[EM] compulsory voting

[Anthony Duff]

--- Abd ulRahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> At 03:58 AM 10/18/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> I'm saying that compulsory voting is coercive (this shouldn't be 
> controversial!) and that coercion on the part of the state should
> be 
> justified by social necessity. 

Necessity is such a strong word, and I think that few things could
meet it.  Isn't it an extreme right wing position that in the
abscence of absolute necessity, freedom should be absolute?

My positiion is that in the abscence of a better solution, compulsion
to vote is compensated for by high voter turnout.  Low voter turnout
is, in my opinion, not compatable with true democracy.  If the people
don't participate at any level, how can it be democracy?

> Both the benefit and harm of 
> compulsory voting are unclear. 

It takes about an hour to vote, including travel, thereabouts.  But
the cost only applies to those who weren't going to vote anyway.  
 
> It's the wrong response to low voter turnout. I actually think this
> should be obvious.

If something is obvious then it is not necessary to say so.  Can you
say why the response is wrong, specifically why doing nothing is
better, or why some other response would be better? 

> > I may have given an example in the past, but I'll repeat it here:

[Your verbose driving example contained arguable assertions and
nothing that I found illuminating to the topic.]

> So if people don't vote, find out why! 

I suggest:  Because it takes ~ 1 hour to vote and the individual's
vote is very unlikely to make a difference.  The argument, that
everyone has to play their part, to act together, is a mildly
sophisticated argument that has variable purchase on different
sections of the population.

> And fix it. 

Mild compulsion - blunt but simple.  The fine needs only to outweigh
the inconvenience of voting.

> Forcing them to 
> vote won't address the real issue: 

The goal isn't to fix the cause; it is to achieve a proper sampling
of preference from the population.

> the alienation of people from 
> their government, the cynicism and despair about voting actually 
> making a difference.

If the cynics and those in despair voted with 100% turnout, then the
candidates would have incentive to address their concerns.

> >Democracy is a form of  "rule".

Democracy is government by the people (well, via representation, in
practice).  Democracy is not freedom, as some like to cry, or
anything else.

>From oed.com:
"1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the
sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised
either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or
by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting
a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or
arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. "
 
> That's it in a nutshell. Democracy, per se, is not a form of rule, 
Perhaps you should define your use of "democracy"?
> for coercion is not intrinsic to democracy;
True, but what's the point?
> rather, coercion may be necessary under conditions where full
democracy fails.

I wouldn't say necessary, but this is the argument for compulsory
voting.
 
> >   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.
> 
> I've worked in the U.S. prison system as a chaplain. I can tell
> you, 
[Various statements suggesting that US voting administration is not
very good]
 
> We have, in the U.S., and to varying degrees in other "democracies"
[Admirable monologue of uncertain relevance]

> My goal is not to eliminate all coercion; rather my goal is to 
> eliminate unnecessary and dysfunctional coercion. 

A worthy goal.

> The first and most 
> obvious aspect which should be addressed is the lack of 
> representation. 

> Corporations solved the problem centuries ago;
Really?  If true, and if their method could reduce the problem of
biased turnout, then please explain.
 
> indeed, the solution exists at common law and it is only the fact 
> that the history of elections made it illegal, in most places, to 
> vote by proxy in political elections (and where it is permitted, it
> > is permitted only in a very limited way) that has resulted in the

> failure of legislative bodies to truly represent everyone.

Is this a riddle?  Am I supposed to make a careful study to work out
what you are talking about?  What is this solution, I can see it
written neither above nor below.

> > [CB] Democracy is all about rule of the majority, usually via
(elected)

The role of a majority in democracy is not implicitly defined in the
meaning of "democracy".

> under some circumstances; indeed, most corporations have not found
> it necessary to deny ordinary shareholders the right to vote at the

> annual meeting. 

Most corporations have a well-defined purpose.  The purpose of
government, on the other hand, is usually contentious.

> Corporations do not allow absentee ballot, for very
> good reasons. 
 
In my experience, they do.  It is called proxy voting.  You fill in a
form, optionally directing your proxy on how to vote on specific
issues.  Usually, the chairman is the proxy.  When you direct your
votes, the proxy has no options, and the situation is identical to
absentee voting.

> Delegable proxy allows a mutually acceptable level of communication

Your favourite method seems complicated compared to compulsory
voting.  Delegable proxy may well have some benefits, but with its
increased complexity I can only see it decreasing voter
participation.
 
> >Democracy is all about rule of the majority
> 
> No, not exactly. Democracy is about the *consent* of the people to 
> government. 

I agree with Lomax here.

> If the people completely consent to the government, it
> is fully democratic. If they do not, to the extent that they do
not,
> it is not fully democratic. 

How would you measure completeness of consent with low voter turnout?
 Little over 25% voted for Bush.  What about the nearly half who
didn't vote?  One could argue either that they consent (they failed
to vote against him) or that they do not consent (there was no one
good enough to vote for).

> "Majority" is an important turning point, 
> but it does not indicate substantial consent.

Agreed

> Who decides when there is an emergency, which justifies overriding
> a 
> minority, which justifies coercion? The majority decides. 

