Canada Elects Bush Version 2.0

[sxotty]

Basically, regional FPTP voting is crap. If there are two parties, A and B, and in every region 49% of people vote for A and 51% for B, then B will have 100% of the seats in parliament even though only 51% of the population support them.

I read your whole post too Northeast, but it is long for quoting.

 

Basically you end up with the same situation as in the US, where you have districts not "ridings" and whoever gets the most votes in the district wins, and the other side gets nothing. Thus you have republican control and pundits saying a huge shift has occured when in actuallity things have changed only a tiny bit in a few districts. Yes I believe it is a crappy way to do things, but here the argument is the same, that regional representation is important. (Of course that leaves out the Senate, but whatever).

 

I think that they need to have an instant runoff if they do that, but it is better to be proportional if you ask me.

[obscurus]

Not voting is making a choice - it is expressing dissatisfaction with the system which should be rectified by politicians working to increase their appeal to the public, not through compulsion. You already mentioned that people in Australia can make a "donkey vote" if they wish, so how is this any different to having a voluntary voting system?

 

I believe that everybody has a right to non-participation. The role of the government should be to STOP people from doing things that are harmful, not to MAKE them do things which it has declared are benficial. The latter sets you on a very nasty slope towards more widespread compulsion - such as compulsory donations to charity, compulsory service in the military, compulsory expressions of support for the government and its policies - all of which may be considered beneficial by some criteria but are nevertheless gross violations of the individual's right to personal freedom of choice.

 

 

As I already explained, compulsory voting prevents people from rigging elections to a large degree as it means they unable to prevent large sections of the population from voting. Why should you have the right not to participate in your society's government making process? Rights always come wth obligations. There is a big difference between turning up at a polling booth and casting an invalid vote by writing "I abstain" on the ballot and simply not turning up. The former says you care, but find all of the choices offered unacceptable, while the latter says you are either too lazy to participate, or don't care how you are governed. These statistice are gathered at the end of every election, and political parties build their policies on them. There is a strong correlation between voter apathy and governments introducing very draconian, far reaching legislation. Governments formed in a climate of a high level of voter turn out and interest are much less inclined to make laws that would look bad under close scrutiny. governments do what they think they can get away with, and if they know they are being watched closely, they will behave. The best way to tell them you are paying atention is to vote, and to follow your vote up by writing to your elected representative on issues that concern you and your fellow citizens.

 

Compulsory voting gives a much more accurate expression of the collective will of the people. In voluntary voting systems, governments clearly target their policies towards the sort of people who are likely to vote, and research over the last century or two makes it very easy to predict whether or not someone will vote. You can predict whether or not someone will vote in the US on the basis of their socio-economic background, location and 'race' with over 80% accuracy, which is more than enough for political candidates to base their policies on. Voluntary voting countries form governments that look after the interests of those who vote, not those who don't. Compulsory voting is about protecting the rights of those who would be disenfrachised form the political process, not about forcing some unfair burden on people.

 

 

The idea that copulsory voting will all of a sudden lead to compulsory everything is absurd, and is not borne out by any evidence - the beauty of compulsory voting is that it makes it very difficult for governments to get away with nasty legislation, and when they do get away with it, it is usually overturned by the next election. For example, a party that went to an election in Australia with compulsory military service as wone of their policies would be demolished - after the Vietnam debacle, there is little chance of compulsory military service being introduced, as all politicians know that the Australian demographic overwhelmingly oposes it.

 

@Napalm I am not pulling things out of any orifices, nor am I spreading 'propaganda'.

 

It is very well known that only a small percentage of under 25 year olds vote - even in Australia, with compulsory voting, the vast majority of people fined for not voting are young people between 18 - 25 who don't realise the value in voting (aside from not being fined), and haven't learned to care yet. People in this age group generally take more risks (reckless driving etc) and have a very self-centred outlook on life, and it is not at all surprising that they don't vote, no matter how educated or informed they are, they often are just not interested. The demographics of who vote and who doesn't are very well understood, and very predictable, so predictable that the differences in politics in compulsory voting nations and voluntary voting nations are very obvious, and the policies formed by parties in voluntary voting states are quite clearly targeted towards those most likely to vote.

[sxotty]

I have to agree that voting should be "compulsory" in that if you don't you pay a voluntary tax. If someone is too lazy to vote then my taxes should be lowered and their increased It only makes sense after all.

 

And writing I abstain doesn't mean much, it would be better to write Jimbo Jenkins, if he is some random guy that happens to actually support the policies you like. The politicos will see that as a measure of what the electorate actually wants. I did a write in for president last time myself.

[OrbWeaver]

The idea that copulsory voting will all of a sudden lead to compulsory everything is absurd, and is not borne out by any evidence - the beauty of compulsory voting is that it makes it very difficult for governments to get away with nasty legislation, and when they do get away with it, it is usually overturned by the next election.

 

It didn't save you from the "thou shalt support the government" thought-crime legislation though, did it?

[Vadrosaul]

Aussie former Defense Chief thinks it good idea to bring back draft

 

Excerpt: Australia's military is reconsidering its ban on recruits who are overweight, have poor eyesight or suffer asthma as it battles to maintain troop numbers and is also examining expanding the roles of women in the ranks.

 

Really makes you think what war are they fighting if a country is willing to have weak soldiers just to have soldiers.

[SneaksieDave]

No doubt a "more civilized" war according to some.

 

Whoa, boom! Cross-thread derail baiting!

[obscurus]

It didn't save you from the "thou shalt support the government" thought-crime legislation though, did it?

 

 

Well, no, but weve been down this road before, and similar legislation was tossed out when a less totalitarian government was elected. The laws have a susnet clause, so they will expire eventually. Such legislation, while very disturbing, is unlikely to be ever used

 

The idea that the Australian electorate will suport the draught or conscription again is laughably unlikely, though my fellow citizens do make some stupid choices from time to time. That is democracy for you though (well, elective oligarchy at any rate, which is the closet thing most of us will ever have to democracy) - it is rule of the majority, which doesn't automatically mean the majority of the people will make the right decision.

 

Such things are usually air on the wind - Australians are too proud of our current defence force, which is one of the most highly trained, best equipped and fittest in the world, for it to be allowed to be diluted with blind, puffing, fatties with guns. The current fitness requirements for entering the Australian army are pretty damned strict, much stricter than in the US or the UK, and are likely to remain so, in spite of any grandstanding by certain commentators. The Aussie special forces fitness requirements are almost inhuman, and our SAS troops would probably throw the towel in if they started letting in lesser soldiers.

[Napalm]

@Napalm I am not pulling things out of any orifices, nor am I spreading 'propaganda'.

 

It is very well known that only a small percentage of under 25 year olds vote - even in Australia, with compulsory voting, the vast majority of people fined for not voting are young people between 18 - 25 who don't realise the value in voting (aside from not being fined), and haven't learned to care yet. People in this age group generally take more risks (reckless driving etc) and have a very self-centred outlook on life, and it is not at all surprising that they don't vote, no matter how educated or informed they are, they often are just not interested. The demographics of who vote and who doesn't are very well understood, and very predictable, so predictable that the differences in politics in compulsory voting nations and voluntary voting nations are very obvious, and the policies formed by parties in voluntary voting states are quite clearly targeted towards those most likely to vote.

 

Well if you conceed to this point...Then what do you propose? Also if compulsory voting doesn't stop crazed totalitarian goernments what positive difference does it have?

[obscurus]

Democracy works fine, but the problem is, people tend to give into baseless fear, and when they do that they are often willing to shift all of their power onto someone who offers to "protect" them with harsh laws. Young people are prone to apathy, while people who are parents of young children will readily vote for governments and laws that sacrifice their freedoms if they think, however erroneously, that it will make them safer. The wisest people are usually those in their middle age, once people get to old age they become doddering idiots again. The main flaw in democracy is that it runs against human nature, and requires constant vigilance to maintain and protect it. Sadly, people are very quick to lose this vigilance in situations where they percieve a threat to their safety.

 

When compulsory voting fails to keep crazed despots from power, it indicates that the society as a whole is very sick, and close to failing.

[Napalm]

I admit my knowledge is limited, but I've heard quite a bit of negative info about liberties in Australia? I realize that often world news is skewed (the reasoning behind your entire Anti-US sentiment which makes me sad) so is this completly false or are you saying that even with the compulsory vote AU is having problems? If that is the case then still fail to understand how the force-vote really makes things better, you say that not having allows only certain classes to vote largly, those of uppermiddle/upper class and those educated. I'm not going to completly deny that a larger percentage of people come from this group, although there is still others, it's not as completely a warped system as you've mentioned, but if this is the educated class who knows about the issues wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the ones voting?

[obscurus]

Well, voting for a party only does so much. Once you have cast your vote, it is up to the elected government to keep their promises, which they usually don't. The problem is that the current government won both the upper and lower houses of parliament. The senate has proportional voting, and traditionally, most Australians vote for the opposite party in the senate to the one they vote for in the house of Representatives, as a bit of a safeguard. Yet still the Liberal party got the SenateCompulsory voting or not, Australians voted the current government into an unprecedented level of unfettered power. So now they are passing all kinds of laws that they never campaigned on in there pre-election platform, doing things they said they wouldn't do.

 

None of this is because of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting makes it more difficult for governments to get the numbers in both houses to carry out this kind of legislation,but it doesn't make it impossible.

 

In a democracy - any form of democracy - the critical weakness is that people can collectively make a poor decision, which is what happened in Australia at the last election.

 

The irony of having a single party in power however, is that now minor players in the party are starting to dissent and exert their own power now - effectively one party starts to become a parliament full of independents once each politician realises the position of influence they hold.

 

The proportion of Australians wo don't cast a legitimate vote in elections is very low, below 15%. Compare that to the US, where often more than 50% of the population don't vote. Compulsory voting encourages people to think about their governance more. Making things voluntary encourages laziness and apathy.

 

Don't confuse two separate issues: levels of voting vs how people vote.