- Reaction score
- 14,161
- Points
- 1,260
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.
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.