The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
300,000 disenfranchised by our voting system
|
Joe Ludwig’s electoral reform discussion paper is worth a read, at least in parts. It’s rare you can ever say that about a government paper, but this government does actually seem to make an effort to elicit actual discussion in these things. The comparable process under the previous government was to issue a paper saying “this is how it’s gonna be, tell us what you think and we’ll file and forget it”. There is much to be said for that process, but not from the point of view of actual consultation. The Green Paper advances no particular positions, and carefully weighs up arguments for and against on most issues. But it is best where it flatly, neutrally and carefully explains that our current command-and-control voting system is disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people. Despite falling rates of informal voting, nearly 250,000 Australians voted informally in House of Reps elections in 2007 due to only using a “1” on their ballot sheets or failing to number candidates sequentially, out of a total of half a million informal votes. Another approximately 50,000 votes were informal because of the use of ticks and crosses. So 300,000 people were disenfranchised because, while they clearly indicated which candidate they supported, they failed to comply with the absurdly restrictive formality criteria and our obsession with enforcing voting preferences when a clear minority of voters wish only to vote for one candidate. Our obsession with preferential voting reached lunatic heights when Albert Langer was put in jail in 1996 for breaching an injunction against advocating an entirely legitimate means of avoiding preferencing candidates. The section specifically prohibiting what Langer did has now been removed, but the sentiment lives on in every ballot paper marked informal despite clear evidence of the voter’s wishes. The Green Paper discusses optional preferential voting and, judging by the dearth of arguments it musters against it (basically, no one might preference, thereby creating a de facto first-past-the-post system), it is clear where the authors’ preferences lie. Compulsory preferential voting is only a subset of a larger command-and-control approach to voting imposed by Australian governments. The paper discusses the arguments advanced for and against compulsory voting, before bravely concluding that much community debate is needed. Compulsory voting — I’ll ignore the spurious argument that it’s only compulsory attendance at a polling booth on election day — is a joyful tradition we share with such vibrant democracies as Fiji and the Congo. To hear its advocates, you’d think compulsion was a panacea for all democratic ills, but most of the world’s democracies seem to cope just fine without it, and there’s no evidence the bulk of Australians pay any more attention to politics because they know they’ll occasionally be compelled to vote than otherwise. There’s also a strong view among some Labor supporters that compulsory voting amounts to a right-wing plot to undermine the ALP’s electoral support, clearly oblivious to the fact that the ALP with its trade union base is far better equipped than any other party to establish an apparatus to turn out the vote, particularly given the dependence of the Coalition on older, less-mobile voters and voters in regional and rural areas. However, supporters of the freedom not to have to vote have got Buckley’s of seeing this imposition ended. It’s too convenient for the major political parties, which find life much easier if they can use the threat of fines and jail to herd voters into the ballot box rather than giving them a reason to go. There’ll be a genuine discussion of all sorts of electoral reforms, but don’t expect those opposed by Labor and the Coalition to get very far. |
|
|
13 Comments
An honest question: what arguments are there against compulsory voting? And no ‘everyone else is doing it’ does not count.
That’s a cheap trick. The full list of countries with a compulsory ballot is Argentina, Australia, Austria (2 Lander only), Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Greece, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland (one Canton only), Turkey and Uruguay.
See: http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf
Couldn’t agree with you more Evan. Is Bernard advocating hemlock?
“However, supporters of the freedom not to have to vote have got Buckley’s of seeing this imposition ended. It’s too convenient for the major political parties, which find life much easier if they can use the threat of fines and jail to herd voters into the ballot box rather than giving them a reason to go. There’ll be a genuine discussion of all sorts of electoral reforms, but don’t expect those opposed by Labor and the Coalition to get very far.” Every one has the freedom NOT to vote - all the community asks is that everyone make the effort to go to a polling booth on election day. I firmly believe that this should remain. It keeps the discussion leading up to an election on the issues which could otherwise get bogged down in parties moving heaven and earth just to get voters to turn out. In our demcoracy, people do have the freedom not to vote - whatever you do please do NT confuse the issue!!
I am suspicious of anything to do with the electoral process that comes out of the ALP right, they do not do democracy. Joe Ludwig, desperately trying to appear relevant in the job his dad got for him, is associated with the extreme right wing AWU faction who are also touting the introduction of electronic voting machines. Why? because, as we saw in Ohio, they are very easy to manipulate, and if there is one thing the ALP right like to do, it is to manipulate electoral outcomes. Joe’s own Queensland ALP branch is voting with its feet as a response to the AWU mafia control of the Queensland ALP, branch memberships have fallen from 12000 in 1990 to under 6000 now.
I believe Evan it was Plato or Socrates perhaps who said that democracy was a bad idea because it gave the fool as much say as the wise man.
That’s an argument. It’s limited by say universal education of some sort today, also the understanding of the wisdom of crowds to analyse stuff.
I suppose we would see alot of people who are genuinely apolitical and averse to any participation in politics and obsessed with their own little world drop out of the vote. I also imagine powerful conservative vested interests would do their best to park people in that civic zombie state as much as possible to sustain their privilege too. And with the modern mind f*ck advertising techniques they could probably be quite successful at that.
What I find most worrying at the moment is that the boomers with their guilt and privilege and utter selfishness have kidnapped and are now currently torturing the future with their excess. No wonder they hate the idea of ever more mature 16 to 18 year olds getting a vote. Accountability is the last thing they want.
MICHAEL CROOK Very interesting observation Michael. I only have to listen to Paul ??? championing nuclear power, to put me right off him and the AWU
! I agree with compulsory voting, as I think if you don’t vote you shouldn’t whine and whinge; plus it’s one act of being a responsible adult. I’m not convinced that 17 yr olds should be denied a vote. I used to be a volunteer or polling day, and was always stunned by the question, ‘who are we voting for today’ not by young people, but older ones? What? Where have you been, hiding under a rock for 6-8 weeks’ was what I wanted to ask?
I don’t like the idea of electronic voting for the reason you stated Michael, and I remember the US 2000 election and the 2004 one as well! A good doco to watch, is ‘How Bush Won Florida’? Very scary! Also, there were many black people deliberately disenfranchised as they traditionally vote for the Democrats. I think that’s why the Coalition don’t want young people to vote in Australia. Many of them are more engaged than a lot their parents and grandparents age!
“I believe Evan it was Plato or Socrates perhaps who said that democracy was a bad idea because it gave the fool as much say as the wise man.”
I wouldn’t believe for an instant that non-compulsory voting would result in the less-informed ‘dropping out’. Often those most passionate about a subject are amongst the least informed - I’m sure we all know the zealous type who latch onto a catch-phrase.
Compulsory voting is something that most Australians are very proud of. It is not such a major imposition that we should remove it - we typically vote at most once a year. It reduces the influence of the passionate & dramatic and the reliance on cheap ‘get out the vote’ stunts.
As for informal voting, such is life. If people actively don’t want to vote, simply cast an informal vote or don’t register! I have many friends who never registered - although they love to complain about politicians. The AEC never checks the electoral roll again, say, the tax system.
To answer Plato (or was it Socrates?), the more complex our voting system is, the less say we give to the fool!
The real downside to voluntary voting is the insane amount of time, money and effort that political parties (and governments) have to spend to “get out the vote” as they say in the US. I’d much rather that time and effort was spent on formulating policies and informing the voters of those policies.
Here’s the deal, folks. You want to compel me to vote, you have to make the case for it. It shouldn’t be incumbent on opponents of compulsory voting to “make the case” for it, which in effect is having to prove a negative. Compulsory voting curbs our freedoms; it is therefore incumbent on its proponents to explain what the net benefit is. So far I haven’t seen any evidence of its net benefits.
So BK, you’re arguing that being forced to vote is curbing your freedom to do other things on the poll day?
In that case, the strongest argument I’ve heard for compulsory voting is the argument that it keeps the politicians, the AEC and the public focussed on the issues at the election, rather than spending time and money encouraging people to vote at all. I think also there’s a small (particularly in Australia) risk of perverting the process with various tricks (changing voter registrations as an example) as well with non-compulsory voting. My thinking is that if not everyone on the electoral role is anticipated to vote, it will be more difficult to locate lost votes or multiples.
My major point of comparison to Non-Com voting is the US, and I find their whole electoral process to be a complete debacle. At least part of that is because of the NC voting.
The strongest argument against non-comp voting, and one that I favour, is that it would filter out a lot of the ill-informed voters; one issue voters and people who get their information from one heavily biased source, like Crikey. Further, and related, NC voting makes the mis-information campaigns less potent, because not everyone has to vote.
This is all purely academic anyway. As stated, this will not get a gurnsey in the political debate at all.
It would probably need a referendum to change compulsory voting as well wouldn’t it?
Compulsory voting is imposed by sub section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and so may be removed by just an Act of Parliament.
Compulsory voting is but a minor imposition on citizens and so may be justified by only a modest benefit.
Where voting is optional parties concentrate on mobilising their supporters to vote which they do by appealing to their basal or more extreme supporters and policies. This risks the divisive opposition we have seen to Clinton, Bush jnr and Obama.
Where voting is compulsory parties need to develop a broad consensus for their platform which they do by gravitating to the middle ground. This risks conformity, conservatism and a reluctance to try policies that may challenge the mainstream.
I think the conservative conformity produced by compulsory voting is preferable to the divisive extremism generated by voluntary ballots.