3 ms·

>My pet peeves are all around voting systems. For instance, voting in most countries is voluntary. That has well-understood failure modes. I'd contend that vot

by noarchy 14y ago

>My pet peeves are all around voting systems. For instance, voting in most countries is voluntary. That has well-understood failure modes. I'd contend that voting itself has failure modes, and that making it mandatory is asking for disappointment. I'm not accusing you of this, but I find that many who call for coerced voting expect that this will turn elections towards the results that they'd prefer (their favoured party, in particular). In the end, I'd say that the right to not cast a vote can be as meaningful, if not more so than wasting the time to go cast an actual vote. For many, it is the closest that one can come to a "none of the above" option that they might otherwise prefer.

jacques_chester 14y ago
> I'd contend that voting itself has failure modes, and that making it mandatory is asking for disappointment. It has failure modes, for sure. There are no systems that meet all the objectives we want. However compulsory voting tends to moderate politics towards the "median voter". In voluntary voting, only the most motivated voters turn out. Who are they? People with a burning, righteous indignation. Are their policy obsessions going to be about boring, middle-of-the-road administration and policy? Experience says: not really. > I'm not accusing you of this, but I find that many who call for coerced voting expect that this will turn elections towards the results that they'd prefer (their favoured party, in particular). Definitely! In Australia the new Queensland government is proposing to drop the compulsory requirement. A cynic might suggest that this is because younger voters, who turn out at a much lower rate under voluntary schemes, vote for the opposition party. > For many, it is the closest that one can come to a "none of the above" option that they might otherwise prefer. In Australia this is done by casting an "informal" ballot. The main problem with NOTA is that you need rules to decide how to count NOTA ballots -- and what happens if NOTA gets a clear majority.
vacri 14y ago
I believe in mandatory voting because pretty much everyone bitches about politics. If you're not willing to do the minimum of cast a vote (in Aus, that's one each of council, state, federal, every 3-4 years) then you don't really have the right to complain. You may not have a candidate to vote for, but you definitely will have one to vote against. As for a 'none of the above', on a paper ballot, you can write what you want. Of course, we have voting well organised - here you won't see queues of eight hours to vote like the debacle in Florida. This is despite mandatory voter turnout and paper ballots. It's nice though, that you put an evil spin on mandatory voting by labelling it 'coerced'. I wonder if you call traffic lights 'coercion'? I personally think of it more as a citizen's responsibility, but I wouldn't try to colour it by calling it 'responsible voting'.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >I believe in mandatory voting because pretty much everyone bitches about politics. If you're not willing to do the minimum of cast a vote (in Aus, that's one each of council, state, federal, every 3-4 years) then you don't really have the right to complain. You may not have a candidate to vote for, but you definitely will have one to vote against. I'd turn that on its head, and say that everyone who votes has dirt on their hands. They've all participated in propping up that government, and they're the ones who should not complain when that same government regulates, taxes, or otherwise harasses them. Those who did not vote, did not give consent. >As for a 'none of the above', on a paper ballot, you can write what you want. There is no write-in option where I live. One could, I suppose, write whatever they'd like on the ballot, in effect "spoiling" the ballot. But not showing up to vote would have a similar effect. >Of course, we have voting well organised - here you won't see queues of eight hours to vote like the debacle in Florida. This is despite mandatory voter turnout and paper ballots. That is a good thing, for sure. If you're going to force voting on the population, a good way to get them to turn against the idea would be to have American-style efficiency in place! >It's nice though, that you put an evil spin on mandatory voting by labelling it 'coerced'. I wonder if you call traffic lights 'coercion'? I personally think of it more as a citizen's responsibility, but I wouldn't try to colour it by calling it 'responsible voting'. If I am faced with a fine of some kind for not voting, that is most definitely coercion. Traffic lights, whatever one may think of them, are not directly coercive, though they are increasingly a revenue-generating stream for local governments (a separate problem entirely).

by noarchy 14y ago

jacques_chester 14y ago

> I'd contend that voting itself has failure modes, and that making it mandatory is asking for disappointment. It has failure modes, for sure. There are no systems that meet all the objectives we want. However compulsory voting tends to moderate politics towards the "median voter". In voluntary voting, only the most motivated voters turn out. Who are they? People with a burning, righteous indignation. Are their policy obsessions going to be about boring, middle-of-the-road administration and policy? Experience says: not really. > I'm not accusing you of this, but I find that many who call for coerced voting expect that this will turn elections towards the results that they'd prefer (their favoured party, in particular). Definitely! In Australia the new Queensland government is proposing to drop the compulsory requirement. A cynic might suggest that this is because younger voters, who turn out at a much lower rate under voluntary schemes, vote for the opposition party. > For many, it is the closest that one can come to a "none of the above" option that they might otherwise prefer. In Australia this is done by casting an "informal" ballot. The main problem with NOTA is that you need rules to decide how to count NOTA ballots -- and what happens if NOTA gets a clear majority.

vacri 14y ago

I believe in mandatory voting because pretty much everyone bitches about politics. If you're not willing to do the minimum of cast a vote (in Aus, that's one each of council, state, federal, every 3-4 years) then you don't really have the right to complain. You may not have a candidate to vote for, but you definitely will have one to vote against. As for a 'none of the above', on a paper ballot, you can write what you want. Of course, we have voting well organised - here you won't see queues of eight hours to vote like the debacle in Florida. This is despite mandatory voter turnout and paper ballots. It's nice though, that you put an evil spin on mandatory voting by labelling it 'coerced'. I wonder if you call traffic lights 'coercion'? I personally think of it more as a citizen's responsibility, but I wouldn't try to colour it by calling it 'responsible voting'.

noarchy 14y ago
>I believe in mandatory voting because pretty much everyone bitches about politics. If you're not willing to do the minimum of cast a vote (in Aus, that's one each of council, state, federal, every 3-4 years) then you don't really have the right to complain. You may not have a candidate to vote for, but you definitely will have one to vote against. I'd turn that on its head, and say that everyone who votes has dirt on their hands. They've all participated in propping up that government, and they're the ones who should not complain when that same government regulates, taxes, or otherwise harasses them. Those who did not vote, did not give consent. >As for a 'none of the above', on a paper ballot, you can write what you want. There is no write-in option where I live. One could, I suppose, write whatever they'd like on the ballot, in effect "spoiling" the ballot. But not showing up to vote would have a similar effect. >Of course, we have voting well organised - here you won't see queues of eight hours to vote like the debacle in Florida. This is despite mandatory voter turnout and paper ballots. That is a good thing, for sure. If you're going to force voting on the population, a good way to get them to turn against the idea would be to have American-style efficiency in place! >It's nice though, that you put an evil spin on mandatory voting by labelling it 'coerced'. I wonder if you call traffic lights 'coercion'? I personally think of it more as a citizen's responsibility, but I wouldn't try to colour it by calling it 'responsible voting'. If I am faced with a fine of some kind for not voting, that is most definitely coercion. Traffic lights, whatever one may think of them, are not directly coercive, though they are increasingly a revenue-generating stream for local governments (a separate problem entirely).