3 ms·

We have statistical data from every Australian election (which has compulsory voting) on how many people donkey vote/protest vote, and it's not that many. If yo

We have statistical data from every Australian election (which has compulsory voting) on how many people donkey vote/protest vote, and it's not that many. If you're talking about people attempting to protest in subtly undetectable ways (i.e. not the easiest methods like leave blank, 12345, scribble, penis) by simply casting their vote in a random order that isn't a donkey vote, well if any substantial number of people were doing that then we should see a significant effect where irrelevant minor parties receive approximately equal numbers of votes to each other. In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. There have been individual years where large numbers of smaller parties and independents were elected (relative to historical norms, not in absolute numbers), but these occurred at times of disillusionment with the major parties that would explain these effects, and this isn't a standard effect in Australian politics despite the voting system always being compulsory. Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted, so your hypothesis that compulsory voting leads to an issue with voters not caring and just voting whatever isn't correct.

midoridensha 3y ago
>In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? >Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted 90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory?
- lucubratory 3y ago
  >What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? You're moving the goalposts, and frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. >90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory? Evidence? Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. >Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries. You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. This isn't moving the goalposts; you simply haven't shown how the compulsory system actually produces better results. Australia isn't exactly known for picking great leadership. I'd say it does better than America, but that's an extremely low bar and easily explained by other factors.
    - lucubratory 3y ago
      >What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. I don't think that at all. Any bourgeois democracy has fundamental failings. I just disagree with your characterisation of compulsory voting as being stupid. >You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. You haven't proven that they're just ticking a box randomly like you originally said. There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        >There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters. Yes, another responder here in this thread wrote a good post explaining how this works. It's the best argument I've seen yet for compulsory voting.

midoridensha 3y ago

>In reality compulsory voting in Australia produces clear two-party dynamics, with third-party challengers and a reasonably dynamic system. What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? >Basically, real participation in voting is most likely in excess of 90% of the people who are formally registered as having voted 90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory?

lucubratory 3y ago
>What makes you think the people who don't want to vote aren't just picking whichever name they've heard the most? You're moving the goalposts, and frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. >90% is not 100%, so it seems there's some people who still don't care. What makes you think you need compulsory voting to get people to care enough to cast a meaningful and honest vote, or that those 90% wouldn't care enough to vote even without it being compulsory? Evidence? Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >frankly your new criteria isn't significantly different from an uncharitable description of various non-compulsory Western democracies. What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. >Go and look at voting participation rates and ballot spoiling data in compulsory vs non-compulsory voting countries. You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. This isn't moving the goalposts; you simply haven't shown how the compulsory system actually produces better results. Australia isn't exactly known for picking great leadership. I'd say it does better than America, but that's an extremely low bar and easily explained by other factors.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    >What makes you think those democracies actually choose good leaders? Honestly, I'm not aware of any countries that consistently pick good leaders; all systems for choosing leaders (democratic or otherwise) are bad, so debating them is just about debating which is less bad. Some are much worse than others. I don't think that at all. Any bourgeois democracy has fundamental failings. I just disagree with your characterisation of compulsory voting as being stupid. >You still haven't proven that voters in compulsory countries are actually being made to care and are conscientiously picking a candidate based on any real research. You haven't proven that they're just ticking a box randomly like you originally said. There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      >There are other benefits of compulsory voting, as well, like it being significantly more difficult to suppress voters. Yes, another responder here in this thread wrote a good post explaining how this works. It's the best argument I've seen yet for compulsory voting.