jmtorres | Suffrage

Current Mood: hyper

Suffrage

During an utterly random conversation with

jcalanthe--I think we were trying to come up with countries least likely to take over the world--I ended up doing some reading on Luxembourg. And I discovered that they have compulsory suffrage.

I was kind of, well, dumbfounded. Somehow my American education never prepared me for the concept--we've spent so much of our history trying to prevent various groups from even being able to vote that it seems somehow counterintutive to say, "You MUST vote," 'cause, hell, "You CAN vote" has been the big improvement for said various groups in the last hundred fifty years.

So far, I've got Luxembourg, Australia, Paraguay, Singapore, Chile, and Albania. Where else is there compulsory suffrage? And, I know I have some Australians on my friends list--how do you feel about it? That seems like an inane question, but--just--I don't know. Does it promote more attention to politics? If you want to abstain due to lack of viable candidates, are you allowed to turn in a blank ballot? What is it like?

AND WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I'm henceforth putting compulsory suffrage into any government I design.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was in my twenties before I knew voting wasn't compulsory in most places. I was stunned and appalled, and still am. I just don't see how any government can claim any kind of mandate without being elected by the votes of the citizenry as a whole. To me, a government elected by 51% of, say, 11% of a nation has no credibility whatsoever.

People who really want to abstain can turn in a blank or invalid ballot, yes. This is called a "donkey vote". But they have to make a conscious decision about it - they still have to make the effort to show up at a polling booth (or postal voting, or whatever). There are fines for failing to do so. It's considered a responsibility of citizenship.

There's a suffrage chart with lots more compulsory-voting places here.

Thank you!

I thought donkey votes were when people turn in valid votes without actually bothering to see who they vote for, they just number/check the first box, or number all the boxes 1, 2, 3 etc. in order down the ballot. So being first on the ballot gives people the slight advantage. Of course, usage probably varies :) I'm definitely with you on being very surprised that voting wasn't compulsory everywhere.

I just don't see how any government can claim any kind of mandate without being elected by the votes of the citizenry as a whole. To me, a government elected by 51% of, say, 11% of a nation has no credibility whatsoever.

This makes a huge amount of sense to me. Gah. I've worked polls on election day--do you know how *excited* we get if *half* the registered voters show up?

But they have to make a conscious decision about it

Right. The situation I was thinking of was, I recall somebody talking about going to vote in the Bush/Gore election, and voting on all the congressman, senator, local stuff, but deciding they didn't want to vote for any of the presidential candidates.

There are fines for failing to do so.

Ah, so that's how it's compulsed. Huh.

How do I feel about it? Well, I don't really think about it very much. It's something I've always done.

We took citizen education at school and they taught us about the different levels of government, the voting process etc. I remember going to the voting booths with my parents at the school and wishing that I could vote, by the time I was 18 I was dying to put a tick in the box.

Now, well, it's something I do, I couldn't imagine not voting and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to.

It's not like we HAVE to vote, we get fined if we don't, and we can abstain for religious reasons, but I don't think very many people do.

It's possible to put in a blank form, the forms are anonymous, but what a waste. Shrug, I can't ever remember not paying attention to politics, I know some people don't, but we all have to when it comes to the elections.

I remember going to the voting booths with my parents at the school and wishing that I could vote, by the time I was 18 I was dying to put a tick in the box.

Yes! Me too! I remember getting into an argument on talkback radio when I was sixteen. I was furious that I couldn't vote! I knew who I wanted to vote for, and I was working and paying taxes, and I thought it was the height of injustice that I couldn't.

Here, you can apply to go on the electoral roll at 17, though you can't actually vote til 18 - that way you preserve your right to vote if your birthday falls after the administrative cutoff but before the election. Most people I knew applied as soon as they turned 17.

I knew who I wanted to vote for, and I was working and paying taxes, and I thought it was the height of injustice that I couldn't.

Some of the countries on the list you linked to allow people to vote younger if they work and/or are married. It looks like that's the norm in the Balkan states. Hm.

Here, you can apply to go on the electoral roll at 17, though you can't actually vote til 18

I think it's roughly the same here--we have the motor-voter registration deal, and you can get a driver's license at sixteen (in most areas) and still put in your voter registration at the same time.

We took citizen education at school and they taught us about the different levels of government, the voting process etc.

We had something like that, too--a semester Government class.

I couldn't imagine not voting and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to.

This is... the *ideal* we try to reach with voluntary voting and never, ever achieve. Argh.

*g* I was about 16 when I realised that Americans didn't have to vote, and I just couldn't understand the concept. Then I found out the way in which votes are counted, and decided that the American system of government is simply crazy. (I always had my concerns, but this settled it for me:))

We have to vote. And yes, we often bitch about it. But that's because as a nation, we tend to be whiney bludgers.

(I turned 18 less than a year ago, so voted for the first time this year. I actually forgot about it completely. At about 3pm my sister wandered in to my room as I was getting ready to go out, and asked me what voting was like. I kinda went 'shit!' and ran down to the public school, bitching all the way *g*)

It's not that big a deal. Takes maybe ten minutes every couple of years. And I think we have a really good system. The only way that you can have a truly representative result is if everyone participates. It does mean that you have to pay attention to everything that's going on in the political world. And while some unlucky people have to shake the Prime Minister's hand when he goes out scouting for votes, well, that's the price you have to pay for a fair system.

No-one watches you post your ballot- you can do whatever you want to it (keeping in mind that if you fill it out wrongly it won't count). In a federal election I'm well within my right to scrawl "John Howard is a dickhead" in black texta across the form. I'd be a bit of a idiot to do so (not because it isn't true, but I wouldn't want to waste my vote), but I have the option.

But your system is interesting too. I mean, the majority of the American population can look at Bush and say in all honesty "but we didn't vote for him". Here in Oz, we don't have that luxury. *sighs*

the majority of the American population can look at Bush and say in all honesty "but we didn't vote for him".

I'm not sure about that. In a democracy, the people are responsible for their leaders. The Majority of Americans should be getting him out, if it's true that they are the majority.

But the fact that they can't get him out means that either the United States isn't a true democracy, or that that majority of American citizens take it for granted. They just celebrate the 4th of July and don't vote.

The Majority of Americans should be getting him out, if it's true that they are the majority.

Unfortunately, this seems to be focused on Gray Davis.

If I recall correctly, which I may not, getting a president out of office is like amending the constitution; it requires a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, not a simple 51%.

But the fact that they can't get him out means that either the United States isn't a true democracy, or that that majority of American citizens take it for granted.

Both, pretty much.

USA is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It's a representative republic, and as we see here, the representational aspect is very questionable.

Then I found out the way in which votes are counted, and decided that the American system of government is simply crazy.

Electoral college? It's a states' rights thing; the little states don't want their opinions run roughshod over just because they don't have as many people. However, I think this should probably have been thrown out around when we became "the United States" rather than "these United States." State identity shouldn't allow a vote in South Dakota in a presidential election to be worth three times as much as a vote in California.

We have to vote. And yes, we often bitch about it. But that's because as a nation, we tend to be whiney bludgers.

*snerk*

It does mean that you have to pay attention to everything that's going on in the political world.

As people *should* be. I mean, it's how we live our lives that is being legislated.

And while some unlucky people have to shake the Prime Minister's hand when he goes out scouting for votes, well, that's the price you have to pay for a fair system.

*cracking up* Press the flesh!

I mean, the majority of the American population can look at Bush and say in all honesty "but we didn't vote for him".

A side issue from the percentage of the population that voted--a majority of the people who DID vote in that election can say in all honesty that they didn't vote for him. Bush Jr. is going to go down in American history as the false president. I truly believe this.

Now, if only we can keep him from getting re-selected.

on the one hand, i wondered how many of the 'john howard' votes were people who couldn't care less and just put something down. but on the other hand, the fiasco in america with george dubya and al gore could so easily have been avoided if people had been forced to vote, cos as it was only the dickwackers who wanted dubya voted and all the intelligent people went "oh as if they're any good, i'm staying home". ok, so that's a cynical view of the american voter, but eh *G*

basically i spent a lot of time thinking that compulsory voting is what leads to half the wankers in government, cos you're forced to vote even if you have no idea who anyone is, so you just tick random boxes. but the donkey vote is a key element here. if it's properly utilised, it works. cos the ones who seriously have no opinion don't get their vote counted, yet those who kind of have an opinion but wouldn't have gotten off the couch if voting was compulsory are having their say.

i'm pretty much coming from the point of view that "australias politicians so can't have been voted by a reasonable system" and "america's politicians were surely voted by an even worse one" and working out what all that means *g*

but the donkey vote is a key element here. if it's properly utilised, it works. cos the ones who seriously have no opinion don't get their vote counted,

