Wait, by what analysis has Australia's system not solved a ton of problems?
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
It has completely killed vote caging though and gets huge amounts of people out to vote. All those other problems you mention already exist in the US, plus a bunch more on top.
And what evidence is there of these issues being caused by mandatory voting anyway?
It's abhorrent because it infringes on his right to sit on his ass during election day instead of mailing in a ballot or going to the voting booth. He has the right to be lazy!
Well, I don't think apathy or laziness is something to be proud of - but I do think it's something that you have a right to. I mean, has mandatory voting in Australia solved more problems than it's created? Not by any reasonable analysis.
There's more to getting people engaged in politics than just saying, "Show up to the ballot box and make a tick on this card, or you'll be fined."
Show up to a ballot box? Why would we do that? Several states have already switched to vote-by-mail only.
It's abhorrent because it infringes on his right to sit on his ass during election day instead of mailing in a ballot or going to the voting booth. He has the right to be lazy!
Well, I don't think apathy or laziness is something to be proud of - but I do think it's something that you have a right to. I mean, has mandatory voting in Australia solved more problems than it's created? Not by any reasonable analysis.
There's more to getting people engaged in politics than just saying, "Show up to the ballot box and make a tick on this card, or you'll be fined."
Show up to a ballot box? Why would we do that? Several states have already switched to vote-by-mail only.
Absentee ballots though have actual issues with voter fraud though.
It's abhorrent because it infringes on his right to sit on his ass during election day instead of mailing in a ballot or going to the voting booth. He has the right to be lazy!
Well, I don't think apathy or laziness is something to be proud of - but I do think it's something that you have a right to. I mean, has mandatory voting in Australia solved more problems than it's created? Not by any reasonable analysis.
There's more to getting people engaged in politics than just saying, "Show up to the ballot box and make a tick on this card, or you'll be fined."
Show up to a ballot box? Why would we do that? Several states have already switched to vote-by-mail only.
Absentee ballots though have actual issues with voter fraud though.
Not trying to be confrontational about this but do you have any kind of link for this?
It's abhorrent because it infringes on his right to sit on his ass during election day instead of mailing in a ballot or going to the voting booth. He has the right to be lazy!
Well, I don't think apathy or laziness is something to be proud of - but I do think it's something that you have a right to. I mean, has mandatory voting in Australia solved more problems than it's created? Not by any reasonable analysis.
There's more to getting people engaged in politics than just saying, "Show up to the ballot box and make a tick on this card, or you'll be fined."
Lots of people voting is neither good nor bad. It's meaningless.
People feeling enfranchised or not - That's meaningful.
If we stick with FPTP and other less-democratic systems of voting, and keep systems promoting the creation of a self-serving professional political class, individual votes remain largely pointless.
Compulsory voting is just a way to pretend that the terrible problems we have with our quasi-democracy aren't happening because we made people pretend to care.
Wait, by what analysis has Australia's system not solved a ton of problems?
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
It has completely killed vote caging though and gets huge amounts of people out to vote. All those other problems you mention already exist in the US, plus a bunch more on top.
And what evidence is there of these issues being caused by mandatory voting anyway?
It's a problem of degrees. We still vote out incumbents occasionally, and our full voter base cares enough to show up. In a mandatory system, the whole system encourages a large contingent of people to show up and vote for the name at the top of the ballot just to get out quickly.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
but how do you do that?
For me, it was my 9th grade civics teacher (do they still teach civics in school?). We learned about government, how it works, propaganda, all kinds of things. But one of the lessons that really really stuck with me is the one that he gave us on civic responsibility.
We learned all about roads and the services that our country/state/town provided. Everything from school lunch and breakfast to roads and trains, to clean air. And, as our teacher taught us, the country only asked a few things in return from us. That we vote, that we pay taxes, and that we fulfill our jury duty. Those three things were the only responsibilities laid on us as citizens of this country and they were all that our country asked of us in return for everything that we had.
I still talk to a few friends from that class (and the later american government class that we took our senior year). All of us are politically aware, all of us are to some degree politically active, and all of us vote. In every single election that we can. Because we were taught that it was our responsibility to this country to do so.
