[EM] Re: compulsory voting

[Chris Benham]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

>At 12:29 PM 10/17/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm not sure how well compulsory voting would transplant to other 
>>countries. The compulsion element could be viewed negatively 
>>compared to the ideal voluntary voting system,but it is vastly 
>>better than real-world voluntary voting in places like the US.
>>    
>>
>
>This is debatable. The U.S. systems have some severe problems, but 
>they are not caused by voluntary voting. There is an increasing trend 
>to make voting easy. In most places, you can simply state that you 
>can't make it to the polls, and you can then vote by mail. In my 
>state, Massachusetts:
>
>*****
>I can't get to the polls on election day. Can I vote?
>
>Yes. You may vote by absentee ballot if you:
>will be absent from your city or town on election day, and/or
>have a physical disability that prevents your voting at the polling 
>place, and/or cannot vote at the polls due to religious beliefs.
>*****
>  
>
That is also true in Australia.  I  gather in the US it varies a lot 
from place to place.

I'm not saying that compulsory voting is for its own sake in principle 
desirable, just that at worse it can be counted
as a minuscule evil that in practice is a simple way to counteract much 
greater evils.

>As a general principle, democracies are not fully democratic to the 
>extent that they coerce their citizens. I'm not at all arguing that 
>coercion is unnecessary or wrong; but it is not democracy, per se, it 
>is the dictatorship of the majority or of whoever is in control. In a 
>maximally democratic society, coercion is minimized.
>
Democracy is a form of  "rule".  It can only become compromised by too 
much "coercion" if  people are denied
the right to put their case and to politically organise (freedom to 
express and have heard their political views, freedom
to associate in political parties, freedom to peacefully demonstrate 
etc.)  or are denied the right to a basic education
or their right to vote is compromised.
Democracy is all about rule of the majority, usually via (elected) 
representatives. That majority must be informed.

In reference to high voter turnout, Abd wrote:

>If it is coerced, it means nothing.
>
One thing I find annoying about Abd's argument is that it makes no 
distinction between degrees of  "coercion". Of  course
a high turnout is somewhat  "devalued" by mild coercion, but definitely 
not to the point that "it means nothing".

In Australia voting is widely seen as something like wearing seatbelts 
in cars and paying taxes. Everyone agrees that it would
be better if everyone did those things, while at the same time usually 
recognizing that they themselves might not always bother
if the only incentives are the the greater good and the perhaps-remote 
chance of an accident.

Voting in Australia is seen as a civic duty, and the level of  
"coercion" is mainly about the state helping the citizens to discipline
themselves.  An  Australian comic (IMO not great) recently joked that 
voting should continue to be "compulsory" but that paying
the fine for not voting should be optional (for people with a bad 
conscience).

>How about this modest proposal? The government pays every voter an 
>amount to compensate for their time, at the rate shown by their tax 
>returns, or at a minimum rate for those not obligated to file returns.
>
That completely sucks. People who pay higher taxes shouldn't be paid 
more to vote.

>It would be eminently fair. If voters are performing a public service 
>by voting (the compulsory voting laws must assume that they are), 
>then it would certainly be reasonable to compensate them.
>
Hello! Voters  *are*  the public.

In Australia,  elections are always on a Saturday and the polls are open 
from 8am to 6pm.  There are lots of polling stations.
People who don't expect that they will have time on the day can apply 
for a postal vote and mail it before the day. People who
give a good reason why they couldn't vote are exempt from paying the fine.

Maybe in the US more people work on a Saturdays than they do in 
Australia. I've seen it suggested that polling day in the US be
made a public holiday. I think that that is a good idea, better than 
paying people to vote.

>Having to stand in line to vote? 
>That's crazy. But it is the norm.
>
Why is it "crazy"?  How else do you propose to ensure that votes are 
secret and so cannot be sold or perhaps "coerced" by say
a domineering partner?

>To my mind, democracy is government by *consent* of the people. To 
>the extent that the people consent, it is democratic. Coercing people 
>into voting is, quite simply, undemocratic. Even if the majority 
>approve of the practice.
>
Why can't  people consent to being  "coerced"?  Definitions of  
"consent"  vary from an explicit (perhaps signed) statement that
"I consent to x"  (which maybe can be revoked at any time and/or has to 
be periodically renewed) to consent that is simply implied
by continuing to obey the laws and not actively revolting/resisting, or 
something vague between these two extremes.

So it can be said that people sometimes "consent" to not having 
elections and instead submit to the rule of a benign monarch, which
isn't democracy.  Abd seems to be using a definition of  "consent" that 
isn't compatible with "government".

>What is the harm of allowing people not to vote? What if a person 
>considers himself unqualified to judge the candidates? "He can simply 
>not mark the ballot," it will be said. But then you have coerced this 
>person to coming to a room to exercise an act of futility.
>
Big deal.  That is like people having to wait at a red  light when there 
is no opposing traffic. In Australia the person could have himself
certified as being mentally defective and would then be exempt from penalty.

Anthony Duff wrote:

>I'd worry about the routine use of absentee ballots, because it then
>becomes very easy for people to buy or coerce the voting of others.
>
Exactly.


Chris Benham







>  
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20051018/94a0d4b6/attachment-0003.htm>