More on compulsory voting
November 18th 2007 08:08
Warning -- long long boring post coming your way. Have written on this before. Here's a couple more thoughts, though it's really too complex a topic for me to do justice to.
Haven't gone out of my way to research it properly, or anything like that.
One of the best overviews is a parliamentary library research brief; will refer to it a couple of times during this post: Scott Bennett, "Compulsory voting in Australian national elections", 31 October 2005.
Quoth Wikipedia (though I've seen conflicting information on these points): There are 32 countries with compulsory voting, but not all of these countries enforce the rule. Countries that basically do enforce include: Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Fiji, Greece, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey. Countries that have compulsory voting but to some extent don't enforce it include: Egypt, France, Italy, Philippines, Thailand. Countries that have abolished compulsory voting include Austria and the Netherlands.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance notes the complexity of definition: "Can a country be considered to practice compulsory voting if the mandatory voting laws are ignored and irrelevant to the voting habits of the electorate? Is a country practicing compulsory voting if there are no penalties for not voting? What if there are penalties for failing to vote but they are never or are scarcely enforced? Or if the penalty is negligible? Many countries offer loopholes, intentionally and otherwise, which allow non-voters to go unpunished. For example, in many countries it is required to vote only if you are a registered voter, but it is not compulsory to register. The diverse forms compulsory voting has taken in different countries refocuses the perception of it away from an either present or absent practice of countries to a study of the degree and manner in which the government forces its citizens to participate."
Regarding the Australian situation, there's a good summary at the Australian Electoral Commission's website. My very loose understanding goes...
Since 1911, it's been compulsory, at a federal level, for anyone who is entitled to enrol as an Australian elector, to be enrolled: see ss 93 and 101(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act). People who aren't entitled to enrol include those of unsound mind and those convicted of treason.
The Liberal Party first established compulsory voting -- in Queensland, in 1915 (they went on to lose that election).
Since 1924, it's been compulsory for enrolled electors to vote in federal elections (the situation is slightly different, though for practical purposes the same, at a state level). The key provision is s 245(1) of the Act: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election." This is subject to some exceptions: for instance, you can be enrolled at age 17, but aren't allowed to vote till you're 18; certain overseas electors are exempt from voting; and it seems to be the case that anyone serving a prison sentence of 3 years or longer is not permitted to vote.
There is a lot more detail on the history and apparent motivations for this elsewhere: in the parliamentary library paper; and in an AEC discussion paper: Tim Evans, "Compulsory voting in Australia", 16 January 2006.
In recent times (for instance, in 1994 in South Australia, and after the 2004 federal election), various members of the Liberal party (including Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, Judith Adams, and John Howard) have spoken in support of a voluntary system, which has given rise to the suspicion of partisan advantage. Tim Evans makes some points on this topic, and concludes: "On balance, there is no empirical evidence that a move to voluntary voting would advantage one major party over another." The parliamentary library paper similarly notes: "The Australian evidence is inconclusive".
I don't think "vote" is defined in the Act. Tim Evans notes: "Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. 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".
If you intentionally stuff up your ballot paper, I don't know whether your "informal vote" is actually a "vote" for the purposes of the Act -- that is, I don't know whether it's illegal. I suspect that the matter is legally ambiguous. Thus Blackburn CJ in O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 writes: "In my opinion the Act does not oblige the elector to make a true expression of his preference among the candidates. On one view... he need not express himself intelligibly or at all." The parliamentary library paper seems to state that it's not illegal: "‘Compulsory voting’, as applied to Commonwealth elections, is a misnomer, for there is no requirement to mark the ballot paper correctly so as to register a valid vote -- or even to mark the ballot paper at all."
If you don't get your name marked off, however, the Division Returning Officer will send you a penalty notice, and you've basically got to pay a fine of $20, or provide a "valid and sufficient reason" (s 245(4)(d) of the Act) for failing to vote.
If you believe it's your religious duty not to vote, that counts as a good reason: s 245(15). For example, many Jehovah's Witnesses believe they shouldn't involve themselves in earthly political affairs. The High Court has also suggested that valid and sufficient reasons might include: physical obstruction, including sickness and accident; and being diverted for reasons of preventing crime, saving a life, or assisting in a disaster.
