a million times a trillion more (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dolorosa_12) wrote2020-10-31 05:20 pm
dolorosa_12) wrote2020-10-31 05:20 pm
Entry tags:
Democracy sausage for all
Various links relating to Australian politics (or, more specifically, the Australian electoral system) have come into my orbit in the past couple of days, so I thought I'd gather them in one place, because they touch on things I've been chatting with people here about in the past couple of weeks. (lirazel and kore, in various comment threads, if I recall correctly.)
The defining thing about the Australian electoral/voting system is the fact that we have compulsory voting. (Technically, of course, what is compulsory is showing up at the polling station and taking a ballot paper — since voting is secret, there is no way of checking whether a person has actually voted or not.) As a result of this rule, there are all sorts of positive knock on effects — because if everyone must vote, you need to set up a system which makes it as easy as possible to do so.
Former NSW premier Bob Carr wrote an interesting (and depressing) article in The Guardian comparing the Australian system with the US one. I find it a bit smug (surely it's not news to most Americans that the electoral system there is a complete anti-democratic disgrace), but I like how clearly it lays out all the things I, as an Australian whose formative experiences of democracy were the Australian kind, take for granted. (The big thing is turnout: I grew up with the idea that a turnout of 95 per cent or so was normal, and can still remember how shocked and horrified I was when I found out that 60 or so per cent turnout was considered high in other parts of the world.)
One thing which I've always found particularly delightful about this need to ensure everyone is able to vote is the fact that the Australian Electoral Commission literally flies helicopters around to remote communities, hand-delivering and collecting ballots. This BBC article explains the process.
This other Guardian article by a woman who has written a history of voting in Australia I think overstates the case. She claims that compulsory voting has saved Australia from 'Trumpist' politics, whereas I feel that Australia is plagued with exactly the same kind of far-right anti-science, anti-expertise politics experienced everywhere with a Murdoch-dominated press. What I do appreciate, though, is the fact that Australian elections cannot be won on turnout, and their results do at least represent (sadly) what a true majority of people want. And unfortunately what a majority of Australians want is blandly centre-right suburban politics.
My final link is an account from the ABC (i.e. Australian state broadcaster) foreign correspondent in Washington, recapping his experiences of living and working there since last November. This was actually the job my father had when I was a very small toddler (around the same age as the current correspondent's son is now), but I suspect he and my mother had a very different time of it back then!
lirazel and kore, in various comment threads, if I recall correctly.)The defining thing about the Australian electoral/voting system is the fact that we have compulsory voting. (Technically, of course, what is compulsory is showing up at the polling station and taking a ballot paper — since voting is secret, there is no way of checking whether a person has actually voted or not.) As a result of this rule, there are all sorts of positive knock on effects — because if everyone must vote, you need to set up a system which makes it as easy as possible to do so.
Former NSW premier Bob Carr wrote an interesting (and depressing) article in The Guardian comparing the Australian system with the US one. I find it a bit smug (surely it's not news to most Americans that the electoral system there is a complete anti-democratic disgrace), but I like how clearly it lays out all the things I, as an Australian whose formative experiences of democracy were the Australian kind, take for granted. (The big thing is turnout: I grew up with the idea that a turnout of 95 per cent or so was normal, and can still remember how shocked and horrified I was when I found out that 60 or so per cent turnout was considered high in other parts of the world.)
One thing which I've always found particularly delightful about this need to ensure everyone is able to vote is the fact that the Australian Electoral Commission literally flies helicopters around to remote communities, hand-delivering and collecting ballots. This BBC article explains the process.
This other Guardian article by a woman who has written a history of voting in Australia I think overstates the case. She claims that compulsory voting has saved Australia from 'Trumpist' politics, whereas I feel that Australia is plagued with exactly the same kind of far-right anti-science, anti-expertise politics experienced everywhere with a Murdoch-dominated press. What I do appreciate, though, is the fact that Australian elections cannot be won on turnout, and their results do at least represent (sadly) what a true majority of people want. And unfortunately what a majority of Australians want is blandly centre-right suburban politics.
My final link is an account from the ABC (i.e. Australian state broadcaster) foreign correspondent in Washington, recapping his experiences of living and working there since last November. This was actually the job my father had when I was a very small toddler (around the same age as the current correspondent's son is now), but I suspect he and my mother had a very different time of it back then!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Occasionally, someone comments that compulsory voting is wrong though I find their arguments... limited.
no subject
People's arguments against compulsory voting always seem to boil down to the idea that it's an attack on people's individual liberties and conscience to compel them to vote, but that fails to convince me. I feel like voting is the price you pay for living in a democracy (and it's such a tiny price — it's like the bare minimum of political engagement), just as taxes are the price you pay for living in a country with some degree of social services. Particularly given Australia has preferential voting, it's not as if we're being forced to choose between two unpalatable choices — we can be much more tactical than that, and use our preferences to send a message, even if our first-choice candidate doesn't get elected.
For me personally, if there is a tension between some nebulous idea of individual 'liberty' (which always seems to be the liberty to do nothing) and civic/collective responsibility, the balance should always fall on the side of collective responsibility.
I also think the fact that voting is compulsory does a lot to shape the cultural norms around electoral participation. I would never say that Australia has a highly politically engaged population, but the fact that voting is compulsory means that even the most apathetic view voting in local, state and federal elections as normal, standard behaviour. Whereas elsewhere, because people have a choice whether to participate or not, the act of voting itself becomes a political act — something to do if you feel strongly about the result/politics in general, and heaven forbid a political party doesn't do enough to 'earn your vote': if not, you can have a tantrum and refuse to vote, because that will definitely show them! I prefer the Australian cultural norm, and the resulting well-run, and politically neutral electoral system and bureaucracy.
no subject
Definitely on the side of it being a civic responsibility and have commented to this effect. I would say there's only middling engagement by the broader population and this really is a way to engage people on issues/politics.
no subject