Compulsory voting

[So_Cynical]

Voting should be compulsory, that doesn't mean you have to vote for someone etc, i find it quite satisfying to write something appropriate on my incomplete ballot paper...on the occasions that i have chosen to do so.

I think its crazy that US presidents are elected by less than a quarter of the voting age population....just as crazy as 2 party preferred voting.

[Eager]

Voting should be compulsory for the reason already mentioned - it dilutes the ratbag element.

Don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread so far (cbf reading it all) but in my humble opinion, how-to-vote cards should be banned. Those voters who are not politically engaged should not be stooged into getting someone elected who otherwise wouldn't if it were not for the party-designed order of preferences. Common sense dictates that the candidates should earn their votes based on the informed decisions of the electorate and not on the instructions of the parties. Maybe people will become more politically engaged if they are made to make up their own minds instead of following an idiot sheet! I see nothing wrong with placing Labor and the Greens apart by a wide margin on the ballot paper, for example, regardless which major party I give my #1 vote to.

[McLovin]

I think its crazy that US presidents are elected by less than a quarter of the voting age population...

It's more like 50-60%.

[So_Cynical]

It's more like 50-60%.

I thought it was more like 50 > 60% actually voted so a majority would be about half of that 25 > 30%

Anyway wiki is our friend.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socde...cal/index.html

Your right, seems to average between 50 and 60% of the voting age population...so a little over half of them would actually vote for the president, as in vote for Obama, say 25 > 30% of the total people of voting age.

And somehow that just doesn't seem right...not a good look anyway.

[McLovin]

I thought it was more like 50 > 60% actually voted so a majority would be about half of that 25 > 30%

Anyway wiki is our friend.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socde...cal/index.html

Your right, seems to average between 50 and 60% of the voting age population...so a little over half of them would actually vote for the president, as in vote for Obama, say 25 > 30% of the total people of voting age.

And somehow that just doesn't seem right...not a good look anyway.

Sure, but let's face it, elections are fought in the middle not the extremes. Swing seats/states are where it counts and they are also usually where the proverbial carrot is dangled. I'd say the outcome of any election is decided by far, far fewer than 25-30% of voters. Most voters don't have an informed opinion (I can only surmise this is true by the fact that apparently 27% of voters would still vote for the ALP) they vote for A or B because that's the way they vote. In many ways it's probably detrimental forcing these people to vote just for the sake of voting.

I live in Wentworth, it's as blue ribbon as it gets for the Libs, my vote doesn't count anywhere near as much as someone who lives in Eden-Monaro, or some other swing seat. My life doesn't really change whoever is in government. There's no real incentive for me to vote. If voting was non-compulsory, I'd probably still vote.

[JasonPK]

Compulsory voting is only enforced in 9 other countries in the world and none of them are great bastions of democratic freedom - far from it.

Our voter turnouts (81%) are lower than many countries where voting is voluntary including Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Malta.

New Zealand has high voter turnouts with voluntary voting and there 100% of the people who vote do so because they want to vote and are informed. Many people vote in Australia merely to avoid a fine. Our real voter participation is probably a lot lower than in New Zealand with our high levels of donkey votes, informal votes and blind guesses. 10% of Australian eligible voters aren't even registered to vote.

Under compulsory voting leaders don't need to work as hard to earn votes. Under voluntary voting, leaders who can not inform, educate, empower and inspire the electorate will be replaced by leaders who can. Real democratic leaders.

It is better to encourage people to vote using peaceful democratic means such as good ideas rather than fines enforceable with violence. That causes political apathy and blind conformity. It diminishes people's power when it should empower people.

Our decision to vote should be democratic.

[Bill M]

Our decision to vote should be democratic.

Excellent post Jason, welcome to the forum.

[Calliope]

Compulsory voting does not apply to prisoners serving a sentence of five years or more. Obviously to avoid being branded a criminal for not voting, you need to commit a serious crime.

[lurker123]

I donkey vote, as the way I see it, the influence of my vote is miniscule.
Secondly even if I did vote, the party I vote for would not reflect my views.
Thirdly i don't see a point in voting when the system is broken.
Fourthly I am a selfish individual and only care about myself. I couldn't care less what happens to other people or the world when I'm dead. Being the egotist I am, I see myself as apart from humanity, and the sheep/humanity can do whatever they like. The only thing I can do is make sure I am in a position where, no matter who is in power, I am still well off and that the sheep/rest of humanity/psychopaths can't **** me up.

Voting should be a right earned by getting a pass in science (physics/chemistry) of 80% or more. Provided education remains free and compulsory. Obviously you would be allowed to retry until you receive 80%+. Science has created the modern world, if you don't understand basic science, how electricity works, how science principles are concluded through experimental evidence e.t.c then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Science is the best tool which humans can use to understand existence. If you don't even try to understand existence through the only rational tool available, "science" then one can conclude you are weak minded and would be easily influenced by those who would manipulate. Therefore if you are too lazy to get 80%+ you would have a negative contribution to a voting system and shouldn't be allowed the right.
Obviously this is only a personal opinion from a egotist so would be disregarded and ridiculed by the majority. Consequently politicians would also need to get a 80%+ pass in science.

[Eager]

I donkey vote, as the way I see it, the influence of my vote is miniscule.
Secondly even if I did vote, the party I vote for would not reflect my views.

You are confusing the separate issues of donkey votes and informal votes.

A donkey vote is one regarded as having the ballot paper being filled out in numerical order. It is still a valid vote, because (a) it fulfils the requirements of validity, and (b) there is a chance that the voter actually prefers the candidates to be elected in that order. Technically speaking I often cast donkey votes because I normally vote for the Greens last, but Labor closer to the top of my preferences - in other words, contrary to how-to-vote cards.

An informal vote is one where the ballot paper is not filled out correctly, i.e. blank, missing numbers, scribble etc.

Voting should be a right earned by getting a pass in science (physics/chemistry) of 80% or more.

You cannot be serious. The last thing we need is a high proportion of educated idiots deciding our political futures. A science degree does not = political nous!!!!

[DB008]

Dr. Flannery.....???

[Julia]

A science degree does not = political nous!!!!

Neither does any other degree.

Lurker, your rant about only those with a science degree being allowed to vote would eliminate much of the population, something I'm sure you realise. It seems you believe people with views, intelligence or education at variance from your own are a waste of space.
As you suggest, I doubt you'll find much agreement with your egocentric attitude.

[lurker123]

You are confusing the separate issues of donkey votes and informal votes.

A donkey vote is one regarded as having the ballot paper being filled out in numerical order. It is still a valid vote, because (a) it fulfils the requirements of validity, and (b) there is a chance that the voter actually prefers the candidates to be elected in that order. Technically speaking I often cast donkey votes because I normally vote for the Greens last, but Labor closer to the top of my preferences - in other words, contrary to how-to-vote cards.

An informal vote is one where the ballot paper is not filled out correctly, i.e. blank, missing numbers, scribble etc.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I informal vote then since I don't fill out anything and just put in a blank ballot paper.

You cannot be serious. The last thing we need is a high proportion of educated idiots deciding our political futures. A science degree does not = political nous!!!!

I didn't say degree. A degree requires going to university which requires decent UAI, time, money e.t.c.
Note that I said "provided education is still free and compulsory"
High school physics already teaches the fundamentals of how electricity works.

Assuming the majority of the population want to vote. Under a system where 80% pass of science is required, then the majority of the population would be better educated. As I said the test can be retaken at any time. Those who failed to achieve 80% pass in high school would be able to study in their spare time and retake the test at any time. This is similar structure as a drivers license. Almost anybody can get a drivers license. Of course this means those who don't want to vote don't have to achieve the 80% pass. On the other hand those who want to vote must be educated in science enough to pass.

As Julia points out, my bigoted view is that if you are too lazy to educate yourself in science, then you shouldn't be voting. Very true Julia, taken to the extreme I do think those who don't understand science are a waste of space. However that was not what I said. I said those who do not take the time to try and understand science (the most rational tool for understanding things) are not fit to vote. Since as a extrapolation they also won't take the time to understand properly what they are voting for. Or in my bigoted view, not educated enough to understand what they are voting for, even if they take the time to do some research, and are sheep who are easily manipulated.

[Eager]

As Julia points out, my bigoted view is that if you are too lazy to educate yourself in science, then you shouldn't be voting. Very true Julia, taken to the extreme I do think those who don't understand science are a waste of space. However that was not what I said. I said those who do not take the time to try and understand science (the most rational tool for understanding things) are not fit to vote. Since as a extrapolation they also won't take the time to understand properly what they are voting for. Or in my bigoted view, not educated enough to understand what they are voting for, even if they take the time to do some research, and are sheep who are easily manipulated.

You have just shot yourself.

I assume that you count yourself as someone who has, at some stage, achieved an 80% grade in a science subject....but by your own admission you didn't even know the difference between a donkey vote and an informal vote.

just goes to show how dumb a person who gets good science grades can be.

[Glen48]

A donkey vote is when some one votes for any candidate when an informal vote should be cast.
Until voter's make a stand and demand better ethics from the parties every voter will be a donkey.
How can voters worry about science when they are being dumbed down by the trash the media pump out.

[lurker123]

You have just shot yourself.

I assume that you count yourself as someone who has, at some stage, achieved an 80% grade in a science subject....but by your own admission you didn't even know the difference between a donkey vote and an informal vote.

just goes to show how dumb a person who gets good science grades can be.

Education and knowledge are related but not the same as intelligence. Something that the majority get confused with. Intelligence / how smart you are can be said to be how fast you can gain knowledge or come up with solutions to problems.
You can have below average IQ, such as 60 and it still would be possible to pass science at 100% given you put enough time and effort.
You can be the smartest guy in the world with a IQ of 200, however if you can't be bothered to expose yourself to what is being taught and would much rather do something else, you would undoubtedly fail to gain even a 10% mark.

Firstly I never claim to be smarter than anyone else. I merely said, my ego is such that I think I'm right, and those with views that are different from mine are wrong, as Julia so kindly points out. In fact if I was to rate myself in intelligence I would class myself as average. Obviously my giant ego prevents me from classifying myself as below average.

Secondly no one can have knowledge of everything. Take note that I singled out science, I didn't say get 80%+ pass in everything, I said science. Obviously my ego is such that I see science as the most important subject and that every other subject as unimportant. Obviously I saw it as unimportant to educate myself on what a donkey vote is until you so kindly educated me.

Thirdly as I said, I think it would be fairly easy for almost anyone to achieve the required education level in science to pass. Like I said before, anyone can get a drivers license. I am not talking about understanding science to the level that you have a degree as a rocket scientist. I am only advocating that those who vote have a basic understanding of science, which is sadly lacking in the majority of the population. I am only putting forth 80%, which seems to be a fairly high mark because I feel that someone getting 50% would not have understood properly what is being taught and would not understand science properly. As I have said in another thread, I disagree with the current university system where they allow people getting 50% to pass a course. However i will reiterate, this is nothing to do with getting a university degree. This is to ensure the voting population has a basic understanding of science.

Fourthly if you haven't realized. The road block of 80% pass in science doesn't actually only allow people with my views to vote. You can be a religious fundamentalist who believes God literally created the world in 7 days and you could still get a 80% pass in science. Obviously this would involve willfully ignoring things you learned that don't fit with your worldview. I didn't point this out in my previous posts because I thought it was fairly obvious.

So you ask the question of what is the point of having this road block in the first place. The point is that at least this will make sure that the voting population will have a basic understanding of science. You ask why science? It is my egocentric view that science is the most important subject because science has created the modern world. 2ndly every theory in science to be accepted as scientific fact needs to be confirmed with experimental evidence. Science is the only rational tool for understanding things. So when the voting population all have a proper working knowledge of science hopefully they can use this tool in every decision they make. Hopefully they will question everything that is put forth by those who seek to manipulate. As a example, we need to invade Iraq because they are developing weapons of mass destruction, how do I know what our leaders are saying is true, is there evidence to back up this claim. Science also gives you a better understanding of your place in the world. Why are we the way we are? We are the way we are because of our genes and our environment. Everything we see influences us. Every advertisement or TV show influences us to a certain degree. Hopefully, when the voting population are better educated in science they will understand this and realize they need to question everything that is shown and as such are better able to shield themselves from this influence.

As I have said before, I don't care that my suggestion will never be implemented. The chances of my suggestion being implemented is probably less than 0.0001%. I am just putting it out there. The way I see it the current system allows us to head in the direction of the US, which given my views is a bad thing. In my view the US, a once great first world country has been successful turned into a third world country by those who seek to manipulate. This has happened because the elites have successfully manipulated the population to vote against their best interests.
Democracy can only work when the voting population is better educated. In my view the US is not a democracy it is a plutocracy. Given how Australia likes to follow the US in almost everything, Australia will probably head in the same direction.

[Glen48]

Lurker 123
You are being unfair about USA the dept of home land security has ordered 450Million bullets enough to kill every one 1.5 times, bullet proof booths,FEMA has ordered a large supply of canned and dried food and in the process of setting up Re Education camps to house 28 million Blacks and any other American citizen who has a sticker on the car or anti USA or any sort of activist type paraphernalia so they can send in the CIA, FBI or any dept they chose to check out your house.

They have over ridden the constitution to take control of any thing they like.
The media is not running any thing about Ron Paul in case he gets elected and 28% think Gold is the safest bet for the future.
So the voters will one day wake up to whats going on maybe too late and as you say be another 3 rd world country just like OZ will be in another 8 yrs or so.

Mechanical engineers build weapons civil engineers build targets.

As long as voters are being spoon fed there is no need for them to think.

[Eager]

Lurker123,

I appreciate the effort you have given to your reply, and the size of your ego! It is a shame that you didn't nominate mathematics as the example, since you are preaching to an audience whose members normally involve themselves in numbers!

[Julia]

Lurker 123, if you continue with interesting and valid comments such as your latest post I shall even have to consider agreeing with you.
Thanks for a logical and articulate argument which - when expanded on as you have above - makes considerable sense.

[DB008]

Found this, interesting.