The following don't count as valid and sufficient reasons:
-- that all candidate parties support capitalism, and you don't believe in capitalism (Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380), or you think none of the parties addresses important issues and instead each concerns itself with trivialities (Krosch v Springell; Ex parte Krosch [1974] Qd R 107) -- essentially, you believe all options are equally undesirable or meaningless;
-- that, for whatever reason, you have no preference among the parties, perhaps because you can't decide, or haven't given the matter thought, or think all options are equally desirable (Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807; Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271);
-- that you haven't had time to learn about the candidates in order to make an informed choice (O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13).
The arguments for compulsory voting seem to include:
-- that it creates a healthier democracy and a better society. It encourages individuals to take an interest in political affairs and to contribute to public debate, it promotes good citizenship and a cohesive community generally, and it guarantees a legitimate, accountable and representative government (or at least it gives the appearance of this -- in the same way that judges believe justice must be seen to be done as well as actually be done). Certain groups (the poor, the young, the uneducated, the discontent) seem to be less inclined to vote under a voluntary system, but politicians are required to think about how they'll vote under a compulsory system.
-- that, relatedly, it's every citizen's duty to vote (so we enforce this belief in the same way that many other laws enforce beliefs about right and wrong);
-- that compulsory voting creates greater equality and prevents interference with access to voting (for instance, it has been claimed that politicians have no motivation to care about non-voters, that the poor, the uneducated, and the marginalised tend to be the non-voters in voluntary systems, and that compulsory voting systems are driven to ensure voting access: see, for instance, Greg Barns, "Compulsory voting: democracy at work", On Line Opinion, Wednesday 8 December 2004);
-- that compulsory voting reduces electoral and party campaign expenditure (for instance, Greg Barns alleges that the US spends "billions" (over what period of time?) on getting people to turn up in the first place; the parliamentary paper quotes a study as estimating that between 18% and 25% of the Democrat and Republican budget is spent on "getting out the vote"; Tim Evans writes: "Opponents [of compulsory voting] see this as wealth transfer, to the advantage of political parties, while proponents see it as a wealth transfer to the advantage of the democratic process");
-- that it allows politicians to focus on defending their platforms rather than trying to encourage you to turn up in the first place (or does it encourage ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, watered down politics?).
I personally believe most of this is quite possible, although:
1. There are going to be questions as to whether there aren't other or better options to achieve a more responsible citizenry, etc (could access-to-voting measures be implemented without making voting compulsory?).
2. There's a general issue whether the good outweighs the bad (for instance, whether any "paternalism" outweighs the good flowing from individual freedom).
3. And there are going to be empirical and context-specific questions. For instance, it may be a fact, and you wouldn't know without researching, that, in a particular society at a particular time, compulsory voting doesn't significantly increase political involvement, and doesn't significantly increase voter knowledge about political matters: see eg Peter Tucker, "Voter turnout, voter ignorance and compulsory voting", On Line Opinion, Wednesday 19 October 2005 (more detailed version of the paper here).
Tucker claims "compulsory voting makes a difference to turnout, but not as much as many people think. Compulsory voting gives a relatively high level of informal votes... Australia’s 'true' participation rate is about 76 per cent, which is not that far above the OECD mean of 70 per cent". (For a paper arguing the contrary, and making some useful remarks on why New Zealand and Malta aren't necessarily good counter-examples for the anti-compulsory camp, see Jonathon Louth and Lisa Hill, "Compulsory voting in Australia: turnout with and without it", Australian Review of Public Affairs, volume 6, issue 1, November 2005, pp 25-37. The parliamentary library paper also quotes various estimates.)
With regards to the knowledge question, Tucker argues that given how little one's vote counts in the scheme of things, it's simply not self-interestedly rational to invest sufficient time and effort to learn enough about policy and policy trade-offs to cast an informed vote -- compulsory voting won't really motivate you. Australians are more politically aware compared to most western democracies, but it's a low benchmark: "Ian McAllister undertook a study in 2001... Based on analysis of a survey of voters in the 1997 Australian federal election he found that the median voter could only answer correctly two out of seven factual statements about political institutions."
