Where will the 1.5 million new voters turn? Jail?

At the next federal election 1.5 million new voters will be forced to attend the polls. This could make a big difference to the election outcome. 

Not only will we have another 1.5 million disinterested or disengaged voters throwing their hat into the ring but far worse than this, not all of the 1.5 million new voters will actually vote.

There are people out there who know in their hearts that their decision to vote should be their own. They know that their decision to vote should be free from any government coercion, in spite of what our government tells us.

So how do these people who believe in freedom react to being forced against their will to attend the polls? Some of them will ignore the laws and cop fines, while others grudgingly show up and make a donkey vote – a protest for freedom, but the trouble is it’s a protest that is all-but mute. These people’s voices will go unheard and make no difference to the election outcome.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political divide, there is another group of people who will vote. They will cast a formal ballot. They won't object to being forced to the polls. They won’t react against the government’s nanny state rules. They won’t oppose the government’s heavy-handed coercion. They will trust their government knows best and vote accordingly. Can you guess whom these people are more likely to vote for?

Here's a hint: The Labor party are making voter enrollment automatic and the Liberals oppose it. The LNP are suggesting voluntary voting in Queensland and the ALP opposes it.

Let’s hope the 1.5 million would-be non-voters don’t lie down at the next election. Let’s hope they do defend their democratic freedom. But if they do, unfortunately, the nanny state will win. Only those who happily conform to big government nanny state regulations will be heard, and that's the way the socilaists like it.

Here are two good arguments for democratic voting:

1. Many countries with voluntary voting have higher voter turnouts than we do because under voluntary voting leaders need to motivate, inspire and empower people to vote.
2. All Australians should have the same free and equal right to vote, free from any government coercion.

Let's hold our politicians to a higher standard. Let's bring back democracy.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

Comments

[Arcadiagt5]

1.

"Many countries with voluntary voting have higher voter turnouts than we do because under voluntary voting leaders need to motivate, inspire and empower people to vote."

Name one. In fact, since you said "many", name three.

[Jason Kent]

2.

Sweden, Denmark, Iceland.

[Arcadiagt5]

3.

Sweden: 84%, lower than Aust, 30 years since they achieved 90%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden

Denmark, also lower than Aust at 87% at last election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark

Iceland, 85% for parlimentary, lower than that for Presidential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_iceland

If you have better sources, please quote.

[Arcadiagt5]

4.

I also note that Iceland has the automatic enrolment that you are also opposed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_Centrale_Personregister

Care to try for an example without that?

[Jason Kent]

5.

Australia: 81%, lower than Sweden, Denmark, Iceland.

"In other words, more than three million Australians did not exercise their franchise at the 2010 election in the formation of our Government, or roughly one in five of those entitled to do so." AEC Website...
http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/speeches/new-debate.htm

Our government has been lying to us for many years, saying we have voter turnouts as high as 96%. They've never been so high and they're lucky to break 80%. And even at 81%, that includes people voting just to avoid fines. In most countries where voting is voluntary, 100% of eligible voters are free to vote, and 100% of people who do vote, only do so because they are informed and engaged. Not like Aussies filing into the polling booth to avoid a fine.

[Jason Kent]

6.

Who said I was opposed to automatic enrolment? I'm not. I'm all for it. I think it should be as easy as possible for people to vote. Online would be great.

Chile had the same problem we do with falling voter turnouts, people avoiding registering to vote to avoid fines. Their solution was to make enrolment automatic and voting voluntary. We should do the same.

Only nine other nations enforce compulsory voting and none are great bastions of democratic freedom - far from it.

[Oldman]

7.

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, eligible voters who wish not to vote should be allowed to forfeit their votes by applying for an Exemption for a period of years and having their names placed in a Voter Exempt Register which would exempt them from any local, State or Federal fines. It should also be made easy for them to reverse the process if they wish to.

[John Mc]

8.

There's an easy solution for those 1.5 million people who are going to be denied their say about unhappiness with the current electoral options:

simply make it clear you will vote against the incumbent government every time, whoever they are unless they have voluntary voting as part of their platform.

[Linne]

9.

Gillard I see is using 'twitter for twits' to tell everyone that non-compulsory voting will only allow the Liberals to use our democracy as a plaything of the rich and famous.

