<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At 12:29 PM 10/17/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
*****
</pre>
</blockquote>
That is also true in Australia. I gather in the US it varies a lot
from place to place.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that compulsory voting is for its own sake in principle
desirable, just that at worse it can be counted<br>
as a minuscule evil that in practice is a simple way to counteract much
greater evils.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
Democracy is a form of "rule". It can only become compromised by too
much "coercion" if people are denied <br>
the right to put their case and to politically organise (freedom to
express and have heard their political views, freedom<br>
to associate in political parties, freedom to peacefully demonstrate
etc.) or are denied the right to a basic education<br>
or their right to vote is compromised.<br>
Democracy is all about rule of the majority, usually via (elected)
representatives. That majority must be informed.<br>
<br>
In reference to high voter turnout, Abd wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If it is coerced, it means nothing.</pre>
</blockquote>
One thing I find annoying about Abd's argument is that it makes no
distinction between degrees of "coercion". Of course<br>
a high turnout is somewhat "devalued" by mild coercion, but definitely
not to the point that "it means nothing".<br>
<br>
In Australia voting is widely seen as something like wearing seatbelts
in cars and paying taxes. Everyone agrees that it would<br>
be better if everyone did those things, while at the same time usually
recognizing that they themselves might not always bother<br>
if the only incentives are the the greater good and the perhaps-remote
chance of an accident.<br>
<br>
Voting in Australia is seen as a civic duty, and the level of
"coercion" is mainly about the state helping the citizens to discipline<br>
themselves. An Australian comic (IMO not great) recently joked that
voting should continue to be "compulsory" but that paying<br>
the fine for not voting should be optional (for people with a bad
conscience).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
That completely sucks. People who pay higher taxes shouldn't be paid
more to vote.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
Hello! Voters *are* the public.<br>
<br>
In Australia, elections are always on a Saturday and the polls are
open from 8am to 6pm. There are lots of polling stations.<br>
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<br>
give a good reason why they couldn't vote are exempt from paying the
fine.<br>
<br>
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 <br>
made a public holiday. I think that that is a good idea, better than
paying people to vote.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Having to stand in line to vote?
That's crazy. But it is the norm.</pre>
</blockquote>
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<br>
a domineering partner?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To my mind, democracy is government by <b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>consent<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> 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.</pre>
</blockquote>
Why can't people consent to being "coerced"? Definitions of
"consent" vary from an explicit (perhaps signed) statement that <br>
"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<br>
by continuing to obey the laws and not actively revolting/resisting, or
something vague between these two extremes.<br>
<br>
So it can be said that people sometimes "consent" to not having
elections and instead submit to the rule of a benign monarch, which<br>
isn't democracy. Abd seems to be using a definition of "consent" that
isn't compatible with "government".<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
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<br>
certified as being mentally defective and would then be exempt from
penalty.<br>
<br>
Anthony Duff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
Exactly.<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>