Good deduction on the assumption that you were a US citizen. :-) It wasn't conscious, but I was highlighting a number of features of our electoral system that are quite glaringly highlighted as major issues with the US electoral system when we see news coverage of it.
We can agree to disagree, certainly. :-)
That said, I think the compulsory voting benefits do outweigh the costs in the context where you have preferential voting and very effective and accurate electoral system.
I'm not entirely sure what you see as the cost of compulsory voting... "loss of freedom"? There's no compulsion to send your vote any particular direction, or even necessarily put anything on the ballot at all.
Loss of freedom as a general principle? Nobody is free to do just anything they want in any state you care to mention. The state can and should legislate in a direction that is beneficial to all citizens, if it's clear that citizens are unlikely to act for the general benefit in a space without such legislation.
The very significant benefit of compulsory preferential voting is that you get a lot less vote power granted to "special interests" - who will always have an easier time getting out a vote.
Much as I personally would probably benefit from not having compulsory voting (being relatively wealthy), I think it's much better for the country that I don't. :-)
By having compulsory preferential voting, we get the "least hated" groups in power, not the "most liked". Generally that's a lot more moderate and a lot less unstable a situation. A "least hated" group in power is more likely to be able to conduct good negotiations with as wide a group as possible, where that is often untrue of a "most liked" group, because the latter will often have significant groups of "haters".
(And ta, I keep forgetting about the edit comments thing - used to other fora being a bit unhelpful with notifications and such.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-27 01:12 (UTC)We can agree to disagree, certainly. :-)
That said, I think the compulsory voting benefits do outweigh the costs in the context where you have preferential voting and very effective and accurate electoral system.
I'm not entirely sure what you see as the cost of compulsory voting... "loss of freedom"? There's no compulsion to send your vote any particular direction, or even necessarily put anything on the ballot at all.
Loss of freedom as a general principle? Nobody is free to do just anything they want in any state you care to mention. The state can and should legislate in a direction that is beneficial to all citizens, if it's clear that citizens are unlikely to act for the general benefit in a space without such legislation.
The very significant benefit of compulsory preferential voting is that you get a lot less vote power granted to "special interests" - who will always have an easier time getting out a vote.
Much as I personally would probably benefit from not having compulsory voting (being relatively wealthy), I think it's much better for the country that I don't. :-)
By having compulsory preferential voting, we get the "least hated" groups in power, not the "most liked". Generally that's a lot more moderate and a lot less unstable a situation. A "least hated" group in power is more likely to be able to conduct good negotiations with as wide a group as possible, where that is often untrue of a "most liked" group, because the latter will often have significant groups of "haters".
(And ta, I keep forgetting about the edit comments thing - used to other fora being a bit unhelpful with notifications and such.)