Prev
Next

Even people who have no idea should be made to vote

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

08 Jun 11:35am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Compulsory Voting, Democracy, Election 2010, Government, Politics, Voluntary Voting

129 comments

Rugby League star Jarryd Hayne made an interesting admission in this morning’s Daily Telegraph. Not only has the 22-year-old never voted, he did not know Kevin Rudd represented the Labor Party.

Jarryd Hayne being dragged to the polling booth. Picture: Gregg Porteous

Hayne was spruiking a new campaign by the Australian Electoral Commission to get young people to enrol to vote, but he may have just done a big favour for the voluntary-voting brigade.

There were immediate suggestions on radio this morning that Hayne’s ignorance was simply indicative of his generation, and people who know and care so little don’t add much to our democracy by their forced participation. But that’s a cop out.

According to the AEC 1.4 million eligible Australians are not enrolled to vote. Seventy per cent of those are aged between 18-39, and at the 2007 Federal Election more than 100,000 people left it too late to enrol and missed out.

To be honest, I’m shocked at the laziness and sheer apathy of all those people. They have no idea how bloody lucky they are, and shouldn’t be let off the hook.

I quite often find myself in a never-progressing argument with a friend of mind who thinks compulsory voting is undemocratic. He laughs at my quaint notion that with rights come responsibilities.

I bet any one of those 1.4 million would bleat like a banshee if they thought any of their rights were being violated. But the idea that the preservation of those rights might rely on even a very modest level of responsibility has clearly eluded them.

I don’t want to pick on Hayne, because he’s doing the right thing by joining the campaign, but he said: “I probably didn’t think my vote was going to count.” I don’t know what seat he lives in but in Western Sydney, where Hayne plays his footy, seats are marginal and decide which party forms Government.

Obviously no one ever told him that before.

Anyone who thinks the decisions made by government don’t affect them and the people they know have not been educated on our political system.

Those who argue that the uninformed aren’t adding value to our democracy should consider the idea that perhaps the answer is to inform the uninformed. When I was in year 8 everyone in my year had to do a subject called Australian studies, in which we learned how Federation worked, who was responsible for what, and how laws got through parliament.

Clearly that was not a widespread part of the curriculum. It should be.

(Perhaps the AFL should run a political education campaign too - check out this video).

The voluntary voting argument goes that If you have a right to vote, then you equally should have a right not to vote. You either believe that or you don’t, much the same as you either believe the rights-equal-responsibilities argument I subscribe to.

Passionate voluntary voting advocate Nick Minchin says of compulsory voting: “I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy.”

Senator Minchin says he formed this view as a young man on a visit to the United States.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with a voter turnout of 56.8 per cent of eligible voters. Do you know how much that election cost? $US 1,601,104,696.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

129 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • julia says:

      11:55am | 08/06/10

      Compulsory voting takes away the right of a person to their apathy. It breeds lazy political parties which count on the donkey voters or the ones who will just believe anything - generally down the middle to left of the spectrum.

      On the other hand, voluntary voting would increase the need to spend money getting people to the polls. The exception to that was Obama, who just by sheer appeal was able to coax a lot of people out who didn’t vote at every election.

      Either way, a person has a right to disengage from politics. And I think it’s fair enough if a person chooses to do that.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      01:15pm | 08/06/10

      You don’t have to vote, you can just turn up and get your name crossed off.

      In countries with voluntary voting, it can actually be very hard to vote, as those running the election don’t have to consider the needs of voters.

      In the UK, for example, voting happens on a weekday. You have to vote at the booth nominated for your residence, during business hours - so if you work away from home, as most of us do, you can’t vote.

      In non compulsory systems, there’s not always (if at all) provisions for postal voting or pre poll voting.

      As no one has to vote unless they want to, there’s more opportunity for bribery and other forms of fraud (can’t bribe someone to vote if they’re going to do it anyway).

      And the parties themselves don’t have to cater for everyone’s needs, just for those demographics who are most likely to turn out to vote.

    • None of the Above says:

      01:34pm | 08/06/10

      @ julia, i am with you & Nick Minchin. Voting should not be compulsory, but i would encourage it, by offering a tax cut, to “Committed, or Caring Citizens” who are enrolled to vote, are available for jury duty, etc.

      I would also include a “None of the Above” box at the bottom of the ballot paper. Many electorates, don’t rate, many, minor party or independent candidates. So voters may have only 2 or 3 choices & be disillusioned with all of them.

      They should be able to register that disgust. If that vote exceeded a set limit like 15% to 20% of the vote, then a by election would be called.

      All parties would be required to run new candidates &/or policies.

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      01:34pm | 08/06/10

      Persephone wrote In the UK, for example, voting happens on a weekday. You have to vote at the booth nominated for your residence, during business hours - so if you work away from home, as most of us do, you can’t vote.

      Just very slightly wrong with that as you can postal vote in the UK and the polling stations are open from 7:00am to 10:00pm so people can vote easily providing they remember and do not turn up with 5 minutes to go.

    • persephone says:

      03:12pm | 08/06/10

      OK, Sheeds, sorry about that - going by advice from a friend who was there years ago, and maybe was just trying to rationalise why she didn’t vote!!

      Still, the general point is OK - if people don’t have to vote, you don’t have to make it easy for them to do so.

    • Grant says:

      03:55pm | 08/06/10

      A “right to apathy” is a fake ideal propagandized by the right of politics because it knows full well that it further disenfranchises the poorer and more distressed sections of society.

      Your division of gullible or “lazy donkey” voters to the left of politics is absurd and revealing of your own distasteful political ideology.

    • Macon Paine says:

      04:29pm | 08/06/10

      “You don’t have to vote, you can just turn up and get your name crossed off.”
      Correct but what a waste of time. Besides whats the point in forcing people to turn up just to get their name crossed off?
      “In countries with voluntary voting, it can actually be very hard to vote,”
      as those running the election don’t have to consider the needs of voters
      In the UK, for example, voting happens on a weekday. You have to vote at the booth nominated for your residence, during business hours - so if you work away from home, as most of us do, you can’t vote.”
      So the UK’s voting system is silly. No one is advocating we adopt weekday voting persephone.
      “In non compulsory systems, there’s not always (if at all) provisions for postal voting or pre poll voting.”
      Again no one is advocating that these provisions be dropped. Nor is that a requirement of non complusary voting.
      “As no one has to vote unless they want to, there’s more opportunity for bribery and other forms of fraud (can’t bribe someone to vote if they’re going to do it anyway).”
      So voting (or showing up to get your name marked off) must be enforced because some people may theoretically engage in criminal acts?
      ” And the parties themselves don’t have to cater for everyone’s needs, just for those demographics who are most likely to turn out to vote.”
      imho, people who take no interest in how the country/state etc are being run and only show up every election to cast a donkey vote are imbeciles. However government should not force them to vote. If they chose ignorance let them have it.

    • Julia says:

      06:42pm | 08/06/10

      @grant. I’d like to be apathetic. I want to wake up on election day and either roll over and go back to sleep or get out of bed and vote.

      Compulsory voting is robbing me of my right to choose.

    • Steve M says:

      12:50pm | 09/06/10

      You’re right Julia, it is taking away your right to choose. And so it should. If you need to lose a sleep in(and you dont as the booths are open till 5pm) to take part then that is the cost of living in a democracy.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      10:24pm | 09/06/10

      “You don’t have to vote, you can just turn up and get your name crossed off.”

      Not true.  Well, it’s physically possible to do what you say, but you are legally obliged to actually vote.  By just turning up and getting your name crossed off without actually voting, you are breaking law.  You might never get caught, but you are still breaking the law.

      And even if you were right, it’s hardly a good point.  Forcing people to turn up for absolutely no reason is even worse than forcing them to turn up and vote.

      And another thing, why does everyone assume that note voting is symptomatic of apathy?  Some people are extremely well informed about politics but have very good reasons for not wanted to vote.  I guess you could call it ‘actively’ not voting as opposed to ‘passively’ not voting.

      I found a great way to not vote.  I moved house and they struck me off the roll.

    • Y says:

      11:58am | 08/06/10

      Your comment:we are lucky to live in a democracy where we decide our government. compulsory voting is a small price to pay for that kind of freedom; as opposed to a civil war or war of independence or revolution, which has been the fate of almost every western democracy (almost). besides, we’re not the only ones. the greeks (who invented the concept of democracy) thought it was very “citizen’s” “Duty” to vote. for those of you not born here, it’s part of the citizenship test in oz too. just vote!

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      01:53pm | 08/06/10

      How is “compulsory voting” freedom at all? When a government involves itself in your life so deeply that they can FORCE you to vote, they can FORCE you to contribute to super and they can FORCE you to take out private medical health fraud (because its not insurance that is for sure), how can any of that be classified as freedom?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      05:45pm | 08/06/10

      Ryan :  Just go to a polling booth and have your name crossed off .
      You don’t have to vote at all.
      However , if you are prepared to go to that trouble , you may as well vote.
      Whats your problem ?  If you vote , the colllective answer is a truer reflection of what the people want.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      06:16pm | 09/06/10

      Ryan :  Ryan if you check your link relating to compulsory voting you will find :  ”  It is not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. ”  Therefore there is no chance of your being found guilty.  Obviously you may feel uncomfortable in your conscience but it seems your main objection is having been forced to that guilty state.
      Ryan , i understand your stance on principle but i dont believe it’s worth stressing over simply to object to a compulsory system of voting.
      I must ask though , would you be more likely to vote if it was voluntary. ?

    • Just Sayin' says:

      10:30pm | 09/06/10

      Wayne,  I guess you have one of those stupid t-shirts I see on teenage boys that says “It’s not illegal if you don’t get caught”.  Are you, with your full name published, advocating that people break the law and that it doesn’t matter because they won’t get caught?  I wonder if that’s a violation of the electoral act too.  I’ll have to look it up.

      If voting was voluntary, I’d re-enrol and start voting again.  I’d even give my preference to the Liberals, not that it matters as I live in WA and pretty much every WA electorate will be bright blue on the electoral map after the next election.

    • Tim says:

      12:05pm | 08/06/10

      Why can’t we have the system in Starship Troopers? (OK, not necessarily with the forced military service).
      When a person turns 18 they have to complete 1-2 years of volunteer service for the nation before being granted full voting citizenship.
      If they don’t want to do it, they don’t have to.
      The service could be in many areas that are necessary for nation building such as:
      Military service
      Healthcare
      Large environment projects
      National infrastructure projects
      etc (i’m sure others could come up with a big list).

      Come on, you know it makes sense.

      Reply

    • dancan says:

      12:12pm | 08/06/10

      It’s a scary time when a satirical movie like Starship Troopers starts to make sense lol

    • Markus says:

      12:21pm | 08/06/10

      I would like to know more…

    • Chris says:

      12:44pm | 08/06/10

      At least in Starship Troopers when the leaders stuffed up the invasion of the bug planet - they resigned.

    • Heath Karl says:

      01:03pm | 08/06/10

      Compulsory Voluntary Service is an excellent idea because it teaches subservience to authority, it nicely allows people to labor for slave wages and best of all it keeps facist minds occupied with all the “good” they can force other people to perform.
      And you think this is a good compromise to compulsory voting?

    • luke09 says:

      02:20pm | 08/06/10

      Vote 1 for bugs.

    • Luke says:

      03:29pm | 08/06/10

      READ THE BOOK and to hell with the movie…
      Much better explaination…

    • Markus says:

      12:09pm | 08/06/10

      The right not to vote should be included as an “abstain” field on voting cards, which gives the option of not wanting to give a vote to a party you do not want to vote for / do not know enough about to give a vote.

      Not voting at all should not be an option, and should still be punishable by a fine (the fine itself is minimal anyway, it’s just enough to be annoying).

      Non-compulsory voting just encourages apathy amongst the majority who do not have overly strong feelings one way or another when it comes to certain issues, leaving fundamentalists and the stubbornly opinionated (the religious groups, the far right, far left, the NIMBYs, the retirees) being horribly over-represented in the polls.

      Reply

    • Jen says:

      12:27pm | 08/06/10

      I agree. You have to make people get out of their houses and into the ballot box on election day or the only ones who bother to do so will be people with extremist views.

      Part of the solution to voter apathy could well be to lower the voting age. As 16-year-olds we were passionately opposed to the Howard government and would have loved the opportunity to express that. It’s unlikely I will ever care that much about politics again. You shouldn’t squander that kind of enthusiasm.

    • acker says:

      12:30pm | 08/06/10

      I agree ..why isn’t education and modern parenting cutting through to give this generation social and civic motivation..too many modern groups telling people what they dont have to do, rather than what as good citizens they could do.

    • Sal says:

      01:04pm | 08/06/10

      I believe that voting should not be compulsory.  It doesn’t help the country by compelling people who aren’t interested, don’t know one party from another, and couldn’t care less who governs, making uninformed votes on so important an issue.

    • Ryan says:

      01:58pm | 08/06/10

      A true democracy with compulsory voting needs to include an option for “No confidence in any of the candidates”, which if voted for in the majority would induce fines for all parties for not presenting decent candidates and force the parties to table a new set of candidates in six months, the present government remaining until an election outcome.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      03:39pm | 08/06/10

      You can vote “informal”.  You can do this by just putting a line across the whole page, or nothing at all, just fold the paper and put it in the electoral bin.  That is enough to discount the vote.  That said, I *do* believe in compulsory voting because the possibility of a government elected by a minority to govern over a majority doesn’t fill me with confidence and it seems we do get good results overall with our voting system notwithstanding that many grudgingly undertake the task.

    • dancan says:

      12:10pm | 08/06/10

      Perhaps there needs to be the addition of some more inspiring parties and leaders before blaming people for not wanting to vote. 

      I’m enrolled so I have to vote, but I don’t want to.  I hate the idea of being forced to vote for people I don’t like, trust or have any confidence in.  I could go in and give a donkey vote but that’s the same as not voting at all.

      It’s great that some people are so proud of the game and what is stands for that they can overlook the players and just how bad they are.  Me?  I’m not that great of a thinker and can only judge the game by how it’s played

      Reply

    • S.L says:

      12:13pm | 08/06/10

      This story says just as much about the intelect of the average league player as much as our voting system. 
      As a 22 year old he must have only just been too young for both the last federal and state elections to have not voted yet.
      Now he is telling everyone to get out and vote?

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      12:52pm | 08/06/10

      Maybe its best that people like Jarryd Hayne don’t vote…

    • Andrew says:

      02:35pm | 08/06/10

      At the 2007 Federal Election he would have been old enough to vote (his birthdate is Feb ‘88, according to Wikipedia). The fact he is required to, but hasn’t enrolled or bothered to is the story.

    • Kate says:

      05:02pm | 09/06/10

      I’m 21 and I voted in both of those elections.
      Unfortunately nobody actually checks up on whether or not you’re enrolled, just whether or not you vote if you are already enrolled.

    • Lucy says:

      12:20pm | 08/06/10

      Thanks Tory - as a strong proponent of voluntary voting (I agree completely with Senator Nick Minchin) - you’ve highlighted why voting should be voluntary.

