I agree with the Commander, thorfi -- thanks for chiming in!

No problem. :-) Oh, as for online - no no no. Currently utterly impractical to do safely.

From our Federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral matters, in particular from the Foreword of their 2013 report:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2013_General_Election/Second_Interim_Report/Preliminary_pages

"After hearing from a range of experts, and surveying the international electoral landscapes it is clear to me that Australia is not in a position to introduce any large-scale system of electronic voting in the near future without catastrophically compromising our electoral integrity."

And as a software and systems engineer of 22 years professionally, with some security and online focus, my professional informed opinion is "not a snowflake's chance in hell right now."

Hardware requirements for conducting a paper election: writing instrument(s), paper, enough light to see by (trivial in daytime).

Hardware requirements for conducting an electronic election... Too many to even begin to list here.

Tools required to verify a paper election, at least one working eyeball per person doing verification, and at least one person with a hand to move bits of paper around. Qualifications required of verifiers? Said working eyeball, an ability to count.

Tools required to verify an electronic election... Too many to even begin to list here. Qualifications required to use the tools correctly? Too complex to even begin to articulate here.

The logistical gulf is *huge*. Not impossible to bridge eventually, maybe, but (a) we aren't even slightly close, and (b) as far as I can tell most of the time we *aren't even trying to*.

Democracy is extraordinarily flawed. Democracy is giving a slight majority an absolute decision. Compromises and middle ground are not considered.

For information purposes, would any other international players like to chime in? Every voting system differs and I think possibly by comparing the systems seeing both the positives and negatives of each an even more fluid consensus on the idea of mandatory voting could be reached. Maybe in a different system it would work better than others, or maybe it is a lost cause?

Theory and actuality in political systems are two different things. Communism is only seen in countries with limited natural resources and a very large lower class. Is this because it could only ever appeal in those countries? Would it work in America, or are we too deeply rooted in neo-liberalism? Would it have worked if implemented in colonial times? What should religion truly do in government systems, and for what religions?

So I've worked the campaign side of elections for a few cycles now, and full disclosure I won't work for Republicans. So far I've only supported Democrats, but that's largely because I've not had any other credible options.

I've noticed a lot of concern about how forcing low-information/low-motivation voters to caste a ballot would be harmful because these voters would be making uninformed decisions or voting without concern or care for the outcome. I think the main concern is not that the votes would be outright bought (an interesting argument given the current fundraising system) but rather that these voters would be unable or uninterested in holding elected officials accountable at the polls. I think this misses a few key points.

1. There is no guarantee that the people who do vote are better/more informed than those who don't. While studies indicate that those who vote have more information on some topics, the results are not entirely conclusive and do not indicate the validity of their information. Anecdotally I have encountered both Progressives and Tea Partiers who, while highly motivated, possessed little factual information despite having lots of talking points and a great deal of confidence in their information. Examples: "Liberals" on GMO's; "Conservatives" on climate change.

2. There would be adjustments made by those who do not currently vote. If told that they will be required to vote or pay a fine (more on fines later) many people are likely to pay more attention to election related information as well as seek that information out themselves. While it is unlikely that many will acquire the degree of information which would be ideal in making informed voting decisions, it is also unlikely that most will remain at the same level of information/lack of information as they do now.

3. A "Mandatory" voting system need not actually be mandatory. As briefly touched on before, you can still simply caste a blank ballot if you do not wish to make a choice or endorse any candidates. Also if this was implemented in the U.S. I would expect that whatever the fine would be, would be mostly symbolic, as in $5-$25, if it takes the form of a fine at all. A study (can't remember which one, I'll try to find it later) was looking at the possible effects of a mandatory voting law on some central U.S. state (maybe Oklahoma or Arkansas) and it found that if a law was passed which levied a fine for not voting, but never set any amount for the fine (making it unenforceable) the number of people who would participate in the election still increased. This indicates that a fine may not be necessary, something like simply receiving a notice from the government calling you out for not voting, or possibly publishing lists of those who didn't vote in the last election may result in the desired increase in voter participation.

