No other way: voting must be made mandatory

The Calgary Herald has started a three-part series today about the dwindling voter turnout in elections at all levels in Alberta (on Sunday, June 29, the paper will even print a special column authored by Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper).

In today's first instalment of the series, the paper looks at the "excuses" given by Albertans for not voting in recent elections and also quotes some voters who propose the only and proper way of dealing with the laggards in the province:

Not voting could become the new norm, suggests University of Lethbridge political scientist Harold Jansen.

He contends the current state is so dire, especially among youth, it warrants a serious debate about whether voting should become mandatory in Alberta.

"It used to be that for people who didn't vote, there is a certain degree of shame in not voting," he says.

"Now that a majority of people don't, not voting is kind of normal. It's OK. You don't feel like you are violating some sort of civic norm or civic responsibility when you don't vote." On a bright summer day, three months after the provincial election, a voter seethes with disgust at people who didn't vote. He wants them outed like wanted criminals.

"I hope you put their pictures in the newspaper," he blares as shoppers walk in and out of Marlborough Mall in Calgary's east end.

Quite right: before turnout drops even further, voting must be made mandatory (with non-compliance subject to a stiff fine) and those who don't vote should be outed and shamed publicly, as suggested by the voter interviewed for the article – "outed like wanted criminals".

None of the excuses given by those who didn't vote holds water – particularly the one that there was no real choice or that one's vote wouldn't have mattered – talking about a self-fulfilling prophecy. First of all, there were other choices (in fact, literally anything – including these bozos – would have been better than the current corrupt government) and second, if you don't vote, you give the upper hand to the sheep and lemmings, i.e., the less-than-intelligent ones, and allow their votes to count as if they were a majority when they are so clearly only a minority (the current "majority" government is supported by only 22% of the electorate).

Make voting mandatory (like in Australia – a haven of common sense in all respects these days, from democracy to immigration) and fine those who don't comply.

Interesting update: Ron Good, a mentally deranged commenter (see below), now claims on his silly blog that having mandatory voting is the same as "threatening physical violence" against him. Boy oh boy, if there ever was a case to be made for mandatory commitment to a mental facility, this is it.

Comments

[ScruffyDan]

Mandatory voting may increase voter turn out, but not voter education. I fail to see how forcing uneducated voters to cast a ballot will make things better.

[Werner Patels]

Voter education as such is a hopeless undertaking -- at least, in this country. We'd have to raise the general level of education first and then move on to political education. As this re-education process will take decades, and we don't have time to wait for that, two things must happen now:

(a) Mandatory voting (plus stiff fine for those not voting)

and

(b) Proportional representation, instead of the undemocratic first-past-the-post system currently in place.

[ScruffyDan]

You still haven't really explained why having more uneducated voters is than what we have now.

I agree with the proportional representation. We almost had the here in BC, but it just failed to get the 60% majority required for it to pass.

[Werner Patels]

Voting is everyone's duty (including the "dumb ones"). Democracy can only work if all those who hold "shares" in this "undertaking" actually participate and help to shape the outcome.

[ScruffyDan]

But that position assumes that the uneducated voters (which is different from 'dumb ones') know how their actions will shape (or should shape in the case of broken premises) the outcome.

My worry is that politicians will take advantage (aka lie) to uneducated voters who would otherwise stay home instead of voting, thus lowering the level of debate.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't think an uneducated vote is any better than no vote, by the looks of it you disagree.

[Ron Good]

Free people are not subjects, and I see no reason why politically disinterested people--or people who feel political efforts not related to voting are more practical and effective--should be made slaves to the voting process just because those who are politically-minded and vote-concerned think so.

Just exactly why is voting a *duty*? And to exactly who is this "duty" owed?

Further, exactly what is going to be gained by forcing people like http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com/search?q=voting" rel="nofollow">these to head to the polls?

Werner, I just don't get it. Exactly how will imposing this small bit of explicit slavery on the populace work to improve freedom? Quite frankly, the reasons you provide so far are essentially analogues to arguments presented in favour of compulsory military drafts.

