QLD already has a hybrid form of compulsory/optional voting, which causes all sorts of problems:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html

Now Campbell Newman wants to make it completely optional. My objections are:

1) Voting is an irrational act, given the personal effort required and the almost certainty that your effort will make no difference to your life (or anyone else's).  If you make it optional, only irrational people vote. Rational people will find more 'productive' uses for their Saturday morning.

2) Voting in a modern democracy should be considered a responsibility, not a right.

3) Making voting optional changes the nature of the political debate. It means politicians become motivational speakers rather than policy debaters. This is because it is more important to preach to the converted than target undecided voters, because you have to get your supporters to turn up and vote. Fear is the biggest motivator, and the politics of fear (of the other party) become more important than rational criticism. Our elections would turn into circuses, like US elections.

PM hits back at Qld compulsory voting plan

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-could-scrap-compulsory-voting/story-fn3dxiwe-1226546911297

THE Prime Minister has used Twitter to attack the Newman government's bid to ask Queenslanders whether compulsory voting should be scrapped for state elections.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged her Twitter followers to fight the Newman government's plan.

"Don't let the Liberals make our democracy the plaything of cashed-up interest groups," she posted.

Compulsory voting could be scrapped in Queensland state elections under a Newman government plan to overhaul electoral laws.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has released a discussion paper on possible reforms to be put out for public consultation.

The paper lists the pros and cons of abolishing compulsory voting and highlights other possible reforms, including changes to political donations, how-to-vote cards and political advertising.

It quotes the report of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 federal election that recommended compulsory voting be abolished so Australia could be considered "a mature democracy".

The report argued that voting could only be considered a 'right' if people could exercise a 'right' not to vote.

Voting in Queensland state elections has been compulsory since 1915.

Mr Bleijie says the discussion paper aims to make the government more accountable.

"Fair and effective electoral laws are central to the promotion of participation in our democracy," he said in a statement on Thursday.

"The options in the discussion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and the government is after a variety of opinions and ideas."

The submission period is open until March 1.

great man campbell.

freeing up one extra saturday for me to go fishing

gee, i love that bloke.

you will too when he's in the lodge. ;) ;)

The only reason im against it is because newman wants it - he has to be up to something.

SOB

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort.

Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth.

That is a very interesting point Peter, one that may well sink this legislation.

I reckon it's a great idea for the federal as well as the state as it would save me the bother to vote for something you have no control over.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:11pm:

The only reason im against it is because newman wants it - he has to be up to something. SOB

Newman wants it because people struggling to survive traditionally vote labor ... come voting day given the option of voting or going to work, they'll work. This can be a huge advantage to the libs especially in the seats where the winner is decided by only a handful of votes.

My other concern is if its not compulsary, some bosses will not let workers take a half hour to go and vote. I remember I was working for a guy, election day came around and in the end I had to tell him that he would have to pay the fine .... he kept saying finish this first, then do that before you go and so on ... I made it to the polling booth 15 mins before they closed.

Soon you will be able to vote online and half the voters will still think fuggit can't be bothered.

actually i hope he extends it along proper business principles.
the most productive people in the state obviously are the biggest shareholders in qld pty ltd.

so farmers, businesses, sole traders get 1 vote for each $50,000 of turnover.

public servants , as net, liabilities to qld pty ltd, get to vote but their votes are then secretly reversed as those on the minus side of the ledger, of course, score a negative vote.

those not working, children and retirees dont count as a negative vote or a positive vote but get to bath in the benevolence of our great leader.(aka  CEO qld pty ltd)

Unless voting is completely optional then any claim to be called a democracy is a farce.
Labor demands that it should be compulsory because in normal circumstances it knows its support base will not bother to vote. It is only by dragooning the people to the booths that it feels it will get a reasonable vote, which is very similar to its views on compulsory unionism.

Quote:

Unless voting is completely optional then any claim to be called a democracy is a farce.

Oh look, another person who can't tell the difference between democracy and freedom.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth.

That's not true, I don't drink martinis.... :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:23pm: Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth. That's not true, I don't drink martinis.... :D

your maid drinks them for you, right!

Well, you are on a hallucinogenic substance then - something must explain your problems.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/swag.jpg

Nope schooie of new normally. :)

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:12am:

QLD already has a hybrid form of compulsory/optional voting, which causes all sorts of problems: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html Now Campbell Newman wants to make it completely optional. My objections are: 1) Voting is an irrational act, given the personal effort required and the almost certainty that your effort will make no difference to your life (or anyone else's).  If you make it optional, only irrational people vote. Rational people will find more 'productive' uses for their Saturday morning. 2) Voting in a modern democracy should be considered a responsibility, not a right. 3) Making voting optional changes the nature of the political debate. It means politicians become motivational speakers rather than policy debaters. This is because it is more important to preach to the converted than target undecided voters, because you have to get your supporters to turn up and vote. Fear is the biggest motivator, and the politics of fear (of the other party) become more important than rational criticism. Our elections would turn into circuses, like US elections. PM hits back at Qld compulsory voting plan http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-could-scrap-compulsory-voting/story-fn3dxiwe-1226546911297 THE Prime Minister has used Twitter to attack the Newman government's bid to ask Queenslanders whether compulsory voting should be scrapped for state elections. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged her Twitter followers to fight the Newman government's plan. "Don't let the Liberals make our democracy the plaything of cashed-up interest groups," she posted. Compulsory voting could be scrapped in Queensland state elections under a Newman government plan to overhaul electoral laws. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has released a discussion paper on possible reforms to be put out for public consultation. The paper lists the pros and cons of abolishing compulsory voting and highlights other possible reforms, including changes to political donations, how-to-vote cards and political advertising. It quotes the report of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 federal election that recommended compulsory voting be abolished so Australia could be considered "a mature democracy". The report argued that voting could only be considered a 'right' if people could exercise a 'right' not to vote. Voting in Queensland state elections has been compulsory since 1915. Mr Bleijie says the discussion paper aims to make the government more accountable. "Fair and effective electoral laws are central to the promotion of participation in our democracy," he said in a statement on Thursday. "The options in the discussion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and the government is after a variety of opinions and ideas." The submission period is open until March 1.

sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth.

well that is ever more twaddle than FD's first point. what utter crap.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth.

The conservatives originally made voting manditory because they believed that workers would vote and the more affluent were much to lazy to bother when they could in general just buy the political results they wanted.

I support compulsory voting as the responsibility of anyone living in a democracy. dont want to vote? dont get the benefits (welfare, services etc)

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:12am: QLD already has a hybrid form of compulsory/optional voting, which causes all sorts of problems: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html Now Campbell Newman wants to make it completely optional. My objections are: 1) Voting is an irrational act, given the personal effort required and the almost certainty that your effort will make no difference to your life (or anyone else's).  If you make it optional, only irrational people vote. Rational people will find more 'productive' uses for their Saturday morning. 2) Voting in a modern democracy should be considered a responsibility, not a right. 3) Making voting optional changes the nature of the political debate. It means politicians become motivational speakers rather than policy debaters. This is because it is more important to preach to the converted than target undecided voters, because you have to get your supporters to turn up and vote. Fear is the biggest motivator, and the politics of fear (of the other party) become more important than rational criticism. Our elections would turn into circuses, like US elections. PM hits back at Qld compulsory voting plan http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-could-scrap-compulsory-voting/story-fn3dxiwe-1226546911297 THE Prime Minister has used Twitter to attack the Newman government's bid to ask Queenslanders whether compulsory voting should be scrapped for state elections. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged her Twitter followers to fight the Newman government's plan. "Don't let the Liberals make our democracy the plaything of cashed-up interest groups," she posted. Compulsory voting could be scrapped in Queensland state elections under a Newman government plan to overhaul electoral laws. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has released a discussion paper on possible reforms to be put out for public consultation. The paper lists the pros and cons of abolishing compulsory voting and highlights other possible reforms, including changes to political donations, how-to-vote cards and political advertising. It quotes the report of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 federal election that recommended compulsory voting be abolished so Australia could be considered "a mature democracy". The report argued that voting could only be considered a 'right' if people could exercise a 'right' not to vote. Voting in Queensland state elections has been compulsory since 1915. Mr Bleijie says the discussion paper aims to make the government more accountable. "Fair and effective electoral laws are central to the promotion of participation in our democracy," he said in a statement on Thursday. "The options in the discussion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and the government is after a variety of opinions and ideas." The submission period is open until March 1. sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion.

Awww disagreed with him did you? Every time you do that you show us how young and uneducated you are.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:50pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 3:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:12am: QLD already has a hybrid form of compulsory/optional voting, which causes all sorts of problems: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html Now Campbell Newman wants to make it completely optional. My objections are: 1) Voting is an irrational act, given the personal effort required and the almost certainty that your effort will make no difference to your life (or anyone else's).  If you make it optional, only irrational people vote. Rational people will find more 'productive' uses for their Saturday morning. 2) Voting in a modern democracy should be considered a responsibility, not a right. 3) Making voting optional changes the nature of the political debate. It means politicians become motivational speakers rather than policy debaters. This is because it is more important to preach to the converted than target undecided voters, because you have to get your supporters to turn up and vote. Fear is the biggest motivator, and the politics of fear (of the other party) become more important than rational criticism. Our elections would turn into circuses, like US elections. PM hits back at Qld compulsory voting plan http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-could-scrap-compulsory-voting/story-fn3dxiwe-1226546911297 THE Prime Minister has used Twitter to attack the Newman government's bid to ask Queenslanders whether compulsory voting should be scrapped for state elections. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged her Twitter followers to fight the Newman government's plan. "Don't let the Liberals make our democracy the plaything of cashed-up interest groups," she posted. Compulsory voting could be scrapped in Queensland state elections under a Newman government plan to overhaul electoral laws. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has released a discussion paper on possible reforms to be put out for public consultation. The paper lists the pros and cons of abolishing compulsory voting and highlights other possible reforms, including changes to political donations, how-to-vote cards and political advertising. It quotes the report of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 federal election that recommended compulsory voting be abolished so Australia could be considered "a mature democracy". The report argued that voting could only be considered a 'right' if people could exercise a 'right' not to vote. Voting in Queensland state elections has been compulsory since 1915. Mr Bleijie says the discussion paper aims to make the government more accountable. "Fair and effective electoral laws are central to the promotion of participation in our democracy," he said in a statement on Thursday. "The options in the discussion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and the government is after a variety of opinions and ideas." The submission period is open until March 1. sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion. Awww disagreed with him did you? Every time you do that you show us how young and uneducated you are. SOB

I think FD would be disturbed that you agree with him. Most people would be.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 4:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 3:50pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 3:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:12am: QLD already has a hybrid form of compulsory/optional voting, which causes all sorts of problems: http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html Now Campbell Newman wants to make it completely optional. My objections are: 1) Voting is an irrational act, given the personal effort required and the almost certainty that your effort will make no difference to your life (or anyone else's).  If you make it optional, only irrational people vote. Rational people will find more 'productive' uses for their Saturday morning. 2) Voting in a modern democracy should be considered a responsibility, not a right. 3) Making voting optional changes the nature of the political debate. It means politicians become motivational speakers rather than policy debaters. This is because it is more important to preach to the converted than target undecided voters, because you have to get your supporters to turn up and vote. Fear is the biggest motivator, and the politics of fear (of the other party) become more important than rational criticism. Our elections would turn into circuses, like US elections. PM hits back at Qld compulsory voting plan http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-could-scrap-compulsory-voting/story-fn3dxiwe-1226546911297 THE Prime Minister has used Twitter to attack the Newman government's bid to ask Queenslanders whether compulsory voting should be scrapped for state elections. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged her Twitter followers to fight the Newman government's plan. "Don't let the Liberals make our democracy the plaything of cashed-up interest groups," she posted. Compulsory voting could be scrapped in Queensland state elections under a Newman government plan to overhaul electoral laws. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has released a discussion paper on possible reforms to be put out for public consultation. The paper lists the pros and cons of abolishing compulsory voting and highlights other possible reforms, including changes to political donations, how-to-vote cards and political advertising. It quotes the report of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 federal election that recommended compulsory voting be abolished so Australia could be considered "a mature democracy". The report argued that voting could only be considered a 'right' if people could exercise a 'right' not to vote. Voting in Queensland state elections has been compulsory since 1915. Mr Bleijie says the discussion paper aims to make the government more accountable. "Fair and effective electoral laws are central to the promotion of participation in our democracy," he said in a statement on Thursday. "The options in the discussion paper are not intended to be exhaustive and the government is after a variety of opinions and ideas." The submission period is open until March 1. sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion. Awww disagreed with him did you? Every time you do that you show us how young and uneducated you are. SOB I think FD would be disturbed that you agree with him. Most people would be.

Link to where i agreed with him liar.

SOB

Quote:

sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion.

Perhaps you should have kept reading to the end of the sentence.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 4:55pm:

Quote: sorry FD. that highlighted comment is just plain stupid. it is counter-intuitive and more like the kind of think SOB would say. voting is NOT irrational and I fail to see how a sober intelligent person could come to that conclusion. Perhaps you should have kept reading to the end of the sentence.

I did so in the first place. your 'irrational' comment is still just as silly. In \fact, just defending it makes you look sillier. what is 'irrational' about voting? what is irrational (if anything) is to not vote and have a say in the running of the country.

I support compuslroy voting just as you do, but that was an awesomely silly reason.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:23pm: Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth. well that is ever more twaddle than FD's first point. what utter crap.

It's called satire. I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:49pm:

I support compulsory voting as the responsibility of anyone living in a democracy. dont want to vote? dont get the benefits (welfare, services etc)

Hopefully we can still pay the taxes that fund those benefits; life would be pretty sh1t if we didn't get taxed for services we didn't recieve.  ;D


Calm down, nearly every single first world democracy functions more than fine treating their voters like adults, no need to get one's panties all bunched up.


Besides you don't live in QLD so it won't affect you in any way, shape or form.

Quote:

I did so in the first place. your 'irrational' comment is still just as silly. In \fact, just defending it makes you look sillier. what is 'irrational' about voting?

Read to the end of the sentence, and all will be revealed.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:49pm:

I support compulsory voting as the responsibility of anyone living in a democracy. dont want to vote? dont get the benefits (welfare, services etc)

Compulsory voting

Democracy

lol!!!

What is it with Qld and voting remember they had Joe who kept changing the boundaries till it looked like people voted for him.

I am about with FD on this one.

Our system may not be perfect but it is better than any other option I have seen.

Voluntary voting will provide the LNP with an advantage, because in every other country in the world, those voters on the left of politics tend to show the poorest turn out.

On that basis, I can see a tangible economic advantage for Queensland in adopting non compulsory voting as a means of keeping out governments with the financial aptitude of a horde of lemmings.

Apart from that, do we really need a vote from those people who vote only because it's compulsory?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Quote: Unless voting is completely optional then any claim to be called a democracy is a farce. Oh look, another person who can't tell the difference between democracy and freedom.

What difference does it make ?

You are missing the the point that if I don't think there is anyone worth voting for then I don't won't to waste my time going there and standing in a queue just to vote informal !!

I've got better things to do with my time than to participate in a futile exercise of a make believe democratic process only to see the same old tweedle-dee or tweedle-dumb political party getting voted in once again :(

You could always vote for someone else, or even run yourself.

Your laziness has nothing to do with getting out of bed on Saturday. The problem is you are too intellectually lazy to even think about the differences between the two major parties.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 10:45pm:

You could always vote for someone else, or even run yourself. Your laziness has nothing to do with getting out of bed on Saturday. The problem is you are too intellectually lazy to even think about the differences between the two major parties.

I don't have to vote for anything if I choose not to. That is a true democracy !!

And it's got nothing to do with laziness. If my local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of breakfast cereal that I like then I don't go to it.

I don't have to go to the supermarket just so they can acknowledge my presence and I walk out with nothing. The end result is the same where I don't have the cereal that I wanted.

You need a lot of money to run yourself. Chances are you will get the pauline hanson treatment.

SOB

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 9:14pm:

Voluntary voting will provide the LNP with an advantage,

Oh now we see what it is really all about a percieved political advantage, what a surprise.

Many more democracies have non compulsive voting than the other way around. What are we afraid of? That no one will turn up? How embarrassing would that be?

I agree with Pansi.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 10:45pm:

You could always vote for someone else, or even run yourself. Your laziness has nothing to do with getting out of bed on Saturday. The problem is you are too intellectually lazy to even think about the differences between the two major parties.

I have thought about it, and there's not much difference at all. They are both essentially right wing. I only vote for the lower house so that some Independents or green's might get in to block some of the rubbish.

Both major parties are duds. I'd never vote for a dud even if I am forced to. I have no problem bucking the system if they can't supply the goods.

We will only ever get real change if we stop accepting trashy governments. No one can honestly be happy with either of the major parties as they stand. Question time in parliament is a comedy show.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:10am:

Many more democracies have non compulsive voting than the other way around. What are we afraid of? That no one will turn up? How embarrassing would that be?

We have a better standard than most democracies.

Earlier in the year I watched the US train wreck voting system, they recently had an election result of 5 to 3 in the high court. They held an election and in the end decieded to not bother counting the votes.

In the UK there was an election a few years ago won on something like 20% of the vote. Obviously in the UK a mandate means going out with a bloke.

The biggest impact of non compulsory voting would be an increase in the influence of interest groups and a reduction in the influence of the people.

If a government has the option to spend money on an issue where they may get some votes as opposed to areas where there is nothing for them where do you think most of the cash will end up.

Look at things like the US gun Lobby they are so powerfull that the US can not address a genuine problem which is routinely killing their children.

I see no advantage in going to the lower standard and see potential problems down the track if we take power from the people and give it to minority interest groups.

Like it or not manditory voting makes government at least try to represent all of us.

No you don't.

Your voting system is crap to be honest.

:D
Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 10:45pm: You could always vote for someone else, or even run yourself. Your laziness has nothing to do with getting out of bed on Saturday. The problem is you are too intellectually lazy to even think about the differences between the two major parties. I don't have to vote for anything if I choose not to. That is a true democracy !! And it's got nothing to do with laziness. If my local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of breakfast cereal that I like then I don't go to it. I don't have to go to the supermarket just so they can acknowledge my presence and I walk out with nothing. The end result is the same where I don't have the cereal that I wanted.

:D :D :D  good analogy

Quote:

And it's got nothing to do with laziness. If my local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of breakfast cereal that I like then I don't go to it.

You don't get to choose supermarkets in this analogy TNL. That's the problem with analogies isn't it. Like it or not, one of the two major parties is going to win the next election, and pretending you cannot tell the difference between them is nothing more than laziness. There is a difference between saying that both are bad and saying that both are equally bad.


Quote:

Many more democracies have non compulsive voting than the other way around. What are we afraid of? That no one will turn up? How embarrassing would that be?

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.


Quote:

Both major parties are duds. I'd never vote for a dud even if I am forced to.

If you have to rank all candidates, then you have to choose one of them. This is a good thing.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:35am:

No you don't. Your voting system is crap to be honest.

You don't need to post this Andrei - we all know your opinion.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:22pm:

And it's got nothing to do with laziness. If my local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of breakfast cereal that I like then I don't go to it.

Would you vote for Coco Pops, Sugar Frosties, rice bubbles, Nutragrain or sultana bran?

Maybe a polling booth in the supermarkets?

Buy the Rice Bubbles - snap crackle pop - Abbott Hockey Pine. Automatic vote for the Libs recorded at the register.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:22pm: And it's got nothing to do with laziness. If my local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of breakfast cereal that I like then I don't go to it. Would you vote for Coco Pops, Sugar Frosties, rice bubbles, Nutragrain or sultana bran? Maybe a polling booth in the supermarkets? Buy the Rice Bubbles - snap crackle pop - Abbott Hockey Pine. Automatic vote for the Libs recorded at the register.

donations.

Mr Bleijie says it is a chance for everyone to have a say.

Lecturer in politics at Griffith University, Dr Paul Williams, says there is room for improvement for Queensland's electoral system.

"Only a fool would say the voting system is perfect and every piece of legislation should be reviewed from time to time," he said.

However, Dr Williams says compulsory voting should stay.

"The quite preposterous idea of voluntary voting, while the rest of Australia remains in compulsory voting - this is not the place to discuss it."

Political analyst Professor Scott Prasser says this is one of the more sensible documents put forward by the Liberal National Party (LNP) Government.

"It is a bit of that renovation of our system of government people like me have been calling for," he said.

"I know there is always political motives involved and all these things, but I think we should give Government a bit of a tick for at least putting these issues on the agenda."

Professor Prasser says he does not have a problem with unions supporting political parties.

"If a trade union wants to give money to a political party, as long as that trade union is above board, then that's what they should be able [to do]," he said.

"It's no different from a business wanting to give money to a political party."

The Government is accepting submissions until March 1.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 7:11am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:35am: No you don't. Your voting system is crap to be honest. You don't need to post this Andrei - we all know your opinion.

It's correct too.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 7:08am:

Quote: [quote]Many more democracies have non compulsive voting than the other way around. What are we afraid of? That no one will turn up? How embarrassing would that be? Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

So what is your counter argument exactly, it must be bad because so many first world democracies embrace it?


Let's look at those great democracies that embrace forced voting like we do.

Argentina - up until recently military juntas had direct political influence over the people and didn't mind killing any opposition

Brazil - also up until recently run by a military dictatorship, is seem compulsory voting is very popular with this type of government, so it must be good.

Democratic Republic of the Congo - it has democratic in its title so it must be a great place for human rights; sadly no. But they do have compulsory voting that keeps their dictator in power.

Ecuador - was a military dictatorship for long time, decided the being a true compulsory voting democracy was the way to go, up until a recent military coup.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Crap countries dispose of basic human rights to meet the political ends, the company we keep with these political systems is not one we should be proud of.

Your argument that being popular is in itself wrong, is total bullsh1t. The reason nearly every single first world democracy embraces the right to vote is because it produces the best type of democracy. It's only ignorance and hubris that keeps us a backward semi-democratic country.

Quote:

So what is your counter argument exactly, it must be bad because so many first world democracies embrace it?

Check the opening post. A few more good ones have been added by other members.


Quote:

Your argument that being popular is in itself wrong, is total bullsh1t.

Who argued that?


Quote:

It's only ignorance and hubris that keeps us a backward semi-democratic country.

In what way are we semi-democratic?

It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children?

In an interview on TV yesterday with a former US senator who was asked what he thinks about this proposal, his answer was ... don't change it .. when he was a senator he spent most of his time trying to convince people to turn out and vote rather than debating policies .... coming from someone who has actually been part of the non compulsory system it would be wise to pay attention to what he has to say about it.

KJ, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

In an interview on TV yesterday with a former US senator who was asked what he thinks about this proposal, his answer was ... don't change it .. when he was a senator he spent most of his time trying to convince people to turn out and vote rather than debating policies .... coming from someone who has actually been part of the non compulsory system it would be wise to pay attention to what he has to say about it.

It would be very unwise to take any notice of him.

Why would you want people that aren't interested in voting to be forced to vote?

Do a check of the informal votes. In most Labor held seats the informal vote is quite high so their vote is wasted. Those voters only go so as not to be fined.

In Liberal seats the informal is quite low.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:13am: In an interview on TV yesterday with a former US senator who was asked what he thinks about this proposal, his answer was ... don't change it .. when he was a senator he spent most of his time trying to convince people to turn out and vote rather than debating policies .... coming from someone who has actually been part of the non compulsory system it would be wise to pay attention to what he has to say about it. It would be very unwise to take any notice of him. Why would you want people that aren't interested in voting to be forced to vote? Do a check of the informal votes. In most Labor held seats the informal vote is quite high so their vote is wasted. Those voters only go so as not to be fined. In Liberal seats the informal is quite low.

Without looking up the numbers on informal votes, I'd say it's no where near 50% .... which is less than what the voter turn out in the last US el;ection was ... sure some people want to protest and vote informal, you say it's because they just don't want to be fined, I say they vote informal because they don't like the choices , its probably a mixture of both .... by making them go and vote, you make them take an interest .. even if it's only an cursory interest, its more than they would take in any other system.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children?

Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in.

Don't do this, don't do that.
Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal.
You must vote or we fine you.
3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine.

Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:27am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:10am: Many more democracies have non compulsive voting than the other way around. What are we afraid of? That no one will turn up? How embarrassing would that be? We have a better standard than most democracies. Earlier in the year I watched the US train wreck voting system, they recently had an election result of 5 to 3 in the high court. They held an election and in the end decieded to not bother counting the votes. In the UK there was an election a few years ago won on something like 20% of the vote. Obviously in the UK a mandate means going out with a bloke. The biggest impact of non compulsory voting would be an increase in the influence of interest groups and a reduction in the influence of the people. If a government has the option to spend money on an issue where they may get some votes as opposed to areas where there is nothing for them where do you think most of the cash will end up. Look at things like the US gun Lobby they are so powerfull that the US can not address a genuine problem which is routinely killing their children. I see no advantage in going to the lower standard and see potential problems down the track if we take power from the people and give it to minority interest groups. Like it or not manditory voting makes government at least try to represent all of us.

If it's such a good standard then why the preferential voting system ?

That is a scam !!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time.

it's how we keep the turds out ....

He was just ranting his BS on TV saying the "far left" want to "tax air" so they shouldn't have to vote.

SOB

Even the libs disagree with Newman ... Ok it's Barnaby, and he is a nutcase, but he's still a lib

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/15760694/joyce-attacks-lnp-calls-to-scrap-compulsory-voting/

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Even the libs disagree with Newman ... Ok it's Barnaby, and he is a nutcase, but he's still a lib http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/15760694/joyce-attacks-lnp-calls-to-scrap-compulsory-voting/

You know you are on a winner when barnaby joyce is on your side.  ;D


He doesn't even bother to prove any of his statements with examples from any of the first world democracies that suffer from this affliction.


Maybe someone should point out that in counties that force their citizens to the polls, argentina, equador, lebanon greece, mexico, the politics (human rights) isn't so crash hot either, but never let the facts get in the way.

Quote:

He doesn't even bother to prove any of his statements with examples from any of the first world democracies that suffer from this affliction.

Perhaps even Barnaby realises that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Quote: He doesn't even bother to prove any of his statements with examples from any of the first world democracies that suffer from this affliction. Perhaps even Barnaby realises that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Or he could just be an idiot that doesn't know what the bugger he is talking about.

I'm thinking it's the latter

aquascoot wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:49am:

great man campbell. freeing up one extra saturday for me to go fishing gee, i love that bloke. you will too when he's in the lodge. ;) ;)

PEOPLE DIED FOR DEMOCRACY AND THIS THIEF WANTS TO TAKE IT AWAY!

HE WILL NEVER LIVE THIS DOWN- MARK MY WORDS!

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 1:43pm: Quote: He doesn't even bother to prove any of his statements with examples from any of the first world democracies that suffer from this affliction. Perhaps even Barnaby realises that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Or he could just be an idiot that doesn't know what the bugger he is talking about. I'm thinking it's the latter

I actually agree ... he is an idiot ... but not just this time. . he is always an idiot. . even when he spewing out the liberal mantra .... you just think he's an idiot on this particular issue because you don't like the issue

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 1:47pm: freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 1:43pm: Quote: He doesn't even bother to prove any of his statements with examples from any of the first world democracies that suffer from this affliction. Perhaps even Barnaby realises that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Or he could just be an idiot that doesn't know what the bugger he is talking about. I'm thinking it's the latter I actually agree ... he is an idiot ... but not just this time. . he is always an idiot. . even when he spewing out the liberal mantra .... you just think he's an idiot on this particular issue because you don't like the issue

He is always an idiot, and agrees with forcing people to vote.



I agree that Australia should be a first world democracy with codified human rights, including the right to vote.

If the political parties miss out of a few votes then welcome to a a true democracy, just like they have in nearly every other first world country.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Quote: Unless voting is completely optional then any claim to be called a democracy is a farce. Oh look, another person who can't tell the difference between democracy and freedom.

LOL, HADRIAN GOT STUNG LIKE NO LIBERAL VOTER EVER GOT STUNG BEFORE!

GO REPACK THE CRACK PIPE HADRIAN YA LOSER!

  :D :D

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:23pm: Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. Lib voters spend their days beside the swimming pool drinking dry martinis and it is no problem to ask the chauffeur to get the Rolls out of the garage and run them down to the polling booth. That is a very interesting point Peter, one that may well sink this legislation.

The more pertinent point being of course that lib voters are more tryhard business like and know the golden rule of buiness is just being there using your gob!

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children?

It is not compulsory in any other Western country

I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? It is not compulsory in any other Western country I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them.

Care to provide some sort of evidence for that statement.


here is a start, Luxembourg and Belgium, only 33 to go


Good luck with that

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 5:59pm: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? It is not compulsory in any other Western country I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them. Care to provide some sort of evidence for that statement. here is a start, Luxembourg and Belgium, only 33 to go Good luck with that

It has been posted many times - go look it up and correct me if my memory is incorrect.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:35am:

No you don't. Your voting system is crap to be honest.

compared the US system which is corrupt? where a returning officer can actually say that the results seem clear already so we wont count absentee or postal votes? a system where votes are sometimes counted in secret by represtentatives of a single party?

i'll take ours any day.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time.

that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time.

It is you thats the joke .... votes in ... read it and weap

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/15763961/lucky-to-be-born-in-australia/

where is the US on that list? Or Britain for that matter? They are even worse ...

there's a sucker born every day .

Cambell is on a winner.

First - scrap compulsory voting.
Next - scrap voting.

Then Geoff Seeney can rule us in the way that Joh meant it.
And we will all be happy.

Don't you worry about that.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time.

Yes.  You are absolutely right.

Shall I email you the Qantas departures timetable?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it.

I don't believe you are a better place to live.
I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place.

Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm

A Leech is not a worm. Depending on the leech they belong in the Hirudidae or Haemadipsidae family.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm A Leech is not a worm. Depending on the leech they belong in the Hirudidae or Haemadipsidae family.

blow it out your arse looser ... you just can't get anything right can you?

'Leeches are annelids or segmented worms, and although closely related to the earthworms, are anatomically and behaviourally more specialised'

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Leeches

Compulsory voting is more likely to work in Newmans favour the next election.

There is a bigger incentive for labor and swinging voters to turn up to get rid of him then there is for dissapointed Liberal voters to bother.

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm

As patriotic as your family.
First generation aren't you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:15am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you?

I have never seen you say anything good about australia or australians - ever.

SOB

i've never seen any non-dodgy argument for compulsory voting for any of its do-gooder boosters, ever.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:33am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:15am: John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you? I have never seen you say anything good about australia or australians - ever. SOB

At one time they weren't bad at cricket.

I would play their central midfielder Cahill above any we have of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole.

It has some nice beaches.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 5:59pm: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? It is not compulsory in any other Western country I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them. Care to provide some sort of evidence for that statement. here is a start, Luxembourg and Belgium, only 33 to go Good luck with that It has been posted many times - go look it up and correct me if my memory is incorrect.

Yes that information has been posted many times by myself, pity you didn't retain the information I posted instead of just making sh1t up.

We are very much alone when it comes to not having codified human rights and attempting to be a first world democracy, see they pretty much go hand in hand. Take the time to look back at this post and you will see the type of country that forces its citizens to the polls and you decide if that company is acceptable.

BTW it is up to you to support your own statements.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:43am:

At one time they weren't bad at cricket. I would play their central midfielder Cahill above any we have of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole. It has some nice beaches.

It's safe here Andrei. It used to be safer, before we started invading random countries with the yanks.

I've always thought it's ok to biatch about your country if it's not doing it's best for its citizens, after all, a country is only as good as the way it treats its most vulnerable citizen's.

Australia is a good country, although it used to be much better. I suppose the leaders have a lot to do with that, or maybe lots of countries used to be better and we're all going to the pits together.

Its too far away. I guess that's my main problem with Australia.
Yes it is nice but it's the other side of the world to everything.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:34am:

Its too far away. I guess that's my main problem with Australia. Yes it is nice but it's the other side of the world to everything.

Yeah! I don't mind that, it has its advantages. It is too far to travel to Europe, that looooong flight/s is a killer, but I'm cool with Asia travel.

We are a bit behind the rest of the developed world, but that's ok too. I used to think that we'd catch up one day, but now I know it won't happen.

At least we get to see the new technologies get truly tested before we buy them, that's an advantage.

Each to their own.
I am moving back to England this year and this will be the last move for some time now.

I have to go to Europe it's where my family are, hence the twice yearly flight is a killer in both cost and distance.

Unless you fly China Eastern which I really don't recommend.

Asia?
I am of the Paul Keating school.
"Isn't it that place you fly over to go to Europe?"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:15am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you?

what difference does it make what generation? Are you even first generation or are you just a wannabe?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:12am:

Each to their own. I am moving back to England this year and this will be the last move for some time now. I have to go to Europe it's where my family are, hence the twice yearly flight is a killer in both cost and distance. Unless you fly China Eastern which I really don't recommend. Asia? I am of the Paul Keating school. "Isn't it that place you fly over to go to Europe?"

Moving to the UK? After all your going on about how great it is in the USA .... were you bullsheating again? Not so great in the USA? you need to run away?

The US is fantastic but only ever temporary.
This is family driven.

The USA is for me the best country in the world.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:03am:

The US is fantastic but only ever temporary. This is family driven. The USA is for me the best country in the world.

good thing your opinion doesn't count for much then isn't it .... 

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:15am: John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you? what difference does it make what generation? Are you even first generation or are you just a wannabe?

A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life.

That's all.

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:03am: The US is fantastic but only ever temporary. This is family driven. The USA is for me the best country in the world. good thing your opinion doesn't count for much then isn't it ....

Matters just as much yours.
We don't rank opinions in this country.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 7:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:15am: John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you? what difference does it make what generation? Are you even first generation or are you just a wannabe? A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life. That's all.

not sure what you are on about dopey ... I was born in this country ... Port Kembla hospital if you must know. As such I am patriotic to my country .... you on the other hand flip flop depending on who's paying your wage.

And I was born in Melbourne but that's as irrelevant as your point.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life. That's all.

Isn't that exactly how your family got here except that maybe it wasn't from southern Europe?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:10am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:08am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:03am: The US is fantastic but only ever temporary. This is family driven. The USA is for me the best country in the world. good thing your opinion doesn't count for much then isn't it ....  Matters just as much yours. We don't rank opinions in this country.

you might not, but others do .... actually shows how poor your judgement is ....

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/15763961/lucky-to-be-born-in-australia/

what position is the USA in?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:09am: A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life. That's all. Isn't that exactly how your family got here except that maybe it wasn't from southern Europe?

No it wasn't.
They transferred for work.
This before your useless pr1ck Hawke caused us to leave by selling workers out.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 7:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:15am: John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:45pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 7:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? Australia is probably one of the most nanny state countries I have ever been in. Don't do this, don't do that. Ooooh you can't bet online in-game, that's illegal. You must vote or we fine you. 3kmhr over a low speed limit, points on license and fine. Fking joke country Australia is a lot of the time. that's why we are the favoured place on the planet to live. perhaps most people don't favour money over... everything. you sold your soul for money and didn't even get a particularly good price for it. I don't believe you are a better place to live. I am as patriotic as anyone I am just honest about the place. Your as patriotic as a leech .... a bloodsucking worm As patriotic as your family. First generation aren't you? what difference does it make what generation? Are you even first generation or are you just a wannabe? A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life.That's all.

firstly, I haven't cleared out of my country ... I'm still here

secondly, I find this a bit tad hypocritical coming from you.  You change countries every few years in search of an easier life .... what a hypocrite.

Quote:

If the political parties miss out of a few votes then welcome to a a true democracy, just like they have in nearly every other first world country.

Bigol would you mind giving a definition of a 'true' democracy?


Quote:

i've never seen any non-dodgy argument for compulsory voting for any of its do-gooder boosters, ever.

Perhaps you should read before commenting then Denton.


Quote:

Take the time to look back at this post and you will see the type of country that forces its citizens to the polls and you decide if that company is acceptable.

Bigol, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Are you actually going to address the logical flaws in your argument, or just repeat yourself ad nauseum?


Quote:

BTW it is up to you to support your own statements.

;D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:09am: A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life. That's all. Isn't that exactly how your family got here except that maybe it wasn't from southern Europe?

he to dumb to realise that both Australia and USA are countries built on immigrants ... it's Ok for him to travel to other countries in search of work, but not for an Italian .... the guys a goose.

Ah so you're an Italian now eh?

That's exactly my problem with you people and your similar type comrades from Greece.

Still regard yourselves back in those origins.

I am just saying its a little rich to be lectured on patriotism from someone whose family were part of the hordes who showed scant care for rebuilding Italy and pissed off to Australia to live the easy life.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

Ah so you're an Italian now eh? That's exactly my problem with you people and your similar type comrades from Greece. Still regard yourselves back in those origins. I am just saying its a little rich to be lectured on patriotism from someone whose family were part of the hordes who showed scant care for rebuilding Italy and pissed off to Australia to live the easy life.

You were referring to my grandfather leaving Italy .. .he was Italian ....  somehow you seem to think his travelling o'seas to shows scant care ... whilst when you do it its because you are so clever ... your a f#cken joke .... a hypocrite to the hundreth degree. Ive had dogs with more integrity than you . 

Italians.

Like rats and water. You board the place up and they'll still find their way in....

:)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

Italians. Like rats and water. You board the place up and they'll still find their way in.... :)

Your the expert on rats .......

You will both be banned if you carry on with this crap.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

Quote: If the political parties miss out of a few votes then welcome to a a true democracy, just like they have in nearly every other first world country. Bigol would you mind giving a definition of a 'true' democracy? [quote]i've never seen any non-dodgy argument for compulsory voting for any of its do-gooder boosters, ever.

Perhaps you should read before commenting then Denton.


Quote:

Take the time to look back at this post and you will see the type of country that forces its citizens to the polls and you decide if that company is acceptable.

Bigol, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Are you actually going to address the logical flaws in your argument, or just repeat yourself ad nauseum?


Quote:

BTW it is up to you to support your own statements.

;D[/quote]


Bit rich that you demand I argue my case when you are too friggen lazy to come up with these supposed western democracies (35 in total)  that utilise compulsory voting, the reason you cannot is they don't friggen exist.

BTW using "argumentum ad populum" ad nauseum doesn't make it so without the underlying proof that the majority of first world democracies are wrong to believe in basic human rights are the cornerstone of a solid democracy, ya tool.


I know you have found a new latin phrase that you want to use until it is a worn out hackneyed old phrase (now) but you need to have some foundation for your argument to have any sort of credibility.

I'm fine using the UN Human Rights charter as the basis for mine.

Quote:

Bit rich that you demand I argue my case when you are too friggen lazy to come up with these supposed western democracies (35 in total)  that utilise compulsory voting

You are confused bigol.


Quote:

BTW using "argumentum ad populum" ad nauseum doesn't make it so without the underlying proof that the majority of first world democracies are wrong to believe in basic human rights are the cornerstone of a solid democracy, ya tool.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. No amount of evidence can overcome the logical flaw in your argument, because both the evidence and your argument are meaningless.


Quote:

I know you have found a new latin phrase that you want to use until it is a worn out

Actually I just get sick of explaining the same concept to you over and over again, to no avail.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

Quote: Bit rich that you demand I argue my case when you are too friggen lazy to come up with these supposed western democracies (35 in total)  that utilise compulsory voting You are confused bigol. [quote]BTW using "argumentum ad populum" ad nauseum doesn't make it so without the underlying proof that the majority of first world democracies are wrong to believe in basic human rights are the cornerstone of a solid democracy, ya tool.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. No amount of evidence can overcome the logical flaw in your argument, because both the evidence and your argument are meaningless.


Quote:

I know you have found a new latin phrase that you want to use until it is a worn out

Actually I just get sick of explaining the same concept to you over and over again, to no avail.[/quote]



You're a fvcken dill with a dictionary.

Here is an article I put together about these common logical fallacies a few years ago.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20populum

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:25am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:09am: A bit rich to be lectured on patriotism by a Southern European Aussie whose family cleared out from their country for the easy life. That's all. Isn't that exactly how your family got here except that maybe it wasn't from southern Europe? No it wasn't. They transferred for work. This before your useless pr1ck Hawke caused us to leave by selling workers out.

They took a pay cut and moved for a tougher life?

They cleared out of Europe for an economic advantageous position? (the easy life).

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 5:59pm: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? It is not compulsory in any other Western country I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them. Care to provide some sort of evidence for that statement. here is a start, Luxembourg and Belgium, only 33 to go Good luck with that It has been posted many times - go look it up and correct me if my memory is incorrect. Yes that information has been posted many times by myself, pity you didn't retain the information I posted instead of just making sh1t up. We are very much alone when it comes to not having codified human rights and attempting to be a first world democracy, see they pretty much go hand in hand. Take the time to look back at this post and you will see the type of country that forces its citizens to the polls and you decide if that company is acceptable. BTW it is up to you to support your own statements.

Yes that information has been posted many times by myself

Do you always ask people provide proof to statmets which you know to be correct?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:45am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 6:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 5:59pm: KJT1981 wrote on Jan 4th, 2013 at 9:03am: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? It is not compulsory in any other Western country I think you will find that actually it is in about 35 of them. Care to provide some sort of evidence for that statement. here is a start, Luxembourg and Belgium, only 33 to go Good luck with that It has been posted many times - go look it up and correct me if my memory is incorrect. Yes that information has been posted many times by myself, pity you didn't retain the information I posted instead of just making sh1t up. We are very much alone when it comes to not having codified human rights and attempting to be a first world democracy, see they pretty much go hand in hand. Take the time to look back at this post and you will see the type of country that forces its citizens to the polls and you decide if that company is acceptable. BTW it is up to you to support your own statements. Yes that information has been posted many times by myself Do you always ask people provide proof to statmets which you know to be correct?

WTF stupid post is that?

IMO scraping compulsory voting, would promote a US style system, where Politicians would end up being voted in a small % of the population.

This would also promote "interest groups", to "PUSH" certain select candidates & party's, who will back the wishes of those "interest groups".

So, IF you want a US style system & the increased levels of corruption that would go with, then that is what you will get.

BUT, as the saying goes, BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, BECAUSE YOU JUST MAY GET IT!

We should have a "none of the above" option on the ballet paper so that those who are dissatisfied with all candidates can still have a say. That would be even better than a spoiled or invalid paper.

If the majority of the people are not happy with the candidates then the party has to go out and find new candidates. Majority rules.

At the moment all we are getting is long term staff members who are being put forward as candidates. We want real people from our community, not public servant puppets that are only in it for their own benefit.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

IMO scraping compulsory voting, would promote a US style system, where Politicians would end up being voted in a small % of the population. This would also promote "interest groups", to "PUSH" certain select candidates & party's, who will back the wishes of those "interest groups". So, IF you want a US style system & the increased levels of corruption that would go with, then that is what you will get. BUT, as the saying goes, BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, BECAUSE YOU JUST MAY GET IT!

Be honest and ask yourself if that's the situation in the UK, because they have never had compulsory voting.  Australia is the anomaly.

Voter turnout in the UK is about 65% of registered voters. This figure obviously excludes unregistered voters, but also spoilt votes.


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

We should have a "none of the above" option on the ballet paper so that those who are dissatisfied with all candidates can still have a say. That would be even better than a spoiled or invalid paper. If the majority of the people are not happy with the candidates then the party has to go out and find new candidates. Majority rules. At the moment all we are getting is long term staff members who are being put forward as candidates. We want real people from our community, not public servant puppets that are only in it for their own benefit.

I think that would encourage intellectual laziness and protest voting. Voting is always going to be a tough choice. A lot of people who 'don't like politics' Would prefer an easy option that avoids the tough choice, even though they would prefer one outcome over another.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:49am:

Bit rich that you demand I argue my case when you are too friggen lazy to come up with these supposed western democracies (35 in total)  that utilise compulsory voting, the reason you cannot is they don't friggen exist.

Let's get the facts-

There are only 10 countries in the world where compulsory voting is enforced. These are:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Nauru, Peru, Singapore and    Uruguay.

Countries with compulsory voting and with a democracy index of 8 or greater:

Australia and Luxembourg.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fmedia%2Fpdf%2FDEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf&ei=drDnULydOM3ckgWZ2oCgAQ&usg=AFQjCNFVqSlJr-Qs0WUAb1HNPDuxWSIyAA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGI&cad=rja

So not only is bigol's argument logically flawed, he had to exclude some of the evidence to back it up.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Voter turnout in the UK is about 65% of registered voters. This figure obviously excludes unregistered voters, but also spoilt votes.

Is that a bad thing? The 35% that didn't vote were exercising their right not to vote.

Yes it is a bad thing for democracy. 35% of registered voters did not vote. As a proportion of eligible citizens, it is far higher.

Democracy is the will of the majority, not the will of an overly excitable minority.

We don't have true democracy anywhere (as in the Athenian model).  What we have is a number of different models of neo democracy.

Is it a bad thing for democracy? Well if you consider the right to choose whether you vote or not as part of your definition of democracy, then it's actually a good thing for democracy. If there is a low turnout that's people power - δημοκρατία (demo kratia, or literally people power) in action in the original intent and spirit of the word. It all hinges on whether you regard it as a right or a duty. In the original form, it was a right. The Athenians were not penalised for not participating in government That would been an infringement of their freedom and rights.

So it's entirely dependent on definition.  There are various democracy indexes around, and the question of compulsory voting doesn't make any difference one way or the other.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Voter turnout in the UK is about 65% of registered voters. This figure obviously excludes unregistered voters, but also spoilt votes. Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 2:10pm: We should have a "none of the above" option on the ballet paper so that those who are dissatisfied with all candidates can still have a say. That would be even better than a spoiled or invalid paper. If the majority of the people are not happy with the candidates then the party has to go out and find new candidates. Majority rules. At the moment all we are getting is long term staff members who are being put forward as candidates. We want real people from our community, not public servant puppets that are only in it for their own benefit. I think that would encourage intellectual laziness and protest voting. Voting is always going to be a tough choice. A lot of people who 'don't like politics' Would prefer an easy option that avoids the tough choice, even though they would prefer one outcome over another.

The so-called intellectually lazy people still have that choice. They vote invalid or just tick any old box.

I'd rather they had the correct box to tick.

I don't believe that the majority of people give it a great deal of thought, that's why the pollies wet themselves when their name is in #1 position on the ballot form.

Quote:

We don't have true democracy anywhere (as in the Athenian model).  What we have is a number of different models of neo democracy.

It still democracy.


Quote:

Is it a bad thing for democracy? Well if you consider the right to choose whether you vote or not as part of your definition of democracy

Democracy means the will of the majority. It implies nothing about rights and freedoms, except where they influence the expression of the will of the majority.


Quote:

In the original form, it was a right. The Athenians were not penalised for not participating in government That would been an infringement of their freedom and rights.

They also prevented women, slaves, black people etc from voting. That does not mean that the athenian model defines democracy. Not sure why many people continually defer to them.


Quote:

There are various democracy indexes around, and the question of compulsory voting doesn't make any difference one way or the other.

It makes a difference when the outcome does not reflect the will of the majority.

Actually I'll correct myself in terms of the Democracy Index. Compulsory voting reduces the Democracy index:

Quote:

III Political participation 27. Voter participation/turnout for national elections. (average turnout in parliamentary and/or presidential elections since 2000. Turnout as proportion of population of voting age). 1 if consistently above 70% 0.5 if between 50% and 70% 0 if below 50% If voting is obligatory, score 0. Score 0 if scores for questions 1 or 2 is 0.

So if among the 31 or so democracies in the world with a democratic index of 8 or above, only 2 choose to have compulsory voting, what does that say about the democratic outcome?

It's quite ironic in this kind of discussion that you should argue that a poster is using argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority).

Isn't democracy in itself a form of appeal to the majority?

- or are you saying that you would prefer a non democratic assessment of democracy?

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 10:49am: Bit rich that you demand I argue my case when you are too friggen lazy to come up with these supposed western democracies (35 in total)  that utilise compulsory voting, the reason you cannot is they don't friggen exist. Let's get the facts- There are only 10 countries in the world where compulsory voting is enforced. These are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Nauru, Peru, Singapore and    Uruguay. Countries with compulsory voting and with a democracy index of 8 or greater: Australia and Luxembourg. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fmedia%2Fpdf%2FDEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf&ei=drDnULydOM3ckgWZ2oCgAQ&usg=AFQjCNFVqSlJr-Qs0WUAb1HNPDuxWSIyAA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGI&cad=rja

Left out Belgium (8.15)

Also who said that they needed to meet you flawed domocracy model??

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Nauru, Peru, Singapore and    Uruguay.

You leave out the 14 countries where the rule is compulsory voting but by some measure it isn't enforced. Australia could be put in that group as well.

