Compulsory voting, democracy sausages and the Constitution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лис 2024
- Australia is unusual in having a system of compulsory voting. But is it compulsory to lodge a valid vote, or is it enough to submit a ballot, even though it is blank or defaced with censorious scribbles? Is it anti-democratic to compel people to vote, or does it enhance democracy by making Parliaments truly representative, giving them greater legitimacy and a genuine mandate? And what do sausages have to do with it?
This video addresses the arguments for and against compulsory voting, the history of compulsory voting in Australia and how it operates. It concludes with competing constitutional arguments about compulsory voting - that on the one hand it must be retained in order to support the constitutional imperative of maximising the participation of 'the people' in elections, and on the other hand that it breaches the Constitution because it denies voters a genuine 'choice' in elections.
I was shocked to discover that the Oz Constitution doesn't mention the sausage at all!
The Constitution is quite remiss in this regard. But it does mention 'intoxicating liquids' in section 113.
Although I wouldn't make this a legal requirement, I don't recommend voting under the influence, especially if it's one of those metre-long Senate papers.
😂😂😂😂😂
@MichaelRogers-et8dq That's a disgrace! There is even a political scientist I know who goes around polling booths ranking democracy sausages by reference to price, quality, bread/bun, and additions such as onion and sauce. Perhaps you should start up your own democracy sausage sale at your polling booth next time.
It does not need to mention it. It is so essential, that you can locate the Polling site from the delicious aroma.
Thank god for compulsory voting, it has got to be one of the most genius policies ever thought up. The simple fact is that people who are less engaged (and less likely to turn out to vote if it is voluntary) are typically FAR MORE moderate than the more engaged, and political moderation and centrism are good things. It stops major political parties from moving towards the extreme fringes.
Edit: I just finished your video, great stuff as always :)
Social cohesion is such an important thing and i think that compulsory voting is an important policy to ensure that politicians are accountable to every one and not just the people who vote for them. Preventing extremism is always a good thing.
@@JacobKnight-Barendse-pe4jk Quite so.
I LOVE compulsory voting! It’s brilliant. Citizens have rights and responsibilities and one of the most vital and important responsibilities is voting.
What basis in reality does that thesis even have considering there are many societies that are politically inline with Australia?
I recall from schooldays when a teacher was explaining compulsory voting. He said " Voting is both a democratic right and a social responsibility" There is no doubt in my mind that the Australian system forces parties to the centre but more importantly it prevents extremism as is now occurring in the USA. The "None of the above" party would score well if they were listed on the ballot paper.
This is fascinating. I have spent some time explaining compulsory voting to Americans and how it is effective in many ways outside the actual voting, for example, the very effective management of voting rolls in Australia prevents the purging of voter rolls as happens so often in the USA.
As a side benefit, as an amateur genealogist, I find the historical voter rolls to be a fantastic resource.
Yes, electoral rolls are a great historical resource.
I was working for Centrelink during the 2022 election, in which phone voting was instituted for electors subject to state Covid restrictions (at the time, confined to those actually infected at the time IIRC). It mostly worked fairly well. Having our phones set to take Centrelink and AEC calls concurrently did lead to some teething troubles, such as operators assuming that a call was for Centrelink until the disjoint in the conversation indicated that the call was for voting.
One of my colleagues ended up in an argument with a caller who simply wanted to put a 1 next to a candidate for the HoR, and nothing else. I sort of understood how that came about in that, acting for the AEC, the natural tendency is to want every vote to be formal, and therefore one might insist that the elector fill in the ballot paper correctly. When this colleague and I discussed it, I simply pointed out that he was acting as a stenographer for the elector, and all one had to do was mark the ballot paper as instructed. Within reason, of course. If an elector had asked me to draw dicks on the ballot paper, I would have refused, and written something like "intentional informal vote", or nothing at all.
Great story. Glad you didn't have to include the drawings. A saw a few in my time.
If I had only one free voting reform, it would be eliminating group voting tickets in the states that still have them.
If you want compulsory voting, you must allow "None of the above" on the ballot paper with the caveat that if "None ..." gets the majority vote, the election is declared void and none of the candidates may stand in the next election.
@MichaelRogers-et8dq Not me. Who makes voting compulsory?
Voting is not compulsory. You can spoil your ballot paper anyway you want and render it informal.
@MichaelRogers-et8dq A benevolent dictatorship could probably not be any worse than what we now have?
@@lc79tourer26 This is a ridiculous statement. A dictatorship whether benevolent or not means very little or no choice or freedom for the people. The Australian system is a good example of a representative democracy as Professor Twomey points out. If you can't see that then you must be blind to reality.
I really enjoy voting in person on election day. I really hope the majority of Australians do not embrace electronic voting or pre polling.
I am on the silent electoral roll, and can pre poll or postal vote, but I usually try to vote in person on election day.
My position is that voting is like serving on juries. Tedious, but a duty.
If we are to live in a country where you can get trial by jury, we all have to do jury duty when it is our turn. In just the same way, if we are to live in a democratic country, we all have to vote at elections.
I'd also like to add a point about the polarising effect of voluntary voting. When parties and candidates pursue an "energise the base" strategy, i.e. a campaign aimed at increasing voter turnout among their faithful extremes, not only do they offer policy that attract extremists, but also policies that excite and even inflame extremists. And furthermore, they propagandise beliefs that inflame extremists, with often scant regard for the truth. The result is that the "interested" are more misinformed than informed.
That's my instinct too. Although I was talking to a Canadian the other night who said that this polarising effect does not happen there. So I guess other factors are in play too.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 What is the rate of voter turn-out at Canadian elections? If it is high for any reason (not just compulsion), then the effectiveness of 'energise the base" strategies is low anyway. (There's not advantage in getting out a voter who was going to get out anyway.)
@@brettevill9055 Voter turnout in Canadian federal elections has been in the 60-70% area since 1993 (with the 2008 election sinking to 58.8%). Quite useful information on it is here: www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=turn&document=index&lang=e
I'm an Aussie. Just to be clear: voting is not ~strictly~ compulsory, but it is very close to it.
What is compulsory is:
(i) attending a polling booth (or pre-poll site or obtaining a postal ballot)
(ii) getting your name crossed off the electoral roll
AND LASTLY BUT JUST AS IMPORTANTLY (there are court cases to prove it) (iii) submitting the ballot papers you were given.
If you don't wish to vote for any candidate, you are free to invalidly mark your ballot. Now, it isn't strictly legal to deliberately spoil your ballot but our voting is private so no-one is getting picked up for making their vote invalid.
That is voting. Putting an invalid or donkey or empty vote is a form of voting. Voting is the process of having your name crossed off and putting the ballot into the box
We've had a couple of Lawyers who claim that the procedures of justice are more like a Butcher's Picnic, so sausages will always be on the menus.
Brilliant stuff!! This video should be compulsory viewing.
"Compulsory viewing" and how is that going to be enforced? 😄
@@7ismersenne the ‘A Clockwork Orange’ Method??
In the forthcoming presidential election in the United States, one candidate seeking the protest vote has legally changed his name to None of the Above.
the american independence party(quite an awful group)got a lot of voter registrations due to people assuming they were just the box for "non affiliated" actually there self described white nationalists
I suspect that would not be permitted in Australia. In the UK, of course, they have had Lord Buckethead and the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. In Australia, the Australian Sex Party actually got a candidate elected in Victoria. For some reason this intrigued the media in South America, and I kept getting requests to comment on it!
We should celebrate Australia's democracy !! The way we do it is the right way .
On the question of choice, I'll throw in that we live in a Representative Democracy. We like to think we're voting on the issues, but (apart from Referenda) we're actually not, we're merely voting for a Representative and those "issues" merely inform our decision in choosing our representatives. A uniformed voter has as much right to be represented as the uniformed voter. Arguably even the informed voter is uniformed about 99% of the decisions their representatives make. Arguably the whole point of a Representative Parliamentary democracy is that the majority of the population is not sufficiently formed to make decisions, even a lot of those who think they are, and instead we don't decide an issue, but we chose a person who will do the reading and sit through the meetings for us and make the actual decision. An interesting variant of this, I heard a recent interview with retired US Supreme Court Judge Stephen Breyer, who refused to answer questions on controversial recent decisions, on the grounds that because of who he was, his opinions carried the weight of "informed opinions" yet if he hadn't done the reading and sat through oral arguments, he could not, in full conscious, claim they truly were informed decisions.
One of the interesting question is whether in voting we are choosing the party (and its policies) or the individual. It can vary. Sometimes the individual member has a strong personal following, regardless of their party, and other times a person is elected solely because of their party (as you cannot imagine anyone would support them if they knew them!) This becomes relevant when a person is elected on the basis they are a member of party A and then defects to party B. I will do a Clarion about this, as it is quite interesting.
Edmund Burke set this out quite nicely in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol in 1774. He explained that as their representative it was not his duty to vote as they instructed him, but to use his best judgement as to what was their true interest, considering all the facts and arguments that he would hear and they would not have enough time to attend to. Sadly, they didn't re-elect him at the next election.
Breyer would still have been well informed on the Constitutional basis for the prior status quo and its validity, or otherwise. In our own country, we wouldn't be happy with retired High Court Justices of either political persuasion mouthing off about contentious recent cases.
@@Hiltok I'm pretty sure there was an element of that. And I'm sure his unresearched ed opinion is still better than most we read in the press But he specifically said the whole process of doing the research, thinking and discussing is a meaningful part of the job of being a Supreme Court judge and that as you do it your opinion can move significantly.
@@scottn2046 Fair point.
I did some historical data cleaning for the AEC a few years back.
Another striking statistical effect of compulsory voting was women's enfranchisement. Male electoral turnouts were consistently significantly higher than female electoral turnouts until compulsory voting locked them both into the high 90s.
Thanks - that's really interesting!
A government of "None of the above"!! - we did try in the ACT when the "No SelfGovernment" Party managed to get several members elected to ...self government!
Yes, I also remember the 'Party, party, party party'.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes that was Emile Bruno's. His policy was warmer winters for Canberra.
@@Stephen-sr2pb😂😂😂😂
yes, interesting times. the no self govt party got members elected who then promptly became the yes self govt party.
It should be rightly termed "compulsory attendance at a polling place" rather than compulsory voting. There is another good reason for making it compulsory, that of reducing the opportunity for blockading, intimidation or coersion at polling booths. In NSW at least, it is forbidden to have party faithfuls handing out how to vote forms inside the perimeter of polling places. They may do so outside the school gates but not within a certain distance. I don't know how far away they need to be, I am sure Miss Clarion will know the answer to that one.
At a very high level, I find compulsory voting a bit dubious and think the choice not to vote is perfectly valid.
On a personal level, I don't understand why anyone who has the right to vote would choose not to. What the heck is happening in these people's minds?
On a practical level, the compulsory factor is nothing. I once slept through an ACT government election and received a fine of the princely sum of $20. Ultimately it's value is in the psychological effect of opt in vs opt out. There are studies in fields such as organ donation that are very informative.
In Federal and State elections in the United States, voters are allowed to write-in the name of candidates for the higher offices that do not otherwise appear on the ballot.
There are all sorts of interesting variations in what can be done with elections, which (unfortunately) will probably not be tried in our Federal and state systems because the electoral law tends to be somewhat overly prescriptive by deliberate design to avoid loopholes. Writing in a candidate seems to have more cons than pros - I like the idea in theory, but it seems to me that in practice few people are likely to agree on an undeclared candidate to the point they would be a viable contender, and there’s also the question of the person consenting to nomination.
About the only feature of US elections I would be interested in possibly borrowing is the idea of ballot initiatives as ad hoc plebiscites to advise Parliament on specific questions, but the devil is in the details since they can obviously be used for good or bad intent. A recent example is provided by how the Parliament avoided legislating on marriage equality (a power available to them under section 51(xxi) of the Constitution), lagging considerably behind where public opinion had moved to, and then finally implementing a survey which was unnecessarily divisive.
Rusted on voters are a curse on democracy and ensure that older parties continue to gain higher vote levels.
Very interesting talk. I have always thought that the term "compulsory voting" was a misnomer. Really it should be "compulsory turn up and get your name marked off". As you described, this is what really happens. It is also the fairest, in that no person is disadvantaged by taking part in the government as would happen if some made the effort to vote while others did not bother.
One interesting possibility that seems to exist in USA is "write-in candidates", where is you do not like any of the options, you can write in who you prefer and it is tallied up. Perhaps "none of the above" would be a better option. 🙂
@@davidmorrison3814 - absolutely agree! What having to turn up, have your name crossed off and accepting a ballot often has the effect of getting people to THINK about political representation. There are a lot of citizens who have a “don’t care” attitude and never turn their attention to politics, but having to rock up at a polling booth is a jab in the ribs to make a decision even if it is only to leave the ballot blank. Nobody is forced to vote for someone they don’t want to represent them. Leaving the ballot blank is virtually saying “none of the above”.
For me, choosing who to vote for is a matter of conscience, of doing my best to help create an effective government.
Love this channel.
I think the “none of the above” would be a good option for Australia. The risk of nobody winning a seat might be higher, but is not catastrophic and it might be a way of the people to express their choice for a better selection of candidates and hopefully lead to a more ethical set of politicians. I know, pipe dreaming.
Glad you enjoyed it. In the nineteenth century, voters in the Port Philip District (later Victoria) refused to elect representatives to the NSW Parliament at one stage, because they did not feel they were being genuinely represented and they wanted their own colony.
How can it be a "festival of democracy", if it is Compulsory?
It is compulsory to attend, receive a ballot and place it in the box. How the ballot is marked is a matter for the voter. In practice, this has created a culture where voting is valued and opinion polls strongly support compulsory voting.
Because voting is held on a Saturday, it tends to take on a community festival experience - at least in some places.
I really don't think it's such a big impost to get off our collective backsides every few years and have a say in who runs the country. If we don't value and participate in democracy, it's a slippery slide towards autocracy.
Absolutely agree! Driver licences are compulsory to be legally able to drive, but I have never heard anyone complain about being required to obtain a driver licence.
The act of voting is one that engenders a sense of responsibility and privilege for most people and for those completely opposed to being expected to be a responsible citizen, completing an informal or donkey vote is always an option.
@@annieclaire2348 Aside from engendering responsibility in the voters, it also engenders a baseline of respect for all members of the community amongst those seeking office. Be one ever so humble and lowly (as I am), on election day, one ranks equal with any and all others on the roll of your community.
Is the phrase “Constitutional Clarion” your minting? I’m getting Déjà vu with it. Something I might have read regarding American Civil War. Great channel btw
Yes, I made it up. But it is certainly possible that it has been used before. I agree that it has the ring of a US newspaper from earlier times, but I've never looked.
A few days ago I voted in our local and as I was leaving I told the staff running the poling station that I will be running in the next election under the ticked everyone must vote and if you cannot decide who to vote for put a cross in every box. This would guarantee that the political parties who won could not claim that the majority of people voted for them.
But this would just give an informal vote, and they don't count those in determining majorities.
Might the phrase "directly chosen by the people" simply mean that voter choice should not be intermediated by an electoral college etc? The phrase "directly chosen" also got a working over in several leading intra-union rules disputes. These included a long running and bitter battle over control of the AWU at the time of the Labor "split". From memory, one or more of these encompassed the use of "electoral colleges" and multi-tier voting systems that could, of course, be manipulated to favour one union faction over another. Those 'hot issues' are these days settled by legislation - Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 sections 142-143. But the industrial law/histology might well have informed Australian jurisprudence on "directly chosen" more generally.
Yes, the 'directly' part of that phrase is certainly intended to exclude electoral colleges and other intermediaries - which the High Court has said on a number of occasions. But it hasn't stopped intense focus by the Court and others on the words 'chosen' and 'the people'.
I suddenly feel an almost overwhelming urge tor register a political party under the name "None of the above" ...
I'm pretty sure someone tried that once and it was not allowed, but I might be wrong.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I think in Tasmania we had a candidate who tried to change his name to "Informal", which would have had interesting consequences if the TEC had accepted his nomination as a candidate (if I recall correctly, they didn’t) because his stump speech or slogan would have been "At this election, vote Informal".
At the Federal level the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was recently amended in 2021 to give the AEC a number of additional rules which it might use to proscribe (i.e. disallow) party names that might cause confusion in the judgement of a reasonable voter (what is considered reasonable might be somewhat opaque). Most of this is covered by section 129 (Parties with certain names not to be registered).
I don’t think ‘None of the Above’ is likely to be a problem, but other barriers might be an issue (finding 1,500 members to join your party is a more challenging requirement now than it had been in the past).
We have compulsory enrolment here in Britain as well, but not compulsory voting. I think our system works well although our government did recently introduce voter ID laws that were seen to potentially disadvantage certain voters who didn’t already have ID and don’t realise they need to get the electoral commission to send them a special certificate, whereas before you could just take your poll card sent in the post. Compulsory enrolment is also odd here because we still end up getting the electoral commission telling everyone to please register before every election because it is only compulsory when the local council sends each house an annual letter (almost like a census but just for voting) to declare who is eligible to vote within that address and if anyone isn’t registered the council will then ask them to register, which is a bit unwieldy.
I’m not a fan of compulsory voting, and I don’t think general election turnout here is bad, although local election turnout can be abysmal at times, but if you do have compulsory voting I think the ballot should have an abstain box to make it very clear that you don’t have to vote if you really don’t care so you don’t just get people closing their eyes and picking a box (or boxes in Australia’s case bc of ranked choice).
Compulsory voting can make a significant difference to outcomes. Would the Brexit referendum have turned out the same way with compulsory voting? My guess is that it would not, but regardless of the outcome, it would have given greater legitimacy to the referendum result if it was clearly the will of the majority of all eligible voters. (I visited Britain shortly after the referendum, and was told by many people that they hadn't voted and now really regretted not doing so.)
While Australia does not have an 'abstain' box, people do leave the ballot blank (or write rude words on it) if they don't wish to cast a valid vote.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I think many people don’t realise about spoiling their ballot, is it different in Australia? Here a lot of non voters just say they won’t show despite being able to go, spoil their ballot, and have that spoiled ballot marked down on the official results (although it isn’t like spoiled ballots can legally win).
@@tobeytransport2802 Yes, it is well known in Australia that this is the way of being counted as voting, but not casting a valid vote.
I think 'none of the above' has merit.
This would be a first step in removing career poiticians. They would not get a second chance. We would restore integrity to our parliaments with those who really want to serve the people instead of 'winning power to govern.'
Thank you for the video! .during high school one of my last assignments was on compulsory voting. basically i said it would actually lead to more stability and power for the informed and interested. there would be no surprises due to greater turnout from one group or another and the goverment would better understand the non politically engaged . However our electoral college makes thing a bit more complex as theoretically a state could choose its electors another way (lottery fight to the death parliamentary etc.)as they run there own elections .or a state could do compulsory voting on its own.
curious theoretically if a spoiled ballot or none of the above or whatever did win it would be to the governor or governor general to decide wouldn't it ?or would the party with the largest seats just go on with a very small parliament.
I once gave a talk to a class of American law students at NYU about compulsory voting, and I think I convinced them by the end that it was a good thing. I also sat next to an advisor to President Obama on electoral reform at a dinner, and the running joke of the evening was that he was going to recommend compulsory voting to the President. We all knew it would never happen.
As for what would occur if an election failed to elect a candidate - the answer is that they run it again until someone is elected. It did actually happen in the 19th century - but it's a long story that I'll tell another time.
In Australia only official candidates can win. You can't have a 'spoiled ballot' win. It's extremely unlikely for an individual seat to have two candidates left that each are exactly 50/50 split on the votes. For the country as a whole there is an odd number of seats, so it can't be evenly split.
Generally the party with the most seats will attempt to form government, though they need not be the one to do so, if the party with the second most seats can convince more than 50% of the people to support them, they can form government. The government can be dismissed by more than 50% of the members present to pass a vote of no confidence in them, though in practice they have resigned rather than face that vote.
The governor general stepped in only once when the government couldn't pass 'supply' or basically the money to run the government. Like the 'debt ceiling' in the US, except rather than doing the stupid thing and sending public servants home like in the US, if you can't get more than 50% in each house to pass the supply bill, all the politicians may lose their jobs and there's a new election. A much better threat to generally force cooperation I think.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 cant wait!
Does the constitution say anything specifically regarding about our obligation to vote in council elections?
And how is it that that the fine for not voting in a council election can be 5 times greater than the fine for not voting in a state or federal election?
There is nothing in the Commonwealth Constitution regarding compulsory voting at any election. It is done by legislation.
As for local elections, it would depend upon the relevant State. The New South Wales Constitution, for example, does provide for compulsory voting in elections for the State Parliament. Section 286 of the Local Government Act provides for compulsory voting at the local level. As for penalties, they are whatever the legislation specifies.
Thank you for an informative and concise presentation on the subject but and there is always a but, could you please look into the Australian Electoral Act with Amendments and any state electoral legislation if indeed they do infact exist and point out any differences between them . Also could you please point out what does and does not constitute a valid vote according to the Australian Electoral Act with Amendments?
Thankind you
That's too complex a request, because each State has a different law. Some (eg Tasmania) have quite different electoral systems. If you want to know in relation to a particular jurisdiction, look at the relevant legislation in the jurisdiction (usually known as the Electoral Act - or to make things more difficult at the federal level - the 'Commonwealth Electoral Act') and look for a summary on the website of the Electoral Commission in the relevant jurisdiction. They are pretty good at providing clear legislation.
in Australia voting is compulsory and the AEC goes out of its way to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote......in the USA voting isnt compulsory and in a lot of cases parties go out of their way to restrict people from voting even to the extent of prison terms if someone voted by mistake.
King O'Malley now there's a colourful character in Australian politics. Gosh imagine being in a Canberra winter and not being able to have a shot of port to warm your socks.😢
Another consideration is that taxpayer's funds are doled out to parties on a per vote basis.
Yes, I suppose that does give them a financial incentive to want formal votes.
Making voting compulsory also makes it harder to cheat. Because most people vote, it shows up on the rolls when someone tries to vote for someone else. (You get a 'double vote' and you can ask the person what happened. And one can accurately measure how much it happens. Answer: rarely, and it wouldn't change the outcomes.)
Yes - this ties in nicely to my other video on multiple voting.
I just saw that video. I came across them out of order. Thank you for making these videos!
It’s a duty to get your name ticket off the roll at the polling station, what you write on the ballot apparently is secret.
The video explains this (and see also my video on the secret ballot: ua-cam.com/video/I6JZVaOPtzw/v-deo.html.
Once again an amazing video I think your video stop the votes and this video on the arguments for and against compulsory voting work well together, can’t wait for your next video. Given my own experience viewing the counting of ballots very few votes are informal I think from memory the last one I witnessed was close to like 1% informal and I guess that just like in 1922 like 50% of the population drawing a rude picture on the ballot or something similar would need to occur before the government might want to consider finding a fair way to enforce a marked ballot (perhaps they might implement a voting machine (voting using machines is a legal can of worms that I hope Australia never has to open) whereby it only prints out a ballot if you indicate your preferences however once again I think you showed why the law as it stands and the culture that has developed around voting means that these circumstances are very unlikely to happen. As such I think you are right and the case for implementing a law similar to SA in each of the states and territories and at the federal level makes sense. Note also that whilst I am still interested in the video on manner and form restrictions their unintended consequences and the way in which at the federal level this is largely prevented by the constitution except for a few anomalies (I’m very interested to know what those are and your views on them) as someone who lives in NSW given that our state constitution protects compulsory voting I feel more at ease and don’t really see a case for protecting compulsory voting using a manner and form restrictions approach given that under our federal structure it would seem that compulsory voting is relatively safe, since other governments in Australia can implement this in their constitution if they wanted to using the argument that NSW has it in theirs. It’s always interesting to get your views on so many interesting would be interesting to see your views on these topics and so many more perhaps you’ll even get a chance to explore the electoral process in this country especially before the next election (note that i saw many people brining pens to the referendum because they believed that people were going to rub out their votes and change them… it’s things like this that make videos like yours that explain different aspects of the voting process and Australia’s democracy such a useful resource so thank you.)
Thanks. While we don't use voting machines, there was a question when online voting was trialled as to whether it should only permit a person to complete a formal vote. For technical reasons, online voting has largely been abandoned - except for groups that particularly need it, such as blind people. But it does raise the issue of whether there is a freedom to vote informally.
As relatively recently demonstrated, voting doesn't just have to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair. Another layer of obfuscation like a voting machine is essentially just an expensive pencil and increases the risks of 'perceived' potential manipulation. It's very very easy to understand marking a paper and putting in a very well observed box, the physical effort to then change that, while being observed, and the risk that requires you to be present, basically makes any sort of large scale manipulation impossible. The worst that ever happened was a lost ballot box which required a whole new election, but it was through all the checks and balances noticed.
Online voting is impossible to definitely secure, especially on end user devices. You can secure the website all you want, you can't secure every person's individual device. While probably no one will interfere with local elections that get to decide such things as garbage collection, the risk is enormous for international interference if it became popular for national and even some state elections. The other problem other than securing people's individual devices, is that being 'secret' it's impossible for there to be any sort of technology to allow you to prove your vote was counted in a certain way, as that opens it up to things like selling your vote, which is one reason it was secret in the first place.
And all of that means that even if you ran an election online/ with machines that WAS actually secure, just the notion of a threat that people may not accept that, is something that should be avoided. The cost of manually counting things is worthwhile, most people that suggest otherwise do not really understand computer security.
@@peter65zzfdfh Another excellent comment explicating my own views very well.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 How very interesting… Well, in cases where people might need assistance from a machine to vote (as mentioned, blind people, etc.), I think the question on informal voting and its legality can be avoided. Obviously, legislators may not see the need to avoid the matter of informal voting and may adopt a version of the SA law where informal ballots are allowed. However, if you want to avoid the topic, then you can instead create a policy based on four premises:
- Australians have the right to vote in private; therefore, it is illegal to use a ballot to identify a citizen of Australia.
- All electors have the right to expect that they may indicate their preferences in the same fashion as any other elector.
- No method of voting shall deny an Australian citizen access to an unmarked ballot.
- If a voting method stops the placement of informal ballots in a ballot box, then all voting methods must be subject to procedures to stop the placement of informal ballots in ballot boxes.
If voting with a machine is regarded as a method of voting, then a law using these principles could be used by a court to stop a government from forcing blind people to complete a formal ballot with a machine. Since then, the government would also be required to ensure that all other people place a formal ballot in the ballot box, while ensuring that the method used to check that the ballot has been properly marked can’t identify the person voting and thus prevent corruption. As such, this way of answering the question still allows informal ballots to be illegal but also kinda allows people who need assistance to vote to enjoy the same experience that other electors enjoy, whereby they can cast an informal ballot with impunity (so long as there is no policy to check for informal ballots before being placed in the ballot box, which must be applied in all cases).
@@peter65zzfdfh Yes unfortunately the integrity of some things like voting means that yes we can devise more modern systems to perform the same task, but unlike the pencil and paper method, fewer people understand the process and as such will always find it more difficult to trust in the system. Perhaps if we lived in a world where everyone understood how some other voting machine worked… maybe people might trust it. But then again you really won’t a system we’re the entire process is visible as such pencil and paper or pen and paper for those who think that electoral officers will actually go to the trouble of rubbing out voting preferences and changing them 🙄(that’s why there are people called scrutineers who come from the different political parties to check that the vote is done in a fair manner) . Is probably the best system for accountability. But you are right a good electoral system can’t just be actually fair and just but it must also be perceived to be fair an just by a vast majority of the voting public.
So, how does the High Court reconcile that a whole group of 'people' are not allowed to vote - that is those under 18? Just playing the devil's advocate here.
That's addressed in the Roach case. Chief Justice Gleeson said that there had to be 'substantial reason' for exclusion from the franchise, which cannot be 'arbitrary'. There had to be a rational connection between the definition of the excluded group and the identification of community membership or the capacity to exercise free choice. People under the age of 18 are excluded on the 'capacity' basis, whereas non-citizens are excluded on the community membership basis.
The reality is once you have had your name crossed off, I don’t think you can be prosecuted because it can’t be proved you didn’t vote.
Yes, I think everyone realizes this, but thanks for the reminder.
There is a difference between what the electoral act prescribes to be done, and what is practical to be enforced, which is why some people view compulsory voting as effectively being "compulsory attendance". It also leads to people asking whether the electoral act is overly prescriptive - it probably is, but it would be highly controversial to try to fix that.
As a polling officer, I’ve occasionally witnessed a voter upon being handed their ballot papers put them straight into the ballot boxes and quitting the booth, without even bothering with the pretence of going to one of the compartments to noodle about with a pencil for a minute. Technically an offence has been committed, but how would you deal with it?
I should mention there is one method of avoiding "compulsory attendance", which is to apply for a postal vote. Most (but not all) people who vote by post, vote formally, but interestingly there are always some small number of informal votes among postals.
@@Xanthe_Cat Interesting.
However compulsory voting does get a lot of people voting who would otherwise not vote. I used to think it was wrong to force us to vote, now I am glad. It gets those in the middle to vote, and means extreme candidates are unlikely to get in.
Compulsory voting seems incompatible with actual democracy, could be the reason why Australia and Belgium are the ONLY 2 western democracies with compulsory voting ( yes I know, in Australia it is technically not compulsory to vote, you just need to show up etc) - the story that it makes us less extreme is amusing considering countries like NZ, UK or Switzerland or any of the Scandinavian nations are “ extreme” 🤣🤣🤣 Australia would be far better served if only those who have an actual interest in, and a desire to vote did so. People have a right not to vote as that can also express their dislike of any of the electoral choices available. If you are going to compel us to vote, then surely we should have a “none of the above” choice on each ballot….. only seems fair.
The points made in the affirmative for compulsory voting are without considerable evidence. From a political stand point Australia is little different when it comes to the range of acceptability that would be normal in places like Finland or Canada. Yet this is upheld as an almost religious tenant, because it seems our only frame of reference is the US. I am personally a life long absentionist on the front of registration and voting broadly. Because I would go as far as to say that democracy is in principal the worse possible form of government. Because on the majority of issues the opinions of an electorate are the opinions of fools. Name an issue and odds are the electorate are out of line with professional opinion, history and hard facts. While I think representation is important, but democracy is an awful tyranny that to often becomes an instrument of victimisation. I would much rather rule of law than judgement by a fickle and poorly informed mob, inclined towards making horrifying mistakes.This is exactly why the power of the electorate is subject to considerable restraint else where in the world.
@MichaelRogers-et8dq prove it
Problem with compulsory voting, is that elections are decided by least polotically engaged. This means that the person with the best simple slogan that they repeat the most or best scare campaign.
Secret ballot also means that it is compulsory placing of ballot, not what is on the ballot.
Yes, that's the incentive for potential politicians to engage with the "unengaged". Otherwise politicians only need appeal to those that are already committed - regardles of how extreme.
The evidence doesn't seem to bear this out. In places with voluntary voting simple slogans and scare campaigns are used to 'get the politically engaged out to vote', while the lesser politically engaged people actually end up better informed as a result of 'having to' vote, they pay more attention to the issues. The party bases will vote the same way no matter what, nothing gets them to show up though like a good scare campaign. Those more in the middle tend to be better at seeing through scare campaigns because they are disinclined to believe either side when they say the other side eats babies or whatever.
Doesn't mean scare campaigns don't happen, just that they're less effective with compulsory voting. The side promising you something and keeping that promise does better.
It seems to me that the most politically "engaged" are not the best informed, but those who are most passionately committed to their parties. Simplistic and even nonsensical slogans seem to be powerfully influential in British and American elections, despite their not having compulsory voting.
It isn't being well-informed and thoughtful that makes people go to the polls. It is enthusiasm and confidence. But the confidence of the extremists on at least one side must be mistaken.
This argument could go the other way. Those who are most disenchanted with politicians might also be the most immune to simple slogans.
I love this channel (:
I'm glad.
Ma’am, the fine for not voting is $100.
It’s $20 dollars for Federal elections or referendums (CEA 1918, s 245; Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, s 45), but the States have power to levy whatever fine they choose for non-voting in a State or local government election, and so the non-voting fine for those elections is a different amount across the country. (Please don’t ask me to research every state or territory electoral act.)
Returning officers have been known to be quite lenient if there is a reasonable excuse given.
If someone doesn’t pay the fine and it is brought to the courts, then the amount payable can go upwards if the case is lost.
Voting is not compulsory. Read the Electoral Act 1918, specifically S245(14). I have seen this upheld in the County Court of Victoria. Voting is NOT compulsory.
Have you bothered to watch the video? It refers specifically to s 245. It notes that it provides that it is the duty of every elector 'to vote' at each election and an offence if an elector 'fails to vote'. This leads to the question of what is meant by 'to vote' - i.e. whether it just means placing a ballot paper in the ballot box or marking the ballot to record a formal vote. There are mixed legal authorities on this question, but in the end it has not needed to be resolved because the secret ballot requirements ordinarily mean there is insufficient evidence to show that a ballot is informal. However, if a person took a photo of their ballot before depositing it and published it online, declaring that they had voted informally, it would raise an interesting question in court. So far it has not been resolved.
Next time, before commenting on a video, please watch it so that you don't waste the time of others.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I read the first sentence of the description of this video. It is misleading and not everybody is going to watch the whole video, so it would be you wasting the time of others.
@@stevenmitchellproductions8572 If you don't watch the video - then don't comment on the video. There is no justification in commenting on a video just because you read the first line of a description and instantly think you know better than the person who made the video - so much so that you can't even be bothered to listen and maybe learn something. It's just arrogant and ignorant.
There is no authority granted to the Parliament to impose any sort of compulsory activity in any election Federal or State. I argued this in the courts in 2003 only to watch the court system go into panic mode. Section 41 of the Commonwealth Constitution does NOT start off with the words "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" and as section 41 allows only for an adult who acquires the right to vote and cannot be prevented from voting while that right continues. The Laws of England clearly outline that elections ought to be free and that the King cannot force any to take part in any election, which is why there is no compulsory voting in any part of the British Empire except of course the prison colony of Australia where the sheep reside. The freedom of election LAW is entrenched in every State and sits there burning a hole in legislators consciences. Wake up Aussie.
Good discussion however, voting is not technically compulsory in Australia. Having your name crossed off the register is compulsory. Secondly, compulsory preferential voting is the real problem as it forces voters to direct their vote to the least worst candidate
Compulsory preferential voting is the best, it means even if the largest single block of people don't get the candidate they want, the majority still can decide to reject the worst candidates. If you had 30% of people who wanted the 'imprison the other 70% candidate' and 70% were obviously opposed to that notion, but couldn't agree on which of 5 other candidates to vote for and were reasonably evenly split, at *least* you know the 30% candidate won't win. Voting against the worst options is far far more important than which of several relatively similar on most broadly popular policy clones you get. The 'problem' is the two main parties, have, in many different states at different times, and federally in the senate, actively removed various aspects of preferences to reduce the chance anyone but the two major parties are elected.
Voting is actually compulsory, but because the ballot is secret, they can't actually *check* you wrote anything on the paper. Technically you will be breaking the law if you obviously don't vote, even after getting your name checked off, and while unheard of, you could face consequences. Not having the count of ballots in the box match the number of ballots issued is an issue, major if it could have been enough to change a specific result.
You are incorrect about the legal requirements of 'compulsory voting'. Do a web search and you will find the AEC page on the topic.
You must submit the ballot papers you are issued when you get your name crossed off the roll.
You are also legally required to vote with those ballot papers but the privacy of the ballot means no-one is getting in trouble for deliberately making their vote invalid.
@@peter65zzfdfh My reply was before I read yours. Your reply was excellent.
INCORRECT. AEC Polling staff are REQUIRED to give you the ballot papers.You are required to take the. If you are silly enough not to vote then that's on you
@@peterroach3377 There was a court case where someone had been handed ballot papers but did not put them in the boxes. They were found in breach of the law. You have to submit the ballot papers (put them in the relevant boxes) and by the law you are required to use those papers to vote but the privacy of the ballot precludes any prosecution for failing to correctly mark your ballots. It's all clearly explained at the AEC website.
11:00 Again, religion *MUST NEVER, EVER BE ALLOWED* as a legitimate reason for not voting. If a person is laid up in hospital on voting day, arrangements could be made to allow the person(s) to exercise his/her/their right to vote. If a person is in intensive care or in a coma, he/she could not be expected to cast a vote, and that is the *ONLY* valid reason for not voting. Those who are away from their electorate on polling day, be they at work or on holiday, and cast an absentee or pre-poll vote.
I really enjoy voting in person on election day. I really hope the majority of Australians do not embrace electronic voting or pre polling.
I am on the silent electoral roll, and can pre poll or postal vote, but I usually try to vote in person on election day.