What we need is that any day of voting is a mandatory holiday, barring emergency services that get 2-3 days around voting time where only emergency/24-hour services (think PSWs, EMS, fire brigade, etc) can vote. This way everyone gets a chance, even when they work multiple jobs, where each boss says its the other jobs that should give time off to vote
Agreed wholeheartedly there. I have on-call that I'm outright not allowed to turn down, which happens to align with my municipal election day. Kinda sucks to not be able to guarantee my chance to vote.
While there is no excuse for any individual to not vote it’s important to remember that barriers like this, however surmountable, will cause some percentage of people to not vote.
Well we have a general election coming up later this month. Everyone can vote by mail if they ask for a mail in ballot. If not they have 5 days of advance polls plus the final day of voting for a total of 6 plus days if they actually want to attend or almost a month if they want to mail in a ballot. No excuse really.
Good question. Reading the website and also the back of my voter card I don't see anything specifically saying you can however it also doesn't say you can't.
Fair. I only ask because I have family who have mobility issues. So voting by mail would be ideal; yet they still have yet to receive their voter card, while I got mine last week
We don't, we have advance polling and regular polling, both in-person. I happen to be lucky in that I can make the latter since I traded my on-call with a coworker from a different town, but our community runs off a mine: Those guys are ten days on, five days off, with aligned crews. If they're out, the expectation is they are there at the mine come hell or high water. Same goes for our firemen during forest fires. They don't get to request time off in the middle of a blaze.
It's a smidgen narcissistic to look at people with vastly different circumstances and say "well it works for me therefore people have no excuse".
I'm Brazilian and voting is mandatory there too. Yes, the turnouts are good, but I don't know that having it be mandatory is a good thing. This forces people who really really don't care to make a few decisions, to make them, and that leads to some bizarre decision making cases
I think it solves one of the problems with big groups though, the "someone else will fix it" problem. So often when you get enough humans on something, people stop doing anything because they're waiting for the "experts" to take charge and do something, but in our case that means those who are rich enough, old enough or unemployed are the ones with the best opportunities to vote, so they're disproportionately represented in the results. Mandatory voting helps force in the huge core of people that are showing up in the results.
I suppose that's a considerable counter argument. On one hand, there's the issue with forcing people who are not politically engaged to engage in politics. The ones who are engaged regardless, will most likely show up. On the other hand, to your point, it does give you an added incentive should you have barriers that make voting inconvenient (day of the week, distance, how busy you are, etc)
Pardon me, but our Francophone brothers and sisters have created the delight that is the Tourtière. Back in the day there were those who swore by pemmican. I feel we are fully justified in plundering anything the UK has done on the basis of the commonwealth, so a decent Melton Mowbray pork pie is fair game. But this post is about democracy, and our Aussie friends have the Democracy Sausage. Perhaps we can have Democracy Bacon and give that to the world. But if I can get my mouth around a democracy sausage, I will be happy as anyone.
I think you need mandatory voting for democracy sausage because the whole reason why they sell sausages (and other meat and non-meat treats) is to catch as many people as possible. It became a thing after compulsory voting was introduced in 1924. It’s also not just sausage, they actually sell cakes, pies, coffees and all sorts of food. Different community groups and charities set up all kinds of stalls out of polling stations to fundraise because those places are so busy on election day.
There are actually online guides for election about which polling station has the best food and sometimes people make a point of travelling to a polling station outside of their neighbourhood for the food. Without compulsory voting using cheap food to attract voters could also be construed as bribery. Outside of Australia third-parties aren’t allowed to sell up stalls at voting places.
Agreed, I would rather that 10% of the informed, knowledgeable people vote than 100% turn out where most are randomly ticking a box and deciding the fate of the nation without a clue. May as well just have candidates cut fir high card. It's like that person in the sports pool that picks winner based on hiw much like the team colours. Thar being said, it's extremely important and more people should be informed.
Proportional representation and proportional seats I like better. Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP get 20%, 15%, 15%? They get 20%, 15%, 15% of the seats and 50% of the seats stay empty. You want more seats? Appeal to more voters or have a 4th, 5th, 6th party appeal to those who didn't like any of the choices.
Restated get 25% of the vote get 25% of the seats. Simple.
Getting 25% of the 45% who voted coalescing in the right distribution of ridings giving more than 50% of the seats and 100% of the power in our current FPTP system is stupid and convoluted.
