Posted on 11/24/2004 11:44:16 AM PST by freeparella
I spent polling day in this year's presidential election in Seattle and I observed one gargantuan difference between elections in my country, Australia, and those of yours -- compulsory voting. Compulsory voting forces people to engage with their democracy -- maybe the United States should try a dose.
Since 1924, Australians have had to turn up at a polling place on Election Day and have their names recorded against the electoral roll. More than 95 percent of Australians pick up their ballot papers and vote in the election, whether it is for a state or national election. If you don't vote in state or national elections in Australia, you are charged with breaching the electoral laws and face a fine or even imprisonment if you are a persistent offender.
The impact of compulsory voting on the dynamics of a national election is striking. The billions of dollars spent in time and effort trying to ensure that people actually register to vote and then fill in a ballot paper just doesn't happen in Australia. Political parties focus their efforts on promoting their leader and his or her party's policies.
And in the 48 hours before the dawn of polling day there is none of the exhausting whistle-stop touring across the country trying to encourage people to get out and vote that Sen. John Kerry and President Bush engaged in this year.
On the day before national Election Day in Australia -- elections are held roughly every three years and Australians voted Oct. 9 this year to re-elect Prime Minister John Howard -- there is an eerie quiet as leaders of the political parties begin to put their feet up at the end of a grueling four-week campaign. They know there is little they can do to persuade voters which way to vote by this time.
Australia is one of 20 countries with compulsory voting; Argentina and Austria are two others in this elite club. While Belgium was the first nation to introduce compulsory voting, in 1893, Australia was the first English-speaking country -- when the state of Queensland passed legislation in 1914.
Ten years after Queensland's law was passed, Australia's national Parliament followed suit. Intriguingly, the law to make voting compulsory apparently passed through the Parliament in only 15 minutes. Where voter turnout had been below 50 percent in elections before 1924, that number increased to more than 90 percent in the 1925 election and has been 95 percent to 98 percent ever since.
Although there are some prominent advocates of abolishing compulsory voting, including Australia's current finance minister, the issue doesn't get any serious airplay. This is because of Australia's history as a strong and progressive democracy in its formative years.
Like New Zealand, Australia in the 1890s and early years of the 20th century was a world leader in democratic reforms. New Zealand and the state of South Australia were two of the first democracies in the world to allow women the right to vote, for example.
Early Australian governments believed that compulsory voting was, according to a 2001 research paper from the Australian Parliamentary Library (APL), "as much a part of democracy as compulsory education."
For many Australians the beauty of compulsory voting is that it, as the APL paper notes, "plays a crucial role in reducing the social bias in turnout. In voluntary systems it is the poor and the marginalized who are the non-voters." It's certainly true that low-income workers and welfare recipients receive the same focus and attention as wealthy Australians from politicians because, as a consequence of compulsory voting, their votes count as much as those of the wealthy retirees, for example.
Compulsory voting has proved a resounding success in Australia. It helps to keep the cost of elections down and, most important, means that political parties don't have to raise obscene sums of money to finance their campaigns.
Participating in democracy is not optional in Australia. Even if you despise politicians and the political process, you have to turn out a couple of times every three or four years to vote for your state or national government. It forces even the most cynical individual to at least cast a fleeting glance at the political process.
Perhaps it's time for Americans to consider the democratic benefits of compulsory voting. Check out Australia -- it's a feisty and engaged democracy as a result of compulsory voting.
I like freedom better.
I don't want people who don't care enough to vote on their own, voting.
Liberty includes the freedom not to vote.
Compulsory voting would elect that person.
Yeah, that's what we need...MORE uninformed voters!!!
Too "1984"-ish for me.
I don't want more people voting. I want fewer.
I'm also in favor of IQ tests for qualification - If someone's IQ isn't as high as an average turnip they shouldn't be allowed to vote, thereby assuring Republican rule.
I much prefer that you have a college degree, a 120 IQ, own a home or at least a car, be a veteran and get handed a ballot with nothing but the position on it and if you're too damn dumb to fill in the correct name you don't get to vote.
Too many people vote in this country as it is.
In more enlightened times only land owners were allowed to vote.
Welfare recipients and non-english speakers definitely have no business voting.
Oh, I love freedom just fine. But making voting a requirement seems to solve a lot of problems according to the article. It costs less in terms of time and money and forces the candidates to listen to everybody's concerns. I especially love the part about candidates not having to have a zillion dollars in their back pocket.
Hell no. If someone is too ignorant or apathetic to vote on their own, they have no business voting because they are generally clueless.
I have Australian friends, and one thing I've asked them about is their compulsury voting laws. They don't like it. My one friend is very apolitical and she votes for herself, because she really doesn't care to understand the issues. I respect that more than her voting for one person or another without investigating them.
I like freedom. Freedom means being able to be stupid. Freedom means being able to hurt yourself. Freedom means not voting if you don't want to.
I'm 24. A lot of people my age don't care about the issues. I have more respect for people who don't know about the issues and don't vote, than I do for people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about and don't shut up about it.
I hope you don't argue for removal of the Electoral College. One terrible thing we did was change the Constitution to directly elect Senators.
If 'none of the above' is not an option, compulsory voting would probably be unconstitutional.
Owning a car or home isn't necessary, but I think in order to vote one must have actually PAID TAXES in their life!
I prefer the freedom of voting...or not voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.