There has been an insufferable degree of smugness of late in the chatting classes about Australia’s electoral system. A special for Australian Broadcasting Corporation produced by veteran journalist Annabel Crabb has done much to swell the heads of officials, politicians and pundits. But the production called Civic Duty has to be seen alongside a general sense of puffed-up worth on Australia’s singular compulsory voting system. From the outset, the nature of the relationship between citizens (we might say subjects, given that Australia retains as its head of state the British monarch) and polity is made clear: you do not have a right to vote but an obligation to. Not doing so entails penalties and tribal disapproval.
Voting became compulsory through the Australian Commonwealth in 1924. The argument was a familiar one: people were simply not taking their electoral duties seriously enough. That voting was a right that might just as well be exercised by not voting was an argument few could fathom among the electoral moralists. With the gains of the Labour Party in the December 1903 elections, significant enough to eventually see them form a short-lived minority government, there was grumbling from the explorer turned politician Sir John Forrest. “What we have now,” he blustered in March 1904, “is government by minorities. The polling details of the December elections show that Australia is in the hands of minorities. That is all wrong.” As only majorities should rule, the electors had to be taught a lesson for their irresponsibility of choice. “If the people won’t use their voting privilege, then I think there should be compulsion.”
Dullness is the default position of the compulsory voting exercise, and pundits are delighted with that fact. Extremists, the colourful and the idiosyncratic are whittled down by forcing people to the ballot box. “Compulsory voting,” political theorist Anthoula Malkopoulou crows, “is known as the great leveller.” It also dilutes right-wing populism, which the author thinks most appropriate, implicitly suggesting that the left-wing variant might somehow survive. (It does not.) Compulsory voting is therefore “preventive in that it structures the socio-political space in a manner that reduces the appeal of populist claims.”
A superb example of this celebration of the dull and drab in politics is supplied by Nick Dyrenfurth, Executive Director of the John Curtin Research Centre, and co-author Tony Shields. From the outset, their prejudice is thickly displayed: compulsory voting prevents the likes of Donald Trump ever winning leadership, showing that democracy, if exercised correctly, can prevent certain types from getting in. This political illiteracy is accompanied by the erroneous presumption that compulsory voting somehow “ensures that government reflects the whole community, not just the loudest or the wealthiest.” The authors never stop to consider what that reflection entails.
What becomes clear is that gamey flavour in politics is not something Australian political strategists, representatives or planners can cope with. It’s far better to have that sort of pungency boiled down to something reliable, stable and tolerable. “Compulsory voting,” Dyrenfurth and Shields explain, “also keeps parties anchored to the centre. To win, you must persuade a majority of voters, not merely fire up your base. Voluntary systems reward polarisation, as parties chase intensity over breadth. Our system rewards persuasion and compromise.”
Not true: the system indulges apathy from both the politician and the voter, only suggesting persuasion towards an argument. Ask most voters turning up on election day (and those increasingly doing their pre-poll) and you are bound to find little “breath” in terms of argument. In many cases, you are lucky to find any argument at all. Politics remains the preserve and industry of a small, solipsistic community of parties whatever their stripe, and compulsory voting lends nothing to enlighten the general voter.
Which brings us then to the serious flaw in compulsory voting: that it never accounts for how informed the voter is. At polling booths and stations, the elector will encounter an avalanche of how-to-vote-cards explaining why the party or candidate wishes you to vote in a certain way. Given that Australia also has a preferential system, this can prove critical, as a candidate may well win on the voting preferences of other, more like-minded contenders.
All of this is mighty fine when it comes to process but does nothing to tease out how knowledgeable the voter is. Ask any cohort of university students if they understand how many chambers make up federal parliament, let alone how many seats they are in each, and you are greeted with the embarrassed silence of failed civic education. What comes to mind is a form of Pavlovian conditioning. Don’t go deeply into the reasons for engaging in a course of conduct: just do it. This sentiment is well exemplified by Louise Rugendyke of the Fairfax press: Australians don’t really want to see how the famed “democracy sausage” is made when they turn up to vote; they just want to eat the wretched thing, assume they have done their duty and “not think about it for another three years.”
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
I have always had very great respect for all your contributions in this forum and this, your latest effort has not changed that. I just ask, should we ditch compulsory voting and return to optional or is there another option? Should we do away with elections and the party system, do away with politicians altogether, government by ai?
Winston Churchill said, “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others”
I have worked at polling booths for years and I notice that those people who have no idea follow the ‘how tos’. If we want to clean up our system I believe it would be better to get rid of the Senate
Compulsory owing ensures the resources of political parties are devoted to promoting policies and debate, as distinct from just using them to encourage people to bother to vote.
Those that want optional voting because they think politics might be more exciting (or something) have list the plot
Can you suggest a better voting system Dr Kampmark?
Fifty years ago, the Whitlam government was ‘sacked’, as it turns out, by the crown, so yes, perhaps we are subjects, not citizens, yet, rather than having government imposed on us, an election was called, and those ‘subjects’ were called to vote, a newly elected government was installed, a government elected by what is considered to be one of the fairest electoral systems. Some of us may have been a bit upset with the result, but accepted it as the will of the people.
The matter of whether the electorate is knowledgable or not is up to the individual electors, surely. The parties lead with their platforms, their ideas on how they will govern, the people, whether they want to know or not come to the election places, have their names marked off, and are give bits of paper. At that point, their ‘duty’ has been fulfilled. What they do with the bits of paper is up to them…. make the appropriate marks too register their vote, draw cartoons on the bits of paper, make them into paper planes. It’s up to them.
So we get a turnout of over 90% of the electorate, and since the election is run by an independent body, the results are accepted. The only times that results have been questioned has been when the count is so close that all votes are recounted, scrutinised, challenged, and ultimately accepted.
What makes the process fair, is the preferential voting system. How to vote cards are useful for those who either don’t care enough to think through who they would like as their representative, but are issued merely as a guide. An advantage of the system is that the winning candidate must get at least 50% plus one of the votes lodged.
In other places, where first past the post is the count used, where there are many candidates, it is rare for that being achieved. In some systems, the top two after the initial election, face off in a run-off election, costly and again, calling for a second turn up at the election booths.
I could go on, describing various election systems, like the Dutch which seemingly democratic has found gaining a coalition capable of working together a near impossible task, or the US system which sees individual state governments run their elections, decide electorate boundaries and where, in the case of Presidential elections, the votes registered are over run through the electoral college system, over-riding the popular votes. Again in optional elections, the need to convince people they should vote, and the opportunities to make it difficult for some to vote are parts of that system, leading to a credibility issue, as witnessed in the three elections where Trump has been a candidate.
So please Dr Kampmark, can you suggest a better system, or improvements to the system we have?
One of the best things about compulsory voting is that it puts the onus on the electoral system to make it as easy as possible for everyone to vote. In Australia, we are not limited to a single day. We have polling booths close to hand across the country. We can vote absentee if not at home. If you are in hospital or a nursing home or similar institution, the electoral officers visit and assist voting. If you know you will not be available on the day due to work commitments, a need to travel, impending childbirth or some other impediment, you can cast a prepoll vote.
There is no need to have volunteers to get the voters to the polls. There is no possibility that someone can prevent you from voting. You dont need to stand in long exposed queues in fear of your life.
And, when you have your voting papers in your hand, you are free to mark it in any way you feel, including to not mark it at all.
Cath, if we want an example of getting rid of the upper house, the house of review, we need not look very far away, Queensland found the house of review to be far too troublesome, with the labor government in 1922 wanting to ‘break the power of the wealthy over the parliament’.
It didn’t work too well, Queensland has seen laws pushed through, like the current government is doing in regard to youth crime, the criminalising of children, the autocratic reign of Bjelke-Petersen and the corruption which was rife during the long period of his government (1968-87) .
Good government needs the opportunity for legislation to be reviewed, to be scrutinised, to have quality debates to ensure that bills passed are in deed fit for purpose.
The senate was initially set up with equal representation from the states so that the larger states could not disadvantage the smaller states. The party system as we have it now does the same job, but along party lines. The results are usually, better laws, fairer laws.
We need the senate.
Tha last election(s), saw huge majorities in the lower houses, both in state and federal elections, but in both cases, the upper houses, the Senate and the Legislative Council the government needs to negotiate their legislation through, compromise on aspects, make the legislation fairer, better.
We get rid of the upper houses at our peril.
Binoy” an interesting essay. I think you hit the nail on the head with “…the embarrassed silence of failed civic education….” Indeed, our secondary education system, and hence our community, would do well to include a compulsory unit on Civics from year 7 to at least year 10. Similar studies should be freely available to all Australian adults and in particular to arriving migrants seeking citizenship.
It would be a huge help to our system if most of our politicians were honest, and not squashed by dominant factions.The current state of play is a shining example.
Keep voting for Independents.
Mediocrates, as a former middle school Society and Environment teacher in the public system, I can say with absolute certainty that civics is taught as part of the curriculum.
The decision to vote or not to vote, should be up to the individual, compulsion should not come into it.
But why vote when the crown can terminate a people’s elected government whenever?
You then have the situation that the party which you support and may even contribute to doesn’t stand a candidate, so why would you vote?
The AEC don’t call the $20 penalty for not voting a fine, they call in an Administration fee.
Quote: If you have received a notice for not voting at a federal election, by-election or referendum and wish to pay the $20 administrative penalty, you can do so online using the Government EasyPay service.
It’s like the AEC are saying,‘we set up a polling booth for you, with a sausage sizzle and you didn’t bother to turn up so you cost us money …hand over $20 or do what many do and write to us telling us that your religion won’t allow you to vote for anybody other than God and he/she wasn’t a candidate‘ that’ll do it.
I like comp voting: for once Australians have to get off their arses and think about the issues that effect their lives, away for a little while from the doped stupor of telly, sport, soap opera and junk food.
I see Dr Kampmark’s point tho: “social cohesion” and dumbdown are helped by compulsory voted rather than forced to deal constructively with thinking on policy- WE could be the next Gaza we are so apathetic..
I can’t see how “going American” can be all that helpful for the mo, but acknowledge that the democratic system intended has been undermined as the decades have passed by; also the US with ITS rather odd seeming political system, or worse still, England.
Terry.
I DID refuse to vote last decade once and got fined.
Personally, I think any person who rejects stsnding in the sun for an hour at a booth before voting for non-entities with no policies and missing a fat-saturated sausage sizzle ( and sauce and onions sliming over shirt); they are just NOT Australian!
Paul
If you were objecting on religious grounds you would probably have been found to have a valid and sufficient reason as required by the Act.
High Court Krygger v Williams (1912) 15 CLR 366
‘Provisions on compulsory voting still require a “valid and sufficient” reason for not doing so but, those like Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a religious objection to voting, are regarded as having such a reason. On its website the Australian Electoral Commission comments:
Under s 245(14) of the Electoral Act or s 45(13A) of the Referendum Act the fact that an elector believes it to be a part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for not voting.’
To say it once would be unfortunate, but to say it three times looks like desperation.
“… compulsory voting lends nothing to enlighten the general voter.”
“… the serious flaw in compulsory voting: that it never accounts for how informed the voter is.”
“All of this is mighty fine when it comes to process but does nothing to tease out how knowledgeable the voter is.”
That’s criticising something for not doing what it’s not intended / expected / required to do.
That’s berating a steam locomotive for not being a light bulb.
That’s saying it’s all very well for everyone to drive on the left side of the road, but their conformity with road regulations tells us nothing about the drivers’ knowledge of the social contract that underpins an orderly society.
As pointless dummy-spits go, 10/10.
Oh dear, the problem with compulsory voting…. all that is required is for the citizen to turn up at a polling place, whether on the actual day of the election or in the early polling places open for two weeks before the election and have their name makes on the roll, indicting that they turned up, as required, what they do with the ballot papers passed to them is irrelevant, make a paper plane with them, scribble some inner nonsense on them, wipe their behinds with them.
How bloody inconvenient to have to show up at a polling place sometime before 6pm on election day or in the two weeks prior to that date.
For those who find that all too difficult, all too much of an intrusion into their busy lives, you will get the government you deserve.
Good points, Bert
I’ve always done a Postal Vote for as long I can remember.
Terry Mills, I am so glad you see me as a Man of Faith.
Yes, the Good lord has opened my eyes… if you like.
I now see just about all of them as fake and this has been enhanced by this epiphany on the Road to Damascus.
Gallagher in the Senate, with the repulsive right wing effort to deny people the dole BEFORE they have convicted of anything…
Terry, maybe Ive done a postal vote too, must check my memory…
Congrats to Ed Husic for raising the issue of foreign profiteering on OUR gas!!!
Which brings us then to the serious flaw in compulsory voting: that it never accounts for how informed the voter is.
Neither does voluntary voting. A voluntary system rewards the motivated, not the educated.