The Dishonesty Of Compulsory Voting

The only thing compulsory about compulsory voting in Australia is having your name crossed off at a polling place. You don’t even have to turn up and do it yourself: I’ve never been asked for ID when voting.

If an Australian citizen wishes, they can have their name marked off on the electoral roll, collect their ballot paper(s), then simply put them into the collection boxes blank, or even just walk out with them. Alternatively, they could cover their ballot paper(s) in obscenities, political protest slogans, or draw new boxes and vote for other people (which would count as informal of course).

None of the above is illegal. Even if it were, the secrecy of the ballot means there would be no way to police such conduct.

We could employ new technology to have say, touch screen voting in booths which informs the voter of any procedural errors and does not accept a vote until it is formal. It could even have software which would scan a voter ID and only record that person as having voted after a valid vote was registered, without recording the nature of the vote against the voter ID, to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Whether people would trust that link not to be made is a distinct issue.

So, we now have the technology to make voting truly compulsory. But do we want to go to these lengths to force people to express a political preference which is clearly not sufficiently strongly held for them do so voluntarily?

A RIGHT means having an option to exercise a choice. It also means having an option to abstain from making any choice. A compulsory choice is a form of duty, a very different concept from a right.

If people actually believe that voting is a civic duty which should be enforced, then be honest and say so.

I don’t. I think it’s a moral duty of citizens to understand and participate in the political process in an open society, however I don’t believe that this particular moral duty (among others) should be enforced by law.

In a free society, people have a right to deliberate ignorance, as long as they have no commensurate right to complain about its consequences. Choosing to remain ignorant of civics in a free society is immoral because it wastes rights which were in many cases hard won over in some instances, centuries. But I don’t want to live in a society which polices non-invasive moral choices, as opposed to letting the natural consequences (if any) of those choices be their sanction.

A proposal canvassing the repeal of compulsory voting in a green paper on election reform for the Queensland government has met with the usual dishonest claims from the left of “an attack on democracy”, from our most honest PM, no less. The Courier Mail even ran an opinion piece by left wing academic Paul Williams, in which he claimed the proposal is “undemocratic”, then provided no argument to support this statement.

This is how the left typically responds to calls for voluntary voting.

Some people on both sides of politics actually believe voting to be a duty which should be compulsory and that reluctant citizens need to be “encouraged” to engage in the democratic process for their own good and the ultimate good of society. There are also many who believe that the franchise is a right which citizens may choose to exercise (or not).

However, most on the left argue against voluntary voting because they know it will decrease the left’s vote. That’s also why most people on the right argue in favour of it. If it would decrease the right’s vote, they’d be arguing against it and the left would be in favour and arguing the right not to vote as a democratic choice.

If pressed, the left will admit that of the people who only vote because it’s compulsory, the overwhelming majority vote Labor or Green. They then try to counter that it’s undemocratic if those people’s choices aren’t counted.

But their choices are being counted in a voluntary voting system as much as any votes for minor parties which exhaust in an optional preferential system. Some people who would choose not to vote at all would do so because they don’t like any of the candidates, or the political process in general. Such actions are also democratic choices.

However, most people who choose not to vote would do so because they are simply too ignorant and feckless to make the effort to understand even the basics of contemporary political issues, make up their mind as to which policies they support, then get themselves to a polling station and vote accordingly. What they are saying by not voting is that either they don’t care enough about who is in government and making decisions which affect their lives to do anything about it, or they don’t think it will make any difference anyway. If that’s their view, how is it democratic that their vote counts equally to an educated citizen who does make the effort to grasp political issues?

It's telling that such people overwhelmingly choose left wing parties when forced to vote. The left would say that's because they represent the oppressed and such people are their constituents.

Oppression is not being able to vote. They just couldn't be bothered.

"But such people have been oppressed by society's unjust disparities all their lives. That's why they have lower educational outcomes, hence less understanding of politics and thus less interest in voting."

The oppression of the "social injustice" they have suffered is so great that they cannot voluntarily walk to the nearest polling booth and write a 1 next to the ALP candidate, yet are capable of doing just that if threatened with a fine? Really? Yes, that's right ... the lumpenproletariat cannot be expected to take responsibility for exercising their own rights. Their behaviour is determined by the injustice of their environment unless the state "helps" them.

If people who will only vote if forced are a material part of the ALP's constituency, it's no wonder voters are turning away from the party. It's all very well to pretend to represent the oppressed and downtrodden, but if you also hitch your wagon to the creed of laziness, ignorance, failure and envy (to paraphrase Winston Churchill), people who can make their own way in the world and take responsibility for their own wellbeing will find other parties to vote for (and actually turn up to vote).

The above statements will almost invariably educe accusations of snobbery, discrimination against minorities and thinly veiled racism. Yes, you’re right … because I’m aware that lower percentages of Aboriginals and migrants with poor English would vote were it not compulsory, preventing them voting must be my real motive, because they tend to have such a strong effect on electoral outcomes, living in marginal seats as they do. Actually, Aboriginal women helped deliver the recent NT election to the Liberals, significantly due to their disillusionment with the failed policies and preachy identity and grievance politics of urban Aboriginal activists on the left. Additionally, a lot of Aborigines don't vote even though it is in theory compulsory. How many of them do you think would ever receive a fine notice like I would?

I have heard the discrimination argument made several times and its dishonesty is symptomatic of the left’s predilection for ideology over reason and evidence. The equation of not requiring people to vote and actually disenfranchising them is an absurd non sequitur. Nobody is being prevented from voting.

“Oh, but migrants and Aborigines tend to find the whole voting process confusing and intimidating, so many of them won’t vote unless we encourage them.” But the right are the patronizing bastards.

Then you and your political party can go and encourage them. Go and explain to them how it all works. Get off your fucking arses and stop treating what you believe are your natural constituency as a captive bloc, like you do with Aborigines in the NT and migrants in working class, city electorates.

Actually, that’s true of all political parties. Voluntary voting would in this respect enhance the democratic process by forcing politicians to explain to people why they should make the effort to actually vote for them, not simply pick them as the least worst, forced choice.

On the flipside, if citizens find themselves being saddled with representatives they believe don’t represent them, maybe they will start to think a bit more about politics, so their future votes might actually mean something.

The dishonesty of the self serving arguments of the left and right in this debate has obscured an important philosophical argument as to whether voting in a democracy is a duty or a right. It also veils the laziness and arrogance of the major parties, particularly the ALP, who believe the coercive power of the state should deliver their natural constituencies to them on a platter each election. Is it any wonder politicians frequently hold the wishes of their electorates in such contempt?