Meanwhile, that other brain-dead moron, Swan is saying that it is all a terrible Liberal plot to stop people voting against the Newman government at the next state election. I wonder how that works?

What is so democratic about forcing citizens to vote, and while we are at it, what is so democratic about preferential voting where you can finish up with someone other that the person you voted for?

Let's get rid of compulsory voting so that we may finish up with some politicians worth their salt instead of more of the national embarrassment we have in parliament now.

[John Mc]

10.

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, eligible voters who wish not to vote should be allowed to forfeit their votes by applying for an Exemption for a period of years and having their names placed in a Voter Exempt Register which would exempt them from any local, State or Federal fines. It should also be made easy for them to reverse the process if they wish to.

Why do you need this when you can just have voluntary voting? You don't need to regulate every aspect of everyone's life down to the smallest detail.

[Oldman]

11.

Nobody is regulating their lives, if they feel strongly about the issue they can get an exemption. To make it easy, Lib & Nat candidates can mail exemption forms out with their junk mail offering to help fill out the form if needed. :)

[John Mc]

12.

Why? I'm just trying to understand the left-wing mentality. If you feel the need to monitor who is voting and who isn't you can simply look at who is crossed off the electoral roll on polling day.

[John Mc]

13.

Do you propose fines or jail for people who don't get exemptions but still don't vote?

[Armchair Beak]

14.

We could offer on-site psychologists for Greens voters. They are obviously unstable.

On a more pertinent topic though.. Compulsory voting in my book is not democratic. I believe that any government compulsion should be very limited and sensible. e.g. paying taxes to run the country (despite the current wastrels in power).

[Linne]

15.

Yeah, exemptions. That's the way to go. Why didn't I think of that. It means that they can create yet another bureaucracy whose job it is to keep track of the exemptions, add another multi million dollar operating bill to the already out of control Gillard government spending and create employment for all surplus Labor government public servants that Newman just sacked in Queensland.

God, give me strength.

[Nemo]

16.

I see compulsory voting not as a limitation on the people - no more than compulsory taxation is. Rather, it's a limitation on the *government*. It ensures that a government is aware in its governance that at the next poll, it will face the entire electorate, and not just the minority that the parties can whip into a fanatic fervour.

True that some countries do have very high voter even with non-compulsory voting - but honestly, are those countries that you see Australian politics modelling itself on? Or are we increasingly moving towards American style politics - a country with an appallingly low turnout?

"is compulsory voting democratic"? I don't see why it isn't. Democracy isn't about the majority of free choice. It's about the majority of opinion. So look at voting like jury duty. It's a civic duty you get called upon to perform infrequently, but when called upon to perform, it's a *requirement* to attend. (and frankly, opting out once you've shown up is pretty trivial in both cases)

Finally, the argument towards registering an excemption means that for the first time, you can have genuine data on protest did-not-vote and apathy did-not-vote. Something we can only gauge through polling currently.

[Dave]

17.

I think Labor are scared as it will lessen their vote for sure. But despite their claims that it is all to the benefit of the Liberals and that is why they (Liberals) want it, I think that the ALP's real reason is that it will also benefit the Greens in that I believe their voter base is stronger than Labors and will therefore eat into Labors left wing powerbase.

[Dave]

18.

But taxation is taken out of my pay automatically and, at the end of the year when I have to go and get my taxes done I get a nice sum of money back every year- I actually choose and relish getting my taxes done for that reason. My reward for voting? Being harrassed by d*$kh$&ds who refuse to believe I can make my own choice and getting cornered by them while they lie to you about how good 'their candidate' really is.

[Anton]

19.

The AEC pays canditates for each vote they receive, even if they don't win. It is important for some to keep the numbers high I suppose.

[John Mc]

20.

Well, Nemo, that's the thing about liberal democracy; we can determine rationally what aspects of compulsion are necessary from the principles of civil society.

A level of compulsory taxation can be justified by the fact that there are certain rights you hold as non-negotiatble. For example, your life or your personal safety, your personal property that you've earned and you use to survive, your right to pursue your own particular happiness, or contracts that you have entered into in good faith. These things need to be upheld in a civilised way and one of the ways we can achieve that is through government. So you pay for that because you benefit from it as a civilised person.