OK. Here's a  (non compulsory) poll

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Left out Belgium (8.15)

Not enforced since 2003.

Quote:

Also who said that they needed to meet you flawed domocracy model??

It seems to be well accepted, and it's better to start with something rather than nothing.



Quote:

You leave out the 14 countries where the rule is compulsory voting but by some measure it isn't enforced. Australia could be put in that group as well.

It's enforced in Australia. I know a few people who were given show cause notices.

- and after all, if compulsory voting is not enforced, it's academic. It's not compulsory. End of story. Those 14 countries include Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. THey don't really make the grade, and are mostly classified as flawed democracies.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:42pm: Left out Belgium (8.15) Not enforced since 2003. Quote: Also who said that they needed to meet you flawed domocracy model?? It seems to be well accepted, and it's better to start with something rather than nothing. [quote] You leave out the 14 countries where the rule is compulsory voting but by some measure it isn't enforced. Australia could be put in that group as well.

It's enforced in Australia. I know a few people who were given show cause notices.

- and after all, if compulsory voting is not enforced, it's academic. It's not compulsory. End of story. Those 14 countries include Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. THey don't really make the grade, and are mostly classified as flawed democracies. [/quote]

KJT1981

Quote:

It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children?

This was the statment addressed - it is wrong - simple as that. No BS rules change that, please just leave the goal posts where they are.

Like it or not there are over 20 with manditory voting in their legislation.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Yes it is a bad thing for democracy. 35% of registered voters did not vote. As a proportion of eligible citizens, it is far higher. Democracy is the will of the majority, not the will of an overly excitable minority.

the trap in voluntary voting is that it creates an opportunity for political parties to gather in the unwilling and uninterested to vote for them regardless of policy. it turns parties from providers of policy to providers of buss services to polls from districts that support them.

Voluntary voting opens the path for manipulation by motivated and excitable minorities.

and best of all... Democracy demands just ONE THING. just one thing. vote. and that is so damned hard for you???

the price for living in a democracy is voting. dont like it? leave. the arguments for voluntary voting can pretty much be summed up as 'others do it' (primary school argment), laziness and bloody-mindedness. I would happily have voluntary voting as long as it also meant you were deprived of any govt benefits like other non-citizens.

happy now?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

the trap in voluntary voting is that it creates an opportunity for political parties to gather in the unwilling and uninterested to vote for them regardless of policy. it turns parties from providers of policy to providers of buss services to polls from districts that support them.

It could just as readily be argued that the trap in compulsory voting is that those who would have otherwise done the rest of us a favour by following their instict and not voting, can be lured into voting for (guess which party) by promises of benefits - benefits that drain the coffers of the state.

In other words, compulsory voting leads to the Anna Bligh syndrome.

If democracy includes dragging people to the poll who are only voting because they have to, then I don't care what they call it - it's over-rated.


Quote:

'others do it' (primary school argment),

It's not a primary school argument. The position of the vast majority of western democracies is that of voluntary voting, and that is something that's eminently worthy of consideration. 

Now if you're saying that considering the position of the majority is just a primary school argument, then by implication, you imply that the argument for democracy itself is a primary school argument.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: the trap in voluntary voting is that it creates an opportunity for political parties to gather in the unwilling and uninterested to vote for them regardless of policy. it turns parties from providers of policy to providers of buss services to polls from districts that support them. I could just as readily be argued that the trap in compulsory voting is that those who would have done the rest of us a favour by following their instict and not voting, can be lured into voting for (guess which party) by promises of benefits - benefits that drain the coffers of the state. In other words, compulsory voting leads to the Anna Bligh syndrome. If democracy includes dragging people to the poll who are only voting because they have to, then I don't care what they call it - it's over-rated. Quote: 'others do it' (primary school argment), It's not a primary school argument. The position of the vast majority of western democracies is that of voluntary voting, and that is something that's eminently worthy of consideration.  Now if you're saying that considering the position of the majority is just a primary school argument, then by implication, you imply that the argument for democracy itself is a primary school argument.

why? to pose the 'mother of a primary school kid question'... would you impose the death penalty because they do?? the proper question is rather 'what about voluntary voting in these countries makes it better than ours'? since in almost every respect this country is superior to these other democracies, appealing to their experience is the opposite argument you aer trying to make.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:36pm: the trap in voluntary voting is that it creates an opportunity for political parties to gather in the unwilling and uninterested to vote for them regardless of policy. it turns parties from providers of policy to providers of buss services to polls from districts that support them. It could just as readily be argued that the trap in compulsory voting is that those who would have otherwise done the rest of us a favour by following their instict and not voting, can be lured into voting for (guess which party) by promises of benefits - benefits that drain the coffers of the state. In other words, compulsory voting leads to the Anna Bligh syndrome. If democracy includes dragging people to the poll who are only voting because they have to, then I don't care what they call it - it's over-rated. Quote: 'others do it' (primary school argment), It's not a primary school argument. The position of the vast majority of western democracies is that of voluntary voting, and that is something that's eminently worthy of consideration.

Our system is as good or better than any of them and how good is it to be different.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

KJT1981 Quote: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? This was the statment addressed - it is wrong - simple as that. No BS rules change that, please just leave the goal posts where they are.

I agree that it's inaccurate. Of course it wasn't my statement.

Quote:

Like it or not there are over 20 with manditory voting in their legislation.

... including countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. About 20 out of 196. What's that - about 10%?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Our system is as good or better than any of them and how good is it to be different.

- but not just for the sake of being different.

Our system may well be better that theirs overall. We're not discussing other aspects of their democracy. We're just talking about the issue of compulsory voting.

It's a non sequitor argument. If the police stopped you in the road and said that you had a faulty rear light, would you take offense and say - "my car is far better than yours overall" ? We're not talking about the system. We're talking about compulsory voting only.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

why? to pose the 'mother of a primary school kid question'... would you impose the death penalty because they do?? the proper question is rather 'what about voluntary voting in these countries makes it better than ours'? since in almost every respect this country is superior to these other democracies, appealing to their experience is the opposite argument you aer trying to make.

I wouldn't.  All I said was that it was a valid reason to make it worthy of consideration.

Obviously when poiitical anaysts consider compulsory voting to be a negative in the democracy index, then we should at least sit up and start to question the status quo.

Australia is currently 8th in the Democracy Index listings. That's something to be proud of. If there is a way we can improve our democracy further, then we should certainly consider it with an open mind.


Quote:

and best of all... Democracy demands just ONE THING. just one thing. vote. and that is so damned hard for you???

I don't believe that democracy necessarily demands compulsory voting. Are you saying that the US, Canada and the UK are not democracies because they don't demand compulsory voting?

For your interest only, this is the 2012 Democracy index ranking:

1 Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark
6. Finland
7. Luxembourg
8. Australia
9. Canada
10. Switzerland
11. Ireland
12. New Zealand
13. Germany
14. Austria
15. Malta
16. Spain
17. US
18. Czech Republic
19. Portugal
20. Belgium
21. Japan
22. Greece
23. UK
24.France
25.Mauritius
26. Costa Rica
27. Slovenia
28. Uruguay

Quote:

Actually I'll correct myself in terms of the Democracy Index. Compulsory voting reduces the Democracy index:

Muso, finding someone on the internet who agrees with you is not the same as a rational argument.


Quote:

So if among the 31 or so democracies in the world with a democratic index of 8 or above, only 2 choose to have compulsory voting, what does that say about the democratic outcome?

Nothing. If anything, compulsory voting is over-represented at the top of the list, despite the inappropriate penalty applied for it. Not that I would be silly enough to argue that it means anything.


Quote:

It's quite ironic in this kind of discussion that you should argue that a poster is using argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority).

I never said winning an election makes you right. The truth is not democratic.


Quote:

It could just as readily be argued that the trap in compulsory voting is that those who would have otherwise done the rest of us a favour by following their instict and not voting, can be lured into voting for (guess which party) by promises of benefits - benefits that drain the coffers of the state.

And this from someone who claims to defend democracy?


Quote:

It's not a primary school argument. The position of the vast majority of western democracies is that of voluntary voting, and that is something that's eminently worthy of consideration.

For about 3 seconds, until you realise it is merely argumentum ad populum. It adds nothing to the debate. Most western countries use first past the post voting also. That does not make it a good idea. In fact is leads to clearly undemocratic outcomes, just like optional voting does. It is an excuse for the absence of a rational argument. For the most part these countries have the system they do by historical accident, and the people experienced in the machinations of these democracies advise strongly against it (with a rational argument in support).


Quote:

Now if you're saying that considering the position of the majority is just a primary school argument, then by implication, you imply that the argument for democracy itself is a primary school argument.

No Muso. We are saying that your argument is a primary school argument. You can imply anything you want, but in this case you are wrong again.


Quote:

It's a non sequitor argument. If the police stopped you in the road and said that you had a faulty rear light, would you take offense and say - "my car is far better than yours overall" ? We're not talking about the system. We're talking about compulsory voting only.

But it is you who is making that non-sequitor argument muso.


Quote:

Obviously when poiitical anaysts consider compulsory voting to be a negative in the democracy index

Argumentum ad populum. It might even be appeal to authority if you knew what was going on. Do you actually know their reason? Maybe they just saw the same half list that the critics presented here and decided to take the easy option.


Quote:

I don't believe that democracy necessarily demands compulsory voting.

No, but it does demand that people vote.


Quote:

Are you saying that the US, Canada and the UK are not democracies because they don't demand compulsory voting?

They have inferior democracies. There are clearly undemocratic outcomes associated with the flaws in their democracies.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:16pm: KJT1981 Quote: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? This was the statment addressed - it is wrong - simple as that. No BS rules change that, please just leave the goal posts where they are. I agree that it's inaccurate. Of course it wasn't my statement. [quote] Like it or not there are over 20 with manditory voting in their legislation.

... including countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. About 20 out of 196. What's that - about 10%?
[/quote]

And your list of democratic countries above 8 has what around 28 out of 196 what's that around 14%.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

I never said winning an election makes you right. The truth is not democratic.

AND, having a Politically Democratic system, does not guarantee the system is TRUTHFUL, FAIR, HONEST etc. etc!

That said, it is still the best Political system, so far, although it will be subject to some enormous stresses, over the next 20-30 years and THEREFORE it will have to change or it will be changed!

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Our system is as good or better than any of them and how good is it to be different. - but not just for the sake of being different. Our system may well be better that theirs overall. We're not discussing other aspects of their democracy. We're just talking about the issue of compulsory voting. It's a non sequitor argument. If the police stopped you in the road and said that you had a faulty rear light, would you take offense and say - "my car is far better than yours overall" ? We're not talking about the system. We're talking about compulsory voting only.

Yet you want to bias the position with your democratic index which consideres all sorts of non related matters.

It is in itself biased against manditory voting as you pointed out.

It rates all sorts of thing like how well the government performs - A huge disadvantage to poor countries. There are that many non relivant biases in the criteria that the list is almost useless.

It does not really measure democracy very well at all, there is no penalty measured for failure in democratic process - The USA rates well even though they recently had an election decieded in the high court, you would expect that type of event to have thrown them out the back door.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

And this from someone who claims to defend democracy?

I though I was defending personal freedom.
In a few minor respects I think that democracy is overrated, although its much better than the alternative. (For example, if a country is on the brink of bankruptcy and the majority of people want to continue to rort the tax system, should the wishes of the majority be paramount? )


Quote:

I never said winning an election makes you right. The truth is not democratic.

That's one of them.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

Yet you want to bias the position with your democratic index which consideres all sorts of non related matters. It is in itself biased against manditory voting as you pointed out.

First of all it's not my Democracy Index.

Quote:

It does not really measure democracy very well at all, there is no penalty measured for failure in democratic process - The USA rates well even though they recently had an election decieded in the high court, you would expect that type of event to have thrown them out the back door.

The US was well down that list.

Quote:

I though I was defending personal freedom.

You keep claiming that you are defending democracy.


Quote:

First of all it's not my Democracy Index.

You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: ... including countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. About 20 out of 196. What's that - about 10%? And your list of democratic countries above 8 has what around 28 out of 196 what's that around 14%.

The countries that have effective mandatory voting, with the exception of Australia and Luxembourg, are flawed democracies or worse. Do you disagree with that? The democracy index is not the only criterion for that determination. It's blatantly obvious.

this is what dnaver said about australian democracy previously:


Quote:

I think the event showed that both major party's have complete control and can easily destroy any effective opposition to them.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

It rates all sorts of thing like how well the government performs - A huge disadvantage to poor countries. There are that many non relivant biases in the criteria that the list is almost useless.

A failed economy is an enormous barrier to democracy. You'd need to live in a poor country to appreciate that. Of course there is a disavantage to poor countries. There should be.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Quote: I though I was defending personal freedom. You keep claiming that you are defending democracy. [quote]First of all it's not my Democracy Index.

You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so.[/quote]

It's the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index. Freedom generally goes hand in hand with democracy.  Freedom of the press and freedom of association are examples of this.

JC Denton wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

this is what dnaver said about australian democracy previously: Quote: I think the event showed that both major party's have complete control and can easily destroy any effective opposition to them.

You must have trolled really deep to find that and thanks for quoting me from probably over 12 months ago with absolutely no context pretty grubby effort in my opinion, I previously had a bit of respect for your view.

However it is completely true - the event I was talking about at the time was the manner in which both major parties’s conspired to irradiate One Nation.

I did not agree with almost anything One Nation stood for however their demise showed that when both Labor and Libs combine to place an opponent at the bottom of their preference list that opponent is extinct irrespective of how many votes they get.

Of course optional voting would change nothing in this regard except to weaken further any option other than the big 2.

Optional voting would very likely remove independents and alternate party's from our political landscape. People who currently do not Like Labor or the Liberals vote for a third option, if voting becomes optional more than likely they will not vote instead of voting a third option.

Removing diversity from our political mix would substantially damage our democracy in my opinion.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Quote: I though I was defending personal freedom. You keep claiming that you are defending democracy. [quote]First of all it's not my Democracy Index. You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so.

It's the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index. Freedom generally goes hand in hand with democracy.  Freedom of the press and freedom of association are examples of this.
[/quote]

You still seem confused about whether you are defending democracy.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:58pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 7:34pm: It rates all sorts of thing like how well the government performs - A huge disadvantage to poor countries. There are that many non relivant biases in the criteria that the list is almost useless. A failed economy is an enormous barrier to democracy. You'd need to live in a poor country to appreciate that. Of course there is a disavantage to poor countries. There should be.

Does the USA going about $15 Trillion into debt mean they are no longer a functioning democracy?

Every time there is a world recession does democracy go out the window?

I think that it is another false indicator in the list.

Whoever these clowns are that devised the criteria seem to have done nothing more than think up a bunch of metrics that are correlated with democracy and used them as a measure rather than bothering to think about what democracy actually means.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Quote: I though I was defending personal freedom. You keep claiming that you are defending democracy. [quote]First of all it's not my Democracy Index. You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so. It's the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index. Freedom generally goes hand in hand with democracy.  Freedom of the press and freedom of association are examples of this.

You still seem confused about whether you are defending democracy.[/quote]

I'm merely discussing the issue of compulsory versus voluntary voting.

It all hinges on your expectations of a democracy and whether you regard voting as a right or a duty.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 7:34pm: It rates all sorts of thing like how well the government performs - A huge disadvantage to poor countries. There are that many non relivant biases in the criteria that the list is almost useless. A failed economy is an enormous barrier to democracy. You'd need to live in a poor country to appreciate that. Of course there is a disavantage to poor countries. There should be. Does the USA going about $15 Trillion into debt mean they are no longer a functioning democracy? Every time there is a world recession does democracy go out the window? I think that it is another false indicator in the list.

The US is still the biggest economy in the world regardless of recession.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Whoever these clowns are that devised the criteria seem to have done nothing more than think up a bunch of metrics that are correlated with democracy and used them as a measure rather than bothering to think about what democracy actually means.

Have you actually read their reports? 

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 9:48pm: muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 7:34pm: It rates all sorts of thing like how well the government performs - A huge disadvantage to poor countries. There are that many non relivant biases in the criteria that the list is almost useless. A failed economy is an enormous barrier to democracy. You'd need to live in a poor country to appreciate that. Of course there is a disavantage to poor countries. There should be. Does the USA going about $15 Trillion into debt mean they are no longer a functioning democracy? Every time there is a world recession does democracy go out the window? I think that it is another false indicator in the list. The US is still the biggest economy in the world regardless of recession.

You miss the point, in a recession the numbers calculated would show that virtually every country would have a reduced democratic index. The world would be definitivly a less democratic place.

This is obviously untrue because there is no genuine logical link between the criteria and democracy.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 9:44pm: muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 9:16pm: freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Quote: I though I was defending personal freedom. You keep claiming that you are defending democracy. [quote]First of all it's not my Democracy Index. You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so. It's the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index. Freedom generally goes hand in hand with democracy.  Freedom of the press and freedom of association are examples of this. You still seem confused about whether you are defending democracy.

I'm merely discussing the issue of compulsory versus voluntary voting.

It all hinges on your expectations of a democracy and whether you regard voting as a right or a duty. [/quote]

It sounds more like backpedaling than discussing to me.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

You miss the point, in a recession the numbers calculated would show that virtually every country would have a reduced democratic index. The world would be definitivly a less democratic place. This is obviously untrue because there is no genuine logical link between the criteria and democracy.

You're totally missing the point. The factor that comes into play is sovereignty. Even in the deepest of recessions, there has been no question of US sovereignty. If you compare that to Greece in recent times, it becomes obvious that democratic freedom was compromised as a result of a reduction in fiscal autonomy.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

It sounds more like backpedaling than discussing to me.

I'm getting back to the crux of the matter. It is a controversial issue that is coloured by regional concepts of democracy. For example an American might be amazed that we have no Bill of Rights or might regard compulsory voting as an infringement of personal liberty. Democracy, in its most general understanding means rule by the people, but that's as far as it goes. Beyond that definition there is a wide variation in interpretation.

The degree to which you rate civil liberties and personal freedoms, governance and security issues will have some bearing on your concept of democracy.

Quote:

I'm getting back to the crux of the matter. It is a controversial issue that is coloured by regional concepts of democracy.

Regional concepts of democracy? Is that something like moral relativity?


Quote:

Democracy, in its most general understanding means rule by the people, but that's as far as it goes.

People rule in every conceivable system of government. The difference with democracy is that the majority rules. Perhaps this is what you meant by regional concepts - democracy means something different in North Korea.


Quote:

The degree to which you rate civil liberties and personal freedoms, governance and security issues will have some bearing on your concept of democracy.

No it won't. It will merely have a bearing on the degree to which you rate civil liberties and personal freedoms, governance and security issues. It will not cause you to redefine the terms just because you consider them more or less important.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:16pm: KJT1981 Quote: It is not compulsory in any other Western country - not the US or Canada or Britain or, across the ditch, in New Zealand. Why are adult Australians treated like children? This was the statment addressed - it is wrong - simple as that. No BS rules change that, please just leave the goal posts where they are. I agree that it's inaccurate. Of course it wasn't my statement. [quote] Like it or not there are over 20 with manditory voting in their legislation.

... including countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. About 20 out of 196. What's that - about 10%?
[/quote]


Nice how none of them are 'western' democracies, south amercian dictatorships, african sh1tholes and middle eastern backwaters, all one minute from being taken over by a military coup.

Nice company we keep.


Oppressive governments drive political legitimacy from high voter turn out, why bother with basic human right when punishment produces higher numbers of voters.

This seems a ratehr over-the-top thread. in the end it is ONLY about voting which is at worst a minor inconvenience. compared to doing tax returns - another obligation - it is indeed trivial Our democractic freedoms require a lot of things from us. The notion that freedom implies not being required to do anything is infantile. there is no such thing.

The day that voting is too onerous a duty to comprehend is the day you have totally lost the plot.

I presume you consider the obligation to pay your bills to be a breach of your fundamental rights. Voting is just the same - paying your bill for the democracy you live in.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

This seems a ratehr over-the-top thread. in the end it is ONLY about voting which is at worst a minor inconvenience. compared to doing tax returns - another obligation - it is indeed trivial Our democractic freedoms require a lot of things from us. The notion that freedom implies not being required to do anything is infantile. there is no such thing. The day that voting is too onerous a duty to comprehend is the day you have totally lost the plot. I presume you consider the obligation to pay your bills to be a breach of your fundamental rights. Voting is just the same - paying your bill for the democracy you live in.

It's not about people being too lazy to vote. It's a matter of choice, we are not given a choice.

I would love nothing better than to tick the box

"None of the above"

but I don't get a choice because our pollies are too afraid of the truth, they expect us to vote for one or the other, which is forcing the issue.

Don't start with the old rant about being able to vote for any of the candidates in my electorate, the vote inevitably goes back to libs or labor.

I will vote when I get to officially vote for none of them.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

This seems a ratehr over-the-top thread. in the end it is ONLY about voting which is at worst a minor inconvenience. compared to doing tax returns - another obligation - it is indeed trivial Our democractic freedoms require a lot of things from us. The notion that freedom implies not being required to do anything is infantile. there is no such thing.

In the US, they would probably say that choosing whether or not to vote is part of their democratic freedom.


Quote:

The notion that freedom implies not being required to do anything is infantile.

Correct, but irrelevant. The issue is about compulsory voting, nothing else. 

"It's a matter of democratic freedom whether you vote or not"

It's a position held with many Americans. Now, are you saying that's an infantile view?

Quote:

Nice how none of them are 'western' democracies, south amercian dictatorships, african sh1tholes and middle eastern backwaters, all one minute from being taken over by a military coup.

Oh dear. He still isn't even aware of the rest of the list.


Quote:

It's not about people being too lazy to vote. It's a matter of choice, we are not given a choice. I would love nothing better than to tick the box "None of the above"

Pansi, you can always write that box on the ballot paper and tick it. Or draw a picture of a donkey. So there you go, you have that choice.


Quote:

but I don't get a choice because our pollies are too afraid of the truth, they expect us to vote for one or the other, which is forcing the issue.

When was the last time there were only two candidates on your ballot paper?


Quote:

Don't start with the old rant about being able to vote for any of the candidates in my electorate, the vote inevitably goes back to libs or labor.

Pansi, this is because it is nearly always Liberal or Labor that gets elected. This does not mean you do not have a choice to vote for other candidates. It merely means that they lose because they are unpopular. If it helps, instead of thinking of it as preferential voting, think of it as a series of runoff elections. This is how most foreigners refer to our system - instant runoff voting. It makes a lot more sense and helps avoid some of this confusion about what your vote means.

Quote:

"It's a matter of democratic freedom whether you vote or not"

Making up new terms now eh?


Quote:

It's a position held with many Americans. Now, are you saying that's an infantile view?

It is infantile to make up new terms in order to validate your argument.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 8:35pm: Quote: I though I was defending personal freedom. You keep claiming that you are defending democracy. [quote]First of all it's not my Democracy Index. You did bring it up, and not as a freedom index. If your point was that it fails to actually measure democracy, you should have said so.

It's the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index. Freedom generally goes hand in hand with democracy.  Freedom of the press and freedom of association are examples of this.
[/quote]

Freedom of the press

What about examples like the current Australia where we have a commercial press trying to drive the outcome of elections?

Do the press not then become an anti democratic force?

I would think that of the people who support optional voting under ten percent would be driven by their belief on democracy and over ninety percent would be interested because they perceive an advantage for their political preference.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: ... including countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Mexico  and Thailand. About 20 out of 196. What's that - about 10%? Nice how none of them are 'western' democracies, south amercian dictatorships, african sh1tholes and middle eastern backwaters, all one minute from being taken over by a military coup. Nice company we keep. Oppressive governments drive political legitimacy from high voter turn out, why bother with basic human right when punishment produces higher numbers of voters.

Exactly. By the way, do you know what Singapore does if a person doesn't vote? They remove them from the register.  ;D  Kinda defeats the purpose.

Highlighted section - Apart from Luxembourg - and Belgium if you go back to pre 2003.

It's also interesting that many countries which used to have  compulsory voting have subsequently dropped it, in some cases when they became legitimate democracies. These are:

Austria(1925), The Netherlands(1970), Spain(1923), Venezuela(1993) and Chile (2009).

We should look at their reasons for doing so.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

Quote: "It's a matter of democratic freedom whether you vote or not" Making up new terms now eh? [quote]It's a position held with many Americans. Now, are you saying that's an infantile view?

It is infantile to make up new terms in order to validate your argument.
[/quote]

It's hardly new. The US constitution predates that of Australia.

Hang on - are you saying that I made up the term Democratic Freedom? It's a term that has been in use since the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

Here's an example of where Democratic Freedom is discussed. Do you think that Hawaii University is infantile now? It's a pretty standard term.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP3.HTM

Here are 15,600 University sites where the term Democratic Freedom is used.
http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&as_epq=democratic+freedom&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=.edu&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

There are 650 results for "Democratic Freedom" from  .edu.au

Quote:

Do the press not then become an anti democratic force?

So long as there is diversity in the press it should not matter so much. The internet is starting to provide that now, I hope. However the downside is that the internet makes news even less profitable, so we may end up with fewer 'professional' news providers.


Quote:

It's hardly new. The US constitution predates that of Australia.

Somehow I doubt their constitution uses such a vague and meaningless term. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by 'democratic freedom' and how it is relevant?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

Quote: It's hardly new. The US constitution predates that of Australia. Somehow I doubt their constitution uses such a vague and meaningless term. Perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by 'democratic freedom' and how it is relevant?

I expanded on the post while you were posting. It's hardly a vague and meaningless term as you can see. Heck, it's a term that was even used by Aristotle.

You expanded on the use of the term, but said nothing at all about what it means. Do you know what those other people meant by the term? Did you intend to imply any meaning, beyond equating democracy and freedom?

It means the difference between a "liberal democracy" and an "electoral democracy".  A purely electoral democracy without the freedom is a democracy in name only. It goes through the motions of electing representatives.

We live in a liberal democracy, which means that we have certain democratic freedoms such as Freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to form political parties.... etc

Some of these freedoms are not legislated in Australia, but they exist nonetheless.


Quote:

Did you intend to imply any meaning, beyond equating democracy and freedom?

Now who's using primary school arguments? Of course they are different, but they are concepts that go hand in hand.

Is the concept relevant to compulsory voting in any way?

just vote you lazy buggers... You'd think you were being asked to do something onerous. it is the price you pay for democracy.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

just vote you lazy buggers... You'd think you were being asked to do something onerous. it is the price you pay for democracy.

The problem is there is no candidate worth my vote.

Put up a respectable, honest, transparent politician and I'll vote for them, ten times even. I refuse to vote for bad and badder  :)

Having a system where people turn up and tick the first name on the box is stupid.

Better still, have a referendum where I get to vote on compulsory/non-compulsory voting and I will vote ten times.

Quote:

The problem is there is no candidate worth my vote.

Voting is not a measure of worth pansi. You are only asked to give a relative rating, not an endorsement.

You cannot choose to not have a government just because you disapprove of the candidates who are running, so it would be absurd to put that option on the ballot.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort.

For this very reason, the idea is GENERALLY lobbied for by the RIGHT of politics

So it was refreshing to see Barnaby Joyce bagging Newman's dream, the other day
His reasoning was that supporters of RAT-BAG parties ( ... One Nation, Shooter's Party, white supremest groups, etc. ) are more passionate in their determination to vote than the nonchalant ( ... read lazy) Libnat, ALP, swinging voters


IRONICALLY ( ... right wing extremists, aside) I believe non-compulsory voting would favour the GREENS - who are ALSO a very passionate group of environmentalists and humanitarians who would NEVER surrender their RIGHT TO VOTE and a voice in our democracy

Sounds like Joyce is using the same argument many here have - optional voting encourages irrational over rational voters. It leads to over-representation of the highly excitable minorities.

It is good to see people recognising that optional voting undermines democracy.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:23pm: Newman is well aware that Labor voters are hard workers with families and often work on polling days, making voting a real effort. For this very reason, the idea is GENERALLY lobbied for by the RIGHT of politics So it was refreshing to see Barnaby Joyce bagging Newman's dream, the other day His reasoning was that supporters of RAT-BAG parties ( ... One Nation, Shooter's Party, white supremest groups, etc. ) are more passionate in their determination to vote than the nonchalant ( ... read lazy) Libnat, ALP, swinging voters IRONICALLY ( ... right wing extremists, aside) I believe non-compulsory voting would favour the GREENS - who are ALSO a very passionate group of environmentalists and humanitarians who would NEVER surrender their RIGHT TO VOTE and a voice in our democracy

actually dimwit, it has been suggested by both sides of politics at one time or other. no analyst is certian of which side it woudl favour if indeed any. the idea that all labor voters work weekends in low-paid menial jobs is about 100 years out of date.

expect more intelligence than this from you, buzzard.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

just vote you lazy buggers... Yaou'd think you were being asked to do something onerous. it is the price you pay for democracy.

1.5 million Australian voters say no thanks  ;D


Many, many democracies in first world countries reject a system that forces people against their will to the polls and they function just fine so any argument that compulsory voting the only sure way to have a democracy is patently false by any standard.

The only thing that will have is the sheeple so used to being told what to do will have to think for themselves and scumbag pollies won't be scamming the Aussie taxpayer at every election.