Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Register To Vote


AlanD

3-Jul-2007
6:38:02 PM

The changes to the electorial role happened several years ago, I think it was in well before the last Federal election. The other change is you can enrol to vote when you turn 17, but you aren't permitted to vote until you are actually 18.

It's hard to claim that the government is trying to prevent people from voting, there is a fairly big advertising campaign running at the moment and it's not really a big secret that there will be a federal election this year.

Technically, if your own the electorial roll, it's not compulsory to vote in Australia. It's compulsory to get your name marked off the electorial role, you may then destroy the voting forms if you wish, but you don't actually have to vote.


kerroxapithecus

3-Jul-2007
7:04:08 PM

nmonteith - if you haven't voted for 10 years they obviously don't know you exist so you might like to remain 'missing'. I think I'd keep the status quo. I really like the idea of being missing in this day and age where they know just about how often you visit the loo. I didn't vote once in a local election that I didn't even know about and they were on to me straight away with a fine. I just sent back the letter with an excuse for why I didn't vote and never heard any more about it.
I don't agree with compulsory voting because it stuffs up the system and the results are not a true reflection of what people want.


Chuck Norris

3-Jul-2007
10:05:35 PM

On 3/07/2007 dr_fil_good wrote:
>I received a summons to court the other day for my absentee vote not making
>it into the polls for whatever reason on 18 March last year (South Aus
>local elections) with a $230.80 fine.

sorry....but please sit down dr_fil and don't get angry... cos I also got that summons a few months ago
for the same sa election....i rang a very nice lady who very sternly told me that I should have registered
my change of address (despite not doing so nor voting for 8 years....and btw she asked for no evidence),
she cancelled the fine and made me promise to register 'soon' at my new address in melbourne...which i
still haven't quite got around to doing...though i reckon i better before the fed election...

4-Jul-2007
10:17:33 AM

On 3/07/2007 kerroxapithecus wrote:

>I don't agree with compulsory voting because it stuffs up the system and
>the results are not a true reflection of what people want.

And look what it does in America. Half the population votes. Half of that half votes for Bush and he gets elected (we won't mention Florida at the previous election).

That means three-quarters of Americans DID NOT vote for him but he becomes president. This is a true reflection?


M10iswhereitsat.

4-Jul-2007
10:39:14 AM

It was inevitable ...


BigMike

4-Jul-2007
12:16:21 PM

On 4/07/2007 BA wrote:

>
>That means three-quarters of Americans DID NOT vote for him but he becomes
>president. This is a true reflection?

Hmmm....

My brother and his wife had a colleague round for dinner the other evening, conversation veered towards Work Choices ... their guest had never heard of Work Choices, undoubtedly the most contentious subject in the news for the past year or more and a crucial election issue.

She will naturally be voting on election day, because she has to.

I've read surveys that estimate only 10 per cent of a developed nation's population has what could be described as a fair grasp on political developments in their country.

It'd be fair to assume that most of this 10 per cent would vote.

So, if it's a volutary poll, with a 50 per cent turnout, then about 20 per cent of the voters could be viewed as ``informed''.

In Australia, with a near-100 per cent turnout, our informed voting percentage would therfore hover around 10 per cent.


BigMike

4-Jul-2007
12:26:54 PM

On 3/07/2007 AlanD wrote:
>The changes to the electorial role happened several years ago, I think
>it was in well before the last Federal election.

In fact, the new electoral laws were pushed through in December 2005, along with the disclosure threshold for donations to political parties being raised from $1500 to $10,000.

So this will be the first election under the new ``close voter registration the day the election date is announced'' laws.

>It's hard to claim that the government is trying to prevent people from
>voting,

As I said earlier, this will most affect young people (who don't tend to vote conservative) and people who rent (and who are less likely fall for a certain political line about ``keeping interest rates low for families'').


Bluey

4-Jul-2007
12:31:35 PM

So your argument is that non-compulsory voting is likely to weed out the uninformed voters and ensure greater impact from the informed voters?

Unfortunately though, non-compulsory voting also tends to create a socio-economic bias in voter attendance. Those who are welathy and educated are likely to vote because they can and because they have greater faith in a system of government that has given them opportunities and social standing. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds may not be able to vote due to circumstance and may not want to vote because, ironically, they think they don't count.

Ronny

4-Jul-2007
12:37:05 PM

On 4/07/2007 BA wrote:

>And look what it does in America. Half the population votes. Half of that
>half votes for Bush and he gets elected (we won't mention Florida at the
>previous election).
>
>That means three-quarters of Americans DID NOT vote for him but he becomes
>president. This is a true reflection?

What percentage of voters in Aus voted for John Howard? Even if all of Bennelong voted for him it'd be small.
The coalition got 46.7 percent of the primary vote.

Howard got 41735 votes in Bennelong in 2004. 90% of eligible electors turned out to vote (about 11.7m). So that's about 0.35%.

Given 90% turn out - the coalition vote of 46.7% is actually 42% of elligible voters - so much less than half. After preferences were distributed, the coalition got about 52%. But even that's only 46% of elligible voters.

How many people voted for the Governor General?

My point is that I'm entirely unconvinced that this shows that the US system is flawed. I'm not saying it isn't - but you'll have to come up with more than this to show it.


rodw

4-Jul-2007
2:13:36 PM

>Unfortunately though, non-compulsory voting also tends to create a socio-economic
>bias in voter attendance.

I wish that was the case then the US (and the rest of the world) wouldn’t be in the situation it is atm. Unfortunately non-compulsory voting means that the more passionate/fundamentalist in society will bother voting...and those that hold moderate/middle ideals won't bother...that why in the states you now have a govt elected by a mostly fundamentalist Christian minority. (you certainly wouldn’t consider your average bible bashing high school drop out republican voter as "wealthy and educated"

The Australian system is widely regarded around the world as producing the most moderate style of politicians as they can not bow down to any small minority group as then they alienate a larger part of the population. We have a true democracy in Australia because everyone does have to vote. We are a moderate society due to our political system of compulsory voting...sure we have our loony (mostly religious) fringes....but they will mostly stay irrelevant as long as the average Joe has to vote and cancels their stupid ideals out.

Non compulsory voting means governments can target policies to groups of people that they know will turn out to vote to support it....a small percentage of the population but just enough to get em over the line.

Compulsory voting means policies are more well rounded and benefit a larger proportion of the community...because it has too. Sure we have our anomolys, i.e. The Tampa affair, but they are often short lived and do not become entrenched in the political scene years on end, as people work out eventually what is a good or bad policy. Our system means the government has to keep changing, adapting to our needs in general and if they don’t.... they get voted out.

Its hardly an inconvenience, 10 minutes every 4 years.... especially a federal election that allows you to vote by post or a any polling booth in the state.


M10iswhereitsat.

4-Jul-2007
2:25:29 PM

>Sure we have our anomolys, i.e. The Tampa affair, but they are often short lived ..

Yep ! Perfect timing, that one !! Got our Little Aussie Bleeder ' ... across the line ...' nicely ...

"GO JOHNNY, GO ! GO !! GO !!! "

for fox sake

4-Jul-2007
2:46:35 PM

Neil,
Say your name is Nick Montieth, Neils long lost twin brother who's been living in Bum-f--- Arkansas since being kidnapped and stuck in a cult!

Johnny will plead for your vote and you can then tell him to shove it and vote for Kevin Dudd !!!!


BigMike

4-Jul-2007
3:01:39 PM

On 4/07/2007 rodw wrote:

>
>The Australian system is widely regarded around the world as producing
>the most moderate style of politicians as they can not bow down to any
>small minority group as then they alienate a larger part of the population.

Who gives it this wide regard?

Compulsory voting leads to easily predictable outcomes. The country hinges on a handful of swing states, mostly in WA, Queensland and Tassie. Political policies target these communities. Howard got a majority in the Senate last time by going to Tas a week before the election and telling the loggers, ``vote for me and I'll let you keep on woodchipping away''. It worked.

The worst part of compulsory voting is that a politician doesn't have to merely inspire someone to vote for him (or her). You have to get people to CHANGE their votes and political persuasions. And it also means politicians find it easier to scare people into voting for them, by playing on a voter's negativity. Howard's got this down pat: Tampa, ``interest rates will go to 17 per cent under Labor'', etc.

Most people get rusted on to one party or another, and even when that party is failing in their eyes, they'll say, ``well they're all a bunch of bastards anyways, so since I have to vote for one, might as be the usual one''.

This is why we get stuck with Governments for ever.

Australia has only had the courage to change its Government FIVE TIMES since World War II. Four, if you don't count the Dismissal, which I don't. That, to me, is the sign of a quagmire, not a healthy democracy.

dalai

4-Jul-2007
3:10:45 PM

On 4/07/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Australia has only had the courage to change its Government FIVE TIMES
>since World War II. Four, if you don't count the Dismissal, which I don't.
>That, to me, is the sign of a quagmire, not a healthy democracy.

You could also see this as a benefit. Where incumbent governments are in long enough to actually do something constructive -if they actually chose to!

Ironic someone so against compulsory voting was the person to raise this topic to get people to register to vote...

Bob Saki

4-Jul-2007
3:20:06 PM

sheesh the way this is heading we'll be asked to purchase special

Chockstone;

"I Climb and I Vote" stickers

in a true democracy voting should be a voluntary exercise IMO. It should be your democratic right as to whether you partake in the democratic process

dalai

4-Jul-2007
3:30:21 PM

Great idea about the stickers Bob Saki ;-)

I disagree voting should be optional - means more clout to radical minority groups. Like others have said - takes only 10 minutes every few years.

We could always try for a dictatorship - that way we don't have to worry about voting at all! Since Castro is out of hospital, Raúl might be interested into the gig here?

Rather arguing whether we should or shouldn't have compulsory voting, we should discuss why there isn't anyone worth voting for!


BigMike

4-Jul-2007
3:33:22 PM

On 4/07/2007 dalai wrote:

>Ironic someone so against compulsory voting was the person to raise this
>topic to get people to register to vote...

Not at all. I'm against compulsory voting, but this election isn't deciding that issue.

And if there is going to be compulsory voting, then there shouldn't be some cynical plan to disenfranchise a segment of the population.


rodw

4-Jul-2007
3:35:39 PM

Hey Mike, I have read alot of poltical discusions from overseas and more often then not they point to Australia as a proper working democracy.

>>Australia has only had the courage to change its Government FIVE TIMES
>>since World War II. Four, if you don't count the Dismissal, which I don't.
>>That, to me, is the sign of a quagmire, not a healthy democracy.

And in that time we have a fair and mostly just society, no wars...one terrorist attack...one of the first countries to allow women to vote (bloody NZ beat as there though)...no real civil strife.....a good welfare system...a good public health system (for all those nay sayers out there just try and get sick in the USA without insurance) and a high standard of living.

You have to look at the governments job, collect taxes and supply the infrastructure for everyday Australians....why do they need to be inspirational to do that. Its not an inspirational job, its an esential job, nothing more. Im sure the pople who voted for bush thinks hes inspirational, Im sure so was Hitler...dont forget the loony Taliban or any African despot...all truely inspirational to the people that supported them...and that all turned out so well....not.

A politician is like a referee in a game of footy...the only time he should be noticed is if he stuffs up....if he dosn't stuff up he get another game to referee


BigMike

4-Jul-2007
3:35:55 PM

On 4/07/2007 Bob Saki wrote:

>"I Climb and I Vote" stickers
>

The concept of those stickers originated in the US, where only 50 per cent of the populace votes.

They were designed to show that special-interest groups were committed to voting for change.

But they don't apply here (someone needs to tell the ABC that!).

"I climb and I vote?"

Sure you do, everybody votes. Tell me something new.

dalai

4-Jul-2007
3:41:14 PM

On 4/07/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Sure you do, everybody votes.

Neil doesn't... ;-)

There are 240 messages in this topic.