As to what would actually improve (read fix) the American democracy, I'm not sure a mandatory voting law would actually have much effect. While it would undoubtedly increase voter turnout, if it does not result in the election process internalizing the interests and preferences of the currently disengaged voter, then it would not alter the policy outcomes in any meaningful way.

In my experience people who are able to vote but don't, do so for one of three reasons: (1) no confidence in the system, (2) lack of history/culture of voting, or (3) lack of information. (1) is a whole mess in and of itself, which I won't expand on unless someone is interested.

(2) is perhaps the easiest to understand. Voting, and voting regularly are a learned behavior. Most people who vote in every election come from a family and/or social environment where that is the norm and the expectation. It is most apparently seen with the activity of the parents, if a child grows up seeing their parents vote in every election, that child is much more likely to vote and to vote regularly. This goes along with the general way in which parents greatly determine political affiliation as well. You can see this phenomenon most obviously among Black voters in the South. Within the Black community there exists both a segment which can be relied upon to vote regularly (not necessarily every election) and a segment which can be relied upon to vote rarely (not necessarily never voting). While some of this breakdown occurs based on economic status, typically those who do not vote are the ones who would most benefit from their preferred candidate winning and are most harmed by their least preferred candidate winning. The most salient difference between these two segments is the attitude of their peers and family. Those who don't vote tend to come from families that don't vote and live among others who do not vote. [Interesting note, some of this comes down to the Church they attend, as some Black Churches strongly encourage voting (not necessarily for a specific candidate or party) while others do not discuss voting in any meaningful/encouraging way.] In other words some non-participatory voters are non-participatory simply because that's their tradition, rather than for any rational reason. It also means that even if gains are made in any single election year, if they are not repeated consistently and continuously, then there will be no lasting change, and lasting change will only really be felt generationally.

(3) refers to people who do not know there is an election, do not know that the election affects them, do not know when/how to vote, or do not know that they can/are expected to vote. While this is the smallest group, and the easiest to correct, it will likely remain an issue that is not addressed as this set of people largely lean towards one political pole. This is in fact the largest hurdle to any voting reform in the U.S.

Generally speaking those who don't vote tend to prefer one party to the other, and it tends to be the same party in most geographic areas. While this support is not always present initially, upon becoming informed as to the platforms and policy stances of the parties the support tends to be majoritarian even if not overwhelming. As long as one party benefits from large sections of the populace not voting, they will oppose any proposal which makes it more likely that these people begin to vote.

What is most worrying though, is that to some extent both parties benefit from low voter turnout. While one party is preferred to the other among the non-voting, that party would likely take on different stances as it incorporated the interests and preferences of the now-voting. As such the current leaders and opinion setters of that party also benefit from the continued absence of those who don't vote.

As both parties become increasingly funded by the same economic class of donors, the likelyhood of electoral reform decreases. Since voting behavior is very highly correlated to income/wealth level, it is unlikely that electoral reforms which increase the number of people voting will increase proportionally or absolutely the number of those with "high" income/wealth who vote. Thus they will likely oppose any election reform which makes it more likely that the stances of the parties would less reflect their own preferences. Since it is unlikely that those of the "low" income/wealth levels have the same preferences as those of the "high", and also unlikely that those of the "middle" income/wealth levels are the same as those of the "high" it is correspondingly unlikely that "high" income/wealth level individuals will support electoral reform which broadens electoral participation.

Without the support of donors for a policy, that policy can not succeed in the modern U.S. political landscape. As long as donors have the ability they currently do to influence politicians electoral reforms which increase voter participation are extremely unlikely to pass. Electoral reforms which decrease voter participation are likely to have the support of donors, with bounds set by what the broader electorate is willing to tolerate. This also means that if any electoral reforms which decrease voter participation pass, it will increase the likelyhood that future such reforms will pass, and also likely increase the degree to which future reforms may decrease voter participation.

Sorry for the wall of text! If you make it through all of that, would love to hear what your thoughts

**side note, I am thinking about doing one of these threads every sunday/monday with a simple topic and discuss; trying to bring consistent intellectual conversation to the forum**

@Puddle- great input. not that I doubt you at all, but if you could find the link for the study referenced in Post 1 Section 3, It could add some raw data to the conversation. Also, my question is: On the opposite side of the spectrum from mandatory voting, how could restricted voting work? In theory restrictions based on knowledge; since restrictions based on race, sex, and class are already against the law today in the US.

I know I sort of turned my idea into a joke with the Easter-themed resurrection joke, but I think my idea to replace election day with election week deserves discussion.

@CommanderByron, I'll look put I'm trying to hammer out a Ethics paper today too, so we'll see.

Are you asking me what I think the restrictions would look like for an electorate that would be beneficial to the governance of a democracy? Or are you asking me what kind of restrictions we might see as part of a hypothetical future trend?

steephie22, it basically already exists for most parts of the U.S. in person early voting is available for about 2 weeks on average in most of the country. It's not publicized as being the same as voting on election day but it is, exact same process, exact same staff (not the same as your polling place but still Supervisor of Elections staff) The locations are usually restricted, but that's mostly just a funding and demand issue.

The main problem with them is that most people don't use them. The County I was in for Election Day and lead-up during the last election had ~58,000 votes cast on election day and about ~27,000 cast in person early votes (Spread across about 2 weeks though, so only about 2,250 votes per day in person early). Again though I think that could be solved with some better funding and some public service announcement ad campaigns.

Also, how is mandatory voting in Australia made mandatory? Is there a fine and if so, what's the fine? Any other repercussions? Is it just 'mandatory' without repercussions if you disobey? Warning maybe?

If mandatory voting with a fine were to be implemented in the USA, I think it should be the opposite for legal reasons: you have the right not to vote, but you get rewarded with, say, $20 if you vote. Can't get a fine for not voting constitutionally, but a reward might be okay. Since the taxpayer would just be paying like $18-$20 extra tax to afford these rewards, it's the same thing net, but less legal hassle.

The right to vote was hard won. Voters who are either to busy, to disinterested or to fucking stupid to vote should be made to wear a dunce hat for a month following each election. Any person who fails to vote and is heard complaining about the outcome of an election should be made to wear the hat for 2 months.

"too" of course. Obviously too stupid myself

@puddle: lets say I am asking both.

"Democracy is extraordinarily flawed. Democracy is giving a slight majority an absolute decision. Compromises and middle ground are not considered."

That's why no "true" democracies exist. Constitutional republics are da bomb.

@steephie depending on how the tax was raised, (maybe through a tax on campaign contributions above some amount? might be treading on some free speech issues here, but if its to incentive voting, which is also free speech it might fly) that might actually work and get support.

Barring the opposition of donors to the whole concept, I'd think that'd be a good framework for a discussion between conservatives and liberals. Conceding that it's basically the same as a tax that you are exempt from if you vote, I think the biggest problem is that you'd lose some of the rebate in the cost of collecting and administering the tax/incentive payments.

I know, right?
Not sure I support my idea, but it's a clever one :-)

@CommanderByron Well I'm not sure I support any restrictions on the electorate, as it seems like it would inevitably resulting in the elimination of any real electorate (and become the usual pacify the elites of any dictatorship). But if I was, it'd probably have something to do with educational achievement. This would also require robust and effective public schooling at least up to the level of the requirement. This would mean an expansion of the U.S. public education system to fulling include undergraduate education, as well as a general overhaul of both primary and secondary curricula.

As for what we'll actually see, we're already seeing what are effective poll taxes (small amounts, but even the Election ID's cost somewhere between $5-$20 depending on the state) which when coupled with unstated but real world requirements like being able to drive/travel distances like 50 miles away, they are able to prevent people from voting. Now this doesn't outright disenfranchise you, but it can make it impossible in a practical sense to vote in at least an upcoming election.
Other classics include erecting physical barriers such as "road work" and "scheduled maintenance" in cities to disrupt access to polling locations. Illegal voter records purges which prevent people from voting, but often don't get caught until you go to the polls (Florida).

None of those are lasting though. Realistically the only long term voter restrictions I see having any likely of becoming law are restrictions such as must own real estate property or assets worth $xx,xxx or more. Maybe something like you must have a job to vote as(if) automation really takes a toll in coming decades.

"Keep elections to one Tuesday in November every two years."

Um... this means no primary elections. Are you proposing that we return to the system where party bosses meeting in smoke-filled back rooms decide who we'll be allowed to vote for?

"I do agree that California should modify its Proposition system so that they only appear on ballots the same time as federal general elections (November of even-numbered years). That would reduce the attempts to game the system when there is traditionally low turnout."

This means there will be 20-40 initiatives on those even-numbered November elections. People already whine about having to deal with 10 or 12 on the ballot. It also means the initiative process is worthless for dealing with semi-emergencies (like a theoretical initiative charging the giant agribusiness corporations that suck up most of the water in the state for their water usage - the politicians definitely aren't going to bite one of the hands that feed them and do it themselves, and having to wait until November of 2016 would mean another year of wasted water).

steephie22: There's an electoral roll, which you are supposed to get onto after you're 18 if you're a citizen. There are ways to be "invisibly" on the roll for people that need to be invisible for various reasons (e.g. parole officers). The Australian Electoral Commission chases you to get onto it, and they make pretty strong efforts to enrol even people that are homeless. You can theoretically be fined for not being on it but eligible, but in practice that one rarely happens.

After you *are* on the roll, the AEC tries pretty hard to keep your registered address up to date so they know what electorate you belong to.

If there's an election, and you don't get your name checked off the roll in some fashion, the AEC will send you a fine. There are a variety of valid excuses (being out of the country, etc) that will get you out of the fine.

Each of our States has essentially the same system (a State Electoral Commission and electoral roll that basically works the same way).

Getting your name checked off the roll happens normally at the election when you turn up (and recently we have moved to digital check off with paper backup) and collect your ballot papers (which have no identifying marks on them). If you postal vote you get checked off that way.

Also this: http://electionsausagesizzle.com.au is a tradition at our elections. :-) Most of the polling places are schools, religious centres, and the like, so almost all of them will hold a fundraiser sausage-in-bread, cake, etc sale on the day.

We like to call it Democrasausage, and we feel sad if our local polling place doesn't have one. :-) Hence the above website so we can find out in advance for planning...

Oh, and if you rock up and you aren't on the roll for some reason, you can make a declaration vote - which means your ballot papers go in an anonymous envelope inside a non-anonymous envelope after you've identified yourself, then they sort out whether you *should* have been on the roll, and if you are, your vote goes into the count later.

I forgot to mention the fine is not huge - it's AUD20. That's maybe an hour and a half income at worst case minimum wage.

I disapprove of mandatory voting on the grounds that it restricts freedom, and, if penalized, distorts individual incentives. Why should a person vote to earn (or not lose) AUD20 when he or she could be doing something productive in the economy in the time it takes to vote. Voting obviously has societal benefits as well, but these benefits should come from the political decision making and not from a monetary incentive. Essentially, the societal benefit of each marginal vote should be the same as the individual benefit that voter receives by getting a say in the democratic process. Ultimately, if one wants to forfeit one's right to vote, one should not be penalized.
And to address other posters, I don't think there is a problem with democracy as much as there is a problem with the first past the post system. When it only matters if a candidate wins or loses, each individual voter makes little difference as long as the election is decided by multiple votes. One could even argue that each individual voter makes no difference if you figure, perhaps incorrectly since one's decisions and attitudes influence others, that who will vote will vote and my one vote will not change the outcome. Anyway I live in the US and would be happy with getting rid of the first past the post system that distorts (reduces below a natural level) individual incentives to vote and causes problems such as gerrymandering.

I stand opposed to mandatory voting. By definition, a vote is a measure of confidence. If I do not feel confident in any of the candidates on the ballot, then I should not be compelled to vote. Refusing to vote is a vote in it of itself.

President Theodore Roosevelt once said that "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." I don't want uninformed people being compelled to vote.

As an aside, do you Aussies (or anyone from the Commonwealth) have a spot on your ballots to write in a candidate like we do here in the United States?