Usually, this happens in poor areas controlled by Republicans.
It is unreasonable to expect people to spend hours standing in a queue. If you're going to have forced voting, you must also size your voting facilities to produce an absolute maximum 20 minute wait time.
The simple first answer is that the control of voting is given to an independent commission - with a State the minimum size organised by each commission. By and large, that has worked well here. Each State has a commission with guaranteed statutory independence, coupled with judicial oversight of the process through Curts of Disputed Returns (where the presiding judge of the Court is a regular judge of a senior court with full independence etc) There was a scandal when under1500 votes went missing somewhere in WA recently - that may not sound many, but as it may have been enough to change the outcome of the last seat.
This sets out what happened and the consequences.
Having a commission to run the election also gives you one to set boundaries for electorates. That is usually done after hearings where the major parties make representations as to where boundary lines should be drawn - a public process.
Finally, posters above have drawn attention to the atmosphere at polling booths. Usually booths are at local public schools, but sometimes it is a church hall or the like. There is the atmosphere of a school or church fête, with various fund-raising activities. Sure, there are peak hours but that means that there are quieter ones. You soon learn when is a good time at your local booth.
Og King of Bashan we don't have a voire dire for jury selection; jurors are given a number, the numbers are drawn out in a lottery process, the potential juror walks past the dock and then an objection may be taken. The number of such objections for no cause is very limited. Jurors here all these days limited to criminal trials and those for defamation, and I practice in neither area.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arleigh
Shipmate
# 5332
|
Posted
We Aussies* don't think of it as being forced to vote. Voting is both a privilege and a responsibility. Sure, it's a bit of a bother to make your way once every few years to stand in a queue**, but pretty much, even the most jaded of citizens has an opinion. And if there is a formal objection process for the objector, there's also the informal ... vote informal, that is. No-one sees what you put on the ballot paper, or not.
Far from thinking your one, wee vote doesn't make a difference, voting night TV reporting is watched as avidly as a footy match, at our house.
♥Arleigh
*In my experience, the issues and policies (and lack thereof) are seriously*** debated at Church and work-site and in the pub and kitchen, as an election approaches.
**I've never had to queue for more than two minutes, although my polling place of preference doesn't stretch to the sausage sizzle ...
***And also not-so-seriously - this is Australia, after all.
Posts: 388 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Although NZ doesn't have compulsory voting it was much like that in our house too Arleigh, except more intense than any sports match.
My parents had the attitude, "If you don't vote you can't complain", and were fortunate that our electorate was one of the strongest for their chosen party.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No, no, no, no, no. I like the fact that we have to show a tiny bit of gumption to vote.
Me thinks my elite shipmates have not watched enough reality TV. See who gets the "votes," for America's Favorite Big Brother contestant or which dancer wins, "So You think You Can Dance." Watch them choose people with a faked adorableness, never noticing a manipulative personality underneath. Watch them shut out a dancer of rare brilliance because she "seems stuck-up."
Just look at this election. If the vote had been held a few months ago, mandatory through text messaging, Donald Trump probably would have won simply on greater fame, "Isn't he the guy who was on "The Apprentice?"
Forced voting = Kim Kardashian for President.
I was going to utterly destroy your argument Twilight, but then I remembered that the Australian system is not a Presidential one.
So, I won't be comparing recent Australian Prime Ministers with Kim Kardashian.
I will say that as a person who hands out how-to-votes at elections, we get a bit of the "I shouldn't have to do this flak, but not very much. Those people just go in, get their name ticked off, and vote informal.
I reckon you will find that most Americans, like most Australians, will take their duty seriously.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Athrawes
Ship's parrot
# 9594
|
Posted
While I understand the issues and objections around compulsory voting, the great advantage, to me, is that it is almost impossible to disenfranchise anyone. Since every citizen must vote, the Electoral Commission must make it possible for everyone to vote - no group or social demographic can be discriminated against. With an Electoral commission overseeing voting, voter intimidation is more difficult, as is gerrymandered divisions.
Whether it would work in the US or UK is another issue, but at least everyone who is entitled to vote must be given the opportunity.
--------------------
Explaining why is going to need a moment, since along the way we must take in the Ancient Greeks, the study of birds, witchcraft, 19thC Vaudeville and the history of baseball. Michael Quinion.
Posts: 2966 | From: somewhere with a book shop | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
So are shipmates persuaded of these advantages ... ?
Being persuaded of advantages doesn't mean they cannot be offset.
I can certainly see advantages in surveillance, even to the extent of banning non breakable encryption. But there's another side.
Which is freedom, to do what you want, or not to do it. One can agree that this cannot be taken to the Nth degree, but I just do not see the justification in forcing people to vote.
And has been pointed out, low turnout is a worthwhile signal that the political system is not working well.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it was Harry Truman who first said "Decisions are made by those who show up". It seems clear to me that, without enforcement, people who show up want to be involved in the decision-making. And I think you have to want to be involved. If you force people to be involved, I'm not sure what that does.
Sure, it's a concern that the Brexit decision has been (and the forthcoming Presidential Election may be) affected by those who "show up" mainly because they are pissed off. But in the end, I think voluntary showing up wins as a guiding principle. Regardless of result.
[ 23. October 2016, 09:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No, no, no, no, no. I like the fact that we have to show a tiny bit of gumption to vote.
Me thinks my elite shipmates have not watched enough reality TV. See who gets the "votes," for America's Favorite Big Brother contestant or which dancer wins, "So You think You Can Dance." Watch them choose people with a faked adorableness, never noticing a manipulative personality underneath. Watch them shut out a dancer of rare brilliance because she "seems stuck-up."
Just look at this election. If the vote had been held a few months ago, mandatory through text messaging, Donald Trump probably would have won simply on greater fame, "Isn't he the guy who was on "The Apprentice?"
Forced voting = Kim Kardashian for President.
I couldn't disagree more. With compulsory voting sense prevails rather than a flash in the pan celebrity who may incite a certain non-voting group to participate in the polls. When everyone votes, we have a push towards the centre of politics, and most certainly away from the lunatic fringe. You're the ones who elected a washed up B grade movie actor with alzheimers and have Donald Trump as a serious contender just to think of two examples of craziness.
I guess the Australian education system still functions to the extent that the electorate understands the difference between electing a political leader and voting on a show that is only watched, let alone voted on by the low-brow.
[ 23. October 2016, 09:49: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you force people to be involved, I'm not sure what that does.
If there isn't a "none of the above" option (or a respected tradition of deliberately spoiling the ballot, or simply not marking anything) then you can get a false sense of support for the system and the candidates (though, candidates currently get a false sense of support from x% of those who voted rather than the much smaller % of the electorate).
If voting is difficult - eg: requires standing in queues or a significant journey to get to the polling station - then you get people who resent being forced to give up time to vote. I'm fortunate, my polling station is only a couple of minutes walk from here (and, all my previous homes have been within 10 minutes walk of the polling station) and I've never had to queue (usually voting around 8.30am on the way to work, or between 7-9pm after work), so at most half an hour of my time. Which is probably the most people should be expected to give up just to vote.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it was Harry Truman who first said "Decisions are made by those who show up". It seems clear to me that, without enforcement, people who show up want to be involved in the decision-making. And I think you have to want to be involved. If you force people to be involved, I'm not sure what that does.
Knowing nothing other than a system of compulsory voting, people here are not forced to be involved but rather expect to be. We know that in our Federal or State electorates is our preferred candidate going to be successful. Being a parliamentary democracy though, our vote for the upper house of the Commonwealth or State legislatures will count, and we make sure that it does. We're not alone in that.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Athrawes
Ship's parrot
# 9594
|
Posted
Here, voting is on a Saturday, so fewer people are having to vote around work. And, you get a sausage afterwards! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Barnabus, I agree in principle about those wanting to be involved, but you haven't addressed my point about disenfranchising whole demographics. I've been reading articles about Trump supporters intimidating voters, and ID laws designed to disenfranchise people of colour and Hispanic/first generation citizens etc. to me, a system which makes this impossible is worth the loss of individual freedom in having to vote. And, because you have to vote, people do tend to make the effort to become involved and check out candidates, issues, etc. of course you still get Pauline Hanson and the lunatic fringe, but even they get the chance to be heard.
