4 ms·

It would also be good to have more engagement of non-citizen New Zealanders this election also! For non-Kiwis... New Zealand is one of the very few countries i

by vorg 12y ago

It would also be good to have more engagement of non-citizen New Zealanders this election also! For non-Kiwis... New Zealand is one of the very few countries in the world where non-citizens are allowed to vote in national elections. Permanent residents who have lived in NZ for only 1 year can register to vote, though they don't have to. They're not allowed to become citizens until they've lived in NZ for 5 years however. This is in stark contrast to nearby Australia where only citizens vote, just like in most other countries, but their unusual electoral situation is that its citizens must vote (or be fined).

tankenmate 12y ago
Actually Australians don't have to vote, they are required by law however to attend a polling station on polling day or have registered for a postal vote and returned the postal vote envelope. The actual vote papers can be blank, or indeed you can write in if you want; even for people who aren't on the official ticket (i.e. you can legally vote for Mickey Mouse). If a write in gets enough votes they are free to accept the position. In Australia you are also required by law to be on the electoral roll if you are eligible. In short in Australia suffrage is universal (for citizens who are of majority age; currently 18) and mandatory.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Australia is behind the times in this respect. Voting is a right, not an obligation and non-participation is a form of protest against the system as a whole rather than a forced choice between multiple options none of which you may agree with.
  - nmjenkins 12y ago
    I disagree. Voting is a responsibility, hard won through history and still not a privilege available in all countries. As pointed out by the parent post you absolutely do not have to agree with any of the options. 50% of the population spoiling their ballot paper would be a massive statement and precipitate political upheaval. 50% of the population not bothering to show up just says they don't care.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      50% of the population not showing up shows there is a huge problem. There are only 22 countries left in the world where voting is compulsory and only a few of those are countries that have good reasons for that rule. As soon as your country appears in lists that also contain 'North Korea', 'Congo', 'Lebanon' and 'Thailand' when it comes to political matters you really have to wonder if you're on the right path. The only countries imo which have a legitimate reason to make voting compulsory are those that are so small that the statistical basis underlying the decisions taken based by the people voted for would be removed. A vote is a 'poll' just like every other and you don't need a 100% sample in order to reach statistical significance. I'd be very suspicious of any elections that did have 100% turnout.
      - DrJosiah 12y ago
        Having lived in a non-compulsory voting country for my entire life (US), the 50% turnout rate (more or less) is deplorable. In my mind, there are two points about compulsory voting that are nice: 1) The government must make voting available (various Republican-lead areas in the US are trying to reduce voting hours to limit voting for poor and minority voters) 2) Employers must make it possible for employees to take the time to vote (no consistent protections currently) I'd take compulsory voting in the US just to say "fuck you" to the various groups that have been disenfranchising female, poor, and/or minority voters for generations.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I'd take compulsory voting in the US just to say "fuck you" to the various groups that have been disenfranchising female, poor, and/or minority voters for generations. Those organizations probably would embrace compulsory voting without making it easier for the targetted groups to vote in practice, because they'd probably see being able to punish them for not voting an extra bonus on top of disenfranchising them in the first place. I mean, do you think campaigns would stop blanketing neighborhoods expected to vote for the opposing candidate with false information about voting times and locations if the payoff went from "they don't vote, improving our chance of winning" to "they don't vote, improving our chance of winning, plus they are compelled to pay fines for not voting"?
  - sjwright 12y ago
    Did you read the parent? You don't have to vote in Australia. You just have to show up and not vote -- or alternatively accept a trivial fine. (I personally think mandatory voting is a crappy system, but less crappy than all the alternatives. Much like capitalism.)
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Having to show up means there is a compulsion in effect, whether or not you have to make a choice is between you and the piece of paper (otherwise you are violating another principle of a good voting system: that it is secret what you voted). The situation (quoted from the WP page) is precisely this: "Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box." So your participation in the election process is mandatory. I'd wager the vast majority of the people so compelled to show up at the polling stations will actually vote. This should be easily testable. The proof would be that in Australia the total number of votes as a percentage of the population is high compared to other countries that do not have mandatory participation and that the number of blank or defaced ballots slightly higher than it would be in a country without compulsory voting (those would be the people actually using their vote as a protest vote). edit: http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU (Australia) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216 (Thailand) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164 (Netherlands) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231 (USA) Seem to solidly confirm my suspicion.
      - ama729 12y ago
        You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other "difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    You can still choose not to participate by spoiling the ballot paper.

by vorg 12y ago

tankenmate 12y ago

Actually Australians don't have to vote, they are required by law however to attend a polling station on polling day or have registered for a postal vote and returned the postal vote envelope. The actual vote papers can be blank, or indeed you can write in if you want; even for people who aren't on the official ticket (i.e. you can legally vote for Mickey Mouse). If a write in gets enough votes they are free to accept the position. In Australia you are also required by law to be on the electoral roll if you are eligible. In short in Australia suffrage is universal (for citizens who are of majority age; currently 18) and mandatory.

jacquesm 12y ago
Australia is behind the times in this respect. Voting is a right, not an obligation and non-participation is a form of protest against the system as a whole rather than a forced choice between multiple options none of which you may agree with.
- nmjenkins 12y ago
  I disagree. Voting is a responsibility, hard won through history and still not a privilege available in all countries. As pointed out by the parent post you absolutely do not have to agree with any of the options. 50% of the population spoiling their ballot paper would be a massive statement and precipitate political upheaval. 50% of the population not bothering to show up just says they don't care.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    50% of the population not showing up shows there is a huge problem. There are only 22 countries left in the world where voting is compulsory and only a few of those are countries that have good reasons for that rule. As soon as your country appears in lists that also contain 'North Korea', 'Congo', 'Lebanon' and 'Thailand' when it comes to political matters you really have to wonder if you're on the right path. The only countries imo which have a legitimate reason to make voting compulsory are those that are so small that the statistical basis underlying the decisions taken based by the people voted for would be removed. A vote is a 'poll' just like every other and you don't need a 100% sample in order to reach statistical significance. I'd be very suspicious of any elections that did have 100% turnout.
    - DrJosiah 12y ago
      Having lived in a non-compulsory voting country for my entire life (US), the 50% turnout rate (more or less) is deplorable. In my mind, there are two points about compulsory voting that are nice: 1) The government must make voting available (various Republican-lead areas in the US are trying to reduce voting hours to limit voting for poor and minority voters) 2) Employers must make it possible for employees to take the time to vote (no consistent protections currently) I'd take compulsory voting in the US just to say "fuck you" to the various groups that have been disenfranchising female, poor, and/or minority voters for generations.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I'd take compulsory voting in the US just to say "fuck you" to the various groups that have been disenfranchising female, poor, and/or minority voters for generations. Those organizations probably would embrace compulsory voting without making it easier for the targetted groups to vote in practice, because they'd probably see being able to punish them for not voting an extra bonus on top of disenfranchising them in the first place. I mean, do you think campaigns would stop blanketing neighborhoods expected to vote for the opposing candidate with false information about voting times and locations if the payoff went from "they don't vote, improving our chance of winning" to "they don't vote, improving our chance of winning, plus they are compelled to pay fines for not voting"?
- sjwright 12y ago
  Did you read the parent? You don't have to vote in Australia. You just have to show up and not vote -- or alternatively accept a trivial fine. (I personally think mandatory voting is a crappy system, but less crappy than all the alternatives. Much like capitalism.)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Having to show up means there is a compulsion in effect, whether or not you have to make a choice is between you and the piece of paper (otherwise you are violating another principle of a good voting system: that it is secret what you voted). The situation (quoted from the WP page) is precisely this: "Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box." So your participation in the election process is mandatory. I'd wager the vast majority of the people so compelled to show up at the polling stations will actually vote. This should be easily testable. The proof would be that in Australia the total number of votes as a percentage of the population is high compared to other countries that do not have mandatory participation and that the number of blank or defaced ballots slightly higher than it would be in a country without compulsory voting (those would be the people actually using their vote as a protest vote). edit: http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU (Australia) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216 (Thailand) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164 (Netherlands) http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231 http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231 (USA) Seem to solidly confirm my suspicion.
    - ama729 12y ago
      You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other "difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.
- DanBC 12y ago
  You can still choose not to participate by spoiling the ballot paper.