The arguments against compulsory voting (or for voluntary voting as an important freedom) include:
-- that compulsory voting is an undemocratic infringement on liberty -- any force is prima facie undesirable. You're for practical purposes compelled to do a number of things -- including being present at a polling booth (instead of going to the beach or earning money), spending time considering the various issues and policies and candidates (if you don't want to make an irrational decision), being involved in a political group, and becoming responsible for various chains of event (what if I vote Labor in, and they go on to do this or that evil deed -- am I blameworthy?);
-- that you might have some reasonable reason (perhaps religious or moral) for not voting (see below); and society should encourage more such people of conscience;
-- that it's bad for society if idiots and the uninterested are compelled to vote -- bad choices get made, or bad politics are encouraged (for instance, the political process might become more populist or superficial, or turn more into a battle of character than of policy);
-- that compulsory voting increases the number of donkey or reverse donkey or otherwise random votes, and therefore delegitimizes government;
-- that it can change the political process in ways that some deem undesirable (for instance, parties may spend more time targeting swinging voters than their base supporters, the policies of parties may evolve to become centrist and not meaningfully differentiated -- some have claimed that right and left have already coalesced --, and, at the most extreme, parties could be induced to spend much more in marginal than in safe electorates);
-- that it can give rise to a false veneer of legitimacy, and cover up problems of voter apathy and discontent;
-- that, in some societies, it's dangerous to vote (for instance, Wikipedia mentions that the Shining Path group in Peru has threatened voters);
-- that it may cause backlash (in terms of voter discontent and informal voting) if it's perceived as oppressive;
-- that the cost of it (mobile voting booths, etc) can be substantial, especially for poorer countries;
-- that a benefit of a voluntary system is that political parties would have to work harder and remain closer to their electorate in order to motivate people to vote in the first place.
Incidentally, the "idiots shouldn't vote" argument can be met with various retorts, including: (1) that compulsory voting encourages people to become more informed; idiocy isn't a static quantity; (2) that idiots (however defined) have the right to self-determination, just as (some argue) any sane person has the right to make an irrational choice or to choose to harm themselves.
Regarding the evolution towards centrism, some have seen this as "stability" and a good thing.
With regards to how oppressive compulsory voting is, some have claimed that the obligation to attend a polling place, and the $20 fine if you don't, are negligible, and far outweighed by the benefits to society (in contrast, for instance, with the 200 pounds fine in Cyprus, or with penalties elsewhere -- "In Belgium a citizen who fails to vote in at least four elections within 15 years will probably be disenfranchised; a Peruvian without a stamped voting card is unable to receive some services from public offices; in Greece a non-voter may have difficulty in obtaining a new passport or driver’s licence": parliamentary library paper).
Listed many of these previously, but reasons you might want to vote invalid, or not vote at all, either in a voluntary or a compulsory system, include:
-- religious beliefs;
-- you have no preference (perhaps you can't make up your mind, or all options are equally bad or feeble, or equally good -- or equally evil: imagine a situation where the choices are Stalinism or National Socialism or Fundamentalism Is Us -- you mightn't want to dirty your hands with, or legitimate, any of them);
-- you don't completely agree with any policy set or party or candidate, and don't want to "compromise" yourself, make a "dishonest" or "insincere" vote, by voting for any of them;
-- you hate the idea of giving preferences to a particular party or platform or candidate (the parliamentary library paper writes: "An example which caused anguish for many Canberra voters was in the May 1970 by-election for the ACT House of Representatives seat. A Nazi nominated as one of the seven candidates, causing many people to express resentment that they had to preference such a candidate, no matter how low the preference");
-- there are particular issues you're not comfortable involving yourself with or taking a stand on (for instance, if the choice between parties meant the difference between going to war and not going to war);
-- you don't feel you're in a position to make a rational, informed choice (for instance, you don't feel you have enough information or time or intelligence);
-- you don't want to be involved in politics (you might prefer to lead an apolitical life, for whatever reason -- perhaps you hate politics like you hate junk advertising -- or perhaps you think your energies and mental bandwidth are better invested elsewhere);
-- you want to maintain neutrality with respect to political life, for whatever reason (perhaps so that you can be seen to be an impartial judge);
-- you simply have something better to do that day (says one blog: "do we really want to fine the 88 year old who decides not to vote because it is freezing cold outside, and they don’t have a car?");
-- you object to the political system in general (you might be an anarchist);
-- you think that empowering someone to act for you is somehow a surrender of moral agency;
-- you object to compulsory voting itself;
-- you want to make a political statement (for instance, you could publicly avoid voting in order to protest against compulsory voting; or you could organize a largescale boycott of voting, to express dissatisfaction with the choices offered you).
In response, it could be said:
-- that some of these concerns could be alleviated by having on the ballot paper a "no confidence" box, or "no preference", "abstain", or similar, or by making clear the permissibility of submitting a blank ballot paper;
-- that there's many ways a compulsory system could be modified (for instance, by taking, particularly in the case of the aged or those living in remote areas, a more permissive stance towards what counts as a "valid and sufficient" excuse, or by making preferential voting optional);
-- that it's arguable that you can be responsible by omission, by failing to vote, as much as by action -- you can't keep a clean conscience either way. A friend of mine, IW, adds that your vote is as much a vote against parties you don't like as a vote for the ones you do.
Notes
-- Monday 24 December 2007: Found this in some article (not sure of the title) by an "Andrew Taylor":
I take from this at least three reasons for not wanting to engage in politics: (1) because you want clarity about issues, and don't want to adulterate your principles by pursuing them within the borders of party operations; (2) because you believe in freedom from politics; you think that engaging in it, contra Arendt, is a limitation of the individual; you stand apart both for your own prudential good and because, in a Kantian sort of way, you want to bring about the ideal world; and (3) because there are things you object to about the particular way politics is practised, and you don't want to dirty your hands by "playing on the same field as the regime".
Haven't gone out of my way to research it properly, or anything like that.
One of the best overviews is a parliamentary library research brief; will refer to it a couple of times during this post: Scott Bennett, "Compulsory voting in Australian national elections", 31 October 2005.
***
Quoth Wikipedia (though I've seen conflicting information on these points): There are 32 countries with compulsory voting, but not all of these countries enforce the rule. Countries that basically do enforce include: Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Fiji, Greece, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey. Countries that have compulsory voting but to some extent don't enforce it include: Egypt, France, Italy, Philippines, Thailand. Countries that have abolished compulsory voting include Austria and the Netherlands.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance notes the complexity of definition: "Can a country be considered to practice compulsory voting if the mandatory voting laws are ignored and irrelevant to the voting habits of the electorate? Is a country practicing compulsory voting if there are no penalties for not voting? What if there are penalties for failing to vote but they are never or are scarcely enforced? Or if the penalty is negligible? Many countries offer loopholes, intentionally and otherwise, which allow non-voters to go unpunished. For example, in many countries it is required to vote only if you are a registered voter, but it is not compulsory to register. The diverse forms compulsory voting has taken in different countries refocuses the perception of it away from an either present or absent practice of countries to a study of the degree and manner in which the government forces its citizens to participate."
***
Regarding the Australian situation, there's a good summary at the Australian Electoral Commission's website. My very loose understanding goes...
Since 1911, it's been compulsory, at a federal level, for anyone who is entitled to enrol as an Australian elector, to be enrolled: see ss 93 and 101(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act). People who aren't entitled to enrol include those of unsound mind and those convicted of treason.
The Liberal Party first established compulsory voting -- in Queensland, in 1915 (they went on to lose that election).
Since 1924, it's been compulsory for enrolled electors to vote in federal elections (the situation is slightly different, though for practical purposes the same, at a state level). The key provision is s 245(1) of the Act: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election." This is subject to some exceptions: for instance, you can be enrolled at age 17, but aren't allowed to vote till you're 18; certain overseas electors are exempt from voting; and it seems to be the case that anyone serving a prison sentence of 3 years or longer is not permitted to vote.
There is a lot more detail on the history and apparent motivations for this elsewhere: in the parliamentary library paper; and in an AEC discussion paper: Tim Evans, "Compulsory voting in Australia", 16 January 2006.
In recent times (for instance, in 1994 in South Australia, and after the 2004 federal election), various members of the Liberal party (including Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, Judith Adams, and John Howard) have spoken in support of a voluntary system, which has given rise to the suspicion of partisan advantage. Tim Evans makes some points on this topic, and concludes: "On balance, there is no empirical evidence that a move to voluntary voting would advantage one major party over another." The parliamentary library paper similarly notes: "The Australian evidence is inconclusive".
***
I don't think "vote" is defined in the Act. Tim Evans notes: "Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. 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".
