also published in the Courier Mail, 1 October 1998
Is compulsory voting "the great guarantee of truly democratic elections" that Neville Wran believes it is, or should the obligation to vote be abolished? Aus-tralians do have the right not to vote, but few know it. A voter is not obliged to cast a vote by marking the ballot paper, and can comply with the law merely by returning the ballot to the ballot box. However, the advertising accompanying elections, and the emphasis on making a formal vote, give voters the strong im-pression that it is compulsory to vote. Indeed, more than 95 per cent of Aus-tralians vote on a regular basis, and have been doing so since the 1925 election when compulsion was first used.
The cost to the individual of compulsory voting is small, certainly when com-pared with, for example, compulsory jury service. There are few signs of civil disobedience associated with compulsion and compulsory voting appears to be popular (74 per cent of all candidates and 70 per cent of the electorate at the 1996 Federal election favoured compulsion). Yet both supporters and oppo-nents of compulsory voting are also concerned with the level of voter turnout and any bias and any impairment in the vote associated with a given turnout.
In response to a report that 88 per cent of Australians would vote if voluntary, Senator Nick Minchin, the Liberal Party's main advocate of voluntary voting, stated that he was delighted "that such an overwhelming majority of Australians would freely choose to exercise their right to vote without being forced to do so by law". The assumption is that a higher turnout is better than a lower turn-out. If compulsory voting were abolished in Australia, it is generally agreed that turnout would drop. But by how much? Would it be nearer the 59.2 per cent turnout of eligible voters in the 1922 Commonwealth election that sparked the legislative introduction of compulsion in the first place, or the 47 per cent voluntary postal ballot for the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Most likely is a low turnout like Japan or the US, in the 50 per cent to 60 per cent range.
Is democracy harmed by a low turnout? Democracy reflects the information that citizens have about politics, so any loss of information is detrimental. The vote is like a census, and those who do not fill out the form introduce a bias. This means that the ignorant and the indifferent have to express those views by voting. It is true that compulsory voting has a built-in bias against right-wing parties and in favour of left-wing and minor parties. Support for compulsion by the ALP, the Democrats and the Greens suggests so. But this is surely just the obverse of the bias against left-wing parties that would follow an abolition of compulsion. If turnout fell to 1922 levels, one estimate based on the 1996 result had the Liberal share of the vote up 7 percentage points. The vote the ALP receives as a result of compulsion could be viewed as an error that volun-tary voting would avoid. But it should more accurately be viewed as valid opinion that would otherwise go unmeasured. Only the complete population supplies the accurate picture of the electorate's view. Any move that would lower the turnout would almost certainly provide a biased sample of the voters' wishes. A return to voluntary voting would risk a loss of collective judgment.
Does compulsion impair the vote? One measure of impairment associated with compulsory voting is the level of informal voting, which in Australia is high by international standards. However, it is generally accepted that this is the result of the interaction between compulsory voting, the complexities of the electoral system like preferential voting and differences in the voting rules for different elections, and the presence of a large number of non-English speaking mi-grants. Compulsory voting may account for a part of just 3 per cent of infor-mal votes cast at the 1996 Commonwealth election. It hardly compares with a potential 30 per cent impairment to the vote under voluntary voting, if that proportion chose not to vote.
Democracy as majority rule was originally an instrument to oppose a powerful elite. That elite may well be an intelligentsia who regard democratic politics as their own. That tendency would be enhanced if a less articulate group failed to vote. Democracy should be at its most powerful when the greatest number of potential non-voters vote. If the voter at least knows their own mind, and can make a choice accordingly, then their choice should count. It is often the least articulate who are prone not to vote, but their contribution can provide for a more thoroughgoing pluralism.
The one element of compulsion that does bear repeal is the exhaustive prefer-ential ballot. Preferential voting is a perfectly reasonable system, ensuring that the least number of votes are wasted. However, there is a vast distinction be-tween a system of compulsory voting where a voter is only required to deposit a ballot in the box, and one where they are in effect, compelled to allocate preferences to all candidates. Where voters are compelled to express a preference for candidates they do not wish to, they are being forced to lie. Around 7 per cent chose not to allocate preferences at the last Queensland election. If the call for repeal of compulsory voting was accompanied by one for the repeal of exhaustive preferential voting, and substituted with optional preferential it might be more credible. As it is it looks like an exercise in partisan politics.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment