3 ms·

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

by throweway 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago
In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.
- specialist 10y ago
  Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.
danieltillett 10y ago
Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.
e12e 10y ago
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15
- danieltillett 10y ago
  The trouble with the Australian 'VAP' number is Australia has a very large percentage on non-citizens. It seems from the data that they have divided the votes by the total population rather than the number of Australian citizens.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Good eye. Noting that VAP is appropriate for international comparisons. Domestically, it also informs policy, like enfranchisement thru citizenship. Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. I support enfranchising pretty much everyone, especially for local issues.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      It is very easy to become a citizen of Australia once you are a permanent resident - the large number of non-citizens is a personal choice of the people involved. It is an interesting question if the vote should be extended to non-citizens. I can see good and bad aspects to doing so and I am not sure which is more important.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      > Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. For reasons of equality among the states, the US capital is not located in any of them. The District of Columbia, not being a state, doesn't have the privileges of a state either, such as being represented in the US government. This is not easy to fix; giving DC state privileges would be a severe blow to the idea that the federal government doesn't favor any one state over another. It still gets taxed, though. People are sore enough about this that when someone submitted the suggestion of "no taxation without representation" for the slogan on DC license plates, it was vetoed by DC government for being "too controversial". I would actually be OK with saying that DC doesn't get taxed, since they're legally prohibited from participating in the government. But I don't think that's a widespread viewpoint. Do you have an opinion?

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

DanBC 10y ago

In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.

specialist 10y ago
Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates. The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators. Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.

danieltillett 10y ago

Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to. I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.

e12e 10y ago

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15

danieltillett 10y ago
The trouble with the Australian 'VAP' number is Australia has a very large percentage on non-citizens. It seems from the data that they have divided the votes by the total population rather than the number of Australian citizens.
- specialist 10y ago
  Good eye. Noting that VAP is appropriate for international comparisons. Domestically, it also informs policy, like enfranchisement thru citizenship. Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. I support enfranchising pretty much everyone, especially for local issues.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    It is very easy to become a citizen of Australia once you are a permanent resident - the large number of non-citizens is a personal choice of the people involved. It is an interesting question if the vote should be extended to non-citizens. I can see good and bad aspects to doing so and I am not sure which is more important.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. For reasons of equality among the states, the US capital is not located in any of them. The District of Columbia, not being a state, doesn't have the privileges of a state either, such as being represented in the US government. This is not easy to fix; giving DC state privileges would be a severe blow to the idea that the federal government doesn't favor any one state over another. It still gets taxed, though. People are sore enough about this that when someone submitted the suggestion of "no taxation without representation" for the slogan on DC license plates, it was vetoed by DC government for being "too controversial". I would actually be OK with saying that DC doesn't get taxed, since they're legally prohibited from participating in the government. But I don't think that's a widespread viewpoint. Do you have an opinion?