open Democracy News Analysis - dliberation - Comments

harrystottle on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

harrystottle — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:47:53 +0000

I'm amazed how little this paradigm is challenged by people who claim to be interested in Democracy. 2,500 years of Platonist conditioning has created a near consensus amongst both Rulers and Ruled that the only purpose of Democracy is to elect Rulers. It isn't. And, in fact, the Athenians - who invented the practice of political democracy - recognized that the very process of elections was inherently and inevitably corrupt and, instead, whenever they needed an "official" with delegated powers, they asked for volunteers and used random selection by lot to appoint the official for a limited period and - typically - a maximum of two "periods of office" in a lifetime. Democracy is about We The People taking the actual decisions - not electing dictators to do it for us. Now, I accept that there is a rational argument about whether such a political system could ever work on a global or even national scale and, until the evolution of the web, it probably couldn't have. But this medium finally makes the Athenian dream possible - even on a global scale. If you disagree with that and insist that we can only elect rulers, fine. Argue for your various forms of oligarchy, but ferchrissake, stop calling those alternative power structures Democracy. That said, it throws a wholly different light on the question being addressed: the possible compulsion of voting. What is really being asked is should we compel citizens to participate in choosing their own dictators. I think you can probably guess where I stand on that nonsense! And when we consider the question of compulsory voting in a real Democracy, that too is nonsense because, in a real Democracy, there can be no such thing as a defined constituency. If the issue being considered is "what colour should we paint the ceiling?" only those who have to look at the damn thing can argue for a part in the decision making process. They may or may not give a damn. So the eventual constituency is necessarily self selecting. As I argued in "Democratic Cannibals" "in the event of a problem or opportunity which requires a social (shared) choice to be made; anyone who is a) aware of the existence and nature of the problem or opportunity - or can be made so if necessary b) believes they have a reasonable probability of being affected by the decision or its outcome and c) gives a shit should be entitled to share in the decision making process." That is a fully scalable approach but involves the inherently subjective elements (b & c). We cannot compel anyone to "give a shit" so we cannot even consider making participation in the decision making process compulsory.

Jim Terral on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

Jim Terral — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:51:37 +0000

After World War One, at a time when our country was breaking free of the British Empire, the Canadian government attempted turn all Indians into Canadian citizens. In the big picture this entailed police action (including violence and theft) against what had been sovereign traditional native governments, governments that had, among other things, concluded treaties with the British Crown and fought as allies in several wars including The Great One. On an individual level, the Indian Act meant to make Indian people over into Canadian citizens by offering what has been described as "involuntary enfranchisement." If a "registered" Indian accepted the franchise, he ceased to be an Indian for the purposes of the Indian Act. Few took the bait. The franchise was not officially extended to include all indigenous peoples (involuntarily) until 1960, and it remains a hotly contested strategic issue within many native communities to this day. Certainly, the transformation of their traditional sovereign democracies into more or less municipal governments took place without a referendum or vote of any kind. But there were always plenty of police and in recent years the military. Several years ago, before embarking on negotiations with groups that have never had a treaty, the premier of British Columbia attempted to hold a referendum listing a number of options intended to "guide" the negotiators. Many citizens, both native and non-native, felt that this strategy simply was not the way to pursue negotiations and so, were faced with the same dilemma as many who do not vote face. Not voting suggests apathy. But voting implies that the question and the process are legitimate. It's what Paul Goodman, author of Growing Up Absurd, called during the Nixon-Kennedy elections "a choice of rat poisons." We solved the referendum on negotiating principles by turning our ballots over to native representatives within our communities. Negotiations have proceeded but without the "mandate" or the automatic legitimacy that the government sought by duping us into vote. The indigenous case is just one of many. I think it's important to understand that the vote, like any other right, can be and has been used as an instrument of oppression. Democracy faces a good many challenges right now, not the least of which is the Americans' abuse of it in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Venezuela and likely a dozen other places where the case is not so easy to make. A few decades ago, a satirical Canadian Rhino party campaigned during elections on the slogan, "Don't vote; it only encourages them." A "none of the above" option is not up to the challenge. The proposal to make voting mandatory underestimates the depth of people's disillusion with the ability of democracy, which is usually allied with that other magic wand--the market, to solve or even address our problems.

citizenj uk on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

citizenj uk — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:15:01 +0000

Compulsory! Wont work! We need to represent all walks of life at all levels and be more engaging and that's just not going to happen not with the current system. Better representation! Citizens need to be able to engage at levels they are comfortable with. The compulsory vote tied in with the no vote, may just give a result of No Vote, no government, what a wake up call that would be, a majority vote for change.

drais02 on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

drais02 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:12:14 +0000

Compulsory vote is not a solution at all. I'm Peruvian and vote is compulsory in my country. People cast their vote because nobody wants to pay a fine for not doing it. We're forced to cast our ballot and choose either the bad or the worst. The outcome is a low trust in politics and politicians as it is reflected in Peru's recent political history.

michaelcalder on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

michaelcalder — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:49:57 +0000

In the UK pretty well all votes are wasted votes, so the only people who vote are the confused and ill informed. The problem is that there is a disconnection between what the voter votes for and what the voter gets. 1) Lack of accurate representation means that most votes fail to get a satisfactory representative (most representatives are elected by a small minority of votes); 2) The only choice is between fixed menus of sets of policies; 3) All policies are set by minority cabals within a small group within the active parties; and finally, 4) Most politicians are not very effective at implementing their policies anyway. Permute all of these, and it shows that in the UK, even if you vote for the candidate of the winning party in a marginal constituency, you will probably only approve of a minority of the policies that will have an attempt at implementation, you will certainly have no influence over choice of policy, and even those of which you approve will probably fail. If you vote for anyone else, or outside a marginal, you have even less effect. However, attempting to improve the system is risky. Given the average education and competence of the electorate, the last thing we want is for them to have any serious say over the choice of policy.

blessdkrumheit on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

blessdkrumheit — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:16:22 +0000

GPFrank I wonder if such a law of compulsory voting wil be complicated by exemptions and exclusions such as those afflicted with dementia (Alzheimers) strokes, quadriplegia; psychiatric problems, criminal history. Who will certify the disability or disqualification? Wry comment may be, "For every new Law there is a new Burocracy.

mcconeb on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

mcconeb — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:15:38 +0000

Wait a second... You say "you would be forcing people to vote for candidates or positions that they do not support", yet Fiona MacTaggart's proposal clearly includes the need to mark a box with "none of the above". In other words, forced voting would give a clear separation between those who simply didn't make it to the polls, and those who hadn't voted as a protest against the corruption/bad policies of all candidates. Let's not distort what we're talking about here. I would, admittedly, favour proportional representation to revitalise British politics over such an extreme measure as compulsory voting, but it would not be the end of democracy as we know it to levy a slight fine on those who didn't vote, when there was a "none of the above" box clearly provided...

jrmartinson on "Liberate by de-liberating, vote by compulsion"

jrmartinson — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:45:53 +0000

Among the many problems of such a draconian policy, the largest one that should offend the senses is how it would pervert the popular will and the debate within a democracy depending upon its system of voting. In a first past the post system such as the United Kingdom, we should expect that compulsory voting would decrease incentives for parties to appeal to more moderate voters. Even if we assume that everyone who would be forced to vote under such a scheme was reasonably educated and always made a rational individual decision, it does not follow that any candidates would reflect their views. Ultimately, you would be forcing at least some people (In fact, probably most people) in any given election to vote for candidates or positions that they do not support. This is a result so perverse that liberals (in the philosophical sense of the word) should be ashamed for even giving a thought to the notion. The fallacious assumption, more voters leads to better results, does not seem to follow in any way from any careful observation of reality, and it baffles me as to how this has grown in popularity.