Does that work for others? Or are we really just an exceptional group of adults who had that mission hit home?
Been looking for an excuse to tell that story, because it really did leave an impression on me and how I view myself and my country.
So Indiana's got one of the most restrictive Voter ID laws in the country. Didn't stop this from happening though. Because the issue is almost never voter impersonation fraud.
As a Hoosier living in Indianapolis, this has been absolutely delicious. I love that White's lawyer, Carl Brizzi was the (recently) former Marion County (county Indianapolis is in) prosecutor and he resigned under massive amounts of pressure from his own party regarding corruption issues. When that ruling came out, Brizzi said his client wasn't going to "abdicate" his position. I thought that was an amusing word-choice, seeing how White's behaved during this whole thing.
It's abhorrent because it infringes on his right to sit on his ass during election day instead of mailing in a ballot or going to the voting booth. He has the right to be lazy!
Well, I don't think apathy or laziness is something to be proud of - but I do think it's something that you have a right to. I mean, has mandatory voting in Australia solved more problems than it's created? Not by any reasonable analysis.
There's more to getting people engaged in politics than just saying, "Show up to the ballot box and make a tick on this card, or you'll be fined."
Show up to a ballot box? Why would we do that? Several states have already switched to vote-by-mail only.
Absentee ballots though have actual issues with voter fraud though.
Not trying to be confrontational about this but do you have any kind of link for this?
For me, it was my 9th grade civics teacher (do they still teach civics in school?).
My weak google fu isn't bringing any actual evidence, but I can speak from personal experience that it did not exist in my school. It's been dropped for the mandatory single semester course of government, which for me consisted mostly of distinguishing the teacher's political bias from the learning material. There are elements of civics in there but not enough to challenge or motivate a high schooler. Then again, if they aren't already in motion, not much does.
Of course, recalling your governor only to elect a movie star does wonders for your political activism.
It's safe to say that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only reason many young people are even aware of political issues.
The Daily Show and D&D taught me everything meaningful that I know about civics and politics. Only the very basic of basics were covered in my high school government classes...things we'd already learned years before. Nothing particularly civics-related.
We had the option between taking a government class and a political science class through a community college but taught on campus. I took the political science class. It was more about the structure of government/comparing government structures than it was about the importance of voter participation, but because of it I ended up majoring in political science in college.
For me, it was my 9th grade civics teacher (do they still teach civics in school?).
My weak google fu isn't bringing any actual evidence, but I can speak from personal experience that it did not exist in my school. It's been dropped for the mandatory single semester course of government, which for me consisted mostly of distinguishing the teacher's political bias from the learning material. There are elements of civics in there but not enough to challenge or motivate a high schooler. Then again, if they aren't already in motion, not much does.
Of course, recalling your governor only to elect a movie star does wonders for your political activism.
It's safe to say that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only reason many young people are even aware of political issues.
See, this is why I want to write a semi-humorous column on civics and history.
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
Which means that the incumbents haven't done anything shit enough to earn their district's ire, because even the apathetic vote against the guy who brings a nuclear waste dump home. Good thing.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
What.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
Which means that the incumbents haven't done anything shit enough to earn their district's ire, because even the apathetic vote against the guy who brings a nuclear waste dump home. Good thing.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
What.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
I agree with everything Gosprey said, and think Ender's arguments are goosey as well.
I would also state that anyone saying people "just vote for whoever's at the top of the ballot" is (1) uninformed about our current politics (i.e. you don't get minority governments made of diverse political parties if people don't care) and (2) also utterly failing to present any evidence that this was in fact the case.
There's also (3) - even if it were the case, there's a very simple solution - randomize the ballot spread to drown out the consistently apathetic voters. Of course, I question if they exist, since if you don't care, the only thing you have to do is show up and have your name marked off. You're free to tear up the ballot, or scribble all over it or whatever (leaving it blank is a dumb idea though).
