Democratic Right

IN the same week some Liberal Party members renewed a push for voluntary voting in Australia, the leader in the British House of Commons, Geoff Hoon, has urged his country to introduce compulsory voting.In response to a 61 per cent voter turnout in the past British general election, former defence minister Hoon is keen to reinvigorate democracy. Mr Hoon can see that a low voter turnout does not bode well for democracy.
In Australia, we get a 94 per cent voter turnout and we face fines if we do not have good reason for not voting. Compulsory attendance at the ballot box is a more apt description given. Once inside a booth, voters can vote formally or informally – they can doodle on their ballot instead of number a box if they so choose – but they must take part.
The change in the Senate numbers – which gave the Coalition control from July 1 and has seen unedifying displays such as the gagging of the Telstra debate – could now see a revamp of our electoral laws.
Already we have seen attempts to change electoral laws in the past Parliament, including a proposal to close the roll earlier for new voters. Despite the abandonment of these plans, I would not be surprised if they make a comeback in this changed Senate.
Giving new voters less time to enrol disadvantages the young. At the past election, about 200,000 voters aged between 18 and 21 missed out on enrolling.
Nonetheless, most surveys, show most young people do not want a lower voting age, more the pity. I suspect politicians would give less lip service to the issues affecting young people: education, training and employment; income support; mental health, etc, if they had a louder voice.
A lot of the rhetoric about freedom of association and choice emanating from federal circles – be it in relation to so-called voluntary student unionism or voting – seems more about disenfranchising and disempowering people.
The same people who constantly remind us that rights incur responsibilities – for example, that one has a responsibility to work for the dole – tend to be those who advocate voluntary voting. That is, they promote the chance for people to dodge their responsibility to democracy. Can't they see the selectivity of their arguments on rights and duties? The rights of a democracy incur – at the very least – the responsibility to vote. Democracy is a high-maintenance form of government. It takes effort. It exists because people participate. It dies when they don't. If you overstate choice as a quality to be pursued at all costs, you have a crippled or dying democracy, dependent on elites, the people who stir themselves or have a reason to stir themselves.
At least with compulsory enrolment, you give people a valid reason to stir themselves and that is to express their choice.
The energy used by the voluntary voting proponents should be used to widen the franchise for young people, and to make it easier for people to vote: through the internet, in remote areas, for the aged, sick and to improve understanding about our voting system and democracy.
The absolute imperative for those who advocate voluntary voting must be that they convey better than ever why people should vote. I wonder how many schools those politicians have addressed on the merits of voting.
At least we can say after an election now: this was the people's choice. If voting becomes voluntary, "people's choice" becomes "the voting elite's choice".
We have to ask: who would voluntary voting suit? Those with power, those interested in power, those who can work the system, those who profit from apathy and keeping people ignorant. Those with greater means to persuade people to vote, for example, by providing transport to get people to polling stations.
The system of compulsory voting has served us well. I will not be using my vote to abolish it.

till next time, Michelle.