      People who don’t vote are actually expressing a view - they either don’t care, or they actively don’t want to vote. Without having a voluntary system, we have no idea what those numbers are because voter apathy is concealed by the compulsory requirement to vote.

      And yes - the compulsory advocates will all say “you don’t have to vote, you simply have to turn up on the day and have your name ticked off the roll” – while technically true, being compelled by law to turn up in person at a certain place on a certain day within a certain time is generally enforced by subpoena – and is not generally characterised by exercising one’s democratic freedoms.

      Also, I am not sure why you included the cost of the US election. Let’s assess on three levels:
      Cost per Actual voter: US$12.21 (or AUD$15.00)
      Cost per Registered voter: US$10.94 (or AUD$13.44)
      Cost per Eligible voter: US$7.10 (or AUD $8.72)

      In Australia, according to the AEC, the costs of the 2007 election were ca. $95m to hold the election and $49million in payments to parties/candidates.

      Therefore, our cost per enrolled voter was $10.55

      If the AEC is right and there are an additional 1.4 million people eligible to vote that aren’t on the roll, then the cost drops to $9.57

      So, given election campaigns are directed at ALL people eligible to vote, and I haven’t included the amount spent by Australian political parties over and above that which they receive in public funding, the US actually spends less on campaigns than we do.

      Yet another argument for voluntary voting - it will probably cost less.

      Reply

    • Dani says:

      01:13pm | 08/06/10

      So on a cost per voter, the US stats don’t look too different, but there’s a 5 dollar difference - so if you multiply that by the number of eligible voters (say even 100m of the country’s 300m population) that’s half a billion dollars! And i’m sure the eligible population is much higher…  and the costs are much higher.

      The US spends billions not only promoting themselves, but on hugely expensive “vote or die” (2004, i think) ad campaigns.

      That aside, and simply put: those who don’t vote, don’t have the right to complain.

    • Rikki Morgan says:

      12:22pm | 08/06/10

      Not only do Australian students need to be educated about the importance of voting but they need to be taught about exactly how our political system operates. Increasingly, the media is pushing the idea that the Labor Government has failed to introduce the policies they promised at the election in 2007. Yet, those aware of the way our system is constructed are aware that Labor’s minority position in the Senate means that bills are being thrown out by other parties. Australians need to make a conscious effort to pay attention to internal political forces before they impose judgement on politicians.

      Reply

    • Just Sayin' says:

      10:38pm | 09/06/10

      And those who are REALLY aware, and not just claiming to be aware, know that this senate is not particularly obstructionist and passes almost everything that goes before it, much of it without amendment.  And these who are really really aware would know the autocratic way Rudd behaves on the Hill, whereas Howard, for all is flaws, used to work really hard with minor parties to get their support.  It’s not an accident that Howard got the Democrats to pass the GST, whereas Rudd can’t get the Greens to support the ETS.

    • Mato says:

      12:26pm | 08/06/10

      Maybe it also has to do a bit to do with his sporting prowess and that he has never needed to have any real political/electoral knowledge because sport has been number 1 in his life.  Not an excuse, but surely the idolatry given to sport/sportspeople means that there is no real incentive to be politically aware…

      Reply

    • Cabeza says:

      12:31pm | 08/06/10

      I think this article says more about the candidates entering the political circle then anything else. Because the current crop of politicians are so poor and uninspiring on both sides, the younger generations disengage and by virtue become either ignorant or apathetic, or both.
      If you look at the leaders this country has had in the last 50 years, there has been no real standouts in the great orator category; nor would I say have any inspired, motivated or mobilised a generation. Whitlam, maybe but I still think Australian politics could reach a higher peak than “It’s time”.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      01:07pm | 08/06/10

      Wishful thinking expecting a charismatic authoritative leader coming out of a system that encourages a healthy combination arse-kissing and backstabbing.

      Screw the great orators.
      I’d settle for a leader that actually led, which would include actually doing something. Anything.
      The last real leader I can think of in this category is Ben Chifley.
      Oversaw the establishment of the Snowy Hydro, Holden, the ANU (and the specialist Asian region orientated courses that accompanied), and the Woomera rocket range.

    • persephone says:

      01:19pm | 08/06/10

      If people voted for individuals, rather than parties, then this would solve a lot of these problems.

      Parties would know that they couldn’t get away with putting up poor candidates, because they would know that a poor candidate would not get elected.

      As it is, in certain seats, the party holding that seat knows it doesn’t matter who they put up.

      This is the fault of voters, not the parties - if the voters did the job they’re supposed to, and scrutinised the candidates rather than just ticking the party box, the parties would have to treat them with more respect.

    • Steve Smith says:

      12:32pm | 08/06/10

      Isn’t it as simple as: if you don’t vote.. you lose your right to complain?

      Reply

    • ABC says:

      12:35pm | 08/06/10

      It’s only compulsory if you enrol.  Erolment is voluntary.  If you don’t want to vote, don’t enrol,  but as soon as you enrol you are obligated to vote.  That’s where the compulsion comes in.  If people are not sufficiently aware of their enrolment rights then thay are just as ignorant as Jarrod Hayne.

      Reply

    • ABC says:

      12:43pm | 08/06/10

      Sorry, that applies to state elections and local council elections.

    • Ziggy says:

      12:47pm | 08/06/10

      “The electoral roll is a list of all people who are registered to vote in Australian elections. In Australia, all citizens over the age of 18 must enrol to vote. It is compulsory by law to enrol and compulsory by law to attend a polling place at election time. Enrolment became compulsory in 1911.”

      Where have you been all these years?

    • David says:

      01:24pm | 08/06/10

      Tell me Ziggy, what is the punishment for not enrolling?

      I’m aware of fines for having enrolled and not turning up and voting but I’m fairly certain there is no punishment should an individual never, or at a later date enrol to vote (this punative approach would seemingly act as a deterrent from encouraging people who at an earlier stage of their life decided not to enrol).

    • Ziggy says:

      01:49pm | 08/06/10

      @David. I don’t know but hopefully it is not something like having to listen to lectures by politicians or Master Chef judges.

    • Ham says:

      12:38pm | 08/06/10

      My first experience with voting was at a party when I was 17. A few of my older 18 year old friends were really annoyed they had to get up and vote. I remember one voted for the fishing party and the other for the sex party.

      As someone who is passionate about my views and a committed voter, I am offended my vote counts the same as people who couldn’t give a stuff. If people genuinely they don’t care why make them vote?

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      01:23pm | 08/06/10

      Yes, how dare your opinion be counted equally as every other voting-age Australian citizen.
      After all, you are really passionate, so it should hold twice as much value, at least!

      Sadly this seems to be the real motive behind many people advocating voluntary voting.
      “He/she doesn’t care about *issue* anywhere near as much as I do, why should their vote count as much as mine?”

    • Ham says:

      02:43pm | 08/06/10

      Markus I don’t think you have grasped my point. Do you belirve elections should be decided by people who just tick the first box on the ballot or pick the funniest name? I have heard people use these excuses to justify their votes. This kind of voting devalues informed citizens and devalues the process of democracy. Why would you force someone who doen’t want to be there into making a decision to change the direction of the country?

    • Elphaba says:

      03:00pm | 08/06/10

      Ham, they should just suck it up.  Honestly, is it really that detrimental to their day that they show a little participation in the country?  After all, they’re quite happy to help themselves to all those services that the govt supplies.  Like Youth Allowance.

    • Cynic says:

      03:19pm | 08/06/10

      @Ham because if the cynical and apathetic aren’t forced to vote then we only get the freaks, fundies and the naive voting.  That produces a government that won’t work for all the people because it’s only interested in catering to the people who get them elected.

      I’m sure your concern is probably legit about my vote being worth less than yours because I don’t take it too seriously but I honestly believe all pollies are a steaming pile of excrement and whoever gets my vote won’t change anything anyway.  But I’ll still vote if forced to because not changing anything is a much, much better alternative to letting a handful of nutjobs pick the government.  That’s when you start to get stupid “abstinence only” policies forced into schools and unelected pundits shaping government policies, unchecked deregulation etc.

    • Markus says:

      04:18pm | 08/06/10

      Ham I don’t think I missed your point at all, your retort confirms that to me.
      You are saying that because you are more informed (or so you claim) than other voters, that their opinion should be given less consideration. That’s not how equal rights works.

      You might not agree with how/for whom your friends vote. Personally I don’t agree with uninformed pious religious types. But in this country each is given the same representation.

    • Glen says:

      12:50pm | 08/06/10

      My biggest issue is with compulsory voting is in local elections here in Vic.  I’d never heard of it (being from WA where virtually noone votes in them) and both my wife and I got fined at the last local elections.  Now local politics is one thing i really don’t give a @#$% about.

      Reply

    • NEFFA says:

      01:14pm | 08/06/10

      im with you, i got fined for not voting in the last council election. I didn’t even know there was an election.

      The AEC should allow us to choose which elections we vote in. I always vote for the federal election, and the state, but council? i rent so i couldnt give a toss if its labor or liberal who pick up my bins, as long as it gets done.

    • Puppeteers control the vote not the electorate says:

      12:52pm | 08/06/10

      Once you look at this compulsory system it make you wonder,why dont the voters get a vote on the full list of candidates not some factional drone such as the now unelected Premier of NSW,I will vote when the system is democratic,not before

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      12:59pm | 08/06/10

      I know we have compulsory voting, but that only means you have to show up. Nobody forces you to right anything on the paper - fold it up and put it in the bin if you are that anti-voting.

      But I completely agree with the rights = responsibilities. I heart people complaining about a charter of human rights. I agree you have the right not to be discriminated against but you also have a responsibility to not discriminate against others. Cant have one with out the other.

      Reply

    • The Rampant Fairy says:

      01:02pm | 08/06/10

      Nick Minchin is, of course, right. The primary right of any democracy is the right not to vote.

      I also notice some of the less intelligent suggesting we lower the voting age… actually the best and most sensible solution is the opposite - to raise the voting age to 21 or 25, when you are able to think as an individual and not the lemming that all 16 year olds are. It would also weed out the radical streak we all had at that age that we realise in retrospect was filled with nation destroying ideas. As Mark Twain said, “Show me the man who’s not a radical at age 18 and I’ll show you a man with no heart. Show me the man who’s still a radical at 28 and I’ll show you a man with no brain.” Translation for Australia: 18 year olds vote Labor

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      01:30pm | 08/06/10

      Why not just restrict voting rights to 30+, white, upper-middle class (or higher), right wing (or at least conservative), Christian (or atheist) while we’re at it, you know that’s what you really want.
      Also women. All they do is cause trouble anyway, with their demanding of equal rights and whatnot.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:05pm | 08/06/10

      Don’t want to vote?- fine, let’s strip away the person’s citizenship. The right to vote and the duty to vote is one of the fundamental requirements of citizenship. Otherwise we may as well go back to the old days when only those (males, non aboriginal) who have over 10 pounds sterling in property can vote…..

      Reply

    • Dani says:

      01:05pm | 08/06/10

      People DO have a right not to vote: leave your sheet blank!
      No one forces you to write number 1 anywhere.
      Compulsory voting is important, as many others have said, for getting people to the booths and ensuring a fair distribution of opinion, economic status, etc is represented.
      For those who passionately object, as i said above, just don’t write anything down!

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      04:30pm | 08/06/10

      That is technically illegal.

    • star says:

      01:10pm | 08/06/10

      i am not a member of a working family, therefore the government has nothing for me, why should i vote?

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      01:16pm | 08/06/10

      The way I see it voting isn’t compulsory.  It’s just compulsory to go and get your named ticked off at your local school on a specific day every 3 years or so.  The fact that most people then proceed to cast a vote after their name is ticked off is incidental to the process.  As far as I’m concerned a nation or state demanding half an hour of its citizens time every few years is hardly an onerous national service regime, certainly no more onerous than having to renew a drivers license.

      Reply

    • Just Sayin' says:

      10:44pm | 09/06/10

      Wrong.  Voting is compulsory.  Failing to fill in the ballot paper is illegal.

      When you renew your drivers licence, you get something good.  When you vote, you get nothing but another three years of pain for your effort.

    • phil says:

      01:23pm | 08/06/10

      As Southpark says, its always between a Giant douche and a turd sandwich!!
      Either side is full of lies and will end up running this country in to the ground .. Not that we are too far away from that happening.
      To many people saying they will do things and a decade later nothing changes or gets done. So many cities and towns being ruined by people who arent in the job to give us the best they can, only in it for the money and other perks.

      Any you wonder why younger people dont care to vote? pretty obvious to me.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      04:13pm | 08/06/10

      Rudd is definitely the douche.  In 1996 voters were waiting for Keating with baseball bats.  In 2010 we just want to see Kevin Rudd cop an olympic wedgie.

    • BTS says:

      01:27pm | 08/06/10

      So is Jared Hayne going to be prosecuted for not voting?

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      01:28pm | 08/06/10

      I completely agree Tory.

      I get paid work with the AEC every election, and I see people stuffing ballots into the boxes that they haven’t written on.  It sickens me.

      In countries where people have fought and died for the right to vote, where a man gets his ears and nose cut off for exercising the right to vote, anyone in this country who is apathetic and doesn’t care, should leave.  Get out.  Go to a voluntary voting country, because as far as I’m concerned, you have no rights to resources and services when you can’t even be bothered to exercise the bare minimum requirement to live here.

      Your right to vote, buys you the right to whinge.  How many of you have bitched about the Labor Govt this year?  Hope you all voted one way or the other!

      Reply

    • Texas Millionaire says:

      02:02pm | 08/06/10

      These are the only countries that enforce compulsory voting (Greece does not enforce it, Tory was just lying in relation to that one): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Fiji, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Turkey, Uruguay. Not exactly a list of the world’s great democracies, but given the rest of the world is available to those who you want to get out, they have plenty of choice of the good countries.

    • Tory Maguire

      Tory Maguire says:

      02:08pm | 08/06/10

      Could you clarify for me where I lied Texas Millionaire?

    • Elphaba says:

      02:20pm | 08/06/10

      What’s your point, TM?  My point still stands.  Don’t like it - leave.

    • Texas Millionaire says:

      03:03pm | 08/06/10

      Sorry Tory, I grossly misrepresented you. It was actually one of the comments in the stream that mentioned Greece as being the home of democracy and having compulsory voting (I just read it and linked it to the article), when, in fact, it is just an antiquated law that hasn’t been enforced for centuries, so in effect, they do not have compulsory voting. My apologies for slandering you, instead of the person who made the comment.

      Elphaba, the only reason people would want to leave for not voting is that enforcing voting attendance violates the basic civil liberties people fought for, which is why most of the countries that have “compulsory” voting are run by despots who enforce voting to give them some legitimacy in world affairs, even though they were standing uncontested.

