Should voting be compulsory? [offtopic split from Gillard/Abbott Poll]

[Glockmeister]

Voting isn't compulsory. Showing up and having your name ticked off is.

Actually, legally, it is (s 245 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918). Although there's no way to actually tell if you spoiled your vote,  

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s245.html

[ninwa]

What's with all the misplaced outrage over arrogance and whatnot? Where did anyone suggest that the "less educated" or whatever should be banned from voting? The argument is merely that voting should not be compulsory, because then we are not forcing people who don't give a damn to do it. I'm for compulsory voting too, btw, but I think they have a valid point there.

[Mao]

Hehe, we are all so idealistic. In an ideal world, there will be no government, we make or own decisions, and we don't impose our decisions onto others. We won't need to vote, but the better decision makers will generally end up doing better than others.

But this is not an idealistic world. We have it roughly right in australia. Everyone, including some who may not make the best informed decision, get a say. There is nothing wrong with that, because all of these people are advised in one way or another about the new potential leaders and policies, and people like us, who are passionate about doing the right thing, always manage to get ourselves heard by the broader public.

The problem here is not who is allowed to vote, what we need to regulate is the ethics of political campaigns. What we really need is a popular correspondent giving the public a no-bs digest of all political parties, without bias, and let people decide on what they like, as opposed to making a decision from the media with extremist views flying from left, right and center.

[Eriny]

Also, at your point about "why don't we just let that one person make all the decisions", I'd like to point out that Plato for one would agree that that's probably the best choice (or some sort of system akin to that, wherein the smartest person is also advised by a council of other smart people...).

hehe, maybe Plato wanted to be leader? In any case, I'm familiar with Plato's critique of democracy and while he is right, I don't think meritocracy is any better, or much different actually. We vote for people who have characteristics that we value, and those who have the characteristics we value and the inclination to be the leader, would be deemed suitable as leader.
The only difference is that meritocracy would be more easily corrupted.

[Akirus]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

An observation I don't particularly care to defend, although I would think it's pretty clear if you take the equity glasses off.

[Glockmeister]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

An observation I don't particularly care to defend, although I would think it's pretty clear if you take the equity glasses off.

Hence it's an observation not worth caring about.

[Akirus]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

An observation I don't particularly care to defend, although I would think it's pretty clear if you take the equity glasses off.

Hence it's an observation not worth caring about.

Which I have noted since my first post. l2read?

[ninwa]

If it's not worth caring about... why make it so many times?

(lemme guess, you're arrogant and proud of it blahblahblah)

[Akirus]

It doesn't take too much effort to humor him with one-liners, and I need something to procrastinate with, right?

[Mao]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

An observation I don't particularly care to defend, although I would think it's pretty clear if you take the equity glasses off.

Hence it's an observation not worth caring about.

I disagree. Just because there has been no publications based on 'common sense' does not make him wrong. I have reached the same conclusion myself in my daily interaction with people around me, and if the society is anything like the people I interact with, I can safely say that a good portion of the population who do not make an informed decision.

Conversely, can you give evidence that suggest the majority of Australia actually know what they are doing in this respect? If you say yes, please give me some kind of evidence.

[Glockmeister]

No, but then again, I'm not making that assertion, am I Mao.

[Mao]

No, but then again, I'm not making that assertion, am I Mao.

That wasn't my main point. Just because an observation by Akirus was not based on or backed by literature does not make it invalid. He didn't care to defend that point because it will end up being a discussion on techniques of argument rather than the actual topic. Claiming that it's an "observation not worth caring about" sounds like to me that you are more interested in winning an argument than discussing the active topic, or rather, you prefer telling people they are wrong rather than trying to make a point.

But that is just my observation, and an observation I don't particularly care to defend. It's not really worth caring about, and completely off topic. I do however regret losing an active member who contributed content to this forum, and I do hope this thread is not the main reason for his departure.

/end off-topic.

[Eriny]

Well, at the 2007 Federal Election, about 94.76% of people voted for the House of Reps, 95.17% for the Senate. That's a very strong representation of the people there.

The other thing that I'm hinting is that there a spot of arrogance happening here. The average Australian is somehow 'incapable' of understanding the issues. What evidence is there for this assertion?

Empirical evidence, although I don't mind if you choose to treat that as arrogance.

Is it of a form that I can cite it in? Or is it merely your personal observations?

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

An observation I don't particularly care to defend, although I would think it's pretty clear if you take the equity glasses off.

Hence it's an observation not worth caring about.

I disagree. Just because there has been no publications based on 'common sense' does not make him wrong. I have reached the same conclusion myself in my daily interaction with people around me, and if the society is anything like the people I interact with, I can safely say that a good portion of the population who do not make an informed decision.

Conversely, can you give evidence that suggest the majority of Australia actually know what they are doing in this respect? If you say yes, please give me some kind of evidence.

But the point of voting is to figure out what a good decision is. You don't judge what is a good or bad decision for everyone, and not agreeing with someone doesn't mean that they're making a bad decision. Also, you can't generalise all Australians on your tiny sample size, even if you were a fit judge to tell how good their decision-making processes are!

Most people tend to make fairly logical decisions. Unless they're suicidal, they just want the best for themselves and will make choices to that end. After all, why would they want to make a bad decision? Some are probably easily manipulated by politicians and marketers and peers, but if reality doesn't meet their expectations, they become livid. In any case,nobody is worse at it than anyone else, because we all do the best we can with the information we have.

[laynie]

No, I can't be bothered registering.