EDIT: Mandatory voting also has 1 huge advantage - not voting, is a massive deal. If someone doesn't vote, they either pay a fine, or have to have a plausible reason they didn't, or they spend 30 days in jail. That seems draconian, till you remember that if the plausible reason is "I wasn't allowed to by (poll workers, the mob etc.)" then that's an even huger deal. It is a good thing to have the judiciary on a hair trigger to destroy anyone who impedes individuals from voting.
If it's the minimum you can do to still call it a democracy it should be protected at all costs.
I thought most places already randomized ballot spread.
You need to randomize it from ballot to ballot, though, not just once.
So, if you have three candidates in a given district (X, Y, and Z), you should have six different ballots in that district; instead, I believe most places randomize the order once, then put out that one ballot to everyone (so, if it's Z, X, Y on your ballot, that's the order it's in on everyone else's, too). And really, you should put an "abstain" option at the top of every vote.
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
Which means that the incumbents haven't done anything shit enough to earn their district's ire, because even the apathetic vote against the guy who brings a nuclear waste dump home. Good thing.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
What.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
I agree with everything Gosprey said, and think Ender's arguments are goosey as well.
I would also state that anyone saying people "just vote for whoever's at the top of the ballot" is (1) uninformed about our current politics (i.e. you don't get minority governments made of diverse political parties if people don't care) and (2) also utterly failing to present any evidence that this was in fact the case.
There's also (3) - even if it were the case, there's a very simple solution - randomize the ballot spread to drown out the consistently apathetic voters. Of course, I question if they exist, since if you don't care, the only thing you have to do is show up and have your name marked off. You're free to tear up the ballot, or scribble all over it or whatever (leaving it blank is a dumb idea though).
EDIT: Mandatory voting also has 1 huge advantage - not voting, is a massive deal. If someone doesn't vote, they either pay a fine, or have to have a plausible reason they didn't, or they spend 30 days in jail. That seems draconian, till you remember that if the plausible reason is "I wasn't allowed to by (poll workers, the mob etc.)" then that's an even huger deal. It is a good thing to have the judiciary on a hair trigger to destroy anyone who impedes individuals from voting.
If it's the minimum you can do to still call it a democracy it should be protected at all costs.
Do you really think that would stop "anti-fraud" or voter-limiting legislation? You guys don't allow those under 18 to vote, so it's not like it's impossible to stop people from vating in Australia.
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
Which means that the incumbents haven't done anything shit enough to earn their district's ire, because even the apathetic vote against the guy who brings a nuclear waste dump home. Good thing.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
What.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
I agree with everything Gosprey said, and think Ender's arguments are goosey as well.
I would also state that anyone saying people "just vote for whoever's at the top of the ballot" is (1) uninformed about our current politics (i.e. you don't get minority governments made of diverse political parties if people don't care) and (2) also utterly failing to present any evidence that this was in fact the case.
There's also (3) - even if it were the case, there's a very simple solution - randomize the ballot spread to drown out the consistently apathetic voters. Of course, I question if they exist, since if you don't care, the only thing you have to do is show up and have your name marked off. You're free to tear up the ballot, or scribble all over it or whatever (leaving it blank is a dumb idea though).
EDIT: Mandatory voting also has 1 huge advantage - not voting, is a massive deal. If someone doesn't vote, they either pay a fine, or have to have a plausible reason they didn't, or they spend 30 days in jail. That seems draconian, till you remember that if the plausible reason is "I wasn't allowed to by (poll workers, the mob etc.)" then that's an even huger deal. It is a good thing to have the judiciary on a hair trigger to destroy anyone who impedes individuals from voting.
If it's the minimum you can do to still call it a democracy it should be protected at all costs.
Do you really think that would stop "anti-fraud" or voter-limiting legislation? You guys don't allow those under 18 to vote, so it's not like it's impossible to stop people from vating in Australia.
After you seriously trying to pretend voting age and voter caging are the same?
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
Which means that the incumbents haven't done anything shit enough to earn their district's ire, because even the apathetic vote against the guy who brings a nuclear waste dump home. Good thing.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
What.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
I agree with everything Gosprey said, and think Ender's arguments are goosey as well.
