# Mandatory Voting op-eds - National Post



## dimsum (26 May 2014)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/14/andrew-coyne-like-jury-duty-or-paying-your-taxes-voting-should-be-mandatory/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/26/david-moscrop-to-save-democracy-some-of-you-should-stop-voting/

When I read these this morning, Andrew Coyne's article (and especially David Moscrop's rebuttal) caught my attention.  Until I was here in Australia for the last election, I would have agreed with Andrew in principle for mandatory voting; a higher turnout would mean no one can argue that X party won due to 40% of the total voter turnout.  

However, the Australian voting system is flawed in its own way.  Because voting is mandatory and it is a preferential voting system (ie. you rank your preferences for _all_ of the available candidates), many voters who would normally not vote at all cast what are called "donkey votes", just listing their preferences as shown in the ballot from top of page to bottom or voting for a joke party.  This is how the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party won a seat in the last federal election.

Also, despite the almost 100% turnout mostly voting for their candidate/party of choice, the current PM and the Liberal (read:  Conservative) party is trailing in popularity behind the Labor (read:  Liberal) party a year or so after beating them in a "majority" (with the Coalition parties thanks to donkey-voting, etc.)  Interestingly enough, most anti-Abbott arguments in Australia are very similar to anti-Harper lines in Canada, with the exception that no one in Australia can say that Abbott was elected with a 30-40% voting turnout.  

In the end, I believe that mandatory voting won't work after seeing it here.  Whoever has actually taken the time to research the party platform should be allowed to vote, but making it mandatory will just create more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Tibbson (26 May 2014)

I boil it down to an even more basic issue.  Would I rather have a system where 100% of the 40% (or so) who DO vote, vote because they want to and because they have given it some thought or do I want a system where 60% of the people who vote only do so because they legally have to and they do so without the proper amount of thought and consideration?  

I'd much rather have people vote who want to.  My wife always finds some excuse to not vote.  She's too busy, she forgot, she didnt know who to vote for, etc...  After almost 30 years of marriage though she knows better then to complain about anything political in front of me.


----------



## RangerRay (27 May 2014)

Personally, if I don't like the choices I'm given, I should have the right to say "A pox on all your houses" and stay at home.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 May 2014)

I'll support the initiative ONLY IF upon arrival at the polling station you have the choice of EITHER 
a) casting a vote, or
b) consuming a free pint of draft beer.


----------



## Marchog (27 May 2014)

> Personally, if I don't like the choices I'm given, I should have the right to say "A pox on all your houses" and stay at home.



There IS the option of declining your ballot (IE, going to the polling station, receiving it, and immediately handing it back) which forces the government to include it as "declined" in its official count. I'd say that's a better way of showing disagreement with all the available options, since it shows that you weren't just lazy and apathetic, but actively and deliberately voiced discontent. 

That's what I'm doing in the upcoming Ontario elections (probably), since there is no minor party running in my riding that would give me a protest vote option.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2014)

Marchog said:
			
		

> RangerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither of those options is a viable solution.  Both show the apathy of the Canadian public.

Not making a choice, only leaves the eventual outcome in the hands of others.  Even the protest vote for a minor party, that stands no chance of winning a majority, is pointless; as they will have no real opportunities to affect any beneficial change.

If you want to change things and get rid of the party that you feel does not have your best interests at heart, then you must vote in a powerful alternative, even if you do not agree with all of their platform(s).  If you don't, then there will be no change to the status quo and you will not affect any change for the better at any time in the near, and perhaps distant, future.  

What I see in Ontario is a lot of 'fear mongering' and blatant lies being thrown around.  The PC's say that they will reduce the Public Service by 100K ------ through ATTRITION.  The Liberals and NDP paint this as the PCs rushing out to give 100K people their 'Pink Slips'.  In my neighbourhood there were PC signs on lawns.  Suddenly they have disappeared and other lawns are flooded with Liberal signs.   A lot of dirty politics being played here, and I have fears that the Ontario voters will once again be LEMMINGS and vote in the Liberals.  I shook my head last time they reelected Dalton McInty after he has blatantly lied to them for four years.  I will likely be shaking my head again.  I will, however, be voting for a viable alternative; not spoiling my ballot, not voting for a fringe party in protest, and definitely not voting for a party that I believe has lied to my face and nearly bankrupted my Province.

If I am not happy with the result, I feel, then, I have the right to bitch.


----------



## xo31@711ret (28 May 2014)

'There IS the option of declining your ballot (IE, going to the polling station, receiving it, and immediately handing it back) which forces the government to include it as "declined" in its official count. I'd say that's a better way of showing disagreement with all the available options, since it shows that you weren't just lazy and apathetic, but actively and deliberately voiced discontent. 

That's what I'm doing in the upcoming Ontario elections (probably), since there is no minor party running in my riding that would give me a protest vote option.'

 Agreed. I may do the same in the next federal election. Our (main) choices: Harper (probably) and the Dauphine Trudeau; yep, great freakin' choices...Usually I vote for the lesser of the two evils, but (IMO) these two are just ass clowns.  I'll show up at my polling station and I'll take the declined vote... My choice; MY vote; MY right. And MY right to bitch after it's all said and done.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2014)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> 'There IS the option of declining your ballot (IE, going to the polling station, receiving it, and immediately handing it back) which forces the government to include it as "declined" in its official count. I'd say that's a better way of showing disagreement with all the available options, since it shows that you weren't just lazy and apathetic, but actively and deliberately voiced discontent.
> 
> That's what I'm doing in the upcoming Ontario elections (probably), since there is no minor party running in my riding that would give me a protest vote option.'
> 
> Agreed. I may do the same in the next federal election. Our (main) choices: Harper (probably) and the Dauphine Trudeau; yep, great freakin' choices...Usually I vote for the lesser of the two evils, but (IMO) these two are just ass clowns.  I'll show up at my polling station and I'll take the declined vote... My choice; MY vote; MY right. And MY right to bitch after it's all said and done.



Seriously?

What have you accomplished?

Nothing.

You are only maintaining the status quo.  Your only choice was to do nothing and maintain that status quo, not affect change.  

No wonder we have the governments we have.  

You want change?  Then make a choice to "VOTE IN" change.  There is no way in the world that any politician, or political party, can please 100% of the people with 100% of their platforms.  They all have items on their platforms that people will agree to, and items that people will not agree to.  Just a fact of life.  Just as you will find in your work place and at home.  So, if you really want to affect change, "SPEAK UP" and affect that change.  Spoiling a ballot, not voting or declining your vote does nothing to affect change.  It only makes you apathetic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2014)

To be fair, when there is no candidate you are willing to vote for, what are you supposed to do? Someone that goes and declines/spoils a ballot did show up and make their message known. Not everyone can take part in the rest of the process due to family work life.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2014)

To really be fair; there must be something that you agree with.  If not, what are you doing here (in this province/country)?  Go some place that you find more agreeable.  If you disagree, and want change; not saying anything/voting is not going to affect change.  Apathy is the only word for it.

If it is so bad that you don't find any candidate that you can find something to agree on, another solution is to then grow some and become a candidate.


----------



## Loachman (28 May 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'll support the initiative ONLY IF upon arrival at the polling station you have the choice of EITHER
> a) casting a vote, or
> b) consuming a free pint of draft beer.



That makes much more sense that it would sound to many.

I was always in favour of a skill-testing question, but this would probably be even more effective - it would limit those who habitually pick "c" at least.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2014)

Another issue with mandatory voting, what is the punishment for not doing so? We have enough problem enforcing existing regulations.


----------



## Tibbson (28 May 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> To be fair, when there is no candidate you are willing to vote for, what are you supposed to do? Someone that goes and declines/spoils a ballot did show up and make their message known. Not everyone can take part in the rest of the process due to family work life.



"[making] a message known" when nobody is listening or cares is hardly making a message.  Sounds more like someone wasting gas to go waste time and paper.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2014)

I suspect Election Canada tracks such things as spoiled ballots/ declines quite seriously. Voting apathy is quite high, so someone who takes the time to come and spoil a ballot is a vote of "non-confidence" and a message to all parties in that riding. It may seem like a minor thing, unless of course things get bad enough that everyone does it in a riding, which would be really interesting to see how that would pan out. 
As for getting involved, some parties are not known allowing the serfs from getting to deeply involved in selecting candidates for their ridings. Here in my riding in one election the Rhino party got more votes than the Liberal candidate. At least back then you could protest vote with flair! If I was to do so now I would have to either spoil/decline or vote for the local Marxist-Leninist nutbar, which undoubtedly would make him happier than a pig in poop as it would represent about a 20% in votes for him.


