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

[ninwa]

I personally believe that any citizen affected by government policy should be entitled to vote - including young people and prisoners.

Agreed

[Glockmeister]

In a compulsory voting system, what influences elections most are swing voters. Many are those people are the informed opinion. Informed enough that they are willing to hold their vote (because they don't hold an ideology, or aren't lifetime voters of a particular party) until election day (although this bunch might also have the people not interested in politics). This is why parties pander to these folk.

In a non-compulsory voting system, those who aren't sure come election day don't vote (unless there has been a major political controversy or crisis). Hence you get these more extremist people into power though apathy.

If they are so...informed then they would know that they need to make a decision and vote. If they're not sure, they shouldn't vote. That is my point. There will be reasonable out there who will vote and ensure non-extremism.

Yeah, but they'll be a small minority against those who do hold what might be extremist positions. That's the problem.

Basically whoever gains powers is not necessarily representative of the entire country.

[iffets12345]

I personally believe that any citizen affected by government policy should be entitled to vote - including young people and prisoners.

Agreed

Non-compulsory voting won't take away this right, it's simply giving the uninformed people the choice to not affect the vote.

And, just because someone gains power in a way that is representative of the entire country, what if the country makes crap decisions. Not saying we Australians do, just if.....

[Akirus]

In a compulsory voting system, what influences elections most are swing voters. Many are those people are the informed opinion. Informed enough that they are willing to hold their vote (because they don't hold an ideology, or aren't lifetime voters of a particular party) until election day (although this bunch might also have the people not interested in politics). This is why parties pander to these folk.

In a non-compulsory voting system, those who aren't sure come election day don't vote (unless there has been a major political controversy or crisis). Hence you get these more extremist people into power though apathy.

If they are so...informed then they would know that they need to make a decision and vote. If they're not sure, they shouldn't vote. That is my point. There will be reasonable out there who will vote and ensure non-extremism.

Yeah, but they'll be a small minority against those who do hold what might be extremist positions. That's the problem.

Basically whoever gains powers is not necessarily representative of the entire country.

You are assuming that it is possible for the entire country to be represented. Unless you mean it in a very loose sense, it is impossible for the entire country to be represented by any singular entity. Moreover, I maintain that even if such a true representation of the entire body of the population were to be empowered, given the nature and intelligence (or lack thereof) of the average citizen, it would truly be a disaster to behold.

Then again, I don't really know shit about politics so disregard that.

[EvangelionZeta]

I think the lesson to be learnt here is that as Plato argued, democracy sucks.  Philosopher King ftw.

[Akirus]

I think the lesson to be learnt here is that as Plato argued, democracy sucks.  Philosopher King ftw.

Very much agreed.

[slothpomba]

Reminds me of a quote from civilization: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. "

I reckon its the best we got so far (socialism is great in theory and i was really into it for a while, i realised it wont work in practice). Sure it has its downsides but i still reckon its a pretty good system.

[iffets12345]

given the nature and intelligence (or lack thereof) of the average citizen,

Exactement.

Reminds me of a quote from civilization: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. "

I reckon its the best we got so far (socialism is great in theory and i was really into it for a while, i realised it wont work in practice). Sure it has its downsides but i still reckon its a pretty good system.

Yea agreed. Except, I am the kind of person who would like to earn more if I worked harder, and not share. . as mean as it is.

[Glockmeister]

In a compulsory voting system, what influences elections most are swing voters. Many are those people are the informed opinion. Informed enough that they are willing to hold their vote (because they don't hold an ideology, or aren't lifetime voters of a particular party) until election day (although this bunch might also have the people not interested in politics). This is why parties pander to these folk.

In a non-compulsory voting system, those who aren't sure come election day don't vote (unless there has been a major political controversy or crisis). Hence you get these more extremist people into power though apathy.

If they are so...informed then they would know that they need to make a decision and vote. If they're not sure, they shouldn't vote. That is my point. There will be reasonable out there who will vote and ensure non-extremism.

Yeah, but they'll be a small minority against those who do hold what might be extremist positions. That's the problem.

Basically whoever gains powers is not necessarily representative of the entire country.

You are assuming that it is possible for the entire country to be represented. Unless you mean it in a very loose sense, it is impossible for the entire country to be represented by any singular entity. Moreover, I maintain that even if such a true representation of the entire body of the population were to be empowered, given the nature and intelligence (or lack thereof) of the average citizen, it would truly be a disaster to behold.

Then again, I don't really know shit about politics so disregard that.

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?

[Yitzi_K]

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

[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.

[Fyrefly]

I think voting should be compulsory.

People can always put in a dummy vote if they really don't care or don't want to vote.
But most people, once they've gone to the effort of visiting the polling booths, usually take the time to vote properly.
It doesn't matter whether a person is "smart" or "dumb"; their opinion counts just as equally as everyone else's.

[Akirus]

I love the way people are talking about the (to paraphrase) 'ignorant, stupid lower-class, who shouldn't be trusted with a spoon, let alone a vote'.

Bunch of snobs you all are. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who watches Today Tonight shouldn't be allowed a vote. The size of the superiority complex going around here is sickening. Getting good SAC marks doesn't qualify you to vote any more or less than being an apprentice brickie does.

Superiority complex? Sounds like me.

That said, I'd like to make the clarification that I've made no mention of an individual's right to vote, in the capacity of their perceived/true 'intelligence' or otherwise. I just made a passing remark which is more or less irrelevant to the topic at hand and I don't particularly wish to become embroiled in the argument.

[Eriny]

Dumb people are still affected by the government's decisions, I don't see why their voting makes people uncomfortable.

[Yitzi_K]

Whilst you may be smart enough to figure things out for yourself, like I said before, people are just swayed by others or the media.

And you think you are too clever to be swayed by the media? Get over yourself. Everyone is swayed by the media to some degree. It doesn't matter if you read The Age or the mX, your information comes from what you read.

@kingpomba: Today Tonight and A Current Affair aren't supposed to be providing the mainstream news, hence why they come after the news on their respective channels. You can't compare them to SBS World News, they're supposed to provide an entirely different style of reporting.
And SBS news is hardly perfect either, I have plenty of gripes about them. If you only get your news from there, please don't think you're being fed purely objective and unbiased views.

A large proportion of the population is incapable of doing that. They make ill-informed decisions because of media bias, misunderstanding and general ignorance.

I'd like to see your evidence for this please. If you have none, I think you should refrain from making blanket generalisations which disparage the entire population.