Sorry Jeff, but it is just generally useless. For many many reasons.
Exercising your right to vote also includes the right not to vote. Some people (not myself, I vote in every possible election) would even tell you that it is the most supreme expression of that right. And how is not voting any different than going down to the polling station and registering a 'protest' vote? Sounds like government excess at its finest.
The argument that gives me the shits is the 'voting is a civic responsibility' crap. Fuck that, a real civic responsibility is getting people who don't vote to vote. Getting the vote out is the easiest, and most effective expression of civic responsibility that you can do. Getting up, and explaining to other people, 'Hey, this is how I feel, and this is why I think you should feel the same way I do' is a hell of a lot bigger, and more important responsibility than 'Well, I guess I'm going to go vote now because I have to'. Being pro-compulsory voting to me is the same as being pro-compulsory anything. Compulsory military service? What about compulsory identification cards? Neither is good. The ability to choose is the basis on which all freedom is defined. And that choice you make when you wait too long, or sit on your ass and watch life pass you by is still a choice. Please, let me decide how I want to express myself.
And yes, by having a large non-voting population, it does mean that politicians are pandering to a minority of the population. However, I would be willing to wager that the minority they pander to is fairly representative of the majority. The voting population (percentage wise) is generally fairly even to the eligable voting population. Because of this, you don't get this 'catering to a smaller market' effect. I don't think any study has every shown that people vote based on their race, religion, etc, etc. It is just a smaller population exercises its right to vote.
As an American living in Canada (for 2 years and 3 days now), I have been able to witness both a 'democratic' electoral process and a 'parliamentary' electoral process. The 2 party democratic process and the multi-party parliamentary process are far more similar than most people realize. Sure, you occasionally get a minority government, but generally they are either relatively ineffectual and are quickly dissolved, or two parties whose views are so similar they might as well be the same party are joined at the hip for a little while. I moved here when the Liberal party had a clear hold over the parliament, and now they have formed a minorty government with a more 'liberal' party. Has anything changed? It's too soon to tell, but will anything change? Not likely. The democratic process as it exists in America would fail on a large scale if a serious third party were ever introduced. History has shown that the American population has gravitated to the two party setup.
To me, people who don't care to vote shouldn't be forced to, as that is a hell of a lot closer to fascism than the 'viable third parties' compulsory voting might bring us. And judging by the makeup of the Australian Senate and House those viable third parties look to be pretty useless in reality. Looks to me like a 2 party system with a bunch of minority parties that are incapable of doing anything against the 2 main parties. Kinda reminds me of America... So, the fascist state is the one with the ability to not vote? Huh? Judging the American political system by its recent failing is just a mistake. The system isn't even close to fascist, just the asshat in charge of it right now.
</rant>
Posted by tberman at August 6, 2004 09:16 AM