Mandatory voting

[Aractus]

No Cato, it's not "paternalism". Your philosophy is called laissez-faire, it's been discredited. When the poorest in society are made more wealthy, the wealthy do benefit.

So you think that seat belt laws should be repealed, because they place an undue burden of obedience upon the community?

You may as well say you don't believe in paying taxes next.

---

The only thing you will accomplish is to pollute the vote.

Please explain to me how having more of the public voting in a public election is "polluting the vote"?

[AFTT47]

Please explain to me how having more of the public voting in a public election is "polluting the vote"?

Are you being deliberately thick?

Few people who are not voting by choice are going to put any thought into their vote. I explained it at least twice already. They will vote randomly or vote for a fringe candidate out of spite. Those will be junk votes. Bad data.

You seem to be operating under this fantasy that if you force someone to the polls, they will dutifully consider the candidates and cast a responsible vote - even though they have no interest in doing so. Human nature doesn't work that way.

Get real!

[Aractus]

Well you're wrong on just about all your points, AFTT47.

Let me distil your argument for you...

Negatives of mandatory voting:
1. Forcing people who don't normally chose to vote will result in them casting uniformed, random, or deliberately stupid votes.
2. It will not result in people putting more thought into their vote.
3. The "bad" (uninformed, random, or deliberately stupid) ballots will outnumber the good (informed, sensible) votes.

Now let me explain why you are completely wrong.
1. First and foremost, compulsory voting teaches the voter the benefit of voting. Because the voter learns this value they become less likely to a. abstain altogether, b. submit informal or otherwise invalid ballots in subsequent elections, or c. pay no attention during political campaigns at voting time.
2. Voting is a civic duty, no different to taxation. We don't let people avoid tax just because they don't feel the need to pay it.
3. You get a far more accurate assessment of what the people want. And as a democracy is about representing the will of the people, this is absolutely essential.
4. Political parties cannot ignore sections of the community that do not exercise their right to vote. Let's say, for example, that under optional voting Aboriginal Australians would be much less likely to vote. That would mean that political parties could ignore Aboriginal issues entirely as their voice is not important to the political vote. With compulsory voting they cannot be ignored. Nor can any other group, because they all vote and they all have their voice heard. The same with the low-income people. As I mentioned before, the lower socio-economic classes are far less likely to vote in an optional voting system, this is true in every country that has income inequality and optional voting. For instance, the USA has the worst income inequality in OECD countries, and has optional voting where the last federal-level election saw just 60% of the electorate vote.

The total number of informal votes in our last federal election was 5.9%. That's if you go by the House of Representatives numbers. If you go by the Senate ballot paper instead, then only 3% of the vote was informal. Which goes to show that most informal votes in the House of Representatives are unintentional. If you add the number of donkey votes to that (estimated at 1-2%) you get 7.4 +/-.05 % of the vote as either informal or deliberately stupid votes. That number doesn't come close to outweighing the benefit of the additional valid and informed votes (total voter turnout was 93%).

Your argument is disproved.

[I_am_not_mafia]

OK I'm jumping in without reading the whole thread. But I've always advocated mandatory voted. The problem is that people don't vote when they just don't like any of the parties enough. If they do, they get out and vote. The problem with this is that it means that if there are no viable choices then it allows the extremist parties to get more power because not enough people are voting to keep them out. People do not realise that not voting has a consequence. By not voting people are effectively creating a weaker vote for the more extremist parties.

Mandatory voting only works though if there is an option for none of the above. And that has to have a consequence.

Saying that though I don't know how mandatory voting is supposed to help combat big business and it may not be so viable for America where there are effectively only two parties. If anything it sounds more like a way to maintain the duopoly of the Democrat/Republican parties. But in Europe there are always more parties to vote for. If mandatory voting can be convincingly argued to combat big business then surely this is a good thing.

[Aractus]

Oh, and AFTT47 - the data as I mentioned disproves you.

Federal Election...

Aust. (compulsory voting) 2013 - 93%

NZ (optional voting) 2014 - 77%

[Dystopia]

(emphasis added).

Is there a point you're trying to make? Or are you agreeing with me?

Certainly you're not so daft as to drag this conversation down to the level of debating the inability of children to make decisions or the state's compelling interest to protect them from stupid parents are you?

You must realize that you're proving my observation of your sympathies for paternalism. Paternalism gets its name from the fact that in such systems states deprive its citizens of freedoms and responsibilities like a parent does a child.

I'm going to be a bitch about this:

An important rule in law is that if you forbid the lesser you must also forbid the greater by definition - For example, if you forbid theft you will probably forbid murder because it's a lot more serious. Using this line of thought, forbidding people from driving without seatbelts isn't really a paternalistic State's behaviour - Only someone who advocates complete laissez fair and libertarianism would think the prohibition of driving without seatbelts (which in itself is usually punishable with a fine) is a paternalistic behaviour - It's not, it's simply a coercive way to remind people to not kill themselves unnecessarily and in this case the ends justify the means. Like Aractus said, you could as well argue that taxes are oppressive because taxing is a lot more paternalistic than prohibitions to drive without seatbelt. Your freedom is never absolute.

[popeyespappy]

Driving without seat belts costs everyone money in the form of increased medical expenses, insurance costs and taxes. Don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine, walk. Don't want to walk? Then wear your fucking seat belt, and don't ask me to pay for your stupidity.

[Dystopia]

Driving without seat belts costs everyone money in the form of increased medical expenses, insurance costs and taxes. Don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine, walk. Don't want to walk? Then wear your fucking seat belt, and don't ask me to pay for your stupidity.

My issue isn't really money costs - It's that most people don't live isolated - They have a family, job, etc, and constitute a resource to society - I'm sure some people drive with the seatbelt on anyway, but paying a fine works as a good reminder. From an ultra-individualist perspective you could easily argue from wearing no seatbelts, but people don't live isolated, and I'm sure a few lives have been spared thanks to the "paternalistic" state. Roads were you circulate are provided by the State so you abide by the rules - The State has responsibility to the individual (and just not the other way around) and should protect citizens when possible

[AFTT47]

I'd love to see what methodology the Australian government uses to determine that only 7.4% of the vote is bogus. I am HIGHLY skeptical of that claim. It's just not human nature. If that number is anywhere close, it's because your political system is so different that that many people are actually interested in voting. You cannot coerce somebody into wanting to do something and the only way they are going to make an informed vote is if they want to. It's not something you can wring out of them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you add the number of donkey votes to that (estimated at 1-2%) you get 7.4 +/-.05 % of the vote as either informal or deliberately stupid votes.

How can they determine if votes are sincere or not? How can they determine if votes are well-informed or not?