I believe compulsory voting is on the whole a good idea, but there are weaknesses. For example in the US it's presumably difficult to grant the franchise to the dead due to the small electorates. But in Australia, and especially in Queensland, the AEC (electoral commission) spends half its time visiting graveyards to keep the dead out of the polling booths. The Labor Party has a proud tradition of believing in truly universal sufferage, but the Liberal and National Parties aren't far behind.

However it does mean that there are a lot of protest votes - 4% of the population at the last election chose to void their ballot rather than be involved. And that figure has been steadily rising over the years.

Perhaps the best part of compulsory voting is that everyone is forced to have an opinion, whether they're intelligent enough to have a rational one or not. A landslide victory is just that, rather than the result of being able to get lots of people to the polls. Winners deserve their victories, unlike some countries (especially in the third world) where miniscule numbers of voters turn up and victories are easily rigged.

Perhaps the best part of compulsory voting is that everyone is forced to have an opinion, whether they're intelligent enough to have a rational one or not. A landslide victory is just that, rather than the result of being able to get lots of people to the polls. Winners deserve their victories, unlike some countries (especially in the third world) where miniscule numbers of voters turn up and victories are easily rigged.

A good summation of the benefits of compulsory voting. It is one of the things i wholeheartedly love about the electoral process in Australia. We get as close to the intention of the word mandate in political practice as anyone else.

I still, however, do not agree with Howard's 2001 assertion that he had a mandate from the people. With both the ALP and Liberal party scoring 38.7% of the primary vote, the electorate, in effect, were still undecided between the two parties after the polls had closed.

It's a blight on our record that Howard then used this "mandate" to sully our international reputation and undermine this countries integrity in every arena other than economics. It will be interesting to note what the Australian people see as the "issues" that will determine the Lalapalooza we affectionately call our federal elections.

Marco

I think that if someone is too lazy to vote, they probably shouldn't be voting.

I think that if someone is too lazy to vote, they probably shouldn't be voting.

So that's probably 50% of the American population. What else would they be too lazy to do?

In statistics there is something called response bias. It's a problem encountered by phone surveys and questionnaires that are mailed out and returned only by those interested in the questions.

Often response bias is enough to invalidate research that is as inane as what sort of dish washing liquid the public prefers to use. Imagine what response bias does on the grand scale of a national election.

Marco

I just looked up a bunch of different definitions for response bias and it is not what I think you are implying.

Link

I don't think voting doesn't have response bias because it is private and you are not under pressure to conform. Nobody knows what you really voted.

What you are trying to say is decisions are made by those who show up and I think that is exactly correct. A better way to put it is that decisions are made by those who CARE ENOUGH to show up.

Imagine your survey filled out by people who didn't care about what their responses where...what good did that do you?

One reason people don't vote is that their individual vote doesn't matter. People make a purely rational decision that their individual vote makes no difference in the outcome, and therefore don't bother to--even though they may be well-informed. This is harmful for society.

If voting was mandatory this wouldn't be such an issue.

OK,

Here's my POV. I stayed out of it because I really wanted a forum discussion, as I am interested in the Aussie political system, even if I do not endorse it.

I don't believe in compulsory voting, in large part because it's as much a part of our civil rights to not vote as it is to vote. We shouldn't be penalized for not going to the polls, and although it's a decision I don't agree with, it is nonetheless a decision we have a right to make.

Personally, I would like to see more study done on a setup such as the one ssg proposed, where full citizenship is earned rather than a given. I believe that it would increase the civic responsibility of our citizens, but it would, of course, be denounced as racist because it holds minorities to the same standard of responsibility (mark my words....Jackson and Sharpton would be all over that!). I don't know that I would advocate for such a system, but I think there is merit in at least studying ways we may be able to bring positive change to our country.

Thanks to everyone for the excellent responses.

I don't consider low voter turn out a bad thing. If I were emperor, I woudl require that people pass some sort of IQ test or something to vote. I don't think voting should be easier, I think people should have to put some effort to vote so that they're serious about it.

One reason people don't vote is that their individual vote doesn't matter. People make a purely rational decision that their individual vote makes no difference in the outcome, and therefore don't bother to--even though they may be well-informed. This is harmful for society.

That sounds to me like excuses, it always has. If everybody's individual vote doesn't matter why does anybody vote? Again, I think these decisions are left to those who are there to make the decision.

I don't consider low voter turn out a bad thing. If I were emperor, I woudl require that people pass some sort of IQ test or something to vote. I don't think voting should be easier, I think people should have to put some effort to vote so that they're serious about it.

A wise man once said "You don't vote for Kings".