I partially disagree. It's the option of having a say, not being forced to have a say when you are aware that you don't know about the issues, that's important.
And not everyone who doesn't want to vote is just "disillusioned" or "ceebs". Personally, I've been going out of my way to read and understand policy and economics. But my knowledge and understanding of these two is severely limited, try as I might. As I read here on AN in this megathread, I realise that I have nfi what goes on. I read about the likes of kingpomba and mao saying this, that and the other and I'm like wtf do these mean, wtf could be the implications of such a policy? Sure, I can form my own theories, and that's what they are, just theories. May be right, may be wrong. Sure, I can go out of my way to fully understand the ins and outs of economics and policy, but I have other things to do - such as try and pass my degree for god's sake.
I don't think this is a legitimate reason. I'm not expecting everyone who votes to be completely engaged in the political process. That would be a) unreasonable and b) a bit unfair, given socio-economic disadvantage and access to the appropriate materials. You forming theories on policies is completely sufficient - voting is about making a (somewhat) informed decision, not about knowing the ins and outs of everything like certain observers will. After all democracies are formed for the most part by 'average citizens' - those whom engage in day to day activities removed from the political sphere, but need to be aware of how governing affects them.
So leading onto a second point, I disagree with EL2012. Compulsory voting is one of the few incentives that people have to remain socially engaged and aware of how policy affects them. A world where governments aren't held accountable scares me, as does the thought that people will claim 'ignorance' because they simply don't have time to keep up with the political process, and hence expect that others will keep the government honest for them because they are ostensibly more engaged.
I don't think there's such a thing as a 'best person' to make a vote - like I said, that would be exclusive. Everyone's opinion should be respected, no matter if you're left or right and I completely expect that with each passing election more and more people will realise how they are inextricably linked to political going ons, and hence be motivated to keep up. Are you really satisfied putting your fate into the hands of others, just because you believe you aren't the most well-equipped individual to vote? If we did adopt that system of 'only people who know enough to vote' the electoral role would be cut down to probably less than a million people.
Only 50% of people aged between 50% to 80% were enrolled to vote this year just a few months ago. Thanks to the AEC, Get Up! and Count Me In that number was increased drastically. Maybe this is the reason the ALP held half the seats they did? Or the reason that Adam Bandt managed to hold on to his seat despite the LNP telling their voters to preference the ALP over the Greens? These things are important.
If you feel like the only thing you're catered to voting on is social policy Thushan, so be it. That's enough to make a conscientious decision. But the information on economics is easily available out there, and it literally takes all of five minutes to find independent sources that'll outline and explain fiscal policies for you. Even if not for the sake of voting, you and everyone else should know this stuff anyway. Democratic process doesn't begin and end with one election day every three years. It's a continual process of making sure that the government are representing the people.
The beauty of preferential voting is something else.
Hypothetical example: The Greens clearly have the most humane asylum seeker policy, so if that's something you believe in a vote for them ensures that issue is privileged in the national agenda. They almost certainly won't win in your seat, but from your first preference vote they obtain funding and the major parties realise there are serious Greens supporters out there.
A vote for the Greens is also a vote for climate change action, if for no other reason than to protect yourself and your children and grandchildren and so on from suffering because of the actions of us and our parents.
You don't have to be a macroeconomist or a political science major or whatever else to understand politicking. The information is so easily obtained, and ensuring that political process represents your needs and desires is infinitely more important than anything else you'll do. You cited trying to pass your degree as a reason that you don't have time to keep up. This is a legitimate concern, but consider, will your studying get any easier once the government cuts university funding so your class sizes get bigger, your lecturer's salaries get lower, they start striking, have less time to provide support, etc? Everything is interlinked.
To reiterate, I don't think there's such thing as someone who believes their say in who should form government is less legitimate than anyone else's. That's a matter of the individual themselves lessening their awareness of political going-ons. If everyone cited this, who would vote at all? And you shouldn't be scared to express your opinions because you might appear outside of the social norm because a) difference of opinions is among the most important social elements and b) it forces you to challenge your opinions, constantly bettering yourself and ensuring your decisions and actions are well reasoned.
Home
Help
Search
Login