--------------------
Explaining why is going to need a moment, since along the way we must take in the Ancient Greeks, the study of birds, witchcraft, 19thC Vaudeville and the history of baseball. Michael Quinion.
Posts: 2966 | From: somewhere with a book shop | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Athrawes, I accept your points entirely re intimidation and registration. In essence, people who want to show up shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Which means you need sufficient polling places to avoid queues and delays beyond deadlines.
In the UK you have to protect your right to vote by registration and confirmation of where you live currently. My wife and I confirm our continuing right routinely by means of a very easy online system and are also registered for postal voting. If online voting can be sufficiently protected (which might not be easy) I'd use that means.
I think all systems have to have some form of registration to allow votes by citizens and exercise control over voting more than once. And I suspect no such system is perfect, indeed even a good system may be abused to attempt to disenfranchise voters. The price of liberty is vigilence.
Intimidation is another matter. My wife and I were intimidated on the day of the Brexit vote because we were wearing Remain badges. My eirenic explanation that we had already voted by post, so they were wasting their time and mine, didn't stop the abuse, which included "you're clearly going ga-ga, people of your age really shouldn't be allowed to vote!" (Which made me smile ruefully, afterwards. If people of my age had been disenfranchised, the Remain vote would have won.) It wasn't pleasant, but we left our badges on.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
And has been pointed out, low turnout is a worthwhile signal that the political system is not working well.
I'm not entirely sure about this. It's possible low turnout implies a belief among the electorate that both sides are about as bad as each other. Which _could_ (but, of course, also could not) be about as good - or as bad - as can be expected, tangled up in the web of compromise which is real life.
If one party is shown to be doing something _really_ bad - straight out corrupt - and so long as there is a free press to report it, and a free opposition to oppose it, then I'd expect participation to go up. In the UK we're lucky enough that those conditions mostly pertain - in Zimbabwe, perhaps less so.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Doubt if it would make much difference to the way Western democracies are governed as to whether we have compulsory voting or not.
We have see in this Country that Governments tend to do what they do, almost as if they are directed by an unseen, unelected elite of movers and shakers.
I think much of the popularity of the UK,s June referendum, with it apparent bombshell outcome, came from ordinary people thinking-- Do you know what? this time my one vote can make a difference . So in the end it became something a vote against the an Establisment of stuffed shirts and behind-the-scenery pullers of levers. All a bit silly really.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think much of the popularity of the UK,s June referendum, with it apparent bombshell outcome, came from ordinary people thinking-- Do you know what? this time my one vote can make a difference . So in the end it became something a vote against the an Establisment of stuffed shirts and behind-the-scenery pullers of levers. All a bit silly really.
A couple of points on this: the turnout at the recent referendum was not any higher than we used to see at general elections - up until the end of the 20th century - (source).
The idea that our vote does not count for anything comes from a couple of features of the UK political system - firstly our stupid first past the post system that means that the votes in the marginals are the only ones that do in fact count; and also, for the last couple of decades the choice has been between neoliberals and other neoliberals. So in many senses, our votes don't count for anything - but still 2/3 of us manage to make the effort.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
... and also, for the last couple of decades the choice has been between neoliberals and other neoliberals. So in many senses, our votes don't count for anything - but still 2/3 of us manage to make the effort.
I've voted in every general election since the 1970 one except for two that happened while I was living abroad. In those days you couldn't vote if you were abroad. In no election have I ever seen anyone listed on any ballot paper claiming to be a neoliberal candidate - whatever that word means.
I have had one experience when I felt intimidated by a teller. That was in the 1983, when I was living in another part of the country. As it happened the party he was telling for lost what it had until then taken for granted was a safe seat.
Tellers round here are normally quite cheerful and accept it when you say you've no intention of telling them who you are (sometimes they know anyway).
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
.... the turnout at the recent referendum was not any higher than we used to see at general elections - up until the end of the 20th century - (source).
Voter apathy had become a worrying trend for some in the UK in recent Elections, and in many ways Brexit was an accident waiting to happen. Given the hype it recieved I do wonder if it wasn't engineered to reconnect an increasingly distant public with the machinery of politics.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
With an Electoral commission overseeing voting, voter intimidation is more difficult, as is gerrymandered divisions.
