talkpolitics | Should Democracy Be Compulsory?

On the one hand, CENSUS, YAY!

On the other, FREEDOOOM!

There was a similar poll some time ago, about the possibility of having "None Of The Above" as an option, and calling new elections with totally new names on the ballot, in case that option won. I like it.

My grandma used to always write "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF DONKEYS" on her ballots. Interestingly, here in Oz, as long as you don't put anything in the box other than your preference numbers you can write whatever the hell you want on your ballot and it's still valid. I like putting little pictures and haikus on them to keep the counters entertained.

Hey, that's a fun waste of paper! Did a donkey get elected sometime?

His name was Menzies and he ran the country for a few decades!

Don't be so proud! 'Menzis' means 'menstruation' in my language!

A donkey named Menzis sounds like a bloody ass.

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2012-11-20 07:14 (UTC) - Expand

It was during his reign that the term "The Lucky Country" was coined. Many Australians thinks it means we're awesome, but what it actually means is that the land is so bountiful that even a bunch of clueless hicks like Australians can make a go of it :P

(no subject)

mahnmut.livejournal.com - 2012-11-20 16:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2012-11-21 06:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

mahnmut.livejournal.com - 2012-11-21 08:46 (UTC) - Expand

I'm thinking that fostering a social environment where people are well educated on average and make well informed decisions, is the much more preferable option than simply compelling them to cast a ballot in order to check their name in some list somewhere, and say they've fulfilled their "social obligation", and thus wash their hands. I mean, in the ideal case the former scenario would tend to work much more "naturally" than the latter. If ideal scenarios ever existed in reality, of course.

While "You're all a bunch of donkeys" sounds like great fun, I doubt it's a symptom of a well informed, politically active and socially involved population. It rather looks like a bored population who are wondering what useless stuff to fill their ~~time~~ ballots with.

Um... for an example of a nation in which your preferred option has been tested live for some decades, see the USA. It's not pretty.

And I would counter with the example of my country of origin, Iceland. Also most of its neighbours: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that no single model works for the entire world, so we cannot apply the same model and all the examples that come with it, universally.

Not true. There is one ring to rule them all!

See the genius of the founding fathers was that they knew that this wasn't really a possibility. It's just not possible that every citizen is a political expert. And they shouldn't need to be either, they should be spending their time learning farming and shoemaking and whatever else industry to make a life.

So they intended a representative system where the individuals didn't need to know much, it's just it hasn't turned out that way and generally elections are sold by telling people they are a lot more informed about issues than they really are. We decide who we vote for based on whether they agree with out uneducated positions now, not if they're the most qualified for the job. Just one of the many ways the US system was hotwired.

Yes, and on the other hand there's the risk that a culture may be established among the political circles, where a candidate for representative would say and promise whatever the populace expects them to, only to see themselves sent to office, where they fortify themselves politically and financially, and become "representative for life", and begin a process of self-enrichment, while gradually divorcing themselves from the interests of their electorate. There's this notion among too many people that, once they've sent someone to represent them, it's the end of the story.

I think the US founding fathers counted on it. ; )

So they intended a representative system where the individuals didn't need to know much. . . .

Which hasn't been functional, especially since 1910. That was the last year a Representative in the House only represented 60,000 people.

It's up to 700,000 today. Impossible to meet a majority of your constituents' need, let alone allow an unconnected constituent the ability to contact a rep and expect he or she will even have time to read the correspondence.

Wow I didn't think it was functional that recently. I was thinking the last time was probably more like 1778.

I'm thinking that fostering a social environment where people are well educated on average and make well informed decisions, is the much more preferable option than simply compelling them to cast a ballot in order to check their name in some list somewhere, and say they've fulfilled their "social obligation", and thus wash their hands.

I agree. The problem with focusing this much on elections is that in a healthy liberal democracy, involvement in the civic and political system is something that should be year-round, not just on election day.

Edited 2012-11-19 08:31 (UTC)

Australian's are well educated on average, but they're also an apathetic bunch. If we didn't force them to vote the elections would end up being decided by radical fringe groups. The fact that everyone has to vote means that people make much more of an effort to be informed and because everyone is doing it it's much more likely to be a topic of social conversation, raising the political knowledge of the populous as a whole. The fact that it's compulsory, IMO, means that people make a more informed choice, rather than a less informed choice. It also means our elections aren't decided by the craziest 25% like in the US.

I never said my grandmother didn't make an informed vote, she's actually the one who put me on to voting independent and having the two majors as the last two preferences. She was voting and expressing her disgust at the quality of person public office attracts.

Apathy is a problem, yes. On the other hand, after all, is a society without too many of the serious problems of the Second and Third World, prone to tolerating fringe extremists at all?

I come from a background of a country where people are not only well informed but also politically active. I'm not saying this model works for the whole world, the way yours wouldn't work for the whole world, either. I think each model should be adjusted to the specifics of the place.

I think the society without too many problems is precisely the one that needs to look out. If people are comfortable and feel safe, they disengage from the political process and *whoosh* you wind up with the fringe banning abortion.

(no subject)

ddstory.livejournal.com - 2012-11-20 16:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com - 2012-11-21 18:16 (UTC) - Expand

Some people would happily vote for Nun of the Above.

That's one badass grandma.

She would have to be a virtual grandma. I believe she is supposed to be a virgin. She is destined to be a bride for an al-Qaeda suicide bomber in the after-death.

Edited 2012-11-20 17:04 (UTC)

What about immaculate conception, then.

Medieval superstition, that.