If you intentionally stuff up your ballot paper, I don't know whether your "informal vote" is actually a "vote" for the purposes of the Act -- that is, I don't know whether it's illegal. I suspect that the matter is legally ambiguous. Thus Blackburn CJ in O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 writes: "In my opinion the Act does not oblige the elector to make a true expression of his preference among the candidates. On one view... he need not express himself intelligibly or at all." The parliamentary library paper seems to state that it's not illegal: "‘Compulsory voting’, as applied to Commonwealth elections, is a misnomer, for there is no requirement to mark the ballot paper correctly so as to register a valid vote -- or even to mark the ballot paper at all."
If you don't get your name marked off, however, the Division Returning Officer will send you a penalty notice, and you've basically got to pay a fine of $20, or provide a "valid and sufficient reason" (s 245(4)(d) of the Act) for failing to vote.
If you believe it's your religious duty not to vote, that counts as a good reason: s 245(15). For example, many Jehovah's Witnesses believe they shouldn't involve themselves in earthly political affairs. The High Court has also suggested that valid and sufficient reasons might include: physical obstruction, including sickness and accident; and being diverted for reasons of preventing crime, saving a life, or assisting in a disaster.
The following don't count as valid and sufficient reasons:
-- that all candidate parties support capitalism, and you don't believe in capitalism (Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380), or you think none of the parties addresses important issues and instead each concerns itself with trivialities (Krosch v Springell; Ex parte Krosch [1974] Qd R 107) -- essentially, you believe all options are equally undesirable or meaningless;
-- that, for whatever reason, you have no preference among the parties, perhaps because you can't decide, or haven't given the matter thought, or think all options are equally desirable (Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807; Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271);
-- that you haven't had time to learn about the candidates in order to make an informed choice (O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13).
***
The arguments for compulsory voting seem to include:
-- that it creates a healthier democracy and a better society. It encourages individuals to take an interest in political affairs and to contribute to public debate, it promotes good citizenship and a cohesive community generally, and it guarantees a legitimate, accountable and representative government (or at least it gives the appearance of this -- in the same way that judges believe justice must be seen to be done as well as actually be done). Certain groups (the poor, the young, the uneducated, the discontent) seem to be less inclined to vote under a voluntary system, but politicians are required to think about how they'll vote under a compulsory system.
-- that, relatedly, it's every citizen's duty to vote (so we enforce this belief in the same way that many other laws enforce beliefs about right and wrong);
-- that compulsory voting creates greater equality and prevents interference with access to voting (for instance, it has been claimed that politicians have no motivation to care about non-voters, that the poor, the uneducated, and the marginalised tend to be the non-voters in voluntary systems, and that compulsory voting systems are driven to ensure voting access: see, for instance, Greg Barns, "Compulsory voting: democracy at work", On Line Opinion, Wednesday 8 December 2004);
-- that compulsory voting reduces electoral and party campaign expenditure (for instance, Greg Barns alleges that the US spends "billions" (over what period of time?) on getting people to turn up in the first place; the parliamentary paper quotes a study as estimating that between 18% and 25% of the Democrat and Republican budget is spent on "getting out the vote"; Tim Evans writes: "Opponents [of compulsory voting] see this as wealth transfer, to the advantage of political parties, while proponents see it as a wealth transfer to the advantage of the democratic process");
-- that it allows politicians to focus on defending their platforms rather than trying to encourage you to turn up in the first place (or does it encourage ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, watered down politics?).
I personally believe most of this is quite possible, although:
1. There are going to be questions as to whether there aren't other or better options to achieve a more responsible citizenry, etc (could access-to-voting measures be implemented without making voting compulsory?).
2. There's a general issue whether the good outweighs the bad (for instance, whether any "paternalism" outweighs the good flowing from individual freedom).
3. And there are going to be empirical and context-specific questions. For instance, it may be a fact, and you wouldn't know without researching, that, in a particular society at a particular time, compulsory voting doesn't significantly increase political involvement, and doesn't significantly increase voter knowledge about political matters: see eg Peter Tucker, "Voter turnout, voter ignorance and compulsory voting", On Line Opinion, Wednesday 19 October 2005 (more detailed version of the paper here).
Tucker claims "compulsory voting makes a difference to turnout, but not as much as many people think. Compulsory voting gives a relatively high level of informal votes... Australia’s 'true' participation rate is about 76 per cent, which is not that far above the OECD mean of 70 per cent". (For a paper arguing the contrary, and making some useful remarks on why New Zealand and Malta aren't necessarily good counter-examples for the anti-compulsory camp, see Jonathon Louth and Lisa Hill, "Compulsory voting in Australia: turnout with and without it", Australian Review of Public Affairs, volume 6, issue 1, November 2005, pp 25-37. The parliamentary library paper also quotes various estimates.)
With regards to the knowledge question, Tucker argues that given how little one's vote counts in the scheme of things, it's simply not self-interestedly rational to invest sufficient time and effort to learn enough about policy and policy trade-offs to cast an informed vote -- compulsory voting won't really motivate you. Australians are more politically aware compared to most western democracies, but it's a low benchmark: "Ian McAllister undertook a study in 2001... Based on analysis of a survey of voters in the 1997 Australian federal election he found that the median voter could only answer correctly two out of seven factual statements about political institutions."
***
The arguments against compulsory voting (or for voluntary voting as an important freedom) include:
-- that compulsory voting is an undemocratic infringement on liberty -- any force is prima facie undesirable. You're for practical purposes compelled to do a number of things -- including being present at a polling booth (instead of going to the beach or earning money), spending time considering the various issues and policies and candidates (if you don't want to make an irrational decision), being involved in a political group, and becoming responsible for various chains of event (what if I vote Labor in, and they go on to do this or that evil deed -- am I blameworthy?);
-- that you might have some reasonable reason (perhaps religious or moral) for not voting (see below); and society should encourage more such people of conscience;
-- that it's bad for society if idiots and the uninterested are compelled to vote -- bad choices get made, or bad politics are encouraged (for instance, the political process might become more populist or superficial, or turn more into a battle of character than of policy);
-- that compulsory voting increases the number of donkey or reverse donkey or otherwise random votes, and therefore delegitimizes government;
-- that it can change the political process in ways that some deem undesirable (for instance, parties may spend more time targeting swinging voters than their base supporters, the policies of parties may evolve to become centrist and not meaningfully differentiated -- some have claimed that right and left have already coalesced --, and, at the most extreme, parties could be induced to spend much more in marginal than in safe electorates);
-- that it can give rise to a false veneer of legitimacy, and cover up problems of voter apathy and discontent;
-- that, in some societies, it's dangerous to vote (for instance, Wikipedia mentions that the Shining Path group in Peru has threatened voters);
-- that it may cause backlash (in terms of voter discontent and informal voting) if it's perceived as oppressive;
-- that the cost of it (mobile voting booths, etc) can be substantial, especially for poorer countries;
-- that a benefit of a voluntary system is that political parties would have to work harder and remain closer to their electorate in order to motivate people to vote in the first place.
Incidentally, the "idiots shouldn't vote" argument can be met with various retorts, including: (1) that compulsory voting encourages people to become more informed; idiocy isn't a static quantity; (2) that idiots (however defined) have the right to self-determination, just as (some argue) any sane person has the right to make an irrational choice or to choose to harm themselves.
Regarding the evolution towards centrism, some have seen this as "stability" and a good thing.
With regards to how oppressive compulsory voting is, some have claimed that the obligation to attend a polling place, and the $20 fine if you don't, are negligible, and far outweighed by the benefits to society (in contrast, for instance, with the 200 pounds fine in Cyprus, or with penalties elsewhere -- "In Belgium a citizen who fails to vote in at least four elections within 15 years will probably be disenfranchised; a Peruvian without a stamped voting card is unable to receive some services from public offices; in Greece a non-voter may have difficulty in obtaining a new passport or driver’s licence": parliamentary library paper).
***
Listed many of these previously, but reasons you might want to vote invalid, or not vote at all, either in a voluntary or a compulsory system, include:
-- religious beliefs;
-- you have no preference (perhaps you can't make up your mind, or all options are equally bad or feeble, or equally good -- or equally evil: imagine a situation where the choices are Stalinism or National Socialism or Fundamentalism Is Us -- you mightn't want to dirty your hands with, or legitimate, any of them);
-- you don't completely agree with any policy set or party or candidate, and don't want to "compromise" yourself, make a "dishonest" or "insincere" vote, by voting for any of them;
-- you hate the idea of giving preferences to a particular party or platform or candidate (the parliamentary library paper writes: "An example which caused anguish for many Canberra voters was in the May 1970 by-election for the ACT House of Representatives seat. A Nazi nominated as one of the seven candidates, causing many people to express resentment that they had to preference such a candidate, no matter how low the preference");
-- there are particular issues you're not comfortable involving yourself with or taking a stand on (for instance, if the choice between parties meant the difference between going to war and not going to war);
-- you don't feel you're in a position to make a rational, informed choice (for instance, you don't feel you have enough information or time or intelligence);
-- you don't want to be involved in politics (you might prefer to lead an apolitical life, for whatever reason -- perhaps you hate politics like you hate junk advertising -- or perhaps you think your energies and mental bandwidth are better invested elsewhere);
-- you want to maintain neutrality with respect to political life, for whatever reason (perhaps so that you can be seen to be an impartial judge);
-- you simply have something better to do that day (says one blog: "do we really want to fine the 88 year old who decides not to vote because it is freezing cold outside, and they don’t have a car?");
-- you object to the political system in general (you might be an anarchist);
-- you think that empowering someone to act for you is somehow a surrender of moral agency;
-- you object to compulsory voting itself;
-- you want to make a political statement (for instance, you could publicly avoid voting in order to protest against compulsory voting; or you could organize a largescale boycott of voting, to express dissatisfaction with the choices offered you).
In response, it could be said:
-- that some of these concerns could be alleviated by having on the ballot paper a "no confidence" box, or "no preference", "abstain", or similar, or by making clear the permissibility of submitting a blank ballot paper;
-- that there's many ways a compulsory system could be modified (for instance, by taking, particularly in the case of the aged or those living in remote areas, a more permissive stance towards what counts as a "valid and sufficient" excuse, or by making preferential voting optional);
-- that it's arguable that you can be responsible by omission, by failing to vote, as much as by action -- you can't keep a clean conscience either way. A friend of mine, IW, adds that your vote is as much a vote against parties you don't like as a vote for the ones you do.
***
Notes
-- Monday 24 December 2007: Found this in some article (not sure of the title) by an "Andrew Taylor":
| At the heart of Stoppard's play [Rock 'N’ Roll] is the notion that rock music can be a radical force for individual freedom simply by not caring about political debate.
Phillips said the band was harassed, beaten and imprisoned by the Czech Communists simply because it insisted on the right to play music. "People actively fighting a regime are playing on the same field as the regime," he said. "But one of the incredibly potent things about rock music is that it doesn't fight with the same tools... It's subversive just because it demands the right to exist." |
I take from this at least three reasons for not wanting to engage in politics: (1) because you want clarity about issues, and don't want to adulterate your principles by pursuing them within the borders of party operations; (2) because you believe in freedom from politics; you think that engaging in it, contra Arendt, is a limitation of the individual; you stand apart both for your own prudential good and because, in a Kantian sort of way, you want to bring about the ideal world; and (3) because there are things you object to about the particular way politics is practised, and you don't want to dirty your hands by "playing on the same field as the regime".
| 57 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I wrote about voting on Saturday and as soon as I post I see your post was already there. Coincidences on Orble.
Anyway a few years ago I spent some time getting extra cash in AEC hotline call centre. There were a lot of queries about compulsary voting and old people.
On the last day the most common question was about a parent that is suffereing mentally incapable of voting. "Yes my mother has no idea where she is half the time. It is kind of funny she keeps mentioning not wanting Pig Iron Bob back in."
The answer was in all cases: if you can't do it we can't make you do.
I think the fine is $50 now but you have plenty of wriggle room.
The AEC no longer bother going to court after several expensive legal battles that ended with the defendant paying the fine one day before the hearing. Problem solved for the defendant but hundred of thousands of dollars for the AEC. And no way of claiming that from the defendant.
However we have compulsary Jury Duty and compulsary Survey Duty. My mother got caught to compulsary survey duty once. So what is the difference in principle?
If someone is too lazy to walk a few hundred meters to local primary school then they can always use a postal vote. Or better still tell AEC that they have already sent a postal vote but blame them for losing it.
Even if you hate everyone you can still collect your ballots fold them and put then in the box blank.
You can even write 'No Dams' across the bottom if you like.
Democracy in the Westminster system is so fun.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
I object to the use of the term 'idiots' as it's not politically correct. I don't think it's a good idea to distinguish between people of different intelligence in this case, because everyone can vote and everyone has access to information about the choices. What they do with that is their business. Otherwise, a very balanced post that shows both sides of the argument.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Thank you for maintaining sensitivity to this issue.