    • Don Clark says:

      01:30pm | 08/06/10

      This is one occasion when I agree with the author of the article. We’re a democracy, thrashed out by common agreement. It’s our responsibility to keep those coots on the leather benches up to the mark.  If we don’t have a go, we’ve no grounds to bitch afterwards.

      So who gave us compulsory voting?
      Well, Minchin aside, the conservatives, essentially. A little history:

      “•  1915. Compulsory voting introduced in Queensland by the Liberal Government of Digby Denham, apparently concerned that ALP shop stewards were more effective in “getting out the vote”, and that compulsory voting would restore a level playing ground (ironically, Denham went on to loose the 1915 election).
      • The significant impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections appears to have been a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to
      less than 60% at the 1922 election. The Bruce-Page government (a
      conservative coalition of the Nationalist and Country parties) was reluctant to
      be too closely identified to such a proposal.
      • In 1924, a private member’s bill to amend the Electoral Act was introduced in the Senate by Senator H. J. M. Payne (Nat. Tas) sponsored in the House of Representatives by Edward Martin (Nat. Perth). It was only the third private member’s bill passed into law since 1901.”

      But how compulsory is compulsory? Can’t we just turn up & go home? No, sorry. We must turn up and we must vote.

      “• The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states:
      ”It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election”.
      • 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:
      ???? High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
      ???? Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
      ???? High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
      ???? Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
      Krosch [1974] QdR 107
      ???? ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13”

      Where’d ya get all that? The Australian Electoral Office website. 
      http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf

      Our votes are part of being an Australian.We have a democracy that makes such stuff freely available, without drama, smoke or mirrors.

      Time to get back into other stuff for me.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      01:49pm | 08/06/10

      Cheers for the info.
      Does the electoral act go into detail as to what “marking” the paper requires.
      A blank sheet would not fulfil it, but how about a sheet with a giant wang drawn on it?
      Immature yes, but always funny, and would help apathetic voters give their candidates their real opinion of them all.

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      03:46pm | 08/06/10

      Thanks for the info. I’ve been taught incorrectly re: not having to vote. Damn that public school education!

    • Peter says:

      04:28pm | 08/06/10

      Yes, Markus, the requirements for marking a ballot paper are set out in the CEA.  If you do not mark it accordingly, you are legally obliged to ask for a new ballot paper to replace the ‘spoiled’ one.

      Wang-drawing is, technically, illegal.

    • Kate says:

      05:05pm | 09/06/10

      Markus, as a politics student, it is my understanding that provided you actually vote, you can do anything else you want on the ballot paper.

      For example, if you were really not interested, just do a donkey vote, then draw a wang and write ‘Rudd is a Dickhead’ or whatever you like. If you have numbered boxes they are legally required to count your vote.

    • Harquebus says:

      01:36pm | 08/06/10

      No one is compelled to vote. They are required to attend a voting station. Jarryd Hayne is a moron and certainly no hero of mine. My idols are the likes of Professor David David and Fred Hollows etc.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      01:42pm | 08/06/10

      I’m personally conflicted by this issue. On one had I think it’s pretty pathetic that so many Australians don’t realise how lucky they are in that they have any sort of input in the selection of government. However if those ignorant people are forced to vote, they are not going to vote for who they think is the best candidate, but will simply vote at random - the donkey vote. This is a pretty scary thought if a Family First candidate was the first name on the ballot in every electorate.

      Reply

    • PatC says:

      01:44pm | 08/06/10

      There are some very interesting points of view here and most are valid but I wonder how many of you know the reason why voting is compulsory in Australia.
      The general arguments put forward are; if it wasn’t compulsory voter apathy would mean a very small turnout; elections would be overtaken by extremists;  it’s our civic duty; we have a responsibility etc. etc. etc.
      The real reason voting is compulsory in Australia, is that politicians are paid for each vote they collect over 4% of the primary vote. Having a cut off point makes it harder for small party’s and independents to remain financial viable enough to challenge the major parties election after election. As the system currently stands, you don’t even need to win to get a nice little windfall you just need more than 4% of the primary vote in your electorate.
      So what can we do about this.
      We can give our first vote to an independent or fringe party and then preference the candidate of our choice if there is one thereby ensuring the independents get a little funding “to keep the bastards honest”.
      I personally would love to see a “None of the above” box added to the bottom of each ballot paper to give us a legal way of not voting and our politicians some incentive to work for our votes and their share of the funding.
      Finally I wouldn’t advocate leaving your ballot paper blank… that would just make it too easy for a quick scrutineer with a sharp pencil to add another vote for their candidate.

      Reply

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      03:51pm | 08/06/10

      I can’t really see extremist takeovers becoming a problem. It wouldn’t have to happen often for previously apathetic voters to ensure that it doesn’t happen for a second term.

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      01:44pm | 08/06/10

      I agree that everyone should vote.  Coming from the UK where voting is not compulsory the interest in politics is minimal in comparison with Australia where you still see placard waving paid up members of whatever party on the side of the road on a Saturday morning.

      I think it is great that people are forced to choose the direction they want their country to go in and to have a say in what happens to them.

      However I would like to see the voting system changed to eliminate the people who vote x because their dad did or they like the colour green etc without understanding the policies of a party as this results in glib politics of soundbytes rather than substance.

      What would work (shamelessly stolen from another forum is):
      In the run up to the election a group of experts in the fields of politics, history, economics, current affairs and bits of geography and media studies draw up several thousand reasonably straightforward multiple choice questions designed to test someone’s knowledge of how politics works and what the current problems facing the country are and their likely solutions.

      Voting is computerised. Come polling day you head into a booth where you’ll find a PC. You log on with your unique voter code and are faced with 10 questions plucked randomly from the thousands. You have 3 minutes to answer them all. You aren’t told if you’re right or wrong. After the questions you pick which candidate you’re voting for, then bugger off home.

      The computer network then does some clever computing stuff. Instead of 1 man 1 vote, one voter now has between 0 and 10 votes, depending on how they scored in the test. Nobody is disenfranchised entirely, everyone still gets to turn up on polling day and take part in the democratic process, but now your ability to make an educated and informed decision will mean your vote will generally count for far more than that of someone who is simply doing what their tabloid of choice/parents/trade union tells them to.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:07pm | 08/06/10

      Kind of harks back to the good ole days of segregation in the American Deep South, when blacks had to pass a test in order to register for the vote. And mostly, they failed.  Nothing to do with the white guys assigning the scores, of course.

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      07:55pm | 08/06/10

      Not really.

      Everyone gets a vote, you just get to have more of a say if you know what is going on in the world.

      Nobody has to pass a test to vote, everyone gets a go, but those who take the time to be interested and find out have more of a say.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:08pm | 08/06/10

      Tory,
      I am sorry, but you are so wrong. Democracy and compulsary voting are diametrically opposed.
      Yes, you are correct, your “quaint notion that with rights comes responsiblities’” is so true. But to force some one to vote who has no interest and no knowledge of politics is bound to get a donkey vote.
      What we need as a nation, is to encourage and stimulate an interest in our political system.

      To force any one to do any thing, does not obtain good results. Sadly our two party system is based on bribes and division. Fear, boiled lollies and greed are the major tools of our major parties.

      Do you really want more of the same Tory?

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      02:09pm | 08/06/10

      Compulsory voting favours ALP - the bums who would not usually be bothered vote for them cos they spray money.

      Reply

    • Chewy says:

      02:19pm | 08/06/10

      Almost everything the AEC does favours the ALP. Over acouple of decades they slowly moved John Howards seat from the North shore towards the western suburbs. Ask yourself this how often do you hear about a Labor seat becoming marginally Liberal? But the opposite occurs quite often.

    • Steve says:

      02:32pm | 08/06/10

      Ah the illusion of personal control; voters don’t decide who gets elected the pre-selection committees of the major parties decide who stands as a candidate. Might as well toss a coin for the final outcome.

      Reply

    • OldGirl says:

      02:48pm | 08/06/10

      You can always stick in a donkey vote if your so dead set against voting but I think voting should be compulsory, mainly because some are just to lazy to vote and need a bit of a kick in the bum to get them motivated. This is your country, this is your Government, and you have a right to your vote. I have been on fine end of this, I was doing the gardening and I forgot!! I deserved the fine and I paid it but its sure made me more alert to voting day.

      Reply

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      03:29pm | 08/06/10

      It seems the majority of folks don’t realise that we are not compelled to vote now, only to have our names marked off the roll. I’d rather even this step be completely voluntary. Leave the voting for people who actually care enough about something to become informed about it.

      I’m frequently amused by voters who claim they didn’t expect their party to do something, like when the GST was introduced. If they knew anything about the Liberal Party platform, they would have realised that a vote for the Libs was a vote for the GST. Then there were those who voted for the GST, expecting the price of fuel to decrease. Too bad they don’t know the difference between wholesale sales tax and an excise. D’Oh!

      In SA earlier this year, a Labor candidate handed out fake how to vote cards for Family First. FF voters cried foul because they were fooled. If the party’s supporters were familiar with the platforms of FF and the other major parties, they would not have been fooled by the fake cards. In fact, get rid of how to vote cards altogether. If people have no idea how they’re going to vote before they get to the polling booth then they don’t deserve the privilege of voting.

      The major parties rely on voters who live in ignorance. They have just the right carrots to dangle to get the votes, knowing that most voters are unfamiliar with all that the vote for their party means. The majority of Australians are probably too apathetic to vote if the entire process is voluntary. This might just make the major parties work a little harder to get and remain elected.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

      10:44pm | 09/06/10

      Sorry Run with scissors, the electorate that I live in has a high migrant population, many whose literacy in English is very week & they rely on slogans on how to vote cards to follow the people they have HEARD say thing stat they agree with. I asked a young Muslim woman why her mother was crying & she said this was the first election her 46yo mother had been allowed to vote in, so the phoney Family First how to vote cards handed out by Labor attacked the democratic rights of these often fragile people

    • Dognuts says:

      03:46pm | 08/06/10

      While the right to not vote seesm wonderful, it does expose us to the risk of narrow interest groups hijacking elections. I would suspect that many who vote for either of the major parties do so through laziness, hence the proportion of those that vote for the narrower interests would increase. Thus we run a risk of hung parliament situations where no one wins. In the US, it is a genuine two party system, whereas here we have minor parties who can garner enough support to be significant players (or nuisances??). If this drove real outcomes and resulted in greater accountability, then perhaps it would be a good thing, but something tells me otherwise…................

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:11pm | 08/06/10

      Well, I don’t know about that theory.  Canada doesn’t have compulsory voting, has two major parties but a couple of minors that are always represented, and has had numerous minority governments over the last 40 years which hinged on the support (or at least not the active opposition) of those minority parties.  I don’t know that the quality of democracy or governance is any worse there, than here, or that governments there are any more or less accountable than here.  In fact, I personally think the government of NSW is sufficient reason to question any and all assumptions about the value of compulsory voting!!!

    • Alex says:

      08:15am | 09/06/10

      Marley I have to agree with you on N.S.W I got my greenslip the other day its jumped up $70 because of the stuff ups by Labor. I can imagine Sydney’s Greenslips have gone up even higher. Its getting to the stage they won’t have to worry about the bad state of the roads, none of us will be able to afford to register a car. I won’t be voting Labor next election, and I am a dyed in the wool Labor supporter. enough is enough!!

    • Zaf says:

      03:58pm | 08/06/10

      Refusing to take responsibility for electing the Government (by voting) is like refusing to pay your taxes.  With rights come responsibilities.  That said, a ‘none of the above’ option would be a good addition to the ballot.

      If voting was no longer compulsary?  The Greens would have a much larger proportion of the seats in the Senate.  Are you ready for that, o libertarians?

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:29am | 09/06/10

      Who says the greens will be more largely represented. AS the polls suggest much of the support for the greens outside thier tiney “hard-core” base comes from disenfranchised voters who like neither of the majors. Logic tells me these will be the same voters who would not turn out to vote if it is indeed not compulsary

    • Zaf says:

      03:56pm | 09/06/10

      I still think that the core of Green voters (8% of voters, prior to the recent increase to the low teens) would be fairly politically aware and committed (and therefore likely to make the effort to vote).  Given the probably lower numbers turning out for both the major parties, the proportion of Greens in the Sentate would, therefore, increase.  As would the porportion of Shooters Party representatives.  All it takes is a larger proportion of Labor/Liberal voters than Green/Shooters Party voters to not bother showing up.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      10:52pm | 09/06/10

      I think the libertarians would be happy - the LDP would have a much bigger proportion too!  Heck, they might even end up being a minority party with the balance of power.  Wouldn’t THAT be fun smile

    • Luke says:

      04:07pm | 08/06/10

      This comes up every election…
      Perhaps a referendum on it every 10 or so years should come up…
      Then again… thats expensive… so perhaps not…
      Whatever… anything is more interesting than this…

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      04:13pm | 08/06/10

      Why is compulsory voting supposedly a good thing?

      It is an obvious logical fallacy to argue it encourages people to educate themselves about the state of the nation. It does no such thing - it simply compels people to front up at a polling station and go through the motions.

      It is not only absurd but a little scary to think that someone who knows absolutely nothing about politics and has no interest in voting is forced to do so. How can that possibly be good for Democracy? What sort of opinion are they expressing? 

      PS, this is a well-educated group commenting here. The number of times I am told by morons that compulsory voting is in the constitution, or that it is a common model outside the US, is mind-blowing. Compulsory voting was introduced in various Australian jurisidictions at various times because it was thought (for various reasons) that it would benefit the incumbent government of the time. (It frequently didn’t).

      Compulsory voting is a nonsensical idea that should be scrapped. There is no cogent argument for it at all. That is why we are practically alone among democracies in enforcing it.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      01:03am | 09/06/10

      How about the fact that in the US, 60% turning up to vote is considered to be massive, while in Australia, we have at least 90% (give or take) voting in each election? The percentage of people who vote in Australian elections is larger than that of most other democracies.

      Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. If someone needs to be encouraged to cast a vote once every three years, then I am all for that. Just like with taxes, simply because this is a free country does not mean we have the freedom to do whatever we want.


      Oh, and BTW, simply because other democracies don’t do it, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. I think it’s a great system, and I don’t see any reason why we should get rid of it simply because the US or the UK don’t utilise it.

    • Macon Paine says:

      09:07am | 09/06/10

      “How about the fact that in the US, 60% turning up to vote is considered to be massive, while in Australia, we have at least 90% (give or take) voting in each election? The percentage of people who vote in Australian elections is larger than that of most other democracies.”
      Just because the US gets about 50-60% of people voting does not mean the same thing will happen here if voting becomes optional.
      Its great to see some 90% of people voting. I just wonder how many of those people are only turning up to cast a donkey vote or simply to avoid the fine. Dont you think people showing up for those reasons makes a mockery of democracy?

      “Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. If someone needs to be encouraged to cast a vote once every three years, then I am all for that.”
      You say “encouraged” when what you really mean is forced (so your good with the “new speak” Dan), there is nothing encouraging about being forced to vote (or show up to get your name marked off). Are you fine with government forcing people to vote when they dont want to? And if yes why?

      “Just like with taxes, simply because this is a free country does not mean we have the freedom to do whatever we want.”
      Interesting analogy but taxes are another kettle of fish. Is paying taxes a feature of democracy? Are there any countries in the world where paying taxes is optional?

      “Oh, and BTW, simply because other democracies don’t do it, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t.”
      Yes and just because some democracies do doesn’t mean we should.
      “I think it’s a great system,
      Yes, we’ve established your fine with government intervention/control of just about everything.
      “and I don’t see any reason why we should get rid of it simply because the US or the UK don’t utilise it.”
      Who claimed we should get rid of compulsary voting simply because the US and UK dont have it? So again your ok with the donkey vote/show up only to get your name marked off so you can avoid paying a fine crowd. Why must they be forced Dan?

    • Zaf says:

      03:59pm | 09/06/10

      Paying your taxes is part of the social contract in most functioning societies.  In democracies, so is voting.  Insisting that people take some responsibility for whom they will be governed by results in stabler societies, jmho.

    • Dan says:

      12:21am | 10/06/10

      Pine, Pine, Pine, you keep on coming back for more.

      “Just because the US gets about 50-60% of people voting does not mean the same thing will happen here if voting becomes optional.”

      Why take the risk?

      “Its great to see some 90% of people voting. I just wonder how many of those people are only turning up to cast a donkey vote or simply to avoid the fine. Dont you think people showing up for those reasons makes a mockery of democracy?”

      I think that having only half of eligible voters voting makes a mockery of democracy. If the people turn up for a reason other than that they want to have a say in how the country is run; that’s fine with me. Perhaps they might consider taking it seriously. Even if they don’t, the chances of having as many serious voters vote increase if voting is compulsory.

      “You say “encouraged” when what you really mean is forced (so your good with the “new speak” Dan), there is nothing encouraging about being forced to vote (or show up to get your name marked off).”

      Considering that the NRL player at the centre of this story has never voted, and nothing has happened to him, the word forced isn’t entirely accurate.

      That said: “Are you fine with government forcing people to vote when they dont want to? And if yes why?”

      I am. Just as I am okay with the government forcing people to participate in jury duty when they don’t want to. I’m also okay with the government forcing people to wear seatbelts even if they don’t want to. Like it or not, there are quite a few things that the government forces us to do that we may not want to.

      “Interesting analogy but taxes are another kettle of fish. Is paying taxes a feature of democracy? Are there any countries in the world where paying taxes is optional?”

      I never said that paying taxes was a feature of democracy. I used the term ‘free country.’ Learn to read. Zaf is right; paying taxes is part of the social contract of most countries; and yes,  there are countries where paying taxes is optional, however that is irrelevent. Unless you propose that we become a tax haven, you will need to accept that paying taxes is a responsibility. Just like jury duty. Just like voting.

    • Macon Paine says:

      04:57pm | 11/06/10

      @ Dan
      Yep, I keep giving you a rope and you just keep hanging yourself with it.
      ” Why take the risk?”
      Because people should be able to make their own choice about whether or not they will vote. What do you have against people making the choice?
      “I think that having only half of eligible voters voting makes a mockery of democracy.”
      Why? The half who chose not to vote are exercising their rights in a free society. What could be more democratic than that?
      “If the people turn up for a reason other than that they want to have a say in how the country is run; that’s fine with me.”
      Sorry but that is what makes a mockery of democracy.
      “Perhaps they might consider taking it seriously.”
      Yeah but they aren’t, thats the point.
      “Even if they don’t, the chances of having as many serious voters vote increase if voting is compulsory.”
      How do you figure that one? I would have thought that if 50-60% of voters show up when they dont have to, they would probably be the only serious ones anyway.
      “Considering that the NRL player at the centre of this story has never voted, and nothing has happened to him, the word forced isn’t entirely accurate.”
      Ok so he should owe the us the people a few G’s in fines.You see Dan your example proves my point. There would be hundreds of thousands of people just like Hayne who have no interest in politics who are actually turning up every election and casting votes (just to avoid a fine) without putting the slightest bit of thought into it, then they will do the same again at the next one. That is a farce.
      “Just as I am okay with the government forcing people to participate in jury duty when they don’t want to. I’m also okay with the government forcing people to wear seatbelts even if they don’t want to.”
      Wow way to trivialise democracy. But this doesn’t effect me because I would wear one anyway, you know because of the death/injury possibility.
      “Like it or not, there are quite a few things that the government forces us to do that we may not want to.”
      Voting should not be one of them, for the reasons I have already outlined.
      “I never said that paying taxes was a feature of democracy.”
      I never said you did, I just asked you a question.
      “I used the term ‘free country.’ Learn to read.”
      Whats the difference? I thought free countries are democratic. Am i wrong? Maybe you actually think The Democratic Republic of North Korea really is democratic. LOL!
      “Zaf is right; paying taxes is part of the social contract of most countries; and yes,  there are countries where paying taxes is optional, however that is irrelevent.
      Im not disputing some level of taxation. No it’s not irrelevant Dan its just very inconvenient for your argument.
      “Unless you propose that we become a tax haven, you will need to accept that paying taxes is a responsibility. Just like jury duty. Just like voting.”
      Dont put words in my mouth. Im not proposing that at all and im not disputing some level of taxation. My argument is with compulsary voting, it is undemocratic Dan. What do you not understand about this?

    • Sick says:

      04:30pm | 08/06/10

      Democracy?  How can you call a “two party preferred” system a democracy?  About 1 in 5 people don’t vote for either major party every State or Federal election yet their votes get converted into a vote for the Liberal-Labor duopoly.  Huh, how on earth is the system altering someone’s vote a democracy??!  Now consider if there was true proportional representation.  Then you might actually find the laws that get introduced are a balanced compromise of all the views of the public, not just representing the vested interest groups who fund the Mining party, I mean the Liberal Party, and the Union party, I mean the Labor Party.  And before people start saying “oh, the minor partys and independents would hold the government to ransom like they do in the Senate” I’d argue that this is the whole point.  Everyone has to compromise and you’d end up in the middle way.  If people are being obstiante the media should report it and they should get turfed out next election.  Rather than the present system where the pendulum swings back and forwards from each side of Liberal-Labor duopoly over time, resulting in many half baked systems we get as a result, e.g. quasi - public/private health care system, workchoices back to group bargaining etc, a half baked public/private education system.  All of which end up duplicating admininstrations, bureaucracy to run, all of which tend to favour the rich who can afford hte private option.  And please, no crap about mandates either.  Neither major party gets more than about 4 in 10 of the primary vote every election, that’s not a mandate, 6 in 10 people didn’t want them in Government.

      Reply

    • Fotherington Badminton says:

      04:41pm | 08/06/10

      The subjective persons in this piece, appear to be Mr Hayne, and another AFL player, so the writers’ objectivity seems to be flawed, and indeed discrimin atory,  of which she appears to have little cognition,  in presenting an argument about voting. Whatever the writers’  opinion, one must be scrupulous in regard to defaming individuals, in this case the sporting ones, whose lawyers may take a view that the intellectual capacity of football players is held to ridicule
      and as such, conflicts with the law of discrimination, even though the subjects of ridicule may not be aware.

      Reply

    • stu says:

      04:58pm | 08/06/10

      You don’t “have” to vote.  The only compulsion is to turn up at a polling booth, have your name crossed off and be handed some papers. What you choose to do after that is up to you.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      04:59pm | 08/06/10

      I’m unregistered as I moved. I’d rather pay the $100 fine considering both parties have donkeys for leaders. Simply put, neither are worth voting for. And that is my democratic right not to.

      Reply

    • Dave Sag says:

      05:17pm | 08/06/10

      I don’t believe voting is a right, voting is a democratic duty.  Being able to stand for election yourself is a right.

      Reply

    • Sooz says:

      05:27pm | 08/06/10

      I am in favour of compulsory voting but I am NOT in favour of compulsory preferences. If you don’t want to vote for anyone you can leave your paper blank but if you do want to vote for an independent and no other, you are still forced to number all the boxes, thereby ultimately giving your vote (in 99% of seats) to either Labor or Liberal, which I believe is where it is undemocratic.

      The federal system should follow NSW and leave the option of preferences to the individual.

      Reply

    • Rhys says:

      06:03pm | 08/06/10

      But you will find that by not giving preferences you are actually flowing preferences indirectly towards someone. By your vote leaving the pool it decreases the numbers required for the currentyl winning party requires to win.

      By only numbering partway down the paper you are effectively voting for the current leader of the count when your previous candidate is knocked out, this robs everyone else’s preferences of value.

    • Coaster says:

      12:37am | 09/06/10

      @Sooz.. if you don;t want a preference vote you simply number your choice no 1…and the remainder all no 2.  That way your vote exhausts after your number 1 choice.  For Jarryd Hayne that means vote 222122 if you only want candidate number4 out of 6 on a ballot

    • Just Sayin' says:

      10:47pm | 09/06/10

      Coaster, FYI, it is illegal to encourage people to vote that way.  Yes, I am serious.  People have been fined before.

    • Josh S says:

      07:19pm | 08/06/10

      If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the government.

      Probably shouldn’t have received Rudd’s $900 bribe either since they didn’t even put the effort into voting.

      Reply

    • Chase says:

      10:33pm | 08/06/10

      If Obama only had 56.8% of the nation turn out to vote that means (in theory) he only had a majority of that 56.8%, I believe he got 68% of the vote. I could be wrong. Nevertheless that means less than half the nation elected him the leader, I wouldn’t say that any elected representative that gets less than 50%+1 of a 2PP vote is legitimate.

      I also think people who don’t vote don’t really have any legitimacy when they complain about the Government. If they refused to vote they should suck it up.

      Reply

    • Laberal says:

      12:45am | 09/06/10

      Loosely translated from greek, democracy means ‘people power’. Yet the only power we have is to vote once every three years. Since 2007 we have been powerless to do anything.

      The time has come for representative democracy to end. Representation may have once been necessary but with technology, this is no longer the case. If the technology exists that enables me to vote for some rubbish reality show - it should also enable me to vote directly on the laws of the land.

      Representative government is only concerned with consolidating power not people power.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      10:11am | 09/06/10

      Every one who are old enough to vote should vote ,it was hard fought for and hard won so just to honour those who died for the right to vote is the right thing to do.

      Reply

    • Jeff says:

      12:27pm | 09/06/10

      compulsory voting makes no sense unless there is a choice for “none of the above”

      & who actually died for the right to vote ? what a ridiculous thing to say

      Reply

    • Edward Carson says:

      01:06pm | 09/06/10

      “Those who argue that the uninformed aren’t adding value to our democracy should consider the idea that perhaps the answer is to inform the uninformed.” –Tory

      No, the answer is yes they do add, or no they don’t add.
      It is a non sequitur to claim the answer is otherwise.
      It you want to educate the non interested then that is a separate issue. To the degree that your education actually works, some previously uninterested will now want to vote and some will remain alienated. Surely that’s a more honest system than forcing everyone, some of whom you KNOW will give a very ill thought out vote.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      03:12pm | 09/06/10

      ‘I headbutt and I vote!’

      Reply

    • jim bolton says:

      12:26pm | 10/06/10

      Where voluntary voting operates its been found to favour conservatives   because they know why its important to turn out, being pretty well educated with resources. I’ve seen powerless poor single mothers in northern england saying they weren’t going to vote because it didn’t matter to them… the very people who needed to vote. I’ve found that when people must perform a task after a while they find out how to do it properly so it counts, and when you are handing out at polling booths you see this all the time.
      Long live compulsory voting.

      Reply

    • Darin says:

      01:44pm | 10/06/10

      The argument being made is that voting is a responsibility in a democracy, and is necessary to ensure the ongoing protection of our rights, and therefore compulsory voting is integral to achieving that outcome.

      Presumably the author believes each citizen has a responsibility in a democracy to be informed, to participate to provide legitimacy to an elected government, and to ensure public policy is reflective of the electorates will. However, there is no guarantee that compulsory voting has anything to do with turnout rates, or to suggest that it can lead to making people informed or to ensuring government policy is reflective of ‘the will of the people’.

      In 2007 12,930,814 votes were cast out of 13,646,539 enrolled voters, providing a turnout rate of 94.76%. However, if we were to add the 1.4 million estimated people who were not enrolled, that turnout rate declines to 85.94%. Australia also has a very high informal vote compared to other countries, and in 2007 it was at 3.95%. If we take this from the result, then we get 82.54% of voters making an eligible vote.

      If we looked at a similar figure in the United States, the turnout rate is 61.7% for the voting-eligible population (adjusting for non-citizens and those disqualified from voting such as prisoners). While there is still a significant gap, it is not as great as some would believe.

      If we then looked at the turnout rate in the state of Minnesota, 78.1% of eligible voters made a formal vote. A difference of 4.4% in comparison to Australia. Clearly, if Minnesota can achieve a participation rate comparable to Australia without compulsory voting, then it is likely that other factors have a greater influence on voter turnout, making the supposed benefits of compulsory voting illusionary.

      There is also significant research that demonstrates that there is in fact little reason to believe that voter participation improves voter awareness of the ‘issues’, and that the cost of becoming informed on issues is prohibitive and likely impossible given the size and complexity of government and the difficulty of predicting the outcomes of either parties policy positions in the real world.

      Further, others have applied rational choice theory to the democratic process, and argue that where the margin of victory in an election is greater than one, then there is no rational reason for a person to vote since it is impossible for their vote to affect the final outcome of the race. therefore, anyone or tries to be informed of the issues is likely to be undertaking an impossible task, and even if they became an expert on every area of public policy, it is virtually meaningless since their vote is unlikely to ever influence the outcome of an election.

      One can only conclude that those who have no idea and do not vote are actually acting rationally, and it is everyone else (the 12,930,814 Australians in 2007) that are misguided.

      Reply

    • Gavin Hodge says:

      03:08pm | 10/06/10

      If we have non-compulsory voting and people decide not to vote, they should be denied a whinge. They should have to forgo access to their MP if they have a gripe with policy, beurocracy etc.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      05:45pm | 10/06/10

      @ Jeff, obviously you have not read history or you would have known about the suffragettes in UK in the 1800’s.,and what about what is happening now in Iraq where people are being blown away while they were voting this is not just a local issue this is a world wide issue Voting is every ones Right.
      Maybe for Jeff, I should have said in other parts of the world people have died for the right to vote ,we should think ourselves very lucky in Australia none have—as far as I know.

      Reply

    • vociferous says:

      09:53pm | 17/07/10

      There are many arguments in favour and against voluntary voting, I do not wish to go into the arguments here but if others wish to comment that’s fine.

      I firmly believe voting is a civil right not a civic duty!

      An ever growing number of Australians are expressing this view so I have just started a Facebook Group called No More Compulsory Voting

      http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=145462422130774&ref=mf

      Facebook can be a powerful tool to ad the weight of numbers to any cause or argument.

      If you support voluntary voting for Australia please go to the Above URL and join the Group.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed