No, it’s not magical, but participating in voting does actually convey a public opinion. When less than 40% of the country bothers to turn out to vote, and Citizens United lets the Kochs buy votes, we get a situation where the money dictates who gets into office. Encouraging people to vote doesn’t work. Maybe incentivizing the vote would help. If not, should we keep letting the rich dictate our elections?
3 Likes
I should probably clarify at this point, that was hyperbole on my part. I’m far too lazy to punch people 
2 Likes
If you’re going to go all the way to compulsory voting, you could also implement the Australian electoral funding model. If a canditate/party receives at least 4% of the primary vote, they are then eligible for campaign funding at the next election.
It helps add a mix of voices in the election cycle. Sure, most of them a still shit, but there’s a multitude of shit parties to vote for. 
2 Likes
But voting is also the most powerful weapon we wield.
Democracy is an odd thing. We have persuaded the ruling class to hold a gun to their collective heads at regular intervals. and every time, they persuade us not to pull the trigger. And it works every time.Having multiple parties that enforce the status quo is one way of persuading us not to fire. “Don’t vote, the government always get in” is another. Imagine for a moment that we didn’t fall for either of these distractions.
3 Likes
How about mandatory analysis? Maybe if people think more about actual issues, they will go vote anyway. It might even go so far as to inspire more relevant people and policies to choose from.
But part of the problem is fundamentally broken. Representatives have no legal obligation to fulfill any of their promises, or act with any real transparency. This is what has made self-interested career politicians possible.
1 Like
I was referring to the previous post where somebody wanted to punch people who voice their opinion after not having voted. Also. when everybody is singing the national anthem or engaging in similar herd behaviour, doing nothing is exercising freedom of speech very much.
3 Likes
As defined by The Founders, of course.
1 Like
And if we have ethical objections, or if we don’t have consistent documentation, or if we don’t have accessible polling stations, or…
1 Like
What has voting done for us?
Do we have a democracy? No, we have an oligarchic republic run for the interests of the rich and powerful.
Do we have a forum to speak out? No, we have a first-past-the-post farce.
Do we have a place to condemn the ruling class when it overturns the elections? No, there was no popular revolt in 2000, and there won’t be one next time.
If voting is the most powerful weapon we (can) wield, then maybe we should give up on weapons and find a better way, or maybe we should look for other tools such as education and organization and mutual aid.
7 Likes
Here in Oz, we used to be able to vote like 1, 2, 3, 3, 3 to prevent our preferences going to scumbags who don’t deserve them.
Now that’s counted as a donkey vote, and preferential voting is broken.
3 Likes
That’s one of the things that shits me about the current system. Due to the way the preference system works, I could have voted for the Greens and had my eventual vote be counted towards a party whose policies I may have completely disagreed with.
But this is mostly irrelevant as I don’t vote and haven’t done so for about 20 years, give or take.
@adonai You want me to smack myself in the face, save you the trouble, mate? 
4 Likes
I like the idea of approval voting. Vote for any and as many people as you like - any candidate you find acceptable. Anyone you can’t stand, don’t vote for. The winner will be the person with the broadest appeal.
1 Like
Go for it 
Personally, I like the European style system of counting votes - X % of the votes gets you X number of seats. Of course, that then eliminates regional representation, but honestly I’m not sure how important that is these days, unless you live in a marginal seat.
On the other hand, thanks to the preferential system, I’m currently in a Greens seat in my state, so it isn’t all bad.
4 Likes
I can only answer for how it’s done in Australia. Documentation - not really needed. You’re registered as living within an electorate so you just get your name ticked off (if you get it ticked off at multiple voting stations, they may smell a rat). That’s it. Access - you can get a postal vote and do it weeks in advance.
Ethical objections…well, I can’t help you there. Here, them’s the rules. It does seem to eliminate mass disenfranchisement as well as meaning even people convicted of the heinous crime of marijuana possession can vote, so that’s a plus.
2 Likes
Hmm. That could work.
Providing that the person you vote for A, doesn’t have to be an official candidate and B, can’t refuse to serve, no exceptions this could work. Increase the number of MPs to a few thousand or so* and this could be an awful lot of fun.
*Might need to work on that number. Something that correlates with the average amount of people in a monkeysphere or something. One for every few hundred people.
2 Likes
[quote=“anon50609448, post:56, topic:54023”]allow people to officially decline their ballots if they don’t feel there is a candidate worthy of their vote.
[/quote]I’ll defer to the inimitable Tony Kushner here:
(h/t Making Light)
1 Like
Just out of interest, would you consider NZ migrants who’ve been here since Feb. 2001 to be disenfranchised? On the one hand, they knew what the rules were when they came here but on the other 14 years is a long time to contribute to a society, put down roots, potentially raise a family without being granted any part in the democratic process or even access to the same safety nets that citizens and permanent residents have.
3 Likes
A reasonable election system is not that hard to design. The problem is we have no feasible method for getting one through our political system. But let me offer something of the like if I may. The legislature: keep it bicameral if you must, the important question is what party has control. That could be decided with a national party vote, more often for the House, less so for the Senate, using ranked voting with ties allowed (for the truly disgruntled, rank all parties 1 or leave the page blank, it makes no difference). For rank aggregation, i.e. to select a winner, use Max Majority, Kemeny-Young, or a similar method, probably going to want to limit it to Condorcet methods, which are going to be reasonably resistant to strategic voting (although no system is perfect – you see some interesting stuff going on in Oz with 2nd choice “preference trading” between parties, for example).
Now, as for allocation of seats, make local House elections an optional part of the ballot (assuming party-line otherwise). There will be a discrepancy between local winners and proportional seat allocation, so do something reasonable; this is also where you need to think carefully about districting, but look, the details need not concern us here. Just for pete’s sakes either make the voting day a Saturday, with some early voting, or require all ballots to be by mail, because those are the only two ways that make any goddamn sense! The rules around vote thresholds in the different chambers and other matters of legislative process need to not be riddled with arcane procedural hogwash. Executive: the electoral college is clearly a joke. For president, just do as before and take the popular vote totals, elect the Condorcet winner. The veto system and appointments are alright by me with some improvements around the edges (the law on recess appointments that we suffer would surely make the founders’ eyes roll). Finally, the mechanics of a national election - provisional ballots, acceptable forms of ID, etc. - need to work the same in different places (seems like we have downright given up on this), under federal control but with judicial protection against interference impinging states’ rights. The fact that the constitution doesn’t address this is just weird.
But now of course it’s very difficult to put in place any of these changes! Reforms would have to come out of the system to a large extent, perhaps by interaction with the judiciary. And mistrust of the federal government is too high – I mean it’s part of what it means to be a Republican now. And even with many other parts of the electorate, there’s just not much trust in government at most levels. And is that surprising when government is so broken?! Which is why, I think, there’s mostly a lot of cynicism expressed here. I’m speaking about those of you I presume to be US - it really is uniquely fucked up here, due to a constitutional arrangement that is plainly showing its age with how sclerotic the two-party system has made things. So my attitude is, fine, don’t vote at all, is a valid protest, but we should at least have an answer for why voting is scorned, for what it should be.
Oh and mandatory voting? I don’t know, seems to have its pros and cons. Let’s talk about it later, shall we? The rest of this stuff is enough for now!
3 Likes
That’s what I’m trying to work on in (what used to be) the US. Instead of fixing the old system, just make a new one and use it instead.
2 Likes
Our supposed regional representation here in Oz is a joke; I’d be glad to see the back of it.
What it basically comes down to, is federal policy focused like a fucking laser to appeal to the dumbarse swinging voters in marginal electorates, particularly western Sydney. Which is why we put kids behind bars for being refugees, and stupid arsehole shit like that.
But there are deeper problems; anywhere I see a political system dominated by two major parties, I tend to see the following: a ridiculously slim “left/right” ‘choice’ between a barely tolerable pack of lying scumbags who at least pretend to be not so bad (‘standing up’ for workers and the disadvantaged and so on), and a thoroughly unconscionable… fucking coven of flat-out evil; openly fostering wealth division, using the vilest kinds of tactics, etc… who nevertheless have as much or more support in the electorate. Which seems to break down to around 50% fuckwits and/or arseholes, maybe 40% decent sorts with the wool over their eyes, and almost nowhere would there be more than 15% with their brains actually in gear, voting for the Greens or other minor players.
6 Likes