How does this work? If random ticking produces an error like votes for two different people for the same office, the ballot is disqualified? But what if the voters engage in intelligent random ticking, ie, "One of these and one of those and okay, I'm done now"?

from the few elections i've been in i think how it works is you choose to either tick one above the line (parties) and as many more as you like, or [insert whatever they deem an appropriate number given the number of candidates] below the line (candidates) and as many more as you like. if you circle instead of tick or if you tick both above and below the line or if you write "mickey mouse" and put a tick next to his name your vote isn't counted. so basically only those with one or more ticks above the line and none below, or those with the relevant number or more ticks below the line and nothing above, will be counted.

Australian here. Suffrage by choice seems an odd thing when you first hear of it. Women got the vote in Australia in 1902, earlier in the state of South Australia (1894) and West Australia (1898). Aboriginal Australians did not get the vote till 1962. I'm not an expert but I think that prisoners serving under 5 years have a vote. You can vote at 18. The fines aren't that onerous ($20 - $100 I think. I forgot once and it wasn't very big.)

Australians have a range of opinions - from prefering the voluntary system to considering it vital to a democratic society.

I don't know if it promotes more attention to politics. My friends and I are politically active in some way or another but there are many who just see it as something you do on a Saturday morning every few years. You're not allowed to abstain unless you're sick or out of the country or have an otherwise good excuse although you can arrange to vote in any of these cases at an embassy or at the hospital. You can vote ahead of time.

People turn in blank ballots, people make mistakes, people write rude notes, add candidates on their ballots - the usual!

What's it like? I can't imagine not wanting to vote. I'd be a suffragette if we didn't have it.

Australians have a range of opinions - from prefering the voluntary system to considering it vital to a democratic society.

I'm sure you do. Did I come across as asking, "Will my Australian friends please speak for their entire country?" If so, whoops.

I'd be a suffragette if we didn't have it.

A suffragette for compulsory suffrage. I like it. *G*

I'm sure you do. Did I come across as asking, "Will my Australian friends please speak for their entire country?" If so, whoops.

Oh no. I got that you were asking for individual opinions, but you know, maybe you imagined that it was universally approved here. Or approved of a lot more than it is. You know.

*nodding* I'm sure I didn't encourage a lot of dissent, with my post...

I'm Australian, and very glad we have it. It doesn't guarantee that people participate more or follow more closely, but I think it helps. I've honestly never completely gotten over my surprise at learning (whenever I did) that voting wasn't compulsory in all countries.

I tend to think of it as that voting isn't a right, or a privilege, it's a responsibility. Like doing jury duty.

I tend to think of it as that voting isn't a right, or a privilege, it's a responsibility. Like doing jury duty.

We *say* that here, that it's a responsibility, but it's an empty phrase.

That's why I compare it to jury duty - cause you can't just not turn up for jury duty, or at least explain why you can't. And I'd much prefer to vote than to do jury duty (pain in the fricking ass, that was *g*).

USian, here. I like the idea of compulsory voting but only if there is also compulsory education about the people and bills being voted on. (Yes, me in my ideal world... we also have naked hobbits here.)

The only thing I can think of to support non-compulsory voting is - would you want people voted in by a majority of folks who a) don't care and b) don't have a clue?

And voting on bills is worse. It's hard enough to figure out what they're about if you care to read the text. If everyone had to vote, how many would bother to read it and think about it? How many would just vote arbitrarily, then we'd end up with bad laws?

Er, more bad laws. ;-)

but only if there is also compulsory education about the people and bills being voted on. (Yes, me in my ideal world... we also have naked hobbits here.)

What sort of compulsory education would you suggest? I think it would difficult and possibly irrelevant to produce objective informational packets... Maybe the thing to do would be to allow pro-people and con-people on any particular issue or candidate to put together information, have them checked for factual accuracy, and then... then how do you force the populace to read them?

A certain amount of education comes from the fact that you have to vote. You have to make an active decision to ignore politics rather than in non-compulsory nations where the decision is made for you.

Of course, intelligent people may always disagree over politics. That's life. Why do both our countries have leaders with policies I vehemently oppose? There's a question for a poli sci thesis.

It would be interesting to compare the attitude of citizens in places like the US and Australia with say, Singapore, where you get to vote but there's no point because you know who is going to win anyway, or Burma where you can vote but the military who rule the country put your leader of choice under house arrest.