You do jury duty because, if you were on trial, you could reasonably demand a trial by a jury of your peers in a civilised society rather than guilt being decided by a judge who may have a personal or political agenda. So it stands to reason that if you are called to be one of those peers, you have a moral obligation to reciprocate.

But we vote because we want to achieve the democratic principle of consensual government. The premise of compulsory voting is that more people will give their endorsement to someone on the ballot paper because it's compulsory to vote. This is despite the fact that if given the option they wouldn't bother to turn up to do this! This logic is contradictory as it doesn't achieve consensual government; there are people voting or at least forced to pay homage to the electoral process even when they don't support the options before them.

[Anton]

21.

Compulsory voting mostly discriminates against smaller and newer parties and independants. The mass of disinterested voters tend only to know about the largest 1 or 2 parties (despite the all inclusive effort of the msm), and they are usually sufficient to drown out supporters of smaller parties (who are usually strongly informed or opinionated).

Low voter turnout is NOT a bad thing. It is a clear signal to current and prospective politicians that a better option is required. Voters that do not turn up represent a resource available to someone with new ideas. It also scares the complacency out of whoever wins on a low turnout. Being the least worst will not be enough next time.

[John Mc]

22.

What I would say to the people who still believe that Australia is smart for being one of the ten or so countries that actually enforce compulsory voting is that Australia is a young nation and still maturing from a political perspective. Australia didn't get the full benefits of the Enlightenment because it was still a colony of convicts, and we are still learning these essential concepts. Almost (absolutely?) none of the other leading western nations such as the UK, USA, France, Germany, Canada, NZ or most of Europe have compulsory voting and there is a reason for that: they've thought about it longer than we have and had more experience with the unintended consequences of government compulsion in civil matters.

[The Geek]

23.

John Mc, Australia has a longer democratic traditional than the vast majority of the world. Continuous democratically elected parliaments stretch back to the 1850s. France was at that time in its autocratic Second Empire phase; their prior experiment with "democracy" was a bloodbath. Germany wasn't even a country until 1871. Most of Europe east of the Elbe never had democracy until 1989-91. Only the UK, USA, and Canada spring to mind immediately as having longer democratic traditions - and the UK didn't even have universal male suffrage until 1919, which was half a century after Australian colonies achieved it. While I know there are other old democracies, many of them achieved universal male (and female) suffrage later, and most of Western Europe had significant periods of autocracy after their initial democratic outburst.

Australia had the benefit of many Chartists getting Transported here for their agitation. The infusion of Chartism early on has served us well. We did, as you say, avoid the Enlightenment to some extent. That's why the country hasn't drowned itself in the blood of its own citizens. It was Enlightenment ideas that led to the French Great Terror. Communism is an Enlightenment idea - not only from Hegel but it draws its name from the Paris Commune, which in turn drew on the French Revolution. I'm not totally convinced that liberalism actually belongs in the same grouping as Enlightenment ideas; they tended to reject wholesale the existing order of the world: liberalism was more of a culmination of older ideas about the rights and sanctity of individuals.

[Ibbit]

24.

Couldn't agree more with your comment Linne.

[John Mc]

25.

I have no argument that Australia has a longer democratic tradition than most of the world. This not really surprising, since the anglosphere has been leading light over the last few centuries and we're part of it. I also agree with your list of the pioneering democracies: UK, USA, Canada. I would also add Switzerland to the list, although it is as recent as Australia. I would also agree that Australia has some significant democratic achievements: early adoption of universal suffrage, level of popular support in the referendum for indigenous voting rights.

I still don't think this downplays that the Australian democracy has a level of naive immaturity to it (don't want to be too harsh, but I think it's true). There are a number of reasons for this. Even though we had a good democratic tradition from the start, we are still a young country. When we were created we inherited the best political and legal systems of the day by default. We never had to fight for them, we never had to do the intellectual hard yards to create them, we never had to have social upheaval to make progressive changes. It was all done for us.