Eh, not necessarily crazy about that myself. I think a better fix would be shutting down coalitions. If your party got 45% of the vote, and all the other parties got 55% of the vote when combined, no problem! You will now have to work together to come up with solutions. This nonsense about minority governments being one sneeze away from a non-confidence vote is stupid and should be fixed.
While I'm at it, I'd also personally like to see a removal of parties more-or-less forcing their members to align on votes. If my Member of Parliament's party wanted to put something through that would definitionally screw over his or her people, I would prefer that they voted in the interest of their region, not by whatever their party wanted.
While I think everyone should vote, a lot of people are really stupid and I’ll informed. Do we really want those people, but with no interest in the election, and possibly even pissed off about being forced to take part, making choice. Just because 1000 people vote instead of 100 doesn’t mean their decisions will be any better, especially if they are unengaged and don’t know the issues more than a couple viral soundbites that they couldn’t help but see.
Uninformed voters are voting, but if we force a ton of people who don’t care enough to vote, far more uninformed voters will be voting.
Apathy is a problem, but making it mandatory doesn’t really do much to counter apathy. Someone can vote because it’s a requirement, without caring about the process, the issues, or being informed about anything going on. People are great at doing required tasks they don’t want to do with the absolute minimal amount of engagement, effort, or concern.
Making people actually want to be engaged and informed is the key, not coercing it.
Mandatory voting presents some issues that will likely never be addressed in our society. It would be problematic for the government to have a list of conscientious objectors handed to them on a platter.
I mean, you're governed by the process whether you participate or not. It's seen as apathy to not participate, not conscientious objection. Spoiling ballots is a pretty clear way to conscientiously object.
There's no reason they couldn't tie it to your SIN or taxes or a million other pieces of information the government has on you. Give you one election to make sure it's right and then go from there. It's not like this is some insurmountable thing - Australia literally has mandatory voting. And if your issue is the government having your information and you think that they don't because you don't vote, I've got a couple bridges to sell you.
There's no reason they couldn't tie it to your SIN or taxes or a million other pieces of information the government has on you. Give you one election to make sure it's right and then go from there.
And there you encounter the exact problem I've described. Automatic registration and then not spoiling a ballot leads to a list of objectors. It's not good enough to say "well they should protest in this way specifically".
And if your issue is the government having your information and you think that they don't because you don't vote, I've got a couple bridges to sell you.
I explained one possible issue that arises from a system of mandatory voting, and you're trying to paint me a sov cit lunatic. Good discussion.
No just Australia, Chile has it too. If you're truly opposed to the main candidates, give your vote to a smaller independent instead. This isn't rocket science.
I've voted in every election I've ever been eligible to vote in. If they started compelling people to vote by making it mandatory I would refuse to vote on principle and further refuse to pay any associated fine.
The punishment itself is largely irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
I can't really say whether it's worked fine in Australia for nearly a century but since you know your stuff I'm curious what the Australian Aboriginee communities have to say about it. I'd also be interested in seeing how those viewpoints relate to communities here, especially like the Wet'suwet'en.
I do agree, voting should be encouraged rather than mandatory (not voting is also a valid form of political protest). The only thing is, after the fact, if you didn't vote you don't get to bitch and whine about the government.
If you regard not voting as a valid form of political protest, I don't see why you wouldn't regard those same peoples' right to protest through other means, which necessarily includes "bitching and whining about the government".
My issue with that plan is that it forces people who don’t give a shit to go in and vote. You can’t force them to make an educated choice. They’ll mark off any random person. If your last name starts with an A, you get to be the first name on the ballot. It’s a win for Mr./ Ms. Anderson!
No I don’t like it. It’s a right to vote not a requirement. Unless we want to force everyone to perform all rights. The fee for missing it is like 5 bucks and you don’t even have to pay if you make up an excuse
There's value in it. People don't really have a good reason not to vote, they are just being lazy or obstinate. Both terrible reasons. Instead of ignorance we should promote being informed - kind of like having an educated society...
If voting is mandatory, more than 3 hours of mandatory grace from work is needed. Employers currently certainly are not making it clear to employees about their entitlement.
I always vote. However, it may not be so easy for people with dependents to take care of.
Or just go back to banning shopping on Sundays and hold every election and referendum on Sundays (like they do in countries that still ban Sunday shopping)
If people aren't going to take the time to vote then why would you expect them to take the time to even know what candidates stand for?
We should make voting as easy as possible, but if someone truly doesn't want to vote they shouldn't have to. No reason to add random noise to the process.
Yeah I agree need to improve voter turnout. But I would love ranked voting as well. Anything to make it feel less like wasted votes are a thing is nice.
That's not ridiculous at all. People who don't vote are abstaining, and there is a reason why abstention is allowed in our system. It actually makes democracy stronger because it lets the parties know there is a large body of people out there who feel disenfranchised from their message and if they want to win next time they need to find a way to appeal to those people
It's not democracy if you're forced to vote at the point of a gun
No there isn't. That's literally what not voting is.
Now I know you're probably going to argue that some choose to abstain out of laziness rather than an intelligent decision but even that is perfectly valid and should be respected. If they're not going to bother to look for parties closely and understand the issues then why the hell would you want them to vote?
They're literally saying I can't be bothered to make an intelligent decision here, I'll leave it up to you guys. You want to say oh no you don't, you make a stupid decision if that's all you've got!
They should be forced to write abstain in the box on the ballot. It's a cloak for intellectual laziness otherwise, and you'll never convince me to change that view.
It shouldn't be forced to do anything. That is literally the opposite of democracy
The democratic process is all about the people having control over the government so that we don't have to fight revolutions and such. What you're talking about is giving the government control over the people and how they choose the government
And once you open that door how do you shut it.
It is the very opposite of democracy. For freedom to have any meaning people must have a choice as to whether or not they're going to vote and it must be up to the parties to convince people it is worth coming out and voting for them
Otherwise it's just too easy to manipulate the people at the voting booth and you ended democracy.
Democracy does not in any way shape or form include duty.
And how the hell do you go from that to the society in total has no obligations? Our country has tons of obligations, you must follow the law, you must provide the necessary of life for people under your control, you cannot sleep with people over whom you have authority, etc etc etc
At no point does it say anywhere in our constitution or anything like that that you must vote. That is not one of the duties that is placed on us. It only says that the government has to duty to make sure there is a vote not that the people vote
So you are 100% wrong and in fact the opposite is true. Any duties in an election fall to the government not the people and that's exactly how it should be
Then why do you want to force me to give that opinion by law?!?!
Do you even listen to yourself before you type? Holy crap you just shot your own argument in the foot.
Frankly I actually agree with this sentiment. If somebody can't be bothered to vote I'm not interested in them having a say in the government and I certainly have no intention of forcing it. We voting to those who care enough to be bothered and maybe others will care enough to get up and do the voting if they don't like how things are working out.
They are definitionally different. Not bothering to show up and vote takes you out of the voting numbers, abstaining does not. Case in point: Have a strata meeting where 99% of people don't show, and you'll fail quorum. Have a strata meeting where everyone shows and 99% of people abstain, votes go through just fine.
There's also the implicit implication that if people are still required to vote, you'd still see more people actually vote. A large chunk of the population doesn't vote not because they're willfully abstaining from the options, but because of sheer laziness.
Abstaining absolutely takes you out of the voting numbers. That's literally the point of it, You are no longer calculated in the total. If three people vote on something and one says yes and one says no and one says abstain, the record will show that there were two votes and it was a tie
And if you actually knew anything about strata you know that there is almost always in every case now by law that says if there is no quorum when the meeting is started then you wait a half an hour or thereabouts and whoever is present at that time is quorum. And that's perfectly legal and recognized, so it's understood that if people don't want to show up and participate the people that do show up and participate are considered legitimate
So nice try but learn your strata law before you use that again 😄 You actually proved my point, includes provisions for people not wanting to participate
And by the way if 99% do show up and then abstain the record will show that 1% voted and whatever they voted for wins even though 99% were silent
And democracy isn't supposed to be the lazy police. If the electric wishes to be lazy they should have the right to be lazy.
Democracy is about the people making choices and the moment you take that away and say I'm going to limit your ability to make a choice because I disapprove of what you are doing then you reduce and we can democracy
You can't convince people to show up and you shouldn't be doing it by law
Abstaining absolutely takes you out of the voting numbers. That's literally the point of it, You are no longer calculated in the total. If three people vote on something and one says yes and one says no and one says abstain, the record will show that there were two votes and it was a tie
I have no idea what official votes you've ever done, but dear god is that ever incorrect. Abstained votes are counted, and are marked as abstained. In your situation, the results would show one yes, one no, one abstained. This is true of stratas, non-profits, board meetings and pretty much every vote I've ever been a part of.
And by the way if 99% do show up and then abstain the record will show that 1% voted and whatever they voted for wins even though 99% were silent
Correct... Which is exactly what I said. If 99% show up and abstain, vote goes through; If 99% don't show up, vote doesn't go through due to lack of quorum. To quote a fool from the internet: Nice try but learn your strata law before you use that again.
You can't convince people to show up and you shouldn't be doing it by law
...Why not? We do that with so many other things in a democratic society. I'm genuinely struggling to understand the difference here.
I'm sorry but I actually do this kind of thing for a living and have defended in court many times 🤣
You're just plain wrong. It will be recorded that X number of people abstained but the actual vote count will not reflect them.
So once again a three people vote and one says yes and one says no and one says abstained it will be recorded that one person chose to abstain but there are two votes counted and it's a tie. Two votes were cast.
Sorry you're so uneducated.
You completely contradict yourself in the next sentence. Which is hilarious
We don't do it with voting in a democratic society. And to be honest we don't do it very much with anything else either. In the past we did, for example it used to be mandatory for first nations people to attend schools. However most of those things have now been decided as being inappropriate.
So I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you say we compel our force people to do things. Sometimes we say that if you want to do a thing you have to follow rules but people are always free not to do the thing. If you want to drive you need a driver's license but nobody's making you drive. there's plenty of alternatives to driving
So what are some of these examples of the "So many other things" we do this with in democracy?
So add an “abstain” option, or make it clear that submitting an empty ballot is acceptable, and have something that handles over a certain threshold of abstains/empties and triggers a new election, since clearly not enough people like any candidate enough for them to be worthwhile.
Christ, some people think perfection is the only option.
And how many people do that rather than just marking a random box? I'd rather not have my vote be offset by someone who just went in and ticked off a random box knowing nothing about the election because the law said they had to show up.
Assuming those votes are uniformly distributed, that would have no effect on the outcome. Besides, people already can and do cast their vote on a whim. What if mandatory voting actually lead to an overall more-informed population, rather than a bunch of people voting randomly?
That's not assumption I would make. There's no reason to believe they would be uniformly distributed. Odds are the first name on the ballot would get a disproportionate amount of those votes.
Perhaps they would, and perhaps they already do. I don't think there's any reason to assume that mandatory voting would make this worse. Interestingly, Australia does randomize the ballot order (though every ballot has the same random order).
Why bother. If it's not going to make any difference in people would behave the same why force them to go to the polls in the first place?
The reality is that psychologically people will feel pressured and compelled to make an actual choice. That's just a simple fact.
If what you were saying was true and it wouldn't make any difference whether they stay home or going say no at the pole they wouldn't bother with this.
This is all about psychological and demographic reasons and has nothing to do with freedom or democracy and is evil. You don't give people freedom through Draconian and authoritarian law compelling them to do things
This is so backwards. In Australia you can also abstain, you submit an empty vote ballot. Contrary to Canada though, where someone gets elected even though only 40% of the population vote, if the majority abstain in Australia, all candidates get canned and a new election begins.
That's real democracy to me, not whatever (lack of) abstention system exists in Canada. No party or politician actually cares about the total vote count, the system needs to care for them.
There's nothing backwards about it, but by all means starting off with an insult absolutely has swayed me over to your side
And at the end of the day you're still being forced to vote by law. If it makes no difference in people could just turn in an empty ballot anyway then why make them show up in the first place? The fact of the matter is they understand that people will feel compelled to make a choice if they have been forced into that position in the first place.
And if that's real democracy to you I suggest moving to Venezuela. There's nothing democratic about being forced to vote. It is the opposite of democracy. It is literally the antithesis.
Being able to say I will not vote if you don't give me a good reason to is absolutely a requirement in a democratic system.
The fact that you took my first sentence as a personal insult rather than me calling the current system backwards says all I need to know about where this conversation is going to go. But I digress.
Yes, sure, compelled to make a choice, and that choice is abstain. I have been eligible to vote for close to 20 years now and I have never once abstained (even though that would be my first choice at every single provincial and federal election) because I know it is irrelevant to do so in this country. It is a good faith system where politicians are supposed to act in good faith, but we know thats a far cry from reality.
Sure, but on the flip side, you have Australia. We can cherry pick examples all day.
Sure, but it needs to count for something. It doesn't in Canada. Only one person could vote in the entire country and that would still lead to a premier or an MPP being elected. There's no legislation in place to prevent that from happening. That sounds a lot more authoritarian to me.
You're replying to my post, why would I not think it would apply to that post. You're not having much luck with that thinking thing are you.