----------



## Tibbson (28 May 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect Election Canada tracks such things as spoiled ballots/ declines quite seriously. Voting apathy is quite high, so someone who takes the time to come and spoil a ballot is a vote of "non-confidence" and a message to all parties in that riding. It may seem like a minor thing, unless of course things get bad enough that everyone does it in a riding, which would be really interesting to see how that would pan out.
> As for getting involved, some parties are not known allowing the serfs from getting to deeply involved in selecting candidates for their ridings. Here in my riding in one election the Rhino party got more votes than the Liberal candidate. At least back then you could protest vote with flair! If I was to do so now I would have to either spoil/decline or vote for the local Marxist-Leninist nutbar, which undoubtedly would make him happier than a pig in poop as it would represent about a 20% in votes for him.



With all of that in mind I spent some time digging through the StatsCan website and I could find no record of spoiled ballots in any election results.  I also phoned an old friend of mine that tracks election results, by riding, all the way back to Confederation.  Odd hobby but he likes to colour maps and follow trends.  Anyway, he as well has never seen anything that tracks spoiled ballots other then the most basic of figures.  He also explained that under our various election regs over the years a ballot could be considered spoiled for any number of reasons including an X that extended outside the marking area, having used a check mark vice an X (at one time), more then one person selected or any comments added.  With that in mind it would be hard to tell a protest ballot from one filled out by a near sighted granny who forgot her glasses.  If it makes someone feel good I guess its ok but I still dont think it appoints to anything other then a waste of time.  

I've pretty much always voted one particular party and ive never agreed with their platform 100% but ive agreed with it more then any of "the other guys".


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2014)

>There IS the option of declining your ballot

It sounds tempting, but I decline to support anything that increases the number of uninformed apathetic skin sacks who might decide, having dragged their sorry ass to the polling station, to attempt to cast an actual vote for a candidate.  I don't hold their judgement in high enough regard.  If we require attendance, I'd rather confront them with a less harmful option they will find hard to refuse - hence the free mug of beer.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Another issue with mandatory voting, what is the punishment for not doing so? We have enough problem enforcing existing regulations.



From the Australian Electoral Commission:  



> http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#not-vote
> 
> After each election, the AEC will send a letter to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty.
> 
> If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you.



So yeah, it's not much but it's become such a cultural norm that most people will vote regardless.  I know many people who would rather go to the ballot box and cast a donkey vote than not show up at all.


----------



## RangerRay (28 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There IS the option of declining your ballot (IE, going to the polling station, receiving it, and immediately handing it back) which forces the government to include it as "declined" in its official count. I'd say that's a better way of showing disagreement with all the available options, since it shows that you weren't just lazy and apathetic, but actively and deliberately voiced discontent.
> 
> That's what I'm doing in the upcoming Ontario elections (probably), since there is no minor party running in my riding that would give me a protest vote option.
> 
> ...



I doubt that I would not turn out to vote, but over the last few years I have been very disillusioned by those who seek to govern us as all levels of government.  

I'll give a federal example.  The party I am most closely aligned to ideologically is the governing party.  As much as I find them to be the closest to me ideologically-wise, their behaviour in power has dampened my enthusiasm.  They remind me of another former governing party that starts with "L".  

The other two parties are even further and further from me ideologically.  In fact, I think they would be even more destructive to the country than the governing party.  

The "fringe" parties are not even worth considering, especially since there is none remotely close to how I am ideologically.  

By voting for the governing party, I would be rewarding their behaviour which I find intolerable.  By voting for the other two opposition parties, I would be voting for parties that I feel would bring in policies damaging to the country.  If none of the parties can inspire me to vote, why should I waste my time voting for crap I don't want?

That's basically a long-winded answer for why I feel that mandatory voting laws are a bad idea.  I used to be of the opinion "Don't vote, don't complain".  But if I don't like the choices of Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee, I should have the right to not participate.  Most of all, I would not want to see the apathetic being forced to vote and living with their choice.

 :2c:


----------



## xo31@711ret (28 May 2014)

'To really be fair; there must be something that you agree with.  If not, what are you doing here (in this province/country)?  Go some place that you find more agreeable.  If you disagree, and want change; not saying anything/voting is not going to affect change.  Apathy is the only word for it.

If it is so bad that you don't find any candidate that you can find something to agree on, another solution is to then grow some and become a candidate.'

to be fair George, your have your opinion, I have mine. Like YOU I was born in this country, ergo I am CANADIAN. Like you, I spent time wearing a uniform for my country. I did almost three decades, you I believe did more, making me proud to have served MY country and proud to have served with others who did the same. So if someone wants to vote even if they don't beleive in any of the party /candidates / leaders position, that is their choice, I respect that. I have ALWAYS voted, but please do not insult me by calling me apathetic because this time around I can not stomach the lies & BS the present so-called leaders of the  main parties spouting verbal diarrhea.  I'll go to the polling station, I'll register, and if nothing convinces me to change my mind,  (to me, in MY opinion) I'll refuse to sell my soul this time by voting for the lesser of the two evils....


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2014)

We have gotten into the mess we are with all our levels of government, due to the fact that we have a large number of apathetic people and a large number of Lemmings who blindly follow the Party of their ancestors.  We have to educate ourselves on what the platforms are, and not be conned by the BS spewed by other Parties.  The Ontario election is so fraught with misinformation that people actually believe the PC party is out to "Fire" 100K people, as opposed to their platform to allow attrition to cut the ranks of the Provincial Civil Service.  The PCs have said nothing about laying off Teachers, Police, Fire Service or Nurses, but the Liberals, NDP and unions are serving up those statements to the public who, if they don't do any research, accept it as fact when it is not.  What you may call the "Lesser of two/three evils" may only be a misconception due to these falsehoods being spread by various Parties and media.  It is a great ploy that either gains that Party your vote, or convinces you that there is no legitimate choice.  In the end, we get stuck with the same ole, same ole status quo.  

If we are not going to do our homework as to what the different Parties stand for, then we are being apathetic or just plain stupid.

We are responsible for the government we elect.


[edit to add]
At the same time, by spoiling a ballot/declining a ballot/not voting; are we not just giving the new government our approval through those actions.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2014)

Whoa - now I see why this, ladies and gentlemen, is why politics is one of the subjects that shouldn't be discussed in a Mess.  

I guess the fault really begins with me as I started the thread and I know I'm not a mod, but please be civil.


----------



## Journeyman (28 May 2014)

OK, I'll bring this back to civil discourse.......  [the 'voice of reason' being my strong suit  ;D  ]



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty....


So, in your riding (if you could vote there), that's about 2 beer -- 1.2 beer in some downtown Brisbane establishments....

...*or* ....pretty much 3 x bottles of red wine in the Gallipoli Mess... WOOHOO!  *I'd better vote!!  *  :cheers:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have gotten into the mess we are with all our levels of government, due to the fact that we have a large number of apathetic people and a large number of Lemmings who blindly follow the Party of their ancestors.  We have to educate ourselves on what the platforms are, and not be conned by the BS spewed by other Parties.  The Ontario election is so fraught with misinformation that people actually believe the PC party is out to "Fire" 100K people, as opposed to their platform to allow attrition to cut the ranks of the Provincial Civil Service.  The PCs have said nothing about laying off Teachers, Police, Fire Service or Nurses, but the Liberals, NDP and unions are serving up those statements to the public who, if they don't do any research, accept it as fact when it is not.  What you may call the "Lesser of two/three evils" may only be a misconception due to these falsehoods being spread by various Parties and media.  It is a great ploy that either gains that Party your vote, or convinces you that there is no legitimate choice.  In the end, we get stuck with the same ole, same ole status quo.
> 
> If we are not going to do our homework as to what the different Parties stand for, then we are being apathetic or just plain stupid.
> 
> ...



Umm George??  100,000 people attritioning in four years??  He has never used the word 'attrition'.
Where are you getting "educated"?


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Umm George??  100,000 people attritioning in four years??  He has never used the word 'attrition'.
> Where are you getting "educated"?




OK.  My interpretation of "attrition" could come from this statement: 





> ACTION – REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT PAYROLL
> 
> Decrease the number of positions on the government payroll by
> 100,000, about 10 per cent. That’s the size the government was as
> ...


 found on the PC Party website http://ontariopc.com/millionjobsplan/plan.pdf

They do have a plan, even if their math may be in question.

They also have a plan to reduce the number of Ministries from 27 to 16.  Whether or not that is feasible, will yet to be determined.



> ACTION – SHRINK THE CABINET
> 
> Reduce the number of ministries, and the number of cabinet
> positions at the swearing in of a PC government, from 27 to 16.
> ...



http://ontariopc.com/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2014)

An ideal is not a plan............


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> With all of that in mind I spent some time digging through the StatsCan website and I could find no record of spoiled ballots in any election results.  I also phoned an old friend of mine that tracks election results, by riding, all the way back to Confederation.  Odd hobby but he likes to colour maps and follow trends.  Anyway, he as well has never seen anything that tracks spoiled ballots other then the most basic of figures.  He also explained that under our various election regs over the years a ballot could be considered spoiled for any number of reasons including an X that extended outside the marking area, having used a check mark vice an X (at one time), more then one person selected or any comments added.  With that in mind it would be hard to tell a protest ballot from one filled out by a near sighted granny who forgot her glasses.  If it makes someone feel good I guess its ok but I still dont think it appoints to anything other then a waste of time.
> 
> I've pretty much always voted one particular party and ive never agreed with their platform 100% but ive agreed with it more then any of "the other guys".



thanks very interesting, being a scrutineer for a party in the last election I found the polling stations varied greatly in how they were run. Elections Canada seemed to provide useful information to the people running them, but the training seems weak.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> With all of that in mind I spent some time digging through the StatsCan website and I could find no record of spoiled ballots in any election results.


That's because Elections Canada and provincial electoral commissions keep track of that kind of stuff.

You don't have the option to "decline" a federal ballot (page 62), but you do in Ontario - attached are the stats from provincial elections from 1975 to 2011.  The percentage of declined ballots in Ontario have ranged from .04% all the way up to 0.5% in 1990.  In almost every election (except for that 1990 jump), there have been more rejected or unmarked ballots in Ontario than declined ballots.

According to this, Alberta also seems to have an option to decline ballots.

While I agree with those saying that declining does nothing to make things happen NOW, I have to wonder what parties would read into a significant number/percentage of declined votes.


----------



## Tibbson (29 May 2014)

I really dont think they would care provided they still had enough votes to be in power or be viable.  Its not like the 2nd or 3rd place party is going to stop and think..."Gee, if we had only appealed to the .4% of persons who declined their vote then we could be in power".


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I really dont think they would care provided they still had enough votes to be in power or be viable.  Its not like the 2nd or 3rd place party is going to stop and think..."Gee, if we had only appealed to the .4% of persons who declined their vote then we could be in power".


As it stands now, you're right.  However,

1)  If more people knew about being able to decline their vote, and used the option regularly, it could be more than the tiny amounts we see.
2)  If enough ridings were won (or, to draw attention, lost) by less than than the number of declined ballots, political riding bosses would take note,  If enough ridings rode this kind of slim edge, and the political bosses moved their concerns up the line, _maybe_ some things could change.

Lotta "maybe's" there, admittedly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2014)

It might galvanize MP to stand up to the Whips and party line, I tire of waiting for 2 months so my conservative MP can respond to me with a "approved form letter" that is the same as every other CPC MP is sending out, didn't realize I volunteered to help elect a lapdog.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It might galvanize MP to stand up to the Whips and party line, I tire of waiting for 2 months so my conservative MP can respond to me with a "approved form letter" that is the same as every other CPC MP is sending out, didn't realize I volunteered to help elect a lapdog.



It seems to be a trend in all the political parties in the House for the last two or three decades.   Even Elizabeth May has a firm grip on her members.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2014)

I don't suppose that plays a part in decreasing interest in the political process. 

Plus if this story is true I would be really pissed
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/government-repeatedly-shuts-out-witnesses-citizenship-and-immigration-debate

I saw the same thing here with the Kit's base closure, Minister comes out, everyone drops everything to meet with him including very important and busy people and within in an hour of coming out of the meeting he says "nothing's changed" So why bother pretending to consult?


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It seems to be a trend in all the political parties in the House for the last two or three decades.


True - while Chretien played the "hail fellow well met" with the cameras, he kept HIS whips pretty busy, too.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't suppose that plays a part in decreasing interest in the political process.


So young to be so cynical


----------



## RDBZ (29 Jun 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/14/andrew-coyne-like-jury-duty-or-paying-your-taxes-voting-should-be-mandatory/
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/26/david-moscrop-to-save-democracy-some-of-you-should-stop-voting/
> 
> ...



"Compulsory voting" in Australia is a misnomer.  In reality what's compulsory is attendance at a polling station and placement of a ballot paper in the ballot box.  When people choose not to vote for any party they typically vote "informally" - by either not marking the ballot paper, or by marking it in an "expressive" or "creative" manner.  The informal vote can be quite high in some electorates - the highest rate recorded for the House of Representatives in the 2010 election was 14%, with the national average around 5%.  Despite a vastly more complex ballot paper, there is a lower level of informal voting for the Senate.  So votes for minor parties are probably a conscious decision, and reflection of the Australian desire for a strong system of checks and balances.


----------