We are definitely one of the handful of first-world leading democracies in the world but it's because we were lucky and got it given to us. The other significant factor is that unlike, say, the US, we have never made significant enhancements to what we inherited. (Unless you consider compulsory voting an enhancement, but it doesn't fit with the theory of liberal democracy like I've explained in my post before last). Yes, there's been things like federation, but from a liberal democratic perspective we've basically trundled along with what we were given (making naive little changes like compulsory voting!).

[Geoff Crocker]

26.

Electoral funding for the 2010 federal elections gave Lib/ALP $21 million each. Why would they change that? Non compulsory voting would reduce that gift from the people to Party coffers dramatically.

[Smutsie]

27.

Step up Barnaby Joyce.

Get some advice on public speaking first.

Find out who your real friends are.

[Anton]

28.

I see "our" ABC is rolling out every opponent to voluntary voting they can find this morning. They have even suspended their self imposed ban on Barnaby Joyce because he opposes this.

There must be consensus, because they have not managed to find a single supporter of the idea. Probably even Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie now opposes voluntary voting, as the ABC obviously could not get him to support the idea (I am sure they would have tried)

Even the Brisbane Commie mail tells us that most Qld'rs oppose voluntary voting, despite the fact that their own poll shows majority support for choice. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/newman-government-may-dump-compulsory-voting-at-state-elections/story-e6freoof-1226546779272

Maybe it just proves the point - if you give people a choice they run the risk of choosing the wrong thing, which is why we need a nanny state to guide us

[Nemo]

29.

"Commie Mail"?

...yet it's the conservative right-wing newspaper up here! Brisbane Times is the central/left one.

Anyway, I'd not trust a web poll for anything like this since, especially since in this case it's a voluntary poll and so self-biasing! :)

[Smutsie]

30.

There seems to be a belief that these 1.5 million new voters will favour the political Left.

To which I can only offer "Who says?"

The present generation at my workplace are intelligent, articulate and savvy to new media.

The Left and Right need to get out there and compete for these votes.

If either fail to do so, on their heads be it.

The US elections are a case in point.

Obama's footsoldiers were out there recruiting voters.

As a Republican politician commented on Fox News "we left that to the blue-hairs (=blue rinse set in Oz)."

Some years ago I went to Bronny's electoral office to get some policy information.

Despite repeating myself, the only thing the blue rinse ladies there kept trying to give me was a How to Vote card!

[Anton]

31.

Depends on whether you go with the officially assigned category (leftard alternative truth manufacturing) or look at what actually gets printed (rightwing extremist fixation with evidence)

[Anton]

32.

Your experience is a perfect example of why compulsory voting is bad for governance. The Lib/nat coalition is also guilty of laziness, happy to be just "not as bad a labor".

I would actually set the bar even higher. Voluntary voting, and if the turnout is less than 30% (say) nobody gets elected and a new by-election is held in 6 months time.

[oldman]

33.

If you feel the need to monitor who is voting and who isn't you can simply look at who is crossed off the electoral roll on polling day.

A register will be a record of who is exempt from voting and not subject to penalties.

[oldman]

34.

In Australia it can be argued that compulsory voting is democratic, it more accurately reflects the will of the electorate:

1. Since the introduction of compulsory voting turnout has never fallen below 90%
2. It provides a greater chance of equal voter number turnouts in different electorates.
3. Legitimacy of government cannot be questioned with larger voter turnouts, e.g. in 2005 in the UK Labour won 55% of the seats with 35% of the vote where the total voter turnout was 61.45.
4. An Oz Election study after the 1994 indicated that 74% of respondents supported compulsory voting in Feb elections.
5. An Oz Election study after the 2004 election show the same number, 745, in favour of compulsory voting. as well, A Morgan poll in 2005 showed 71% support, and an Ipsos-Mackay Study, also in 2005, showed 74%.
6. Compulsory voting allows candidates to concentrate time and resources on policy issues rather than getting voters to cast their votes.
7. It also forces government and opposition parties alike to consider the total electorate in the formulation of policy rather than cater to primarily to special interest group who have supported candidates.
8. Finally, it is ironic that compulsory voting was introduced by a Lib government in 1915 to counter the success of ALP shop stewards "getting out the votes" with compulsory voting to restore a level playing field. Today, they are looking to abolish compulsory voting against the wish of the majority. Hardly Democratic!

[oldman]

35.

An Oz Election study after the 2004 election show the same number, 745, in favour of compulsory voting.

That should read:

An Oz Election study after the 2004 election show the same number, 74%, in favour of compulsory voting.

[John Mc]

36.

Since the introduction of compulsory voting turnout has never fallen below 90%

The 1.5 million Australians who eligible to vote but not on the electoral roll pull the level below 90% before you even have an election. Then you've got to include people who don't vote on the day and those that deliberately donkey vote.

The reality is the level has probably never been above 90% of eligible voters.

[oldman]

37.

I'd be interested to find out where you got your figure of 1.5m.

According to AEC figures on their website, Aust Election Oct 2004:
Enrolment 13,098,061 = 97.69% of Eligible Population
Turnout 12,354,983 = 94.32% of enrolments.

The turnout therefore represents 92.145% of eligible voting population only 1% or less were deliberate protest votes which negates your claim, see below:

In 2001 the total informal vote was 4.8% in the Lower House and 3.9% in the Upper House. of these, 34% had only the number 1, 17% did not complete the full sequence of numbers required and 13% used ticks and crosses.

22% were blank and 6% had a slogan or some other mark, but no numbers (or else the numbers were obscured). It is possible that these are protest votes, although not all protests will be against compulsory voting. Blanks may merely be mistakes.

It is impossible to link the % of informal votes to compulsory voting but it is possible that 6-15% of the formal vote ( +/- 3,240-8,100 = <1% of turnout) were deliberate protest votes against any number of causes.

[oldman]

38.

It is impossible to link the % of informal votes to compulsory voting but it is possible that 6-15% of the formal vote ( +/- 3,240-8,100 = <1% of turnout) were deliberate protest votes against any number of causes.

Should read:

It is impossible to link the % of informal votes to compulsory voting but it is possible that 6-15% of the informal vote ( +/- 3,240-8,100 = <1% of turnout) were deliberate protest votes against any number of causes.

[John Mc]

39.

This is where my figures come from:

14 million Australians eligible to vote.
1.5 million not registered.
5% of enrolments don't turn up (extremely conservative)
5% of voters spoil their ballot

All these figures are approximations, but are fairly consistent across federal elections and much worse in state elections, and much, much, much worse in local elections.

Federally, this puts the percentage of eligible voters who have a valid say at a federal election in the high 70s. Allow for some people who make legitimate mistakes in spoiling their ballot or who legitimately can't attend a polling booth, and you get a percentage of eligible voters trying to have a valid say in the low 80s. This is consistent with nations that have voluntary voting and a highish voter turnout like Sweden.

If you disagree with my figures, lets see if we can come to some agreement. In a federal election, what do you think

- the number of eligible voters are
- the number that are not registered
- the number that intentionally don't turn up
- the number that intentionally spoil their ballot.

[John Mc]

40.

I'd be interested to find out where you got your figure of 1.5m

Sorry, I missed this specific question:

AEC launches national campaign to find 1.5 million missing Australian voters (AEC Press Release of 29 May 12): http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/media_releases/2012/5-29.htm

1.5m Potential Voters Go Missing (SMH): http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/15-million-potential-voters-go-missing-20120528-1zf99.html

[Smutsie]

41.

Good point Anton!

Our elections boil down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.

How could legislation be introduced that would ban hung parliaments and restore an ordered political system?

[Anton]

42.

None of those things make compulsory voting democratic.

If 51% of people wanted a one party state, would that be democratic?

Your point 6 Compulsory voting allows candidates to concentrate time and resources on policy issues rather than getting voters to cast their votes

Have you seen any evidence of this in recent state of federal elections? All I have seen is character denigrations, dredging up the distant past and sloganeering. Perhaps if politicians were compelled to get voters to the booth they might try to do it with policy ideas, because currently, especially with preferential voting in place, all the canditate of a large party needs to do is be less bad than the canditate from the other largest party.

[Anton]

43.

Maybe voting the executive (PM and cabinet)seperately from our "representatives" (MPs).

Then there would be no such thing as a hung parliament, all MPs (regardless of party affiliation) would have to represent their electorate and the executive would be forced to govern for the whole country.

Not usually much to want from the USA, but this is one