B made the assertion last night that, between the US and Oz, Australia has the better democracy. This isn't new; we have similar discussions often. However, our different voting systems prompted the recent round. He argued their law requiring every citizen show up to vote results in truly engaging everyone in the political decision-making process.
I countered with the argument that by requiring everyone to vote you end up with people uninformed and uninterested in the political process choosing at random how to cast their vote. At least the ~50% of US citizens who vote have (in theory) informed themselves and they're making deliberate choices.
Also, it doesn't feel very democratic to force people to vote. Shouldn't the choice to not vote be present in a democracy.
B countered my later argument by saying they just have to show up. Once you're in the voting booth, what you do with your ballot is up to you ... you can eat it and no one can stop you.
We went on like this for a while ... point-counterpoint ... until I put the queen in the mix.
Of course, I had to bring up the Queen. I mean, how can their democracy be better if (in theory) Queen Elizabeth II can come and take control back any ol' time she feels like it? She could decree every Australian citizen must own a Corgi and voila ... Corgis for everyone.
But I digress. Point being, what do you think? Is it more democratic to require citizens to vote or more democratic to allow citizens to make that choice for themselves?
I can't say which is the better democracy. The sum total of what I know about Australia's is what I've learned from your post.
ReplyDeleteAbout voting, I'm glad that those who are too lazy, busy, uninformed, forgot or just don't want to vote don't have to. In fact, I wish more of the uninformed wouldn't vote, but that's beside the point. The old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," seems to apply here. You can make a person vote, but if they fail to understand the issues or the person for which they are voting what is the value of that vote?
I think it is clear in our democracy, and I suspect every other society we could examine, that the uninformed are easily led by the propaganda that spews from all directions. Let it then be the propagandist's challenge to motivate their subjects to vote and not the government's. IMO
I am just happy I didn't have to banter this one! But, for the sake of joining in while avoiding the heat, I think requiring citizens to vote that don't want to vote is silly and a waste of time and resources. A democracy's supreme principle is that the union is governed by the people or their elected officials. Choosing to not vote is a valid choice - in essence allowing your peers to make decisions for you, like a child does who isn't intellectually prepared to make decisions for the masses. And, what if these forced voters do eat the ballot, isn't that basically the same as not voting, but a real waste of everyone's time and money? Curious - how are they going to enforce it in OZ?
ReplyDeleteJanell, Australia has had "compulsory voting" since 1911. B says they send you a $60 fine if you don't show up to vote. They give leeway for being sick and you don't have to have a doctor's note ... just have to explain.
ReplyDeleteMichael, you and Ian could come to dinner sometime. I'm sure B would love to tell you all about politics in "magical Australia".