American. I wanted to vote so badly, but I turned 18 the February after national elections in November 1998. It made me angry because I couldn't vote, and my friend who was only 100 days older than me could.

I vote in every election, local, state, national, because it's my duty as a citizen, and a right that women in this country fought for before I was even born.

I didn't know some countries had compulsory voting until a few years ago, but I think it's an excellent format.

*nodding* I turned 18 the March after Bush got in. I completely understand the frustration.

Compulsory suffrage sounds really cool, in some cases. I can see how it would backfire in others. Basically, what

zortified said about education.

But, man, if it would shake people out of some of that laziness and apathy... if only.

if it would shake people out of some of that laziness and apathy... if only.

Yeah. Dang it.

AND WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

It's always been one of those things that made me stop and wonder, myself. As an Aussie, it just seems natural that evberyone should have to vote. I guess it means that whoever gets elected does so based on his popularity to the lowest common denominator, not the intensity of his following.

*shruggs* I don't know, there's drawbacks to either system. Suffrage allows you to hear the voices of the lower class, those who are poor and/or mistreated, who may not have the finance, leisure time or education to have their opinions heard otherwise.

Of course, there's also the side effect of things like the people voting are not always those who actually know much about politics, the tendency to just vote for one of the main Parties (Labour/Liberal, which very roughly corresponds to Democrats/Republicans) and the fact that as there's no upper age limit for voting, it means that you do get political assistants going round nursing homes, etc, when people are too ill/demented to know what they're signing.

Plus, when you forget to vote, there's that bothersome fine. (I know, I've had to pay it. Not a big deal, just irritating.)

there's also the side effect of things like the people voting are not always those who actually know much about politics,

In general, I think an informed populace is ideal, but I can't decide which I find more disturbing, the idea that one should be prevented from voting based on lack of education (this smacks of Jim Crow laws to me) or the idea of the ignorant being the swing vote. The former is dangerously elitist; the second, the latter, simply dangerous.

*nods* Exactly. It's a lesser of two evils.

I'll support the compulsory suffrage just because I don't believe that non-compulsory suffrage prevents "the ignorant being the swing vote". The people who chose not to vote may be ignorant, or may be informed and lazy.

Although, thinking about Georgey Bush and Johnny Howard? I think both systems are pretty screwed. Either that or the ignorant far outnumber the informed in both systems.

Also Australian; also approving of compulsory voting. Some people whinge about it every election, as if being forced to vote is trampling their rights, but you don't have to vote; you just have to show up.

Voting "invalid" is a perfectly reasonable option - leaving it blank or writing something in. When people were trying to stop the Franklin dam development, a *lot* of ballots turned up with "no dams" written in.

(as opposed to "donkey votes", which I'm pretty sure just refer to the mindless sequentially numbered ones, which is why they draw lots for who gets put first on the ballot paper)

Lack of education is a problem, but I honestly think it's more of a problem for voluntary-voting systems than compulsory ones.

Our conservative government also got in with less than 50% of the vote, either this term or last one. (They got a majority of seats, but not of the total number of votes)

Another Aussie... I think that compulsory voting is a much better indicator of what the people think. As for education, I'm not too sure about the USA, but almost every Aussie I can think of can name at least one political leader from at least one of the minor parties if not more than one. We are legally required to vote, but as other people have mentioned if we don't have an opinion or don't want to vote for anybody all you have to do is put in an invalid vote.

Most electrol forms in Australia have two choices as to how they are filled out, either just putting a tick next to the person you want to vote for or by numbering every single person on the ballot paper. If number every person on the ballot paper, it means that you have control over you preferences (ie if a vote gets settled on preferences they may have got the same number of 1st place votes as another candidate, but got more second place votes they can win because of the second place preferences... or something like that... I think...)

One thing I have found in Australia (having lived for a period in the UK, which like the USA has non-compulsory voting) is that most Aussies seem to be aware of politics, even if it is just on the level of "I think Howard's a dickhead"... unlike when I was livin in the UK, the level of political knowledge was more like "we have a Queen and um, a prime minister... Tony somebody?..."

My problem with compulsory voting: even if it means more people are "politically aware," a lot of that "awareness" may be of the same nature as that of the 90+% of people surveyed who thought eliminating federal estate taxes would benefit them. Put another way, people who don't care enough to vote, shouldn't, because they probably don't care enough to get their facts straight either.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Suffrage

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject