Talk:Compulsory voting

Content

Should "none of the above" votes be mentioned in the part on random ballot casting? Some countries do this? Chris Wood 01:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should, yes - I don't specifically know of any countries that have both "none of the above" options and compulsory voting together, but it's quite possible that there are some. Even if there aren't, it's still hypothetically possible. -- Vardion 08:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know any countries where this is the case? Chris Wood 00:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Russian presidential election does, think the last one got around 4% "none of the above". In addition in the UK, the Leader of the Commons Geoff Hoon has said that if CV was introduced to the UK, there would be a "none of the above" option or something similar Asw32 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and Copyediting

There are a number of spelling errors in this page and in addition to that, numerous grammatical usages are dubious at best. Possibly, this page needs to be edited to conform to a higher quality of writing. New User 09:14, 22 December 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the grammar on this page, but am beginning to run across factual inconsistencies. For example, Australia does not appear to have compulsory voting; they do have compulsory enrollment and compulsory attendance at a polling place, but no actual requirement to cast a ballot.

Since I'm pretty unfamiliar with this whole topic, does compulsory voting actually mean "required to cast a ballot with at least one vote"? Or is the definition really closer to "required to receive and submit a ballot, even if no actual votes are cast"? Possibly a combination of the two? If someone with knowledge of the topic is able to clear this up, I'd be happy to work on the grammar and presentation some more. Unfortunately, without a little more knowledge of the subject, I'm afraid my rearranging of text might be misleading (at best) or entirely inaccurate (at worst).

CKlunck 23:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Compulsory voting is closer to the latter mentioned. The secret ballot (which I'm assuming is universal) ensures that nobody can know if a vote has been cast correctly or at all.--Cyberjunkie 00:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that definitely helps me out. CKlunck 03:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like to revert people's edits without getting clarification first, but I'm having a hard time with the word "expiation" in the intro. I can't find anything that relates that word to a criminal (or even civil) penalty under the law; it appears to be a term meaning atonement (as in "atonement for sins"). I don't think that's really correct for an article on politics or law. Am I missing something? CKlunck 19:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It means 'fine', as in 'expiation notice' (i.e. speeding ticket, etc). Use 'fine' or another equivalent if it is too difficult to work around. It is a less common formal word.--Cyberjunkie 01:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Seems to be an Australia/New Zealand way of saying the same thing - I was able to find plenty of references to the phrase you mentioned. I think I'll leave it in, unless I absolutely can't make it work. I learned something new today! CKlunck 05:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is it really just an Australasian term? I thought it was pretty universal. I usually (well, I like to think I do) have a pretty good grasp of language differences, being drowned with UK and US culture and all. Oh wells, so long as it is understood. Good work so far.--Cyberjunkie 05:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expiation?

I think whoever has wrote this article has got their lexical definitions wrong. Expiation is by no means a punitive measure.

Additional Arguments for Compulsory Voting

Hi,

I am doing research on compulsory voting as a reform idea for China. I would like to provide another strong argument for compulsory voting as a civil duty: If voting is compulsory, then political candidates will have to focus their campaigns on issues rather than getting the right voters to attend the poll.

For example, my research shows that US President George Bush Jr. was able to win his second term in 2004 because he was able to lure the conservative religious segment of the US population to come out and vote. He accomplished that by putting the gay marriage issue on the ballot in many conservative states. He targeted a specific group of people (i.e., conservative Christians who were against gay marriage,) then he worked to get those people to vote. That is not democracy. That is marketing and pandering to an interest group.

If voting was compulsory in the US, then that sort of political pandering and niche marketing would have been prevented. Nowadays, most American people are very apathy towards the political process of their nation. Most Americans vote along the party line - they either vote for the Republican party or the Democratic party. However, a lot of people are too apathetic or lazy too vote. Therefore, any US election has become a contest of which candidate is able to get more of his supporters, his party base, to get out and vote. US election has ceased to be about which candidate has the best plan, the best vision, for the country. In fact, not having compulsory voting undermines democracy in the long run.

The strongest arguement against compulsory voting is that it violates individual liberty and freedom. In regards to a Chinese democracy, that argument becomes invalid. I believe each democracy should have its unique cultural flavor and local influence. Unlike Western cultures, traditional Chinese culture (i.e., Confucianism) stresses civic duty and reciprocal responsiblity over individual liberty. Therefore, a democracy with Chinese flavor must reject the Western idea of unbridled individual liberty at any cost, and it must complement and emphasize Chinese tradition of civil duty and reciprocal responsibility. I believe compulsory voting is a must in China's long-term plan for government reform.

Thank you for reading.

So, by your interpretation, Australia is not a Western liberal democracy? True, for much of our history we have been much closer to what could be called a social democracy, with egalitarianism stressed as paramount. But Australia is a Western society after all, and along with Belgium, has one of the longest-standing compulsory voting systems. And liberty is still dearly held, and not in conflict with civic duty. Compulsory voting is not a Chinese tradition, rather, I would suggest disenfranchisement was ;-).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited my original message. What I meant to say is that the strongest case against compulsory voting becomes invalid in a Chinese culture, in a democracy with strong Chinese flavor or slant, beacuse Chinese culture and tradition have always valued civic duty and reciprocal responsibility over unbridled individual liberty and absolute freedom. In the West, one can reasonably argue that compulsory voting violates individual liberty and freedom, and the liberal Western culture has always value individual liberty and freedom above all else. In the Chinese culture, that sort of reasoning becomes void, because Chinese culture has always value civic duty and reciprocal responsibility above individual liberty and freedom. (i.e., Democracy does not equal liberty or freedom. Ancient Spartan was the first true democracy, and its did not value liberty or freedom at all.)

Yes, but some would argue that Ancient Sparta was the first communist state, so... But I do understand what you're saying. As an Australian, I am not unfamiliar with the debate over Western vs Asian values. If the two could be said to exist independent of the other (which is difficult because, Western values is interchangeable with Human Rights), and if we take a cultural relativist stance, Asian values would be those that value the society above the individual, and thus duty or responsibility above rights and freedoms. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a commonly cited argument FOR compulsory voting, as people believe that if it was introduced parties would not have to spend so much money on "Get out the vote" rallies etc, lowering the role of money in campaigns, allowing more time and money spent on "the issues" not turning out Asw32 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]