In other words, what about my right as a free individual to simply not be involved, or to only be involved in a political process to the degree that suits *my* values?

re: None of the excuses given by those who didn't vote holds water

What about plain old "I don't want to."?

[Werner Patels]

Because we're all part of this "thing", our supposed "democracy". It can only work as such if everyone in it does his/her part or share. Look at the rotten and corrupt government Albertans are now stuck with because so many people didn't do their share. There'll be a heavy price to pay for that over the next few years, and some of the damage caused may well be irreversible in four years' time.

[Ron Good]

Not that you really answered any of the questions I raised in my last post, unless "because we're all part of this thing" was supposed to blanket cover all of 'em. Anyways, to specifics:

Because we're all part of this "thing", our supposed "democracy".

Really? I didn't get my memo, and I just don't remember joining.

I guess, then, my so-called "freedom of expression" doesn't include the right not to express. Interesting.

And I suppose, then, you'd have to be arguing that the basic functional human component is "the group" or "society" and that individuals themselves are really not worthwhile for their own purposes, but only as cogs in "society's" gears. (I know you wouldn't ordinarily do that, but it's the only position consistent with your view on voting).

It can only work as such if everyone in it does his/her part or share.

Oh, how many plans for my time and resources start with that exact same preamble (as in *all* of the socialist grand plans, for starters)...

Look at the rotten and corrupt government Albertans are now stuck with because so many people didn't do their share

Actually, by your logic, the damage was caused by the only people who *did* do their share: the folks who voted.

But, in any case, we can also both point to results that were equally bad, if not even more disastrous, when greater numbers or percentages of folks went to the polls.

Werner, I'm afraid you are thinking that principles for ethical behaviour can properly and successfully be replaced with plans based merely on hope-filled expediency.

[Werner Patels]

No, your "freedom of expression" doesn't extend to sabotaging the democratic process, which is really what non-voting amounts to.

You got the "memo" of your membership and duties when you were born into this system, or migrated here, and the whole structure, if we call it that, can only work if everyone participates -- just like a corporation, if you will. A company would also fall apart if shareholders didn't exercise their vote and left the board and management to do as they pleased without any accountability or control whatsoever (which is what we have now in Alberta).

If you want to enjoy your democratic rights, such as the freedom of expression you mention, then it is your bloody duty to cooperate and participate in the democratic process. If you opt out, which all non-voters have done, then really by all rights, they are no longer entitled to any of the democratic rights such as freedom of expression.

You can't just enjoy the benefits without performing your duties -- that would make you a bloody freeloader.

[Werner Patels]

Let me try explaining it to you this way:

Think of democracy as a book club. People sign up and become members, also because membership comes with certain benefits (reduced prices at affiliated restaurants, an annual cruise for all club members at a bargain-basement price, etc.).

Now imagine what would happen to the club if only two or three actually read the assigned books. It wouldn't last very long, and those who didn't read their books, and thus caused the club to fall apart, cannot claim any of the club benefits.

Also, not voting is absolutely un-Albertan, because it is tantamount to relying on others to do your dirty work for you. Alberta stands for self-reliance, not depending on others (that's what Ontarians do).

When you keep relying on others in this way, don't be surprised if one day some really nasty party (say, a communist party) wins by default, because only a ridiculously low number of people bothered to vote. Then, you, as a right-winger, would be locked up or even "disappeared" by the very regime you didn't vote for, because you said, "Someone else will do my civic duty for me. I won't bother."

Just look at what's been happening in Zimbabwe. And if you think that we have a conservative government in Alberta right now, think again, because Stelmach and his goons are anything but conservatives.

Oh, and those who did vote, as you wrote, would have been counterbalanced if the others had gone to the polls. Most of those who stayed home would not have voted for Stelmach, because the 22% who did already represent his only remaining core support (give or take).

[Ron Good]

If you opt out, which all non-voters have done, then really by all rights, they are no longer entitled to any of the democratic rights such as freedom of expression.

You're putting the cart before the horse here, Werner. Or you don't know what "rights" are. Here's a hint: they aren't permissions.

Frédéric Bastiat, in the link I provided earlier, noted that : "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

In other words, the rights I have, I have before government is even involved. Using your example, then: freedom of expression is not a "democratic right"; it's a right--period--a human right, plain and simple. Those rights are what I actually got when I was born, not the "memo of my membership and duties" you'd put in their place.

Governments may protect these rights or suppress them, but they can't eliminate them. And I'll protect them the way *I* want to; they're that important to me. I'm a human being, not a subject--and "legal/illegal" doesn't count in my thinking except as a factor in risk assessment. Right and wrong counts big-time.

Which gets me to:

What in your assumption that "the democratic process" and "voting" is so far superior to any methods I may choose to achieve the personal and social ends *I'd* like to see that you have proper moral authority to compel not only my agreement, but also action on my part? Does it not matter that I have other things to do? Am I not enough of an authority for my life?

You assume that no matter what personal goals, motives, desires or interests I might have, you and persons who agree with you have a right to compel me? And you do this, in the name of *my* freedom?

Now, look, I understand my failure to comply frustrates you, certain as you are about he "rightness" of your position--but how right you feel about your position places zero proper obligation on me. A million "isms" have tried to apply the same logic to their requests for compliance in ways large and small.

Not to Godwin the thing, but National Socialism and Soviet Socialism were both (for only two examples, and I'm not name-calling here) predicated on exactly the same logic: We protect you, We provide your schools, We provide your infrastructure and so much more, and We've been doing so since before you got here; so you owe us--and you have since the day you were born.

Bull.

Also, not voting is absolutely un-Albertan, because it is tantamount to relying on others to do your dirty work for you. Alberta stands for self-reliance, not depending on others (that's what Ontarians do).

Well, if you don't want to depend on others, why do you feel properly able to compel my participation in this instance? Are you going to say--as you already clearly imply--that you "need" me to make this particular grand plan work? Seems a contradiction to me.

I will vote when and if I ever feel a need to, if ever I do feel that need, but you have no more moral right to force me to vote than you do to force me to kneel.

And what is the magic number of participants required that makes something that would be undeniably wrong if you did it to me as an individual become "correct" when you do it to me as a mob? Democracy: two wolves and a sheep disussing lunch plans.

[Werner Patels]

Well, if you don't vote, I won't respect you and I certainly do not consider you a democrat, which means that in my opinion you're not really entitled to anything in the very democracy that you have decided to opt out of. That just makes you a selfish freeloader in democratic terms, which also means that you really have no right to comment on politics or the government, because you already washed your hands of it when you decided not to do your duty.

Living in any social structure comes with rights and duties. Neglect your duties and expect to be sent to bed without dinner, if you catch my drift. Surely, if you don't perform your duties around the house, your wife will kick you out and divorce you. Same thing.

[Ron Good]

No, your "freedom of expression" doesn't extend to sabotaging the democratic process, which is really what non-voting amounts to.

Really? Inaction becomes action: *poof*.

"I sabotaged it by not touching it".

Magic, I tell you.

[Ron Good]

"...which also means that you really have no right to comment on politics or the government..."

Really? Hmmm. And I thought it was one of the very methods I have every right to use to protect my other rights. How foolish of me.

"Living in a social structure" requires *respect* for yourself and others, first and foremost. It requires the humbleness to know that other people's lives are not yours to play with, no matter your goals and desires and it requires the commitment to work with others by agreement and without coercion.

Surely, if you don't perform your duties around the house, your wife will kick you out and divorce you. Same thing.

Not really. I chose my wife.

[Werner Patels]

Selfish in democracy and at home, I get the picture. Sorry, but with people like you, democracy is doomed to failure. What is more, you give all conservatives a bad name with such attitudes.

[Mike]

"What is more, you give all conservatives a bad name with such attitudes."

I was unaware Ron was a conservative, Werner. I am certainly not and I agree with him 100%. You may be surprised to learn that places like the Soviet Union, Cuba and Zimbabwe have very close to 100% voter turn out for their elections. That doesn't make the them democratic or free. Lots of people voting doesn't mean democracy, especially if they are forced to do it against their will.

Doing anything against your will is the antithesis of freedom.

So are you saying that in order to be democratic, we cannot be free?

I'd rather be free.

[Werner Patels]

It's fitting that you should bring Zimbabwe into this, as Stelmach is not far off from Mugabe in many respects.

But saying that voter turnout in those countries is near 100% is a ridiculous statement to make, because many don't vote there (because of intimidation or because they are killed before they can exercise their vote) or because even many of those who vote don't really vote as their vote has been imposed on them by the government.

The last Alberta election clearly demonstrates what happens when people are too lazy to vote (they were home getting drunk or watching a moronic hockey game, no doubt): we end up with a government that has no democratic legitimacy (with only 22% of the electorate, it is certainly not a majority government and therefore doesn't deserve the number of seats it claimed for itself) and that views itself as being not accountable to voters at all (after all, only a tiny minority of voters showed up for the election, so the government doesn't feel obligated to do right by the people of the province).

Hence, we saw Stelmach's unilateral decision to load up his pockets with taxpayers' money, and he doesn't feel bad about such a blatant example of abuse and corruption at all.

When the day comes for Stelmach to leave office, and the public finds out everything that has gone on in that government, everything the federal Liberals have ever done will pale in comparison. Mark my words.

You want "freedom", Mike? Well, under Stelmach, we're not free, not even close.

[Ron Good]

Werner:

You think this is about Stelmach??? Like *he's* important enough to put what you want into play? He's that significant?

Selfish in democracy and at home, I get the picture.

No. You decidedly don't.

You assume far too much about how I behave based solely on the fact I don't use votes to push people around. Or to push back. I'm a lot more caring and gentle than you might imagine.

Democracy is just a *tool*, Werner; it's not an end-state that solves all problems. If anything, it's used far too much and for the wrong reasons. The only realistic limit on democratic government is the same as it's definition: what most people want, they can pretty much get.

Consequently, we've become a society where all and sundry think and act as if "as long as most folks go along" anything and everything a government chooses to do is "legitimate" in some way. That's demonstrably false: tyrrany has come as often as a mob as it has a dictator.

And when it comes to human values and aspirations there's very few things that are properly up to a vote. I do my best to respect that--and to keep it that way.

What is more, you give all conservatives a bad name with such attitudes.

More magic. Who in their right mind would call me a conservative? If anything I'm a highly consistent classical liberal--and, in any case, no one else's reputation rests on what I say...but mine does.

As does yours.

What exactly would *you* be willing to do to me to force me to vote?

[Werner Patels]

What I would do? I would slap a stiff penalty on laggards like yourself (stiffer than what they have in Australia).

Explain this to me: how, in your view of the world, can a society function if there is no set of common rules and an authority (government) that, in a representative manner, manages the state's affair? And how would you install such a representative authority, which must speak and act on behalf of the very people it represents, if the people it is supposed to represent are too lazy cast their votes to select such authority?

What you want is total anarchy, and that's something that only psychopaths would relish.

I assumed you were a conservative (even of the extreme and deranged right-wing KKK kind), because of your affiliation with Richard Evans -- at least, that's what I read about you online somewhere a while ago.

[Ron Good]

...an affiliation with Richard Evans. Hah!

Ask Richard how many times I've taken him to task for his views on gay rights, for example, or first nations claims, or any number of other subjects...unless, of course, all it takes for an affiliation these days is posting on someone's blog--in which case: Hi, Werner, we's affiliates, you and me. After all, we've even agreed sometimes.

Look, I'd almost happily settle for a constitutional minarchy with the government only involved in the police, courts and civil defense *if* those agencies were limited only to involvement regarding clear and tangible incidents of fraud, theft, misrepresentation, assault and murder--but these days the pendulum has swung so far that even often sensible folks like yourself are hell-bent on imposing your plans on those around you, abandoning principles for expediency, becoming part of the problem.

You've got a plan about the vote, others plan great environmental projects, still others income redistribution schemes to benefit whoever; other folks just want to tell you and me what we can or can't say. And everbody uses the same rationalizations you do--and everybody talks about sicking the gummint on recalcitrants...just to fix things, y'know. So many people have a freaking plan, and an overbearing moral certainty regarding other people's lives that only sheer presumptuousness can justify.

And, you...you'd slap a penalty on me? You? Or are you just telling me what you'd want done by some arms distant "official" apparatus that gets it done but keeps it appearing all polite and all.

I meant what would *you* do. Alone. Because anything else is just gangster talk--no prattle about rights or ethics, just dominant-mob power tactics.

How will society function, you ask. Reasonably enough I figure...I know, for example, that if my car broke down, I'd probably still call a mechanic. I'm sure some companies and farmers and such will still want to sell me things, and I'm useful enough to get by, probably.

Anarchy--or even anything close--ain't the absence of plans, anyway, y'know, Werner; it's just the substitution of many, many plans for a few big ones. After all, everybody has dreams, aspirations, hopes, goals--and most folks have people they get along with and care about.

Sure, there'll be problems--but we have those already. At least the problem-builders won't be able to claim a mandate, to coin Kyle Bennett.

...how, in your view of the world, can a society function if there is no set of common rules and an authority (government) that, in a representative manner, manages the state's affair?

How many damn rules do you need? I get by with just one: no instigation of aggression. It requires only that I coerce no one, doesn't put me in the position of violating anyone's rights, and it provides me with all the consistent ethical justification I'll ever need to defend myself.

As a consequence I have very, very few problems with anyone I meet. After all, I pose absolutely no threat to anyone who is willing to deal with me by agreement, or to leave me alone. The rest, I deal with as I meet 'em.

KKK? Uh...no. They're one of those groups with pushy plans, y'know. If you've actually read and understood anything I've written, you just plain know that'd be totally out of character.

Right wing? No. The right understands personal moral freedom with the same level of good sense the left applies to economic freedom: not much. (One of these days, hopefully, those folks will realize those freedoms are corrolaries.)

Couple that with this, that I wrote this earlier:

"'Living in a social structure' requires *respect* for yourself and others, first and foremost. It requires the humbleness to know that other people's lives are not yours to play with".

And you call me a laggard. Fascinating.

[SoContent]

I did review the weekend paper on this topic.

Certainly some lively discussion here and on the blog concerning this.

What I found comical was the comment from Preston Manning in the paper that what was needed was the next 'big idea'. I really felt while overseas for the many fine people at the grassroots level in this province and elsewhere who worked very hard to build up that Reform idea of Manning's only to find it dissipate into some hodge podge movement that today became the Conservatives buying out the debt of the PC Party.

In that aspect, Reform did not work. However if Canada federally voted with proportional representation during the 1990's, Reform perhaps would have succeeded in a greater capacity as the 'kingmaker' party as what often occurs in Europe, Australia even Israel with smaller party groups holding governments accountable as to policy in a coalition if not to an association as to parliamentary government policy of the party in power.

Many former Reformers were sold a bag of bad goods and I can feel their cynicism with the fact maybe that few of them came out to vote recently in federal/provincial elections because they are resigned to things remaining as they are.

I would ponder that someone may have conducted a study or two on where these voters really stand with their viewpoints and may now reluctantly just tow the line along identifying with Harper as he was in the old Reform. They now possibly vote for votings sake with the current rendition of the Conservative party because they see no reasonable alternatives for exercising their vote unlike what they were promised under grassroots Reform.

We do seem to always in most democratic countries attract the narcissists who gladly run at the civic, regional and national levels of a nations political process. But, even if that were true, is there a way for the voter to be more fully empowered at the ballot box to keep some of these self absorbed egoistics at bay?

There is no question in an area like Alberta that proportional representation(PR) would be the 'nail in the coffin' for the Alberta PC party.

Maybe it should be allowed at the civic level as one can access candidate platforms and exercise the weighted value of the vote to candidates that a voter agrees with on a whole array or partially on certain issues.

If Stelamch and his entourage are reviewing blogs, maybe he can create a Peace River MLA region based on population and elect 2 or 3 MLAs under PR and not on the current sporadic population base that is nothing short of gerrymandering.

This has been disguised too long like Dunvegan as a 'special situation' when it should be a cost conscious Peace River MLA region that is more fiscally transparent voting along PR lines. Gerrymandering is not something anyone wants to be associated with at the ballot box. Fiscal responsibility is the Alberta way.

They would actually in my opinion dodge or run from any of these suggestions and would look for the quickest rabbit holes around or talk around the issue even in the legislature if it was ever addressed despite what they said publicly in March on the subject of electoral reform.

What are our youth suppose to think of this as an example of complacency? Can't blame them for not voting or waiting forever on Manning's next 'big idea'.

Proportional representation (PR) voting systems are used by most of the world’s major democracies. Under PR, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. PR assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of seats that reflects their public support. A party or candidate need not come in first to win seats.

Greater voter turn-out (typically 60-70%) results because there are more choices for voters—third, fourth, fifth parties and more from diverse perspectives including more women and minorities.

This leads to more diverse representation, cleaner campaigns run on the issues, not mud-slinging and less costly streamlined election districts not to mention reduced effects of big money to toil certain issues.

Should it be conducted at the civic level? Of course it should. If introduced here in Alberta, it would attract peoples attention and possibly spark a curiosity to vote across all demographics. It will be watched across Canada and the U.S. who would take interest in a PR election run after many years absence from North America. The voting electorate gets interested again.

There is no question that Alberta could lead in this area. All it takes is one municipality that says we want greater transparency and our candidates are prepared to earn the trust of the electorate they serve.

What does this then say about Alberta as a fair and transparent democracy open to innovation in the electoral process?

What municipality or city council would not want to say that to their citizens and taxpayers about accountability and responsibility?

What prey tell if the electorate likes it? Where could it go from there? Would a referendum bring it in?

All it takes is some municipality to say yes and elections in this country will never be the same again. I would gauge on public access channels that more elected representatives would not be absent from meetings, legislatures or parliaments when the electorate decides that holding elected representatives responsible is the new norm across the nation in better holding the interests of a democracy to a very high standard.

Not a bad thing at all from high turnout elections.

[Werner Patels]

I share your surprise about Manning's "next big idea" -- when I read that, I thought to myself, "What gives?"

There have been a number of "big ideas" floating around, some have even been tossed around, but people still stay home on election day.

One thing, and that's not my idea but was also mentioned in one of the newspaper articles, elections should be moved to Sundays, the day when most civilized and democratic nations in the West have their elections scheduled.

Then, we need proportional representation to let voters know that, for once in Canadian history, their votes will really count.

[ScruffyDan]

Like I said before the real key to strengthening our Democracy is in increasing voter education. This however is not an easy task.

[Werner Patels]

No, not easy at all -- almost a futile undertaking, if you ask me.

By the way, the Calgary Herald and a large number of its readers agree with my take on non-voters.

[Ron Good]

The Calgary Herald and a large number of its readers agree with my take on non-voters.

So what?

That's not the point. The point is whether or not you, and they, are correct.''

Look, I asked you any number of questions in my previous posts--you answered exactly one--and you answered not one of the questions regarding my objections to the ethics of your proposal.

Beyond that you alluded to the baseless idea you thought I might be KKK or other type of right wing extremist.

So you've been fine with attacking my character, and fine with this argument from authority I just quoted--but so far--again--no actual discussion of the ethics involved.

This isn't a popularity contest, Werner...it's about right and wrong.

I'll say it again: right and wrong isn't a numbers game; something wrong for one doesn't magically become right just because lots of folks follow suit.

That you think things would improve and that you really, really, really like the idea isn't sufficient justification for pushing people around.

And taking this subject to a new post without dealing with thoughtful objections to the your proposal is just evasion...

[Werner Patