3 ms·

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 th

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.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Minorities or 'difficult groups' (whatever they are) have a right to vote, so they can exercise it if they want to. No excuse needed! This is about being compelled to participate, not about wanting to go and needing an excuse. You never need an excuse, there is an election in progress and you exercise your rights. Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? Are polling stations in those places only open during business hours? Are the rights of citizens in those places subject to the whims of employers? That would make for an interesting situation. I'm not aware of any place where a company could stop its employees from voting if it wanted to do so, but that's an interesting perspective. I don't really understand what voting being mandatory or optional has to do with that though.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? In the US. It has not been too many years since minorities were harassed if/when seen going to the polls. On the other end of that stick there is the fact that minorities were paid/coerced into voting a certain way. It is definitely not the case that an employer can prevent employees from voting specifically, but they can arrange the workday in such a way as to make it inconvenient for certain employees. Example: Salaried staff can be given time off to vote while hourly staff are told to work overtime; not to mention the fact that salaried workers tend to already have accumulated paid time-off, where hourly workers have none, or less.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Then sue the bastards.
        DrJosiah 12y ago
        You need to pay a lawyer to sue, and you need to pay a lot for a lawyer that will win. The US legal system is "pay for play", despite claims and general belief to the contrary.
tankenmate 12y ago
Actually the fine isn't trivial; the last time I saw a news article about someone being fined was ~2002, from memory the fine was AUD$500 (approximately USD350 then, more now). Having said that it isn't actively enforced, so much so that when someone is fined it quite often makes the news (even if local).
- mambodog 12y ago
  Nope it's $20 if you pay the fine when you get it, or $170 if you let it go to court http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#not-vote http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#not-vote
scardine 12y ago
Well, we have it in Brazil. In the last 12 years the government effectively implemented a scheme to trade votes for money using social programs. The only thing preventing this country to go the Venezuelan way is the press being a bit stronger here. I suspect the illiterate crowd would travel to the nearest beach and spend their social programs money on beer if voting was not mandatory. That is why I want voting to be optional.

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.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Minorities or 'difficult groups' (whatever they are) have a right to vote, so they can exercise it if they want to. No excuse needed! This is about being compelled to participate, not about wanting to go and needing an excuse. You never need an excuse, there is an election in progress and you exercise your rights. Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? Are polling stations in those places only open during business hours? Are the rights of citizens in those places subject to the whims of employers? That would make for an interesting situation. I'm not aware of any place where a company could stop its employees from voting if it wanted to do so, but that's an interesting perspective. I don't really understand what voting being mandatory or optional has to do with that though.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? In the US. It has not been too many years since minorities were harassed if/when seen going to the polls. On the other end of that stick there is the fact that minorities were paid/coerced into voting a certain way. It is definitely not the case that an employer can prevent employees from voting specifically, but they can arrange the workday in such a way as to make it inconvenient for certain employees. Example: Salaried staff can be given time off to vote while hourly staff are told to work overtime; not to mention the fact that salaried workers tend to already have accumulated paid time-off, where hourly workers have none, or less.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Then sue the bastards.
      - DrJosiah 12y ago
        You need to pay a lawyer to sue, and you need to pay a lot for a lawyer that will win. The US legal system is "pay for play", despite claims and general belief to the contrary.

tankenmate 12y ago

Actually the fine isn't trivial; the last time I saw a news article about someone being fined was ~2002, from memory the fine was AUD$500 (approximately USD350 then, more now). Having said that it isn't actively enforced, so much so that when someone is fined it quite often makes the news (even if local).

mambodog 12y ago
Nope it's $20 if you pay the fine when you get it, or $170 if you let it go to court http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#not-vote http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#not-vote

scardine 12y ago

Well, we have it in Brazil. In the last 12 years the government effectively implemented a scheme to trade votes for money using social programs. The only thing preventing this country to go the Venezuelan way is the press being a bit stronger here. I suspect the illiterate crowd would travel to the nearest beach and spend their social programs money on beer if voting was not mandatory. That is why I want voting to be optional.