[mrangle]

Compulsory voting is what regimes do when their government is so obviously corrupt that a strong voter turnout is the only thing left that lends an air of democracy. Most often suggested if flagging voter turnout might be seen as a possible public indictment of the system's democratic legitimacy. Now we can't have that sort of protest. The People will be enthusiastic! lol.

[FireBeyond]

Ahh, Australia, "so obviously corrupt" that mandatory voting is the only thing that lends an air of democracy.

I love this notion that the US is such a special snowflake that there's always a reason that things that work nearly everywhere else couldn't possibly work here.

[mrangle]

Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with.

After all, if nine months of partisan rioting in an election season is kosher before a "free and fair election", which leads to over twenty five deaths, then not voting shouldn't be a big deal.

Unless, of course, a compulsory level turnout has value in lending legitimacy given the the broader context of antidemocratic events.

Democratic governments should not have the political protection of citing the compulsory turnout. Whether the political currency lent by the compulsory turnout is implied or overtly cited.

The political currency that the turnout lends is something that needs to be earned via the legitimate practice of government.

If the government processes become corrupt, then the voter turnout should be one avenue of reflecting that opinion by the populace.

The choice to withhold a vote is as democratically "sacred" as the right to vote.

[FireBeyond]

> Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with.

You are free to not vote for any candidate in Australia. You are free to write "Fuck you all" on your ballot. All you must do is attend a voting station. And unlike the US, there are many legally enshrined protections to ensure you can.

I'm not sure your complaint. You are the one that tarred mandatory voting with a wide brush. I apologize for offering a counter-argument.

[mrangle]

Is the counter argument that Australia has compulsory voting and that you think it's a fine place? I don't dispute the right to an opinion. You can think that Australia is great and compulsory voting is great and "works". Go in peace.

Whereas my arguments are referencing democratic logic. I'm attempting to speak to a general logical framework of principles, rather than to (too much) give specific place opinions.

I took your "counter argument" statement about the existence of Australian compulsory voting as fact.

I'm not sure what the point is of returning to, what, partially contradict me on the details of Australian voting and where it isn't exactly totally compulsory?

Truly with all due respect, I think that you're having an argument with yourself at this point.

[Nursie]

> not voting is a form of protest

I very much agree.

In Australia you can go along, write "screw you" on the ballot, job done, attendance recorded.

And the fine if you miss it is only a few bucks. It's a good nudge get everyone participating.

[mrangle]

No. One has to be publicly seen to not-vote for the "not-voting" to be a protest.

The protest is in the visible lack of turnout, and more relevantly in the lack of turnout of voting blocks that have historically shown up. Still agree?

I know that this is hard for you guys.

So I'll simplify it with an example scenario, which also tests your democratic moral logic.

Which is more democratic?

An election of Kim Jong Un in North Korea with 100% compulsory turnout. Or

An election of Kim Jong Un in North Korea with 5% non-compulsory turnout?

The answer, very obviously, is that the scenario with 5% non-compulsory turnout is more democratic.

This is the correct answer because the 95% that did not show up to vote would be seen by the world as a protest vote against a corrupt system. This is a necessary and valuable democratic mechanism. As it deprives Kim Jon Un's corrupt government of democratic legitimacy.

As it stands, North Korea has 100% voter turnout.

Do you want to veer toward or away from North Korea's model of "democracy"?

What you have in Australia is publicly visible compulsory turnout, period. Aside from whatever you might do privately in the election booth.

You can claim that Australia is a model of non-corruption. Maybe it is.

But compulsory turnout sure is a large step in corrupting elections, and one could argue a hallmark of corrupt elections. As well as a highly unusual shared characteristic with the most corrupt governments in the World.

[Nursie]

Utter nonsense mate.

Lack of turnout has never made the blindest bit of difference anywhere, and is indistinguishable from laziness and disinterest in actually democratic countries. But in Australia we can see the numbers who spoiled their votes.

In North Korea Kim Jong Un is free to invent the attendance figures just as much as he is the prevalence of votes for himself.

[mrangle]

Your response ignores my points and sounds very North Korean, in defense of a North Korean style voting system.