Axver ([info]axver) wrote,
@ 2006-09-09 17:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:'Even Less' by Porcupine Tree
Entry tags:2006 queensland state election, compulsory voting, elections, politics, voting

Today was election day here in Queensland, so I went and did my legal duty and voted. Talk about an uninspiring election. Peter Beattie's Labour government is rather tired and worn and needs to be kicked out, but the Liberals and Nationals can't get their coalition in order and I find their policies repulsive anyway. And for my seat, we had the most dismal choice of candidates. While some other seats have people representing various minor parties or running as independents, the only non-Labour or Liberal choice in Indooroopilly was the Greens. But I decided not to follow through on my intention to write "give me a decent candidate and I'll give you a decent vote"; sure, they haven't given me any decent candidates, but I can still give a decent vote if I must.

What amused me was the how-to-vote cards. For those unfamiliar with the Queensland system, it involves preferential voting; you put a 1 next to the name of who you wish to vote for, and then, if you wish, you can distribute preferences to some or all of the other candidates. The Liberal how-to-vote cards told you to vote 1 for the Liberal candidate and give no preferences; the Labour how-to-vote cards told you to vote 1 for the Labour candidate and give no preferences; but the Greens were actually nice enough to distribute preferences to the other candidates (2 to Labour, 3 to Liberal). Well, in any case, the Greens got my vote as a protest against the major parties, and I imagine they've picked up a fair few protest votes this election.

The result of this election really is a foregone conclusion though. All the Liberals and Nationals had to do was create a solid, unified front and they probably would have won this election on the back of people becoming tired of Beattie, but they well and truly failed. The complete disorganisation of the Coalition camp gave Labour so much fuel for their propaganda that I think they will have swung almost every swing voter in the state. I didn't really see the point in voting in the election, but Australia has this bright idea known as compulsory voting. Now, personally, I was under the impression that the right to vote included the right to express your discontent with your choices by not voting, but evidently the lawmakers here have a different opinion. It cracks me up when people suggest that compulsory voting is necessary to ensure a good turnout. No, it's not. Let's have a look at New Zealand's political history, shall we? Over the last 100 years, with elections every three years, only two elections have had a turnout below 80% (the lowest being 77%), and we have often achieved a turnout higher than 90%; the record was in 1984, with 93.7% turnout, not far shy of the 95% turnout figure that last night's news claims that Queensland achieves with compulsory voting. So I definitely do not see the necessity of compulsory voting.

Now, back to working on assignments. Woo. Hoo.



(Post a new comment)


[info]laughing_shadow
2006-09-09 10:48 am UTC (link)
You have optional preferential? That's hot. I thought the govt banned that in 1996 but I guess that must just have been at the Federal level. Funny story where an anarchist by the name of Albert Langer from my own South Australia tried to convince Australians to vote the govt out of existence by refusing to use preferences - if no party got 50% you could bring down the governmetn. He wound up in gaol temporarily for his trouble and the Electoral Act got amended so that this was no longer possible. Great stuff.

Now, personally, I was under the impression that the right to vote included the right to express your discontent with your choices by not voting, but evidently the lawmakers here have a different opinion.

Yeah, actually, they do. In Langer v the Commonwealth (High Court case) Langer challenged the amendments to the Electoral Act, saying that the phrases in ss 7 & 24 (I think) of the Constitution which state that the House and the Senate shall be "directly chosen by the people" infer an implied right not to vote. The High Court rejected this argument, saying that an implied vote to vote was inferrable from those sections, but not the other way round.

We introduced compulsory voting in 1924 because of declining voter turnout. From 71% in 1919 it dropped to 60% in the 1922 election, and then went back up to 91% in 1925 as a consequence. Comparisons with countries like NZ or (for instance) Sweden are possible, but so are comparisons with the US (64% 2004, 60% 2000) or UK (60% 2001, an embarrassing 11% down from the previous election). Non-compulsory voting in this context adds an element of vote grabbing I don't particularly like: policies and campaigns targeted at segments of the community who are most likely to vote, as opposed to the most significant demographics (hypothetically, I admit that this tends to become 'the most significant demographics in marginal seats').

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]axver
2006-09-09 11:04 am UTC (link)
Yep, Queensland state elections are optional preferential. I'm pretty sure it's a new development; now, I may be completely wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Beattie brought it in sometime during my early teens. And haha, I like that anarchist's idea.

And how did I know you'd know the legal basis and history of compulsory voting? ;) Well, that's quite interesting to know. That's a quite surprising drop in voter turnout. Looking at the history of NZ's turnout, it wasn't all too impressive in the 19th century, though I would have to assume that had at least something to do with poor communication at the time, and it seems to have grown as voting was extended to women and the property requirement dropped. I wonder what it is about some countries that results in a greater voluntary turnout than others; I don't suppose there is any correlation between population and turnout? Because the US and UK certainly are far bigger than Sweden and NZ.

I suppose there are good arguments both for and against compulsory voting. My problem with it is that people who don't care will be tossing in these votes without even giving consideration to who they are voting for and why, and then there's donkey votes and the like. My opinion is that if people can't be bothered to vote, they shouldn't vote, and if people do not feel they have been offered an option they wish to support, they should not be required to support one anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]augustine
2006-09-09 02:33 pm UTC (link)
I cannot comment much on Australian politics...However, your icon reminded me of a question I was wishing to ask you:

Do you think we should recruit him for your and Kate's army?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]axver
2006-09-09 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, certainly looks to me like he would be a qualified recruit!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]screendoor3
2006-09-09 11:25 pm UTC (link)
Oh crap, that reminds me I have to register to vote. I moved. I'll probably vote for Independence or Green unless a DFL or GOP candidate captures my attention. They probably won't.

(Reply to this)


[info]aaron_3521
2006-09-23 06:00 am UTC (link)
LOL typical government! I'm still hoping that we'll set up an oligarchy, but of course that will never happen :(

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]axver
2006-09-23 09:28 am UTC (link)
I personally prefer the idea of the Axver And Kate Ultimate Dictatorship. Mmmmm, power.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…