Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Should know very soon who the candidates will be. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:
1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off.
This. In our local election all candidates were claiming to be pro-jobs which resulted in a small parcel of land off my street being developed into a high density residential area and screwing over everyone's house prices. I wrote a mean word next to every candidates name because I'm mature :) The issue could be people who randomly tick boxes when they vote because they're uninformed and don't care. I would think this would make up an insignificant percentage of the total vote.
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system....
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... I would think the average Joe would be worse off. People who work 50+ hours a week and can't be bothered researching which politician to vote for. Out of curiosity, how are the poor and vulnerable worse off? I think if we were voluntary, we'd have a lot more power with the Greens and other extreme parties. As it stands, people vote labour or LNP because they have to vote.
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... As a point of relevance, there was a peer reviewed paper (happy to link) written about why the poor in America vote, on average, against their own economic self interest. Briefly, it was because the right wing Republican Party manipulate them through religion. Would you agree we are less religious? I think it would be less of an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... As a point of relevance, there was a peer reviewed paper (happy to link) written about why the poor in America vote, on average, against their own economic self interest. Briefly, it was because the right wing Republican Party manipulate them through religion. Would you agree we are less religious? I think it would be less of an issue. America has legalized gay marriage in many states (don't know actual numbers) and yet we have not. While they may identify as more religious, especially through polls, they're at least more progressive (on this front at least). While media focuses on the 'crazy evangelists', are we really much different? Do any schools in Australia actively teach creationism?
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
The general rule with voluntary voting is that the young, and the poor, generally vote in lower numbers than the retired and the wealthy.
So it increases the voting power of those who generally vote more to the right than the left.
Obviously, because we have had compulsory voting for so long, it is hard to measure what would occur here, but that skewing of the voter demographic vs the population demographic is seen across many countries with voluntary voting, not just the USA.
Also - there is the issue about parties spending money to get people out to vote. I think that voluntary voting would turbo charge political fundraising. And we already have some of the most lax fundraising disclosure laws already.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... As a point of relevance, there was a peer reviewed paper (happy to link) written about why the poor in America vote, on average, against their own economic self interest. Briefly, it was because the right wing Republican Party manipulate them through religion. Would you agree we are less religious? I think it would be less of an issue. America has legalized gay marriage in many states (don't know actual numbers) and yet we have not. While they may identify as more religious, especially through polls, they're at least more progressive (on this front at least). While media focuses on the 'crazy evangelists', are we really much different? Do any schools in Australia actively teach creationism? I would argue that the USA is a country of extremes - you look at New York, LA, and some other areas and they have political preferences that you could recognise as European, and certainly more similar to us. It is in other areas like the mid-west and the bible belt that produce the evangelical brand of politics we recognise as "crazy American". If you ever look at a US voting map, you will see that (broadly speaking) the coasts vote Democrat, and the centre votes republican.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... As a point of relevance, there was a peer reviewed paper (happy to link) written about why the poor in America vote, on average, against their own economic self interest. Briefly, it was because the right wing Republican Party manipulate them through religion. Would you agree we are less religious? I think it would be less of an issue. America has legalized gay marriage in many states (don't know actual numbers) and yet we have not. While they may identify as more religious, especially through polls, they're at least more progressive (on this front at least). While media focuses on the 'crazy evangelists', are we really much different? Do any schools in Australia actively teach creationism? I would argue that the USA is a country of extremes - you look at New York, LA, and some other areas and they have political preferences that you could recognise as European, and certainly more similar to us. It is in other areas like the mid-west and the bible belt that produce the evangelical brand of politics we recognise as "crazy American". If you ever look at a US voting map, you will see that (broadly speaking) the coasts vote Democrat, and the centre votes republican. Oh of course, that's why they place so much emphasis on the swing states that aren't nailed to a particular side.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:The general rule with voluntary voting is that the young, and the poor, generally vote in lower numbers than the retired and the wealthy.
So it increases the voting power of those who generally vote more to the right than the left.
Obviously, because we have had compulsory voting for so long, it is hard to measure what would occur here, but that skewing of the voter demographic vs the population demographic is seen across many countries with voluntary voting, not just the USA.