I'm afraid I don't agree with either of these points! Compulsory voting doesn't make the slightest difference to how easy intimidation or gerrymandering may be - why would they? And we already have an Electoral Commission overseeing voting, so how does compulsory voting make a difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
With compulsory voting sense prevails rather than a flash in the pan celebrity who may incite a certain non-voting group to participate in the polls."
I can't see compulsory voting making a difference to the way people vote either. If people are foolish enough to vote foolishly, then they're going to vote foolishly whether they're obliged to vote or are voting voluntarily!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The idea that our vote does not count for anything comes from a couple of features of the UK political system - firstly our stupid first past the post system that means that the votes in the marginals are the only ones that do in fact count....
I don't see it that way at all. The votes in the marginals are only in the marginals and only count because of all the other votes that have counted.
Frankly, I've never understood the concept that voting for someone who loses means that ones vote didn't "count."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Frankly, I've never understood the concept that voting for someone who loses means that ones vote didn't "count."
The issue is if you're in a constituency where party A always gets their candidate in by a very large margin then any individual vote (whether for the candidate of party A or otherwise) is not going to make any difference in who is elected. In that sense it "doesn't count".
However, if you support party A then your vote would increase their majority, and the strength of their "mandate". Conversely, if the other candidates get more votes than they were expecting, if the majority for A is significantly cut, etc can be a significant boost for other parties and also highlight the size of other views that the selected member should take into account in how they represent the constituency. Thus, your vote does count - but it's a more subtle version of "counting" than the easier to understand "affect who actually gets elected" version of counting.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
With an Electoral commission overseeing voting, voter intimidation is more difficult, as is gerrymandered divisions.
I'm afraid I don't agree with either of these points! Compulsory voting doesn't make the slightest difference to how easy intimidation or gerrymandering may be - why would they? And we already have an Electoral Commission overseeing voting, so how does compulsory voting make a difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
With compulsory voting sense prevails rather than a flash in the pan celebrity who may incite a certain non-voting group to participate in the polls."
I can't see compulsory voting making a difference to the way people vote either. If people are foolish enough to vote foolishly, then they're going to vote foolishly whether they're obliged to vote or are voting voluntarily!
Compulsory voting doesn't change the way individuals vote but it does mean that the lunatic fringe-the extremes of left or right are represented in proportion to the entire population as opposed to being over represented merely because they can be bothered to go to the effort of turning up at the polling booth.
In Britain the Tories always prayed for rain on election day-it meant they'd win because their supporters could drive in nice dry cars to the polling booth whilst Labour supporters would be more likely to have to walk or catch public transport and that's an unattractive proposition. So whether or not voting is compulsory can have a big impact on the election result.
I agree that compulsory voting doesn't impact upon gerrymandering although it can have an impact on intimidation. It is much easier to intimidate voters into staying away from polling stations when voting isn't compulsory than when it is.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell, your use of the term "teller" suggests a party official (paid or voluntary, does not really matter). Is that correct please? Here, a teller is an employee of the Electoral Commission. I have never heard of a party official watching as names are checked off the list, or observing requests from those who wish to absentee vote. Party officials and those handing out how-to-vote slips are not allowed within a certain distance of the actual room where voting occurs. I can't remember exactly how far, but it's something like 25 metres, could easily be more. Rarely does that person have cover from rain or sun.
Counting of votes is again by employees, with their actions watched by party scrutineers to make sure that the voting paper gets put into the right stack. Usually, this is fairly perfunctory but the tighter the vote and the more marginal the electorate the more intense becomes scrutineering. Pity the official counting Senate votes where there has been below-the-line voting and the numbers for the last position are very close indeed.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think that should have been addressed to Enoch. But, in the UK, tellers are volunteers for the parties, may not enter the polling station (except to cast their own vote) and are there to collect names of party members who have voted and hence identify any members yet to vote - they can then call them to offer assistance to reach the polling station if needed. I've only ever spoken to one teller (who was a neighbour), and not about how I voted - mostly comment about the rare event of it being good weather, we're British after all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yes, even though it was me who mentioned tellers, Alan Cresswell has described them just how they are.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Frankly, I've never understood the concept that voting for someone who loses means that ones vote didn't "count."
The issue is if you're in a constituency where party A always gets their candidate in by a very large margin then any individual vote (whether for the candidate of party A or otherwise) is not going to make any difference in who is elected. In that sense it "doesn't count".
However, if you support party A then your vote would increase their majority, and the strength of their "mandate". Conversely, if the other candidates get more votes than they were expecting, if the majority for A is significantly cut, etc can be a significant boost for other parties and also highlight the size of other views that the selected member should take into account in how they represent the constituency. Thus, your vote does count - but it's a more subtle version of "counting" than the easier to understand "affect who actually gets elected" version of counting.
I can see these up to a point, though in the first paragraph, the situation may be result of how lines are drawn—drawn to ensure a particular party wins. Of course, such districts can also exist purely as a result of demographics. I some places it is hard to draw a district where a particular party is not in the majority.
But the underlying question here is what does it mean for a vote to "count." In my opinion, a vote "counts" if it expresses the will of a particular voter in a particular election and is noted as such by those tallying the votes. So even if I didn't vote for the winner, my vote "counts" because it is included among those who voted differently, which is along the lines of your second paragraph. But I don't think that's a subtle version of "counting." I think that's what counting is, which is why I don't understand the position that a vote only counts if it is cast for and helps elect the winner. The only votes that don't count, in my mind, are those that are cast but that are for some reason excluded from the final tally.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Nick Tamen, when we speak here of whether one's vote counts, we mean whether it has any prospect of having any effect on the result, whether the way one votes stands any chance of making any difference. If you live in a marginal seat, it has a prospect of doing so. If you live in a safe seat, it does not. As it happens, where I live the parliamentary seat has changed hands in four out of the last five elections, but before that, had not done so for over 100 years.
It may be high minded to say that my vote counts if it expresses my view, but the fact that it expresses my view is of little objective significance if the result would almost certainly be the same irrespective of whether I voted or didn't bother.
This is an aspect of what many of us call democratic deficit.
One of the additional benefits of many of the other - and IMHO much better - systems of voting than ours, is that they give your vote much more chance of making a difference.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The only votes that don't count, in my mind, are those that are cast but that are for some reason excluded from the final tally.
Well, sure, in the trivial sense. Your vote is counted, but if you live in a safe constituency, it's not useful.
If you are voting for a minority party, your vote is always useful - it always "counts" - in the sense that it raises the profile of that party and its issues.
If you are voting for a major party which isn't popular in the place that you live, that doesn't matter. It makes no difference to anything whether the Tories get 5% or 15% of the vote in a safe Labour seat, or vice versa. It's completely irrelevant - so in that sense, your vote is pointless if you're that person.
And similarly, if you're a Labour voter in a safe Labour seat, does the fact that the turnout is 50% rather than the 70-80% in the marginal next door make a difference? No.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The only votes that don't count, in my mind, are those that are cast but that are for some reason excluded from the final tally.
Well, sure, in the trivial sense. Your vote is counted, but if you live in a safe constituency, it's not useful.
To me, that's not a trivial sense at all. That's a foundational sense. The right to vote, and to have that vote counted, is something that was denied too many people in this country's history, and people fought and died to change that. People still fight to protect it.
Without a doubt, if something is keeping votes from counting equally—carrying the same electoral weight in determining a result—that's a serious problem.
quote:
If you are voting for a minority party, your vote is always useful - it always "counts" - in the sense that it raises the profile of that party and its issues.
If you are voting for a major party which isn't popular in the place that you live, that doesn't matter. It makes no difference to anything whether the Tories get 5% or 15% of the vote in a safe Labour seat, or vice versa. It's completely irrelevant - so in that sense, your vote is pointless if you're that person.
And similarly, if you're a Labour voter in a safe Labour seat, does the fact that the turnout is 50% rather than the 70-80% in the marginal next door make a difference? No.
I can see those arguments, though I'm not sure I completely agree that a vote for a losing major party is meaningless—and I have a fair amount of experience with doing just that. To me, though, that's not about ones vote "counting," or if it is, it's only in a secondary sense. The vote counts, but it doesn't contribute to a win, or decide the win. Nevertheless, I have been able to exercise the right to vote and to have that vote "heard," and to me that's what makes the vote "count."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
In the US, compulsory voting would probably backfire, big time. Americans don't like to be told what to do, especially by gov't. Laws are supposed to keep THOSE people over there in line, and help US.
So a lot of people would stay home, just to spite the gov't.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In the US, compulsory voting would probably backfire, big time. Americans don't like to be told what to do, especially by gov't. Laws are supposed to keep THOSE people over there in line, and help US.
So a lot of people would stay home, just to spite the gov't.
Cool! Revenue bonanza!
While we are telling the Americans how to run their lives, how about not having elections for every tier of Govt and crackpot proposals at the same time? How about having one election campaign for federal issues, one for state issues, and a third for local issues? And don't run elections that go for two years, pretend you're not having an election but campaign anyway for about 22 months, and then have an official campaign that lasts for two months.
Oh, start speaking more like Australians, drive on the left, go metric, play cricket not baseball, get your electricians to install your light switches the right way up and make Ru Paul Queen for life. She's made for the job.
There. Now I'm off to fix China. GYNA.
EDIT: Oh my God, I forgot the coffee.
[ 24. October 2016, 01:48: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
simontoad--
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Turnabout's fair play, you know...
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you both Enoch and Alan Cresswell - as I had thought your use of 'teller" is completely the opposite to ours.
As to a vote counting: in both Federal and State elections, our votes make no difference to the outcome in the seat. However, for elections to both upper houses, in NSW the entire state is treated as one electorate, and our votes do go to get the Labor candidates the quotas they need to get as many elected as possible. There is now a simplified system of voting permitted (both use Hare-Clarke) where the parties determine the order of preferences. Many still choose to make thier own allocation. Quite often the last few preferences can make a difference to who scrapes into the last couple of seats. That's a topic for another thread.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The only votes that don't count, in my mind, are those that are cast but that are for some reason excluded from the final tally.
Well, sure, in the trivial sense. Your vote is counted, but if you live in a safe constituency, it's not useful.
To me, that's not a trivial sense at all. That's a foundational sense. The right to vote, and to have that vote counted, is something that was denied too many people in this country's history, and people fought and died to change that. People still fight to protect it.
Without a doubt, if something is keeping votes from counting equally—carrying the same electoral weight in determining a result—that's a serious problem.
Have a look at this site then: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/
If you know the name of any UK constituencies or UK postcodes, you can search for how likely your vote is to make a difference to a general election outcome. For example, my own vote in the (safe conservative) Wrekin constituency is worth 0.168 votes. If I lived down the (more marginal) Telford constituency, my vote would count 0.863 towards the result.
This matters in the UK system, because we don't really have a representative system. Our MPs supposedly represent us, but when they get to Westminster they represent only the party they belong to. I have yet to write to my MP and get and answer saying "thank you for your views, I'll do my best to represent you along with all my other constituents. They always write back and tell me their party's line on the issue. The fact I didn't vote for them makes my voice less than unheard.
And I raised this only because the recent referendum had a choice of one out of two, so every vote did indeed count, in a way that votes in a general election don't. But even then, we saw a turnout of less than 3/4.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Without a doubt, if something is keeping votes from counting equally—carrying the same electoral weight in determining a result—that's a serious problem.
The second paragraph in my earlier post was basically saying that some votes count more than others. The voterpower link provided by Humble Servant reflects that reality. It's a continuum scale rather than binary, but when the "value" of a vote slides far enough down that scale it's quite natural for people to start thinking "my vote doesn't count".
Although that situation can change quite rapidly. My constituency, common with a lot of Scotland, was very solidly Labour two years ago and yet returned an SNP MP in 2015. But, I also know several people who have always lived here, never felt their vote "counted" and hence never voted, and even when their vote would count more they're simply stuck in a habit of not voting.
The question, of course, is how to level out the value of votes in different constituencies. And, possibly more importantly, how to get people to feel that their vote counts enough to make it worth their while breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually vote. I can't see how that can happen under single member constituencies elected under FPTP, because no amount of boundary changing will remove the relatively large number of safe seats. I can't see how compulsory voting helps change how much people think their vote counts, although it will (by definition) get people to the polling stations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