I'd actually defend my use of the term "idiots". After all, this is what people who deploy that particular argument do say, and what they actually think (they do employ the concept of intellligence, and believe certain people aren't intelligent enough to vote).
Don't know how balanced my post really is
Dear Damo, thanks for wading through this one, and thanks for the useful comments. Just responding to a couple of parts of it.
That's what I thought as well. But the Act itself says "$20", and this document from the AEC website says $20. If the matter goes to court, though, the court can fine you up to $50 (not including court fees).
Well, arguing from a pro-voluntary voting perspective, I think my main response would be: "Two wrongs don't make a right" (though the expression doesn't quite fit).
Perhaps we shouldn't have compulsory jury duty either! I personally don't like juries -- I'm inclined to be cynical and say that the whole jury process is an exercise in rhetoric and mob mentality.
And even if we do want to keep compulsory jury duty, why keep adding to the list of things that people are compelled to do? Why does accepting one obligation authorize the imposition of others? Why not keep that list as short as possible.
I made some remarks on this above, when quoting Blackburn CJ. The Act says, "It's the duty of each elector to vote". What "vote" means is unspecified. On one view, it doesn't include an obligation to mark the paper or indicate preference. The Act doesn't explicitly say that you have to. But as far as I know the exact definition of "vote" is undecided.
Some who argue that "vote" does mean you must indicate a preference (see the parliamentary library link at the top of the page) have developed this into the claim that compulsory voting penalizes honest behaviour -- the people who who don't go through the charade of pretending to vote get fined.
In this scenario, I think the woman would fall under the "of unsound mind" provision for removal from the electoral roll.
Sure, but "can" and "can't" are such vague words. They might think they can't; a magistrate might think they can. Why subject people to that arbitrary power in the first place?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The problem I always find with legal documents is that I need someone to tell what they mean this time as opposed to when they were writen. The law is a maze of twisted sentences and words with 2 meanings.
With regards to compulsary voting I figure that if it is such a fundamental issue for people perhaps they should form a lobby group and try to change the law. Forgive me if I don't join the chorus. Too busy participating in the democratic process to worry about it.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Citizens who want the right not to be heard
by David Humphries
[...]
Pushed by some prominent government MPs -- senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz, and Tony Smith, chairman of the activist joint standing committee on electoral matters -- change is urged by various commentators and academics...
Despite Minchin's commitment to "continue to argue the case for the Coalition to go to the next election [next Saturday] with a policy for ending compulsory voting", the promised elevation of the compulsory versus voluntary argument to the status of major election issue has not eventuated.
This is not least due to John Howard's intervention two years ago. "I don't see any compelling need, on the grounds of pragmatism and balance, to alter the voting system", he said, despite his preference for optional voting.
Subsequently, however, he left tantalisingly open the possibility of an energetic debate once this election is out of the way.
[...]
At its core, the principle contest is between civic duty... and civic right; the wrestle between greater good and individual liberty. As the state director of the Liberal Party in South Australia in 1994, Minchin arranged for that state's lower house to approve voluntary voting, but it failed to get past the upper house.
"This is a matter of quite profound principle, that in a democracy a fundamental civil liberty should be whether or not people choose to vote," Minchin says. That those who choose not to vote were guilty of an offence was "thoroughly offensive".
The columnist Paddy McGuinness once wrote: "Just as the right to free speehc entails the right to silence, so the right to vote must imply the right to abstain."
[...]
On surer ground is the argument that political parties would need to work harder at persuading Australians it was worth their while to get out and vote for them. In turn, electorates would be treated more equally because so-called safe seats could be taken less for granted, and voters' engagement with the democratic process... would be more meaningful. Politicians, said the late Labor senator Jim McClelland, would be driven from their 'marble palace' to 'sell their wares in the real world'.
[...]
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
"[W]hile 91 per cent of iGens are enrolled to vote and two-thirds say they regularly watch or read the news, only 26 per cent could correctly identify that the Legislative Assembly was a WA chamber of Parliament and a meagre 2 per cent could correctly name the Governor of WA. National politics fared slightly better with 46 per cent knowing the Senate was a Federal House."
I take this as some sort of evidence of political ignorance despite compulsory voting -- the latter doesn't necessarily avoid the former.