It sounds like you are talking about wartime conscription.  Usually,
the executive decides.

Low voter turnout and biased voter turnout shouldn't be confused with
an emergency.

> But that 
> decision, in a democracy, should be conscious and explicit, and it 
> should be understood that every time such a decision is made,
> society 
> may be weakened. 

Sure, compulsory voting is an interference with the people.

Indeed, the compulsion may be resented so much that the voter may be
influenced, against their previous inclination, to vote against the
government that introduced the compulsion.  This would make the
introduction of compulsory voting difficult (not impossible).

 
> >In Australia voting is widely seen as something like wearing 
> >seatbelts in cars and paying taxes. 

> I'm a little skeptical that "everyone" in Australia sees voting as 
> claimed. 

It is a contentious issue.

> Quite obviously, she was 
> not arguing against thin air. There are Australians who want to 
> eliminate the compulsion.

The ruling (right wing) Liberal party has many members who would like
to end compulsory voting.  Most people (to my reading) hold the
opinion that compulsory voting benefits the left and minor parties
(ie that it is especially detrimental to the main right wing party). 
This opinion is sometimes contested.

> Personally, I do *not* agree that everyone should vote. In fact, I 
> think most people are unqualified. 

> And, indeed they do, at common law. Anyone who is legally competent
> can assign a power of attorney to anyone they choose to exercise 
> almost all legal rights that could be exercised by the person
> himself  or herself....

Not true.  One requires either money or legal skill, and that is not
anyone.
 
> I have utterly no regret for abstaining from voting on issues where
> I 
> do not have sufficient grounds to form an opinion. 

Complusary voting would not hinder you ffrom abstaining.

The problem I raise is that the effort required to vote, firstly is
biased, and secondly has a biased effect on turnout.  Compulsory
voting eliminates the bias by levelling the effort required, whether
to vote or to abstain.

> > >>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.

A fair proposal, but I see practical difficulties. Would it mean that
the polling places have to handle cash?  If not, then wouldn't there
still be bias.  The delayed reward of a little cash in the bank, or
relief in taxes, may be more persuasive to some than others.

It also means that the government is taking money and then giving it
back, this in itself seems like a waste of resources.

> >In Australia,  elections are always on a Saturday and the polls
> are 
> >open from 8am to 6pm.  There are lots of polling stations.
> 
> And if you are an observant Jew? And it is in the summer and the
> sun 
> has not set by 6 pm? For some people, Saturday is the worst day to 
> have to vote!

Some people are proposing that the US have a weekday holiday for
voting.

Australians who don't want to vote on Saturday can pre-poll during
the week before.  Pre-polling is safe from vote-buying/coercion, as
it is done in a supervised polling place.
 
> >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.
> 
> The whole thing, however, is made more reasonable by the allowance 
> for postal voting. If you are poor, do you have to pay for the
> stamp?

Postal voting (aka absentee voting) is a poorer solution to the
biased turnout problem because it doesn't clearly remove the bias
(absentee voting favours the organised).
 
Postal voting is also not a good solution to be applied to whole
sections of the population because then it would be too widespread
and venerable to abuse.  (Isn't this exactly what Oregon did - all
voting is postal?)

> >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.
> 
> But this argument applies to *any* use of absentee ballots. If it
> is 
> allowed as an exception, then those who wish to coerce may coerce 
> their victim into claiming the exception.

Yes, it does apply to any absentee ballot.  But the vote-buying
vote-coercion is to my mind like a corruption, something that
develops slowly.  I imagine that if absentee voting is the norm, then
it may become normal for families to vote together, as one. 
Workplaces (especially at the lower end) may (to be helpful) organise
the absentee ballots for all of the workers together, give a
persuasive "informational" speech, then have them fill them in before
they can clock back on to work.

I think it is OK to have isolated absentee ballots, but it is a worry
if there are millions of them.

> One that came to my attention recently was regarding the famous 
> Florida 2000 debacle in the U.S. As I'm sure you know, overvoting
> is 
> a cause for considering a ballot spoiled. However, Florida law 
> provides that if a voter's intention is clear from the ballot, that
> intention is to be honored. It is just that an intention to vote
> for more than one in a single-winner election is not allowed.

The most bothersome thing I heard that Nov. 2000 was that the police
in Florida were doing licence checks on polling day around black
neighbourhoods.  This would have dissuaded voters from these
neighbourhoods from voting.

Compulsory voting would have limited the evil of such a scheme.  The
voters from the black neighbourhoods would have still been harassed,
and they would have had to have gone to a lot more effort to vote if
they didn't have a properly licensed driver in the family, but they
would have voted.

> It's remarkable, I think, all the concern about voter coercion. The
> real core of democracy in action is deliberative process, which is 
> almost never anonymous....

Indeed, voting in old England used to be open.  The boss/landlord new
exactly who didn't vote the way they were told.  I think the secret
vote at elections and the open vote in parliament/congress works
well.


Anthony



		
____________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch the latest music videos on Yahoo! Music. 
http://au.launch.yahoo.com