Voting Down Under
It looks like Australia has a unique way of solving the problem of low voter turnout :
Every Australian citizen (18 years or older) is required by law to vote. If the citizen is unable to provide a “valid and sufficient” reason for not voting, a penalty is imposed.History of compulsory voting in Australia:
compulsory voting was advocated by Alfred Deakin at the turn of the century compulsory enrolment introduced in 1911 compulsory voting first adopted in Queensland in 1915. Federally it was introduced in 1924 on the basis of a Private Members Bill
Note: Compulsory Voting Act 1915 - provided for compulsory voting, by electors residing within 5 miles of a polling place, in referendums which were to be submitted to the people in 1915. The referendums were cancelled by legislation, after the writs had been issued;
compulsory voting has become a distinctive feature of the Australian political culture. Arguments used in favour of compulsory voting:
voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform eg taxation, compulsory education, jury duty teaches the benefits of political participation Parliament reflects more accurately the “will of the electorate” governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll the voter isn?t actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot. Arguments used against compulsory voting:
it is unsenate to force people to vote - an infringement of liberty the “ignorant” and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls it may increase the number of “donkey votes” it may increase the number of informal votes it increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have “valid and sufficient” reasons.
I’m not so sure that this would work here, but it would be nice for once to see some aspect of our culture promote responsibility (and I’m not talkin’ about “abstinence only education” either).
By the way, what the hell is a “donkey vote”?
9 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A “donkey vote” means voting according to a pattern, e.g. choosing the first candidate or option on each issue - like checking A, A, A, A on a multiple choice test. You need to create multiple versions of the ballot, with order randomized, or else the person in the first slot always wins. As long as the voting system ensures that donkey votes go to statistically-random selections, they aren’t a huge problem - they tend to make counts closer than they would be otherwise.
Comment by Hamilton Lovecraft — February 18, 2004 @ 6:07 pm
I like your explanation better. I was thinking along the lines of, “Look, ass, just pick one”.
Comment by filkertom — February 19, 2004 @ 6:29 am
The American equivalent of a donkey vote could be used thusly: “who would vote for an ass like George Bush” or “what kind of a dumbass would vote for George Bush.” Any pairing of ass and Geroge Bush (ex. - Dubya has his head up his ass) in an election year would meet the criteria of a donkey vote.
Comment by Becky — February 19, 2004 @ 6:51 am
While I wholeheartedly support compulsory voting (Australians are among some of the most politically apathetic people in the world), I’m not sure it exactly promotes “responsibility”. What it does do, however, is stop the right from absolutely trouncing the left (who’s traditional support base was the unionists, but union membership and support has rapidly declined), and thus cementing class divisions even further. Despite the fact that they are far more likely to get stooged by the government, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are often the most politically ignorant and lethargic. I don’t think compulsory voting makes them care any more about the democratic process or give a damn about the “responsibility” of it, but I think it does drive a lot of people to at least give a few seconds thought to how the government effects their lives for better or worse.
In my experience, most Australians have no real objections to compulsory voting, and if anyone cares that much, they can just not fill in the ballot properly. It?s not more an affront to liberalism than public enterprise, and in a liberal-democracy, liberal traditions can?t and shouldn?t win out every time, anyway.
Seeing as the President of the US has such an effect over the rest of the world, I think that for every American who chooses not to vote, someone from another country should get to. It?s really the best of both worlds ? you?d be supporting democracy, but you wouldn?t have to actually get off your couch. Or alternatively, you can use it to guilt your lazy friends into voting nagging-mum style, ?There are people in some other countries who would give their left arm to vote in the American presidential elections! You don?t know how lucky you have it, young man!?
Comment by Ruth — February 19, 2004 @ 9:49 am
While uninformed voting does seem a valid concern, from what I understand it’s not a big problem in Australia. When people realized they were *required* to vote, most of them then took the initiative to become more aware of the political process and get informed on the issues. And those who didn’t? The fine for not voting is something like $150–not much more than a speeding ticket. Not a hefty price when elections only take place every 4 or 5 years.
But before you Americans consider implementing such a system, I think you need to reform a couple of other things (cough, cough, electoral college) first . ;-)
Comment by Joe — February 19, 2004 @ 1:42 pm
How dare you insult the Electoral College. We have the best means of election stealing in the free world. If you don’t like it you can go back to Russia, or china, or Fancyland, or wherever the hell you come from commie!
(Suddenly gulps three beers in a row, wishes for EU residency).
Comment by The Eligible Ross Lincoln — February 19, 2004 @ 2:17 pm
/me hypothesizes increased voter turnout in the US for the next 12 years or so as a consequence of the 2000 election and subsequent national mismanagement - it’s now clear that small numbers of votes can be very significant.
Comment by Hamilton Lovecraft — February 19, 2004 @ 5:44 pm
do you count donkey votes?
Comment by Leah — April 19, 2004 @ 2:02 am
There’s no way to reliably distinguish between a donkey vote and a considered vote that happens to match a donkey-vote pattern, so yes. That’s why you want to do some randomization of ballot order, rather than always putting “Bush” and “Kerry” in alphabetical order.
Comment by Hamilton Lovecraft — April 28, 2004 @ 4:42 pm