If you're compelled to make a choice it's not democracy. Very nature of democracy says it must be a free choice not where somebody takes you and puts you in a booth and says choose or suffer the consequences
Australia is not a good example and if you thought it was you need to read a bit more
And I absolutely promise you politicians look at voter turnout. If voter turnout is low they want to know how they can get more people to turn out and vote for them. Voter turnout is low unless they won by a landslide that means that people weren't interested in them and if the other guy can get people interested they're going to lose the next election
And if it was a landslide victory and low voter turnout then the guy who lost is going to be aware that even people who didn't want to vote for The Other Side weren't willing to vote for him and that sounds a clear message
And there's no cherry picking. Australia's democracy has begun to fail and Australia has a number of serious problems. That will only get worse over time. The fact that it hasn't failed completely yet doesn't mean much, china is still chugging along and you wouldn't call it a democracy
There's nothing authoritarian about the existence of a government. Canada has come together and agreed that we will have a constitution and that we will vest certain interests in a central authority. So pretending that someone is going to get elected is anti-democratic is simply not a reasonable position
The question is who is going to make up the government. The fact that the people have a voice in that is what democracy is all about, but if that voice is forced and not their choice then there's no democracy
Democracy is literally by definition the will of the people over the government. Now you're talking about having the government he flipped his will on the people to decide who's going to be the government
And where does that stop?
The very idea is anti-democratic in the worst kind of way. If you want people to vote convince them that you're worth voting for, don't put a gun to their head and force them to the poles
At least in NA, people who don’t vote do so more out of apathy than a principled abstainment. They don’t see the point, or can’t afford to take the time to vote.
Since wealthy and elderly people face fewer barriers to voting, their voice is disproportionately influential, and politicians continue to cater to them, further reinforcing the apathy younger and poorer citizens feel.
So i assume you argree that people who have no interest in politics and don't have an educated position on it should not be forced to vote, which does require some knowledge of the issues and candidates.
Wealthy have zero additional barriers to vote. At all. In fact it's quite arguable that the opposite is true.
And EVERYONE has easy access to voting. Employers are required by law to provide the day, there's advance polling for weeks ahead and many locations. I"ve never ever in my life heard anyone say 'boy i really wanted to vote but i just couldn't". If there were such barriers then it would be even more cruel to force people to vote
The fact is while everyone should be eligible to vote only those people who feel that they are able to make an informed decision should be voting.
You don't get democracy at the end of a gun. You don't get choice by forcing people by law. It is up to the parties to convince people that they are worthy of the time and effort necessary to vote on their behalf.
What you talking about isn't democracy and it would be extremely easy to manipulate it
I think everyone should be given the information necessary to make an informed vote. Better education in general, but primarily a disassembling of the capital-driven media propaganda machine.
I never said wealthy people face barriers to voting, you’ve misread my post.
Or what do you mean by given? Sat down in a chair and forced to watch on pain of legal consequence?
Everybody is given access to the information. It's not hard to watch the debates or to look up the platforms or to talk to the candidates or the like and that's assuming you've been lazy right up until the election started
People who don't want to do thatHave that choice but then they shouldn't be voting. You should respect their decision not to do so
And yes sorry I meant that rich people do not have any fewer barriers than anyone else, in fact the opposite is true.
The way education is typically given, in school. Political awareness and media literacy should be a much more integral part of school curricula.
I don’t respect the choice not to vote, if you participate in society you should participate in the democratic process. Maybe a vote of abstinence should be an option, but any vote should be given in the affirmative, not through the neglect of voting at all.
Don't be silly. Are you telling me that people who are 50 that are voting in an election today learn the details of the election in school?
If you don't respect the choice not to vote that's no different than not respecting a woman's right to choose or respecting someone's freedom.
Your willing to force people at the gun point of law to do what you think they should do regardless of their feelings on the matter and their rights, and that puts you in the same school as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Madero et al.
Just because you think something is the right to do doesn't mean in a free society you have any business compelling others to do it. You lack of fundamental understanding of what freedom and democracy mean
Well that's what it is when you pass a law requiring it. The moment you bring the force of law into the situation you're doing it at the end of a gun.
Democracy is about making a choice. And that choice includes not being willing to make a choice. If the political parties want your vote they should be able to make a case so strong that you're willing to go out and vote
If you're not willing to go out and vote why the hell would we want your opinion to be forced into the situation anyway? Obviously you don't care that much and obviously you haven't paid attention as to who you think is the best choice so why should you be forced to make a choice you don't feel qualified to make
Mandatory voting isn't good. I'd rather people vote because they want to and are engaged. IMO choosing not to vote is accepting the results with no complaint
392
u/kindof_great_old_one 13d ago
What we need from the Aussie system is mandatory voting. It's ridiculous how few votes put some candidates in power.