Compulsory Voting - YES or NO?

[Rorschach]

For purer politics, we need voluntary voting
* by: Peter Lewis
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* October 23, 2012 12:00AM

AS the spectacle of a American presidential election unfolds it's hard for political junkies not to get caught up in the buzz, even from the other side of the Pacific.

Does the Obama "yes we can" schtick that mesmerised the world four years ago stand up to incumbency? Can an extremely wealthy guy be the people's choice? But besides the question of who wins, it's also worth asking how, because the American system is very different from ours.

It's the accepted wisdom that the American system is a mess: the massive costs of elections leading to fundraising needs that tie representatives into straitjackets of corporate self-interest; while the logjam between the White House and Congress makes our hung parliament appear functional.

Yet watch the dynamism of the presidential contest and the passion it evokes and you can't help wondering if there are things we could learn from the Yanks. Really?

While the primary ballot rules differ from state to state, each has a mechanism for interested supporters to have a say in whose name appears on the ballot paper.

The process is gruelling for contenders - they travel the nation debating, challenging probing each other; constantly raising funds to keep their campaign going as they travel from state to state, until there is one candidate left standing to receive the nomination. The question is why? Is it really necessary?

Successful candidates need to energise their base, develop a pitch that resonates with people passionate about their politics, while at the same time convincing supporters they have what it takes to run a viable campaign to capture the centre ground.

The performance of both candidates highlights how a primary system can make for a better contest. By the time someone like Mitt Romney is in the election campaign proper, he has mastered his pitch and, providing he knows the cameras are on, has his messages nearly word perfect. In contrast, the incumbent has been running the Free World and entered the first debate, by his own admission, like a gelding a little short of a gallop.

Contrast this with the Australian system that has created a sausage machine of student political hacks graduating into political office until they inherit a seat from their party machine. The ALP was established by unions and they retain an influence in the party, but even here the party now recognises our system needs a healthy dose of competition and is trialling this broader community engagement.

In the recent ballot for City of Sydney, Labor opened the unwinnable lord mayoral candidacy up to a primary. Not only did a strong field of candidates come forward but more than 4000 electors took part - more than 10 times the number of local party members.

This strategy will be repeated before the next state election in more seats where, let's face it, things can't get any worse.

The Coalition has also been working with the model, seeing it as a way of winning back the swath of independent country seats that were whittled away during the last decade. Already this strategy has reaped dividends where the Nationals won back Tamworth after a primary. Not that Windsor had anything to do with that right?

But the bigger difference between the US and Australian model is that in America citizens can choose to register as a voter - and then choose again to turn up and vote or not. Is compulsory voting necessary in Australia? Is it a truly democratic system?

This creates a more complex electoral challenge for the big parties. Rather than relying on rusted-on supporters, candidates have to energise the base so that they do the hard yards of getting the less committed citizens out to vote. Sorry, but obviously rusted-ons would be the base of supporters who are registered.

That's not about sticking flyers in letterboxes (the Australian version of a grassroots campaign); it is a massive field operation that involves identifying potential voters, getting them to commit to vote and in some instances arranging to get them to the ballot box. Which leads to buying votes

Elements of this exist in Australia - the prepoll process that encourages the elderly to vote requires commitment from volunteers and candidates. But there is a layer of complacency and mediocrity built into a system where people are breaking the law if they don't cast their vote. It pushes both sides to a centre ground that often looks more like no man's land .

This has created "the Lindsay Effect": the sense that our governments are decided by the least engaged voters in the most marginal seats, namely those who confess to having no interest in politics and routinely answer "don't know" to any polling question. The most important voters in Australia. Does compulsory voting distort the vote?

And to cut through with these people you need to cut through their apathy, bribe them or scare them, saying things loudly. In short sentences. Stop the Boats, Big New Tax. Kevin 07. Real Julia. Misogyny!

Yes, compulsory voting is a sacred civil duty in Australia; but it creates a system where the least interested have the most power.It has always been accepted wisdom that Labor would suffer from voluntary voting, the statistics from the US suggest a correlation between low incomes (the ALP's traditional base) and non-voting.

But the benefit to both parties could be a system that reinvigorates itself and forces politicians to do more than force a captive audience to choose between Pepsi and Coke. It would challenge them to believe that (a) their vote matters and (b) they are worthy of it.

At a time when our trust in government and politicians is at a historically low ebb, questioning the way we choose our leaders could lead us down some interesting paths.

Peter Lewis is director of political consultancy EMC

[AiA in Atlanta]

YES

[Rorschach]

Do you think that is truly democratic?

[AiA in Atlanta]

YES

[Rorschach]

In a true democracy shouldn't one have the right to with-hold ones vote?

[Aussie]

In a true democracy shouldn't one have the right to with-hold ones vote?

This is Australia, not your 'true' sense of democracy.

[Rorschach]

Well thanks for that non-answer.
I will await AiA's response.

[Aussie]

Well thanks for that non-answer.
I will await AiA's response.

Yes.

(You do recall how you titled this Thread, wot?)

[Super Nova]

Yes.

Look at the US. The land of the free and democracy. Where they rely on the minorities not voting. When they come out the change the whole landscape. The UK is the same.

Australia is a very successful democracy and I think it encourages everyone to have a say on whom and how the country is run. Even lazy bastards find it is easier to vote than argue over the fine.

I always vote even in the UK where I don’t have to.

[Rorschach]

I also note most of us are not dumb enough to treat it like a poll and give one word answers...
and some are so dumb they answer with rubbish - wot.

The same question applies to you Super Nova...

In a true democracy shouldn't one have the right to with-hold ones vote?