Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Compulsory preferential voting

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Of course social mores are fluid, but we're basically talking about each party's position relative to the others.

I'm not suggesting that parties should be frozen in their positions, just that there should be a good spread across the spectrum with a reasonably clear delineation between the philosophies of each.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

tandino said:
What is the mindset behind compulsory voting anyway? And what parties have the most/least to lose if voting was optional?
Click to expand...

Compulsory voting, as opposed to mandatory full preferential, sees a wider range of people cast a vote. Those who don't normally voice an opinion in the time between elections, because they feel disengaged from the system or whatever reason, are heard.
Compulsory voting exists to get as many people as possible into the process.

My guess (and that is all it is) is that optional voting would probably see the two main parties lose votes, as many people gravitate to one of these out of habit rather than out of knowledge of specific programs in any given election. Also, with the media focus on "who will win government" rather than being across all parties the only things that most people do hear about are Labor or Liberal ideas with the occasional Green comment making the news.

Others would argue that some of the minor parties would lose the protest vote, and I think that is valid but it would probably not be the same as the influences leading to a major party.

The cynic in me also suggests that if the major parties knew optional voting would hurt the minor parties more, the two would have made sure voting was optional by now. (And you can guarantee they have both run polls on the subject.)
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
Compulsory voting, as opposed to mandatory full preferential, sees a wider range of people cast a vote. Those who don't normally voice an opinion in the time between elections, because they feel disengaged from the system or whatever reason, are heard.
Compulsory voting exists to get as many people as possible into the process.
Click to expand...

Is this a good thing?

Most of them are stupid or ignorant or both. It's as silly as encouraging most of the population to breed.

Pity eugenics got a bad name.
 
Dry Rot said:
Is this a good thing?

Most of them are stupid or ignorant or both. It's as silly as encouraging most of the population to breed.
Click to expand...

Its probbaly a mixed bag. It does mean you get more voters who don't know what's going on; but it also probably mreans you get more people taking at least some interest who otherwise would not participate at all. And it forces politicians to acknowledge concerns of the whole community, not just those with active and wealthy lobbying groups (well, in theory it should: in reality those same lobbying groups tend to not onlt have the ear of politicians but also news editors and journos).
For mine, if it ensures some voice for the otherwise voiceless then yes, it is worth it, despite the fact that the ignorant vote goes up.
I do recognise this is probably an unpopular though.
 
I prefer compulsory attendance to all that crap they go through in the US with using wedge issues like abortion to mobilise your base, rich candidates hiring buses to ferry nursing home residents to polling booths, whether or not it rains on election day determining who wins, etc.

I think it's pretty poor they don't allow a 'None of the above' option on the ballot though.
 
Admiral Byng said:
Call me misguided and silly, but I reckon compulsary preferential voting is our great safeguard against tyranny.
Click to expand...

Our greatest safeguard against tyranny should include a right to decide who we don't want to vote for. Something that compulsory preferential voting doesn't allow us AB. It allows the system to claim all non conforming votes as "informal" rather than recognise the prospect of a protest against the candidates.
 
RUNVS said:
That is because conservatives are more fearful of change and old people are fearful of change as well.
Click to expand...

You generalise without recognising that a lot of older people vote on experience rather than fear. Many have been around long enough to know that idealism is incompatible with realism.
 
Caesar said:
I prefer compulsory attendance to all that crap they go through in the US with using wedge issues like abortion to mobilise your base, rich candidates hiring buses to ferry nursing home residents to polling booths, whether or not it rains on election day determining who wins, etc.
.
Click to expand...

Churchill called pref voting

"The most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates."​

I dont see how that doesnt apply to forcing people who dont want to vote for people they dont want to vote for.

You may as well say flu jabs are mandatory but you can turn up and get a placebo jab if you really insist.

Howard Littlejohn said:
For mine, if it ensures some voice for the otherwise voiceless then yes, it is worth it, despite the fact that the ignorant vote goes up.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they wont be voiceless by CHOICE?

It is just one thing after another, forced to vote, forced to fill out a census form, forced (in the UK) to fill out a Mickey Mouse employment form stating your ethnicity etc.

We may as well get it over and done with and get Conroys filter malarky up and running.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Caesar said:
I don't see how a system designed to allow people more flexibility to more clearly voice their electoral opinion is a source of tyranny.

I think compulsory attendance at a polling place is very important, but I do not like forcing people to vote for someone they do not support, or forgo their say altogether.
Click to expand...

I do not understand the importance of forcing someone who has no interest in voting to attend a polling booth. Life is about personal choices within boundaries. Compulsion is an individual choice that should not be thrust upon everyone else because someone else knows better.
 
Compulsory attendance means that candidates don't know who is voting and who isn't, so they can't cherry pick demographics.

It also means you don't have the issues I posted above around voter mobilisation, similarly there is no real chance of voter intimidation.

All in all I think a civic responsibility to attend a polling place once every few years is not too onerous given the benefits it brings.

I am in favour of:
- attendance being mandatory
- preferencing being optional
- a 'none of the above' option on the ballot
 
Caesar said:
Compulsory attendance means that candidates don't know who is voting and who isn't, so they can't cherry pick demographics.

It also means you don't have the issues I posted above around voter mobilisation, similarly there is no real chance of voter intimidation
Click to expand...

Compulsory voting is the optimal of voter mobilisation. Making the vote non compulsory mobilises the candidates to engage their constituency rather than take their vote for granted, as happens in my "blue ribbon" electorate. And compulsory voting is not immunisation against intimidation.
 
Like I said, I don't think mobilisation strategies are good for politics. Wedge issues, bussing voters around, etc.

Compulsory submission of a ballot paper + the secret ballot is about as close as you get to immunisation from voter intimidation.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Caesar said:
Semantics when you can just spoil your paper.
Click to expand...

It is hardly semantics. Compelling someone to turn up is still compulsion. Vast numbers of votes are cast by people who simply tick boxes regardless of what they think. Then people will argue that somehow legitimises their policies as they have a "mandate".

If you add up the donkey vote and those who vote randomly without preference its probably well over 1% if not quite a bit more. How many seats in Australia are decided by that? How often is the 2pp vote within a couple of points?

It is highly probable that elections have been won on the back of voters who have had zero intention of voting for any particular party.

How is that a good thing?

http://australianpolitics.com/voting/electoral-system/donkey-votes

Many political parties and candidates believe the donkey vote can be worth up to 2% in any electorate but this is difficult to establish.
 
Relativity said:
Our greatest safeguard against tyranny should include a right to decide who we don't want to vote for. Something that compulsory preferential voting doesn't allow us AB. It allows the system to claim all non conforming votes as "informal" rather than recognise the prospect of a protest against the candidates.
Click to expand...

Secret ballot still applies. If you really want a protest vote you can just draw a **** and balls on it.

Maybe you could force the AEC to publish sub-categories of informal votes - illegible, probably accidental invalid vote, intentionally defaced.
 
Admiral Byng said:
Secret ballot still applies. If you really want a protest vote you can just draw a **** and balls on it.

Maybe you could force the AEC to publish sub-categories of informal votes - illegible, probably accidental invalid vote, intentionally defaced.
Click to expand...

Or provide a "none of the above" option to at least allow the electorate the right to not be forced to vote for candidates that they don't like.
 
Caesar said:
Like I said, I don't think mobilisation strategies are good for politics. Wedge issues, bussing voters around, etc.

Compulsory submission of a ballot paper + the secret ballot is about as close as you get to immunisation from voter intimidation.
Click to expand...
This is the point. If a certain section of the public do not vote, it is taken no further. No questions are asked as to why. Efforts could be placed to intimidate voters into staying away and be waved off as their 'right not to vote'.

I could own a factory and victimise anyone that lawfully took time off to go and vote on a Saturday. Or workers could feel that way even if it was not true.


In the USA, from time to time some areas have massive wait times thus putting people off voting. They have the issue of trying to predict who and how many will turn up and where and need to allocate resources as such.

Here it's simple. Check the electoral roll, and put the appropraite amount of booths out there. It does not become a political issue in itself.


Regarding the donkey vote, this could be easily fixed my randomising the order of candidates on each ballot papaer. Yeah, I know that makes counting harder thiough.

Perhaps a clear 'None of the Above' option would also work.

There are millions in this world who would (and have) die for the chance to have a say in electing government. Complainng about it being compulsory I think is taking Libertarianism to the extreme - I mean really, is it that much of a pain to either turn up or provide a valid excuse to get out of the fine?
 
Oh, and I support optional preferencing. If someone wants to vote for Greens or Family First but can't stand either ALP or LNP, they should not have to ultimately prefer one or the other.

Would this lead to less negative politics and more positive, as the ALP / LNP would have to 'earn' that number 7 on the 8-candidate ballot paper, instead of it becoming exhausted at preference 6?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom