[EM] compulsory voting

[Chris Benham]

Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:

>And now we come to the crux:
>
>  
>
>>>Democracy is a form of  "rule".
>>    
>>
>
>That's it in a nutshell. Democracy, per se, is not a form of rule, 
>for coercion is not intrinsic to democracy; rather, coercion may be 
>necessary under conditions where full democracy fails.
>  
>
Definitions of  "democracy"  I've seen include the word "rule" and/or  
"government" and make no
reference to an absence (or relatively low level) of  "coercion".

One such is "government by the people; /especially/ :  rule of  the 
majority."

>Democracy is all about rule of the majority, usually via (elected) 
>>representatives. That majority must be informed.
>  
>
>
>By whom?
>
By the education system, the media, and political campaigners.

>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".
>  
>
>
>That's nonsense. Specifically, degree of democracy was associated 
>with degree of coercion. Very little coercion, very little deviation 
>from democracy. How could this be "no distinction?"
>  
>
I  was referring to the fact that you seem happy to classify everything 
as simply "coerced" or  "not coerced",
making no distinction between  "compulsory on pain of  getting a small 
fine and not put on your criminal
record  and let off  if  you provide a reasonable excuse"  and say 
"compulsory on pain of  years in jail, with
no excuses accepted."

> Of  course
>>a high turnout is somewhat  "devalued" by mild coercion,
>  
>
>
>No kidding!
>
>  
>
>>>  but definitely not to the point that "it means nothing".
>>    
>>
>
>The *turnout* means nothing. 
>
No, in conjunction with a low "informal vote"  and no signs of  people 
protesting against being compelled to vote, the
high turnout still means something.

>I'm a little skeptical that "everyone" in Australia sees voting as 
>claimed. For one thing, we have seen recently from Mr. Benham 
>material vigorously defending compulsory voting from an Australian 
>politician, who was claiming that those who wanted to eliminate the 
>compulsion were essentially evil oligarchs who wanted to deprive the 
>poor of representation. My impression was that of a politician given 
>to hyperbole in pursuit of her own goals. Quite obviously, she was 
>not arguing against thin air. There are Australians who want to 
>eliminate the compulsion.
>
Yes,  a few members of the government who made no mention of it during 
the election campaign, and who are also in
favour of stripping the vote from prisoners.

>If you really want the poor to turn 
>out to vote, pay them to vote, and, of course, you would have to pay 
>everyone the same. Does Mr. Benham like the idea better now?
>
Yes. But  I  think it is ridiculous and absurdly inefficient that the 
citizens via the state should have to pay themselves just to
act in their own (at least long-term indirect)  interests.

>I think it would be even better to simply allow people to transfer 
>their voting power to others. If they have time, they vote 
>themselves. If they don't, then their act of choosing who to vote for 
>them is a profound political act.
>
That would be wide open to massive abuses. Also I don't see that 
"transferring voting power to others" is really any different
in principle from "voting".   I  don't like the idea of encouraging  
people to just choose a shepherd and then switch off  their brains
and  take no direct part in the democratic process.
(If they really want to be sheep, then they can simply ask the trusted 
other who they think they should vote for and then at least they
will know the name of the candidate they're voting for.)

>Bottom line, though, the issue is not coercion, but coercion which is 
>sufficiently widespread to swing an election. 
>
I  don't accept that. If  "the issue is not coercion", then what was 
your objection to  "compulsory voting"?
If  the election is close enough, then of  course any changed votes 
could  "swing an election".

>Fraud is fairly common, as well as other technical 
>manipulations of the system.
>
In the US, of course.  In some other countries, such as Australia, no.


Chris  Benham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20051022/bd633571/attachment-0003.htm>