December 17th 2005

  Buy Issue 2722

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: The death penalty and Van Tuong Nguyen

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Contenders for the Howard succession

CULTURE WARS: Fighting to defend civilisation

SCHOOLS: Truth and beauty to exchanged for 'relevance'

OPINION: Abortion drug victimises women

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Burma, ASEAN and selective breast-beating / Latham was right / Asia for the Australians / News item

FOREIGN DEBT: Greenspan issues warning over foreign debt

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Private funding 'more expensive'

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: Global significance of China-India relations

IRAQ WAR: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction

ENVIRONMENT: Ensuring sustainable agriculture

TIMOR LESTE: 'Thanks for helping East Timor'

Compulsory voting a necessity (letter)

Disabled people at risk from euthanasia (letter)

ABC insults Australia's war dead (letter)

Low pay and joblessness (letter)

BOOKS: HOW MUMBO-JUMBO CONQUERED THE WORLD: A Short History of Modern Delusions, by Francis Wheen

BOOKS: FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIGS: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, by Ariel Levy

BOOKS: THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY: The power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror, by Natan Sharansky

Books promotion page

Compulsory voting a necessity (letter)

by Greg O'Regan

News Weekly, December 17, 2005

There is no need for a referendum on whether voting should be compulsory or not, and the Howard Government knows it.

In 1924, the Parliament passed the law introducing compulsory voting. Previously there had been only compulsory enrolment.

Parliaments have since passed amendments. Before 1925, voter turn-outs for the House of Representatives ranged between 51.48 per cent in 1906 and 78.30 per cent in 1917 when the debate on conscription raged.

For the Senate, it ranged from 46.86 per cent in 1903 and 77.69 per cent in 1917.

Since 1925, after voting had been made compulsory, more than 90 per cent of Australian electors have exercised their voting rights at Federal elections.

Under voluntary voting in the United Kingdom and the United States, a winning party might secure office on as little as 25 per cent of eligible voters.

Candidates there make great efforts to coax people to vote, yet the turn-outs are much lower than in Australia.

To increase the chances of a government elected by a minority, rather than one drawn from the votes of upward of 90 per cent of the citizens, is retrogressive folly.

Opponents of compulsory voting will ignore our rights and duties as citizens; play on the apathy of voters; ally themselves with special interest groups; and argue (with straight faces) that compulsion is "undemocratic" and that we should "choose" whether we vote or not.

They will assert that informal voting reflects an ignorant electorate; that election costs are too high (at $5.79 per elector in 2004?); and that seats develop into predictably "safe" and "marginal" ones. So, they ask, what is the use of compelling people to vote?

With voluntary voting in place, the Australian Electoral Commission would have to finance the same facilities at current cost, never knowing what the voter turn-out would be.

The "ignorance" of voters is more fable than fact.

The ACT Electoral Officer noted that Canberra electors were using the complex Hare-Clark system to discriminate among the candidates from diverse parties.

Federally, the different and increasing rates of informal voting (in 2004, it was 5.2 per cent for the House of Representatives, and 3.8 per cent for the Senate) suggest a discriminating, disillusioned electorate, not one willing to surrender its power to make or break governments.

Greg O'Regan,
Farrer, ACT

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am