I would also state that anyone saying people "just vote for whoever's at the top of the ballot" is (1) uninformed about our current politics (i.e. you don't get minority governments made of diverse political parties if people don't care) and (2) also utterly failing to present any evidence that this was in fact the case.
There's also (3) - even if it were the case, there's a very simple solution - randomize the ballot spread to drown out the consistently apathetic voters. Of course, I question if they exist, since if you don't care, the only thing you have to do is show up and have your name marked off. You're free to tear up the ballot, or scribble all over it or whatever (leaving it blank is a dumb idea though).
EDIT: Mandatory voting also has 1 huge advantage - not voting, is a massive deal. If someone doesn't vote, they either pay a fine, or have to have a plausible reason they didn't, or they spend 30 days in jail. That seems draconian, till you remember that if the plausible reason is "I wasn't allowed to by (poll workers, the mob etc.)" then that's an even huger deal. It is a good thing to have the judiciary on a hair trigger to destroy anyone who impedes individuals from voting.
If it's the minimum you can do to still call it a democracy it should be protected at all costs.
Do you really think that would stop "anti-fraud" or voter-limiting legislation? You guys don't allow those under 18 to vote, so it's not like it's impossible to stop people from vating in Australia.
After you seriously trying to pretend voting age and voter caging are the same?
Last week, a Baltimore jury needed only five hours to convict the man who managed the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Ehrlich last year.
The defendant, Paul Schurick, was convicted on four counts of approving a fraudulent Election Day robocall. It targeted people in Prince George’s County and other predominantly Democratic, African American districts and was, the prosecution argued, designed to fool them into staying home rather than go to the polls.
The robocall went to 112,000 voters late on Election Day. It didn’t say who authorized the call but was written to sound as though it came from the Democrats.
“Relax,” the robocall said. The Democrats have been “successful,” so “the only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.”
I don't recall seeing anything about this story in this thread. It was really a spectacular disaster.
Six one year sentences, to be served concurrently? So basically, dropping 5 of the convictions. Fucking hell?
I like the comparisons. Someone who thought they were allowed to vote. Was informed otherwise and called city hall to have her vote nullified. Was sentenced to 1 year in jail. And one dude deported because he rubber stamped a bunch of forms at the DMV, one of which was a voter registration form. Not allowed to register, federal crime! Someone who actively committed fraud in order to obtain multiple votes? Six concurrent house arrests, and a $1,000 fine. Our justice system is awesome.
Man, vanilla hates letting me edit from a NAT range. He didn't try to obtain multiple votes. He falsely registered at a false address in order to obtain office in a town he didn't live in.
Wait, by what analysis has Australia's system not solved a ton of problems?
1) It has established an extraordinary advantage to incumbents, who are the most likely to be voted for by those who vote but are uninterested in politics.
2) It has effectively destroyed political diversity in the country, as apathetic voters (which represent the majority of those headed to the polls) are very likely to cast a balot for the most visible party.
3) It's established a negative, authoritarian connotation with voting, especially among the youngest voters, reinforcing right-wing messages about how the government is out to get you.
And in exchange for that damage, it has done nothing. It has not solved voter apathy and it has not created a culture of engaged voters or political interest.
This here? Its all wrong.
1) Considering the swings are quite large and in fact a government could not be formed without independents in the last election demonstrates this. When John Howard retired, the liberals lost the election in a big way, even though they held a vast majority of seats. Unlike the US, a lot of Australians are not "liberal" or "labor" people, they are people people who listen to the news and read papers and decide. Some do random votes, or donkey votes, but the vast majority know who they are voting for before walking in. Hell if the "incumbents" are so advantaged here, how did so many independents get elected last federal election?
2) um what? See point 1. People vote out governments they are unhappy with. If labor hold on to government I will be very, very surprised considering what a woeful job the current PM & government has done, and the amount of failed projects costing millions+. If a government is doing a good job, why vote it out? John Howard was doing a reasonable job and so held on for a long time. Labor in Queensland is living on borrowed time, and are trying hard to run a smear campaign against their opposition.
3) Again, what? No one I have encountered really whinges about having to vote. Hell you can simply never register if you don't want to. If you do register, you must vote from that point forward. I'm in the army, and will be deployed for the next state election. My unit has already ensured we will get our postal votes. If you can not make it to the polls for a legit reason, you simply return the fine letter with your statement. I have had to do this in the past, and every time the matter has been dropped. Its an accepted part of life here, and with heaps of polling booths and locations, there is usually a place to vote close by and the lines have never been too bad.
In fact politics are a highly discussed topic in day to day life here. I don't know what country you are from, but the problems presented here are not problems we have.
Posts
It has completely killed vote caging though and gets huge amounts of people out to vote. All those other problems you mention already exist in the US, plus a bunch more on top.
And what evidence is there of these issues being caused by mandatory voting anyway?
Absentee ballots though have actual issues with voter fraud though.
Vote by ballot is just as susceptible to vote by mail to all the same frauds that vote by mail is.
vote by electronic ballot is...
Not trying to be confrontational about this but do you have any kind of link for this?
Not really. 90% of politics is just showing up.
People feeling enfranchised or not - That's meaningful.
If we stick with FPTP and other less-democratic systems of voting, and keep systems promoting the creation of a self-serving professional political class, individual votes remain largely pointless.
Compulsory voting is just a way to pretend that the terrible problems we have with our quasi-democracy aren't happening because we made people pretend to care.
It's a problem of degrees. We still vote out incumbents occasionally, and our full voter base cares enough to show up. In a mandatory system, the whole system encourages a large contingent of people to show up and vote for the name at the top of the ballot just to get out quickly.
For me, it was my 9th grade civics teacher (do they still teach civics in school?). We learned about government, how it works, propaganda, all kinds of things. But one of the lessons that really really stuck with me is the one that he gave us on civic responsibility.
We learned all about roads and the services that our country/state/town provided. Everything from school lunch and breakfast to roads and trains, to clean air. And, as our teacher taught us, the country only asked a few things in return from us. That we vote, that we pay taxes, and that we fulfill our jury duty. Those three things were the only responsibilities laid on us as citizens of this country and they were all that our country asked of us in return for everything that we had.
I still talk to a few friends from that class (and the later american government class that we took our senior year). All of us are politically aware, all of us are to some degree politically active, and all of us vote. In every single election that we can. Because we were taught that it was our responsibility to this country to do so.
Does that work for others? Or are we really just an exceptional group of adults who had that mission hit home?
Been looking for an excuse to tell that story, because it really did leave an impression on me and how I view myself and my country.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
As a Hoosier living in Indianapolis, this has been absolutely delicious. I love that White's lawyer, Carl Brizzi was the (recently) former Marion County (county Indianapolis is in) prosecutor and he resigned under massive amounts of pressure from his own party regarding corruption issues. When that ruling came out, Brizzi said his client wasn't going to "abdicate" his position. I thought that was an amusing word-choice, seeing how White's behaved during this whole thing.
Ah, found it: http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Purity of Elections in the UK - Executive Summary.pdf
My weak google fu isn't bringing any actual evidence, but I can speak from personal experience that it did not exist in my school. It's been dropped for the mandatory single semester course of government, which for me consisted mostly of distinguishing the teacher's political bias from the learning material. There are elements of civics in there but not enough to challenge or motivate a high schooler. Then again, if they aren't already in motion, not much does.
Of course, recalling your governor only to elect a movie star does wonders for your political activism.
It's safe to say that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only reason many young people are even aware of political issues.
Given the current government had to form a coalition with the Greens and some independents to make a...government, I don't know that you could say that.
What.
On the upside, people that want to vote can vote, and because its compulsory, it is thus a reasonable request to have an opportunity to vote (unlike in the US when you may have a shift for the entire period of voting and its just tough shit).
This is actually illegal in most states, just not enforced well.
Tell me again how getting ID is so simple.
I agree with everything Gosprey said, and think Ender's arguments are goosey as well.
I would also state that anyone saying people "just vote for whoever's at the top of the ballot" is (1) uninformed about our current politics (i.e. you don't get minority governments made of diverse political parties if people don't care) and (2) also utterly failing to present any evidence that this was in fact the case.
There's also (3) - even if it were the case, there's a very simple solution - randomize the ballot spread to drown out the consistently apathetic voters. Of course, I question if they exist, since if you don't care, the only thing you have to do is show up and have your name marked off. You're free to tear up the ballot, or scribble all over it or whatever (leaving it blank is a dumb idea though).
EDIT: Mandatory voting also has 1 huge advantage - not voting, is a massive deal. If someone doesn't vote, they either pay a fine, or have to have a plausible reason they didn't, or they spend 30 days in jail. That seems draconian, till you remember that if the plausible reason is "I wasn't allowed to by (poll workers, the mob etc.)" then that's an even huger deal. It is a good thing to have the judiciary on a hair trigger to destroy anyone who impedes individuals from voting.
If it's the minimum you can do to still call it a democracy it should be protected at all costs.
So, if you have three candidates in a given district (X, Y, and Z), you should have six different ballots in that district; instead, I believe most places randomize the order once, then put out that one ballot to everyone (so, if it's Z, X, Y on your ballot, that's the order it's in on everyone else's, too). And really, you should put an "abstain" option at the top of every vote.
Do you really think that would stop "anti-fraud" or voter-limiting legislation? You guys don't allow those under 18 to vote, so it's not like it's impossible to stop people from vating in Australia.
After you seriously trying to pretend voting age and voter caging are the same?
Voter Aging?
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/27/vote_fraud_retires_shameless_gop_official/singleton/
One year of house arrest? What a fucking joke.
I don't recall seeing anything about this story in this thread. It was really a spectacular disaster.
Six one year sentences, to be served concurrently? So basically, dropping 5 of the convictions. Fucking hell?
I like the comparisons. Someone who thought they were allowed to vote. Was informed otherwise and called city hall to have her vote nullified. Was sentenced to 1 year in jail. And one dude deported because he rubber stamped a bunch of forms at the DMV, one of which was a voter registration form. Not allowed to register, federal crime! Someone who actively committed fraud in order to obtain multiple votes? Six concurrent house arrests, and a $1,000 fine. Our justice system is awesome.
"What!? Edumicate and motivate young people to vote? BURN THE WITCH!"
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
This here? Its all wrong.
1) Considering the swings are quite large and in fact a government could not be formed without independents in the last election demonstrates this. When John Howard retired, the liberals lost the election in a big way, even though they held a vast majority of seats. Unlike the US, a lot of Australians are not "liberal" or "labor" people, they are people people who listen to the news and read papers and decide. Some do random votes, or donkey votes, but the vast majority know who they are voting for before walking in. Hell if the "incumbents" are so advantaged here, how did so many independents get elected last federal election?
2) um what? See point 1. People vote out governments they are unhappy with. If labor hold on to government I will be very, very surprised considering what a woeful job the current PM & government has done, and the amount of failed projects costing millions+. If a government is doing a good job, why vote it out? John Howard was doing a reasonable job and so held on for a long time. Labor in Queensland is living on borrowed time, and are trying hard to run a smear campaign against their opposition.
3) Again, what? No one I have encountered really whinges about having to vote. Hell you can simply never register if you don't want to. If you do register, you must vote from that point forward. I'm in the army, and will be deployed for the next state election. My unit has already ensured we will get our postal votes. If you can not make it to the polls for a legit reason, you simply return the fine letter with your statement. I have had to do this in the past, and every time the matter has been dropped. Its an accepted part of life here, and with heaps of polling booths and locations, there is usually a place to vote close by and the lines have never been too bad.
In fact politics are a highly discussed topic in day to day life here. I don't know what country you are from, but the problems presented here are not problems we have.
http://balloon-juice.com/2012/03/07/the-reality-of-provisional-balloting/
PSN : Bolthorn
You have joined the fabled ranks of countries being investigated by the UN for human rights abuses due to your various new Voter ID laws.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/?really/
I do enjoy the Fox News spin about it being a smear job arranged by the NAACP though.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube