Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Pharmachick,
An open democracy is just that, and if people are not voting for whatever reason (disaffection, anger, protest, apathy etc) then they are exercising a democratic right to remove themselves from the process.
You're conflating that we have the right not to register any formal vote in our democracy, with that somehow being synonymous with "democratic freedom". There is no clear or necessary connection, otherwise you are committed to saying that Australia is not democratic.
In fact, this point is made so often, that I wonder if people might consider the extent to which they have become brainwashed by the system under which they have lived their lives, so that they can't even conceive that the other way is not some massive and fundamental violation of all the principles of democracy. It's a lot like how people struggle to even conceive of how taxing capital gains could be fair, with theoretical arguments everywhere, completely ignoring that the system is commonplace around the developed world.
It's confusing two quite different ideals, "democratic freedom" and "libertarianism". Democratic freedom is just the right to vote how you choose. And as said so far by every person in favour of compulsory voting on this thread, the choice can include a choice to not vote, and possibly other signals besides. "Libertarianism" is a political theory that we should not interfere with freedom unless there is a very strong case for it. The two are NOT identical. You could certainly believe in democracy without being a libertarian.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Jack Harrison,
The obvious path into a marijuana law is to have it used for medical purposes.
Yes, it might be a consolation as I die of cancer 30 years from now that at least I can get painkilling cannabis, even if the law is still against it being available for fun. A law that will have stopped almost no one who actually wanted to have it for fun, but it will have made a lot of them have some distinctly not-fun experiences as well.
Hopefully science will find that having fun is actually good for you at some point.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Steve Barnes,
The Herald is STILL harping on about Labour’s decision to do or not do something that is nothing to do with anyone but the Party
I remember quite a long time ago, when Brash was being hounded for various things, DPF saying "When the government is held accountable, that's called democracy. There's another word for when the Opposition is held accountable". Probably not exact words, but that was the gist.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Folks of Dotcom’s age (i.e., non baby boomers) are the ones they seek out and pay more attention to.
I like to think of us as "X Generation", although the term seems to almost have vanished. Maybe we won't get our whole 20 years of power, but I think we're going to be getting at least 10 from natural attrition, beginning pretty much now.
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to bmk,
Society won’t benefit either if you force people to vote. You’ll simply have more informals, more donkey voting, more voting for recognised names solely on the basis of name recognition.
Yes, you'll get more of everything - probably on average 25% more, going on the current numbers.
You left out "more informed votes, from people who suffer from the rational voter paradox of not seeing the value of the vote outweighing the effort of casting it". These people have the paradox removed. They are the primary targets. Most of the people I know who don't vote are in this category.
You left out "more people who may wish to not vote, who didn't have a way to express that via the poll". This is important information about the engagement of the citizenry.
You left out "people who are not allowed to vote by coercion". The investigation of their failure to front up might shed light on something that should be known. Very important in any democracy to catch these people's oppressors.
You left out "people who have a habit of leaving things to the last minute, and then missed out". These people might try a bit harder.
You most especially left out "People to whom $20 is a significant amount of money". These people absolutely should be voting, because clearly the entire system is failing them.
You left out "more people who wish to vote, but don't feel there is an adequate representative". These people could be differentiated from the ones above. Further important information.
The sole benefit I would see is that it would make people feel better that everyone is contributing
There is more than one benefit, certainly more than that backhanded swipe at the idea of compulsory voting, like it's motivated by something entirely petty. It isn't, it's motivated by the knowledge that something is really quite broken in our model, and the possibility of a very, very easy fix.
The arguments against are the ones based on the more insubstantial theoretical benefits, with the much broader and more difficult solutions. I mean, is chasing up a few thousand unvoters (which mostly pays for itself in fines) really much harder than fixing the entire education system to give due weight to civics education? Something that many people would be entirely against on principle? Is waiting for a group that appeals to the non-voters to cross the damned MMP threshold without its base even voting a sound policy for reaching out?
-
Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Emma Hart,
I don’t want people to have the same attitude to voting as they do to jury service: that it’s an onerous and annoying requirement.
I put it to you that the reason people consider jury service that way is that the service itself is actually onerous and annoying, not because it is compulsory. Voting does not require you to sit in a room for weeks on end listening to the details of a court case, and then get sequestered to argue with 11 random strangers about the ins and outs of it, a process which could takes days.
With voting, it’s as onerous as ticking a box, and possibly waiting in a queue if you save it up for the day. It’s about as hard as buying a packet of chewing gum.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to tussock,
National nailed it. Perfect campaign, beautiful responses, glib brush-offs because their voters didn’t want to hear excuses and explanations (if you’re explaining, you’re losing, they know that). Dirty Politics still cost them a bunch of seats.
Yes, that does need to be remembered. It was an outside shot that power was going to change hands on Saturday, not just on polling data but on the simple fact that National has never had less than 3 terms. The voting public does move quite slowly. This "landslide" has delivered a small majority to National, and they now have a whole basket of fails that will only continue to stack up over the next three years.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
No. I’m saying that if you don’t put a tick in a box every 3 years, then all the other democracy stuff you do is pretty much pointless.*
And you would be wrong about that.
Caveat: I didn't read your caveat. If I had I'd have answered
But trying to get other people to change how they vote is still less effective than being part of a heavily voting cohort that garners politicians’ attention for that reason alone.
That entirely depends on how effective you are at getting people to change their vote.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to cindy baxter,
That's an excellent link, thanks Cindy. Much to think on there.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’m always amused/appalled by those people who declare that they registered a protest against the system by refusing to vote. No you didn’t, dude. Everyone just ignored you.
Indeed, the signal is lost in the noise. It needn't be, if voting were compulsory
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 213 214 215 216 217 … 1066 Older→ First