[_jackofdiamonds]

If the most people voted for none of the above would that mean we would send no MP to westminister?

[Agent Smith]

You'd have to look at what happens in that situation in Belgium and Oz, and any other countries that have adopted this system.

[yawn]

Voting is compulsory in Australia, and the fact that it is, focusses the mind on examining the policies of the various parties and taking the whole process far more seriously than we do here. It leads to responsible voting, imo and in the opinion of the Australian population.

There is also the opportunity to 'spoil' one's vote if one wishes to abstain from voting for any particular party.

edit: just seen a couple of the posts saying approximately the same thing - at least it shows I'm telling the truth!

[philjw]

Of course, what happens if >50% of ballots are "None of the above"? Wouldn't it remove the 'winning' party's legitimacy completely?

[Howard]

(Original post by Segat1)
Hmm. System in Aus: if you don't like who the options are, then you do a donkey vote i.e. write Donald Duck rules on the ballot and hand it in. Hence, no $20 fine or whatever. If you don't rock up, then so be it, you get fined.

In a way, it is great because people actually take an interest in who they vote for. Unlike here, where the people who actually give a toss about politics are the only ones who vote. I found the distinction between my Aus and UK mates defined by the lack of political debate at dinner parties. This is not to say that you're all a bunch of uninformed idiots. Probably just people being polite, even tho I know they're all Tories.

In another way, you get a bunch of people who vote for Donald Duck.

And what BBQ? I can't remember BBQs at elections........ unless you mean a sausage sizzle which is a totally different thing.

I still fail to understand how writing "Donald Duck rules" on a ballot paper to avoid paying a $20 fine is a sign of a healthier attitude to politics than just staying at home watching Neighbours.

[Howard]

(Original post by Agent Smith)
You'd have to look at what happens in that situation in Belgium and Oz, and any other countries that have adopted this system.

Since when have we had to look to Australia and Belgium for tips on how to run a democracy?

[Will Grimes1]

I dont see why it is necessary to make people vote what right does the goverment have to intervene. Surely it is part of a liberal democratic society that we have the right to choose. I also think that many of the people who do not vote would be more likely to come from poorer areas, be less educated and more extreme. This would probably lead to an increased following of parties such as the BNP and they may eventually come to power. Bad news in my opinion.

[Eru Iluvatar]

I don't think people should be forced to vote. If someone chooses not to use their vote, that should be their right. Going to the poll when all you are going to do is write 'all politicians are ******s' on the polling slip is hardly a good idea... and imagine the cues too, if everyone had to vote. People before they leave to work, or after getting back, all cueing up to vote, it would be a catastrophe.

[supercat]

Mm, I don't really agree with compulsory voting. I don't know why, it just seems overly authoritarian I suppose.

That said, I wish more people would vote. It's tough having a summer birthday; pretty much all my friends are 18 and I'm not. And whereas I would vote, loads of them won't. It doesn't seem fair. Like they're wasting an opportunity.

[Segat1]

(Original post by Howard)
I still fail to understand how writing "Donald Duck rules" on a ballot paper to avoid paying a $20 fine is a sign of a healthier attitude to politics than just staying at home watching Neighbours.

Have you seen Neighbours? Interestingly if it wasn't for the British public, Neighbours wouldn't be made cos its not so popular in Aus. Kinda like Fosters. Anyway, I dunno. It's all I have ever known Howard and considering there are places in the world where you can't vote I always considered it a blessing. Plus, with a population of 20 mill if it wasn't compulsory no-one would vote.

[Ferrus]

(Original post by Knogle)
No one's saying you can't "abstain" in a compulsory voting system. You could just spoilt the ballot card.

Or tick "no party".

[Laika]

I would agree with some sort of compulsary voting if we had a better system of government in the first place. (By better I mean more democratic and representative of votes.)

As it stands I don't think the state should be further intruding into its citizens lives by forcing them to take part in a process which, in large, is wholly unrepresentative of a large portion of the population. Many people, young people especially, feel alienated from the mainstream parties and the wants of the public are barely even considered in big decision making by this government (Iraq War, I.D. cards etc). I therefore find it totally distasteful for the state to force people to take part in voting.

[LH]

Interestingly in the 2004 US Presidential Elections Nebraska (I think, it was a state beginning with 'N' and Nebraska is the most electorally strange US state) had a 'none of the above' option. About 36,000 picked it.

[psychic_satori]

(Original post by LH)
Interestingly in the 2004 US Presidential Elections Nebraska (I think, it was a state beginning with 'N' and Nebraska is the most electorally strange US state) had a 'none of the above' option. About 36,000 picked it.

That does seem like a Nebraskan thing to do!

[tommorris]

Practical reality shot, my friends, practical reality.

My old gran who died the other year. Would she have had to hobble on up to the polling station to exempt herself from the fine? Even though we live in about the safest Conservative seat in the country, and her vote would have done almost nothing had she wanted to unseat the incumbent (she was a lifelong liberal). If she had wanted to vote (and most of the time she did), we would have assisted her, but it's hardly fair threatening an old lady in severe pain to vote if she doesn't want to.

Was she lazy? Of course not. But to force someone to vote in a state like hers is nothing but thuggery.

But, you say, if it's justifiable for one, it's justifiable for all - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Well, it's not justifiable for all, and I don't think it's justifiable for anyone.

Just because you are having an election doesn't mean life stops and we ought to be on bended knee about it. As I said, I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country. It's about 60-70% majority each time. Yeah, I'll vote. But it's hardly a great democratic privilege, even if we did unseat the incumbent. It'll just mean another bloke will get in. They all take away our freedom, "for the common good" or whatever the fashionable justification for authoritarianism is. The only difference is that I'd have to change the address of who I fire off emails to when the government tries to throw away yet more of our liberty.

[Andronicus Comnenus]

(Original post by tommorris)
Practical reality shot, my friends, practical reality.

My old gran who died the other year. Would she have had to hobble on up to the polling station to exempt herself from the fine? Even though we live in about the safest Conservative seat in the country, and her vote would have done almost nothing had she wanted to unseat the incumbent (she was a lifelong liberal). If she had wanted to vote (and most of the time she did), we would have assisted her, but it's hardly fair threatening an old lady in severe pain to vote if she doesn't want to.

If everyone thought like that, it wouldnt be the safest Tory seat in the country - as all of the tories would think it was so safe none of them would bother to vote. your old gran could perhaps:

a) be exempted on medical grounds.
b) post her vote.

Problem solved.

I see no reason against making voting compulsory, and including a 'none of the above box'. Then we'd really see if any of the political parties are as in touch with the public they think they are.

[Iago]

The right to not give a crap is distinct from the right to abstain, and both are equally important to liberal democratic values. Compulsory voting, even with the option of spoiling one's ballot paper, denies people the first right. Voting ought be an oppurtunity, not a duty.

There are also more practical considerations that weigh against it - compulsory voting renders the system decidely unrepresentative...apathy ceases to be represented in the results. Apathy is just as important an aspect of community will as conviction is. There is also the question of whether we want someone who doesn't want to/can't be bothered to vote to vote...surely the system works itself out? As in the results reflect the wishes of those that care enough to vote...why should the results of a democratic system reflect anything else?

The problem with low turnouts is that people don't care. This is the 'bad' thing. Introducing compulsory voting doesn't solve this problem, it merely fixes the low turnout (which is not in itself a problem) by forcing those who don't care to vote. Those people still don't care.

[Chrism]

Compulsory voting also makes negative campaigning that much more effective - see for example the different results from Lynton Crosby's campaign for the Liberals in Australia in 2004 and in the Conservatives in 2005.

[Andronicus Comnenus]

(Original post by Iago)
The right to not give a crap is distinct from the right to abstain, and both are equally important to liberal democratic values. Compulsory voting, even with the option of spoiling one's ballot paper, denies people the first right. Voting ought be an oppurtunity, not a duty.

Ahh people - so quick to talk about their rights, so slow to mention their responsibilities. Low turnouts at elections undermine out entire system of government. You have a duty and responsibility to make your vote known. I fail to see how anyone can have a right to 'not give a crap'. Whoever in the power has the ability to drastically interfere with your day to day existance. How can you simply not care about that? I think you're wrong and that people do, indeed, care - they just have noone to vote for. Compulsory voting with a 'none of the above' box would allow everyone to voice their opinions.

[tommorris]

They undermine the entire system of government? Cool! I hate our government, since they take money from me by force and use it to go and kill people. I'm not voting next time!

"You have a duty and responsibility to make your vote known."
Dude, I thought we had secret ballots.

On a pure utilitarian judgement, is there any difference between me sitting at home and not voting and me going to the voting booth and spoiling a ballot paper? I mean, apart from the loss of my time and the use of some petrol.

This is all a ploy... BY THE PRINTER'S UNION!