One of Nora's upmarket chums, Leigh, has an
interesting piece on possible Australian electoral reforms.
While he is ambivalent about the opportunity to reinstitute voluntary voting, I have a somewhat different opinion.
A linked item in Leigh's blog notes that 'Australia introduced compulsory voting in 1924 after voter turnout languished at 59.38 per cent in the 1922 federal election.' However, this does not explain the real reason for the introduction of compulsory voting.
Vern Hughes covers part of the actuality
here (scroll down the discussion thread to read his post in full).
The gist of Vern's comment is:
"Compulsory voting was introduced in 1924 after both majors got a shock in the 1923 federal election when a number of independent candidates polled very well. These were loosely co-ordinated in a group called the Australian Guild of Political Freelances... (that) was concerned about the rise of the party system and its implications for parliament and political participation. Cynicism about the democratic process was strong in this period, similar in many respects to the current period.
When both majors got a shock in the 1923 federal election, they colluded to introduce compulsory voting, which "dealt with" the cynicism issue, and made electoral outcomes much more predictable, particularly in so-called "safe" Liberal and Labor seats. Thereafter, the majors had no fear of losing to an independent in these safe seats - for the next three generations."
The fact is the collusion was a backroom deal done outside of the parliament by the two major parties and was also influenced by the large amount of money they could save by not having to campaign against independents.
The sheer shonky big party manipulation of the electorate for power and money represented by this gives compulsory voting a morally indefensible foundation which taints its legitimacy even 80 years later.
Leigh raises one point I can embrace as a valid point in argument for compulsory voting - the 'responsibility' factor - but I still can't bring myself to support the concept of the population being forced to vote.
I believe the stunningly low standard of political candidates in Australia is due almost entirely to compulsory voting. If the parties really had to fight to get voters out, they would be more interested in being truly responsive to the electorate and fielding quality candidates.
As it stands, with many voters leaning left or right 'bacause me dad did' (or 'because me dad voted for the others') or simply because they like or don't like the look of a candidate, the advantage of non-compulsory voting is, quite frankly, that it allows morons who'd vote according to the above or any other daft reason to voluntarily disengage from the process and leaves the selection of government to those who actually care and think criticially about how they cast their vote.
I suspect this would result, over a period of time, in higher standards of political discourse generally.
I might add the above concept isn't original - I saw it advanced many years ago with reference, I think, to voting in the Netherlands. The comment was to the effect that one could trace the level to which government was engaging effectively with the people by the level of voter turnout. Parties and governments used turnout as a kind of barometer which showed that if turnout was falling, they needed to lift their game.
Here in Australia, however, why try to lift your game? You can keep fielding the same old tired candidates and young cannon fodder with no worries because turnout is guaranteed to be high - on penalty of a fine.
-- NickNote: I originally posted this item in part as a comment on Leigh's site but decided to also post here after experiencing some techo problems with my rather overlong comment.