Also - there is the issue about parties spending money to get people out to vote. I think that voluntary voting would turbo charge political fundraising. And we already have some of the most lax fundraising disclosure laws already. This was my thought but all you have to do is go to a university these days and see the Greenies and Socialists going nuts. It certainly was the case 6 years ago at Griffith. That's why I think the Greens would get more power, the radical parties have some access to the young demographic. It costs an astronomical amount of money to get elected in the USA right? Like 10's of millions?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Iowa caucus underway. Cruz appears to be in front of Trumpies. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Very interesting article.
I think over here we sometimes underestimate the importance of generating enthusiasm in US elections. With compulsory voting, we don't have to enthuse people in order to get them to vote. You only need to get them to vote your way.
I think compulsory voting is a good safeguard against charisma being too much of a defining factor as to who gets voted for. And it also ensures that everyone's interests are more likely to be catered to, rather than those who vote in a voluntary system (old and rich). Totally disagree. It's hypocritical to call ourselves a democracy and then make voting booth attendance compulsory. Population size is irrelevant. If people choose not to care about politics, that's their decision. That's democratic. 2 points in response: 1) You are not actually required to vote. You are only required to have your name marked off the electoral roll. So if you had an ethical position of not wanting to vote for anyone, you can just walk off once your name is marked off. 2) I actually agree with you in principle, as I am generally pro-civil liberties. However, I think the practical implications are problematic, hence why I agree with this slight imposition on freedom for this specific case. The main reason is that if we got rid of compulsory voting tomorrow then you would increase the incentive for political parties to raise money - they would have to spend in order to encourage people to turn up. Increased electoral spending will then create problems like you see in the USA regarding catering to special interests in exchange for donations. That does exist in Australia now, but will dramatically worsen. The other issue is the simple fact that the people who will not vote are the young, the poor, and minorities. They are generally disengaged from the political process as is. Remove compulsory voting and they will disproportionately drop out of the process altogether. I don't disagree with you in principle. However, I think the consequences on the most vulnerable in society of the alternative means that I think the current arrangement is preferable. Out of interest, what percentage of eligible voters do you think would vote in elections in Australia if we made voting voluntary? In 1922 (the last federal election with voluntary voting) the turnout was only 59%. Council elections in South Australia are not compulsory - in 2014 the turnout was only 30% or so. I realise council elections are not the same as federal/state elections, but I would be worried about turnout if we got rid of compulsory voting. As I clearly stated, you have to attend the voting booth, with the threat of a fine if you don't. Undemocratic. Plain & simple. How about the issue I raised regarding how it affects the voting demographic? I would have assumed that you would share my concerns that the poor and vulnerable are worse off under a voluntary voting system.... As a point of relevance, there was a peer reviewed paper (happy to link) written about why the poor in America vote, on average, against their own economic self interest. Briefly, it was because the right wing Republican Party manipulate them through religion. Would you agree we are less religious? I think it would be less of an issue. America has legalized gay marriage in many states (don't know actual numbers) and yet we have not. While they may identify as more religious, especially through polls, they're at least more progressive (on this front at least). While media focuses on the 'crazy evangelists', are we really much different? Do any schools in Australia actively teach creationism? I would argue that the USA is a country of extremes - you look at New York, LA, and some other areas and they have political preferences that you could recognise as European, and certainly more similar to us. It is in other areas like the mid-west and the bible belt that produce the evangelical brand of politics we recognise as "crazy American". If you ever look at a US voting map, you will see that (broadly speaking) the coasts vote Democrat, and the centre votes republican. Oh of course, that's why they place so much emphasis on the swing states that aren't nailed to a particular side. Plus the whole electoral college thing amplifies the importance of swing states. The Presidential vote isn't derived from the popular vote. For example, California has 30-something delegates. If you win California you win ALL the delegates. Even if you win by one vote. Some states do split the delegates in line with the proportion of the vote captured, but in most states it is "winner takes all". I think that this amplifies the polarisation of political viewpoints, eg a conservative Republican has no incentive to campaign in California because he knows he won't win it - whether he loses by 10% or 30% is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:The general rule with voluntary voting is that the young, and the poor, generally vote in lower numbers than the retired and the wealthy.
So it increases the voting power of those who generally vote more to the right than the left.
Obviously, because we have had compulsory voting for so long, it is hard to measure what would occur here, but that skewing of the voter demographic vs the population demographic is seen across many countries with voluntary voting, not just the USA.
Also - there is the issue about parties spending money to get people out to vote. I think that voluntary voting would turbo charge political fundraising. And we already have some of the most lax fundraising disclosure laws already. This was my thought but all you have to do is go to a university these days and see the Greenies and Socialists going nuts. It certainly was the case 6 years ago at Griffith. That's why I think the Greens would get more power, the radical parties have some access to the young demographic. It costs an astronomical amount of money to get elected in the USA right? Like 10's of millions? Yes - but those greenie and socialist uni activists don't represent many people. They are a small minority within the uni population, let alone the general population. About $7 billion was spent by candidates, parties and outside groups on the 2012 Presidential election – beating even the unprecedented expected total of $6 billion, according to a review of campaign finance reports by the Federal Election Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
"Donald Trump is 4.6 points down, in second place, behind Ted Cruz, in first place, in the Iowa Republican caucuses with 47.23% reporting". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/feb/01/iowa-caucus-vote-live-donald-trump-ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016"The Democratic race looks extremely close, with Clinton leading Sanders 51 percent to 48 percent. BUT, it’s going to be very difficult for Sanders to make up that deficit. There simply aren’t a lot of “Bernie blowout” zones. In very liberal, academic Iowa City (Johnson County), Bernie is leading by 15 percentage points, but that’s not as huge a lead as he might have expected there. And his leads elsewhere aren’t nearly as large. Plus, there’s still a good chunk of Clinton-friendly Polk (Des Moines) still out". http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
The talk is that Trump may drop down to 3rd place now! "With 69.19% of results in on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is holding a 50.7-48.6 lead over Bernie Sanders in Iowa. The state awards its 44 Democratic delegates proportionally. On the Republican side, with 62.34% reporting, it’s something of a three-way race, with 1/Cruz (28.3) 2/Trump (25.0) and 3/Rubio (21.9)". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/feb/01/iowa-caucus-vote-live-donald-trump-ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Sanders v Trump would be the glamour matchup
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
News channels are now projecting Cruz as winner. Trump still in 2nd but Rubio gaining.
Sanders has closed the gap on Hillary, less than 1% difference now. But the thinking is that she is still favourite given that the areas yet to be counted are expected to be pro-Hillary.
O'Malley (Dem) and Huckabee (Rep) have officially dropped out.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Cruz won, Trump 2nd and Rubio a close 3rd. Rubio did remarkably well, but I suspect this is due to the caucusing system. In a normal vote, all those establishment people would have stayed with Jeb/Kasich etc.
Wasn't overly surprised Cruz won, he threw all his money and effort into the overly conservative and very white state of Iowa. Trump holds a 20 point lead in New Hampshire, so it will be interesting to see if that changes.
If Sanders loses this he is done.
Edited by 433: 2/2/2016 02:43:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Hillary with a lead of just .2% now with 89.65% of the votes counted.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Cruz gets 6 delegates, Trump and Rubio each with 5.
The only thing that Cruz really gets out of today is the headlines.
Cmon Bernie !
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 520,
Visits: 0
|
Poor Chris Christie
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton. According to our targets at the Cook Political Report, Bernie Sanders would have needed to win twice as many delegates as Clinton in Iowa to be “on track” for the nomination. He’s nowhere near that tonight. http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/
|
|
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I want America to #FeelTheBern.
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I've been following the results on fivethirtyeight.com - run by Nate Silver. He is the guy that predicted nearly every state correctly in the last presidential election. I thought this was interesting regarding the republican vote:
Let’s check in on something that we haven’t touched on in a bit: GOP delegate math. If current results hold up, Cruz will win 8 delegates, Trump and Rubio 7 delegates each. By our estimates, Cruz and Trump needed 12 to be “on track” for the nomination, and Rubio needed 10. Granted, Iowa accounts for just 1.2 percent of all delegates to the GOP convention. However, so far Rubio is 70 percent on track, Cruz is 67 percent on track, and Trump is only 58 percent on track.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Nate Silver goes on to say:
The fact that there are three fascinating stories coming out on the Republican side tonight — Cruz winning, Rubio rising and Trump failing — is a little bit of a blessing for Hillary Clinton. Even on MSNBC, with its Democratic-leaning viewership, the Republican race has been the lead story for most of the night, instead of how close Bernie Sanders has kept pace with her.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
salmonfc wrote:I want America to #FeelTheBern. No surprises there.
|
|
|
|
|
JP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|