On voting
There’s been a bit of discussion lately about ending compulsory voting at federal elections. For the record, I support compulsory voting because it is a relatively insignificant imposition on people’s liberty. It’s an hour out of your weekend, once every few years, so that we know who you’d prefer to run the country.
Having worked behind the scenes at several elections, first for the AEC and subsequently as a scrutineer, I simply don’t accept that people’s right not to vote has been meaningfully removed — the volume of “colourful” submissions shows that people are well aware that they can spoil their ballot paper to voice their dissent. The fact that they have to get off the couch to have their say, the same as everyone else, does not concern me a great deal.
I’m sympathetic to the view that compulsory voting privileges the opinions of the apathetic, but I’m not quite convinced. First, there’s nothing to say that someone who follows politics closely has a better understanding of public policy than an ordinary Jill or Joe who just wants to get on with things. Second, I remember reading that a British study showed that the demographics who most strongly supported compulsory voting were also the least likely to vote if it was voluntary. This suggests that structural issues significantly affect who votes in voluntary elections, which is undemocratic. I’d rather impose a small civic obligation on people in order to level the playing field.
In an insightful post, Nick Evans picks up on something I haven’t seen elsewhere. He begins with the fact that “those groups who gain influence are the groups who can mobilise a large voting block to turn up and vote in a particular way”, and concludes that the big winners will be the Religious Right:
While the influence of the religious right has been growing under the Howard Government, this seems to have been achieved by a process of stacking out various wings of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, rather by a demonstration of their ability to capture a substantial voting block in their own right.
Under voluntary voting this will change. The major parties will have to swing their resources into ‘get out the vote’ efforts, rather than targeting issues dear to swing voters hearts — a substantial change in the political dynamic in Australia.
It is this shift which stands to empower the religious right. Their ability to deliver votes at the polling booth may only increase in relative terms, but the fact that the nature of poltical campaigning will also change to reward this stand to massively increase their influence within the conservative parties, and thus within public policy making in Australia.
On top of that, Nick argues that “get out the vote” campaigns are most effective when they are run on moral issues. The unions might benefit from that now and then — such as in response to the Government’s IR proposals — but the Religious Right will always be able to campaign against reproductive choice, no-fault divorce, and a general sense of moral decline. This gives the Conservatives a significant advantage — enough to put it on the Government’s agenda at the next election?
I love a graffitti ballot. Scrutineering is so much more fun when you can share a bit of literary criticism with your opponents.
I’ve seen ballots that have little potted summaries of each candidate’s failings, ballots with long and wierd manifestoes, ballots with childrens’ crayon drawings, really interesting ballot paper art, done in pencil and ink, clever slogans, annoying slogans, the lot. The origami ballot I saw once, I think, though, was the coolest. Someone folded up their vote into the shape of a little crane and put it in the box. Awesome. You’d get none of that under voluntary voting.
On the grounds of art alone, compulsory voting should stay.
I support compulsory voting, because I think so few civic duties are imposed upon us now days, and requiring every Australian to get off their arse and get involved for a few minutes every few years is not too much to ask.
However, I think compulsory vs. voluntary voting can shift the focus of politicans in the policies they present. Rob has pointed out that voluntary voting will tend to favour the religious right. I would go further and say it favours extremism and minority interests of all sorts. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it does tend to set up minority interest conflicts of the type seen in the US. One bunch of extermists rally voters on an issue. The opposing extremists pull their people together. The great unwashed in the middle are ignored or divided.
Compulsory voting has almost the opposite effect. Radical or extreme ideas cannot get a foothold. Every policy has to appeal to the apathetic, the people who only vote because they have to, the people who might decide their vote based on a 20-second soundbite from a politician they happen to catch when the remote control batteries run out. Everything is simplified to the extreme because swing voters, and ignorant voters suddenly become so important. No politician dare present any idea that is radical and new, or any idea that is complex and nuanced.
There’s one reform I believe the government is considering that hasn’t had much press. That’s forcing voters to number all the boxes ‘above the line’ on the Senate ballot.
I think this is a good thing, as it will eliminate the invisible dealing between the parties regarding preferences, but the government should go further. Allocating preferences should be optional, as in NSW elections.
I get really irked by the requirement that I must give preferences to parties that are anathema to me. Optional preferential voting would remove this requirement without eliminating the advantages of preferential voting.
All voluntary voting will do is remove the effect the apathetic have on the outcome of an election. In some ways it might work against Howard and his mates, as when the apathetic turn up to vote they just vote for who they see on TV the most, old caterpillar eyebrows himself.
The result may be a good thing in the short term, but removing a whole section of the community via apathy will not be good thing in the long term.
Liam, I think the best ballot paper I’ve heard about — it was Nick Evans that saw it, I think — was the one filled in in binary. 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111… A polling official pulled it out as informal. Nick pointed out that it was legit, and it went back in the pile. Then when they looked at it more closely, they realised it was missing the fourth preference, so it was informal.
Tony, have a read of Antony Green’s argument in Crikey (linked above), which I think you’ll like.
Thanks for pointing out the link, Rob. I’m in good company, it seems.
My five cents worth… support compulsory voting… support optional preferential voting for all ballots, including the senate. I like voting to be as transparant as possible, for people to know exactly what they are voting for, and we should minimise the informal vote. Single issue voters (eg. immigration/guns/abortion) will be very big problems if we get voluntary voting. You are all so lucky to have such intelligent dummy voters. – locally, our dummy votes just swear at us (”you @#$% goats” sticks in my mind).
Actually, the ballot was only ruled informal when we realised that no-one there knew how to read binary. Otherwise, I have a feeling the returning officer may have let it stay.
And because it was only a 50/50 chance of being a vote for them, none of the scrutineers were confident enough to object!
The compulsory voting issue is yet another example of this governments successful media strategy.
Each time this Government has an important issue that might be seen as going against public opinion, or getting bad press (eg. IR? et al!) they cook up a little headliner about something equally unpopular (Non-Compulsory Voting). Often it starts with the media reporting rumors about unpopular opinions that a backbencher is said to support or even unpopular bills they might introduce… and two days of speculation ensue.
Finally, the Prime Minister responds (in passing if he can) that it is a non-issue, declaring that he was never in favour of it anyway – and is no doubt satisfied that half a week of media speculation will be dutifully concluded with a few days of positive reviews while the journalists apparently attempt to regain focus.
Sigh. Yawn. Zzzzz.
[I tried to post this comment at Tim Dunlop’s Road to Surfdom site, only to be denied for “questionable content”. Hello?
I’ve seen enough of voluntary voting in action firsthand the US to know what a scam and a waste of time it is. Parties put as much time and energy gerrymandering certain demographics onto the voting public into booths. Are the Republican Party going to rush around trying to convince poor black Americans fron New Orleans to sign up to vote because that’s democracy? No. That’s the advantage of the so-called `compulsory’ voting system.
I see one of the many dodgy ideas Eric Abetz is floating is to bring out automated voting in Australia. Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy. Pierre Omidyar, the guy who invented Ebay, has an interesting blog which has a good deal on exactly why it’s so dodgy – yes, I know Ebay can err on the dodgy side too but it’s still a good read – http://pierre.typepad.com/
Before someone write some blog about something could at least the person do some sensible thinking?
Here we have a person making known not bothered by the inconvenient of voting, rather then to address the issue that it is “embedded� in the Constitution that one does not have to enroll/vote! Just that this is being ignored by the High Court of Australia and others for too long.
For the record, I refused to vote in 2001 and the litigation is still ongoing about it. I refused to vote in 2004 and this too is before the Courts.
My constitutional right is not having to vote, and it simply has got nothing to do with inconvenience!
As a matter of fact each time I was standing as a candidate. Why should I have to vote for opponents?
What ought to be considered is also is that if unions were to use the same system in electing their officials then the political parties would be quick to complain. Let see if a candidate for a union were to have to get 50 nominations before being able to stand as a candidate! You see, Howard and his cronies, and so the ALP are ongoing about what is bad about unions but if we take an example how they cook the books, so to say, then unions can still learn a lesson or two in that regard.
If a union official was to misuse and abuse union members funds for perks as the politicians are doing then likely the government would pursue legal action against them. Political parties are unions also, so why not the same against them?
As author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues, I probably have a better perception then most if not anyone else about voting. If you think I brag, then just read up what I write about.
Perhaps, we might make progress if we were to appoint judges to the High Court of Australia who are competent in constitutional provisions, not those who still don’t know what it is about.
I could device a test for any lawyer/judge in certain constitutional issues, that anyone of them will fail! Simply, they do not comprehend what constitutionally is applicable and a clear example is the nonsense about “citizenship� where they are really meaning “nationality�, but the judges do not even understand that constitutionally “citizenship� has got nothing to do with nationality, as citizenship is a State legislative power and naturalization is a Commonwealth legislative power and neither a State of a Federal Parliament has the powers to interfere with a natural born Australian!
The right to vote is born by being a State citizen, and this is what is being overlooked, in fact the States failed to make any legislation for this!
I agree with you Rob.
The fact is, you can choose not to vote in this country. You’ll just be fined for the privilege! Or, you can do an informal vote. Either way, you have a choice.
Alternatively, you couls realise that voting is not a right but a responsibility, and if you don;t want the responsibilities of being a citizen of Australia, well….one hates to sound like Brendan Nelson, but you can piss off.
You don’t necessarily get fined, either – all you are obligated to do is turn up and have your name crossed off at the polling booth. Anyone who’s scrutineered before will tell you that the average ballot box will contain plenty of ballots that are blank.
Personally, it depresses me when people throw away their vote, especially when it’s done for some futile reason (mate, numbering no boxes and scrawling `NO WAR IN IRAQ’ on the ballot for your local council elections is not going to end the war in Iraq), but ultimately, the Australian system as it stands seems fairest as it means everyone has equal access to voting, something that is not the case in say, the US and UK.
I’m always suspicious of Christian bashing, mainly because i hear so much of it, it’s like how you can only hear johnny howard squirm with his rhetoric so many times before you work out he’s just pushing his own pathetic barrow in a pathetic way. So firstly, where’s the stats to back up this claim. And no, vagueness about it will aid the religious right but not explaining how ain’t backing up. In fact all the post does is say there’s an advantage out there to be exploited by all groups who desire because voluntary voting would change how political groups spend their money, meaning all groups would exploit it, not just the ‘religious right.’ But no, hmm as usual it’s attractive to bash the Christians. Why i’ll never work that out. Must be such a sad life slagging without evidence and losing credibility and speaking stuff you know ain’t true. Well people’s choices really-and not work choices.
What Christian-bashing? All the post has done is suggest that one of the reasons the Howard Government might push for voluntary voting is because it would benefit the Religious Right, who tend to preference the Coalition parties.
And yes, I find their politics odious, but that’s not because they’re Christian. It’s because their politics is odious.
You’re a fool who’s jumping at shadows.
i’m all 4 voluntary voting, but perhaps we shld call it optional voting. I’m not a politically motivated person but i think that if i had the option i would vote. Politicians are so concerned that they will loose votes, ha dont they know that at the rate they’re going they’ve already lost mine.
Thanks
Money business! Voting is voting lets just get that right. I believe that it is our duty to vote, but i also believe that voting should only apply 2 those who want to vote. but hey i’m just an everyday australian voice’n my opinion, i’m not really important!
Well if ur reading this u know x-actly how i feel
From all of us at Busy-Bee-Business i’d just lik 2 say that we support voluntary voting not because we’ r busy but because its just business. Yep the government i just looking for more votes, more controversal topics to argue about i parliament. Just let the people decide is all i have to say about the matter.
Queen Bee
I thought it might be worth pointing out that the last three comments, all posted within six minutes of each other, came from the same IP address. It might be that they are all “sock puppets” of one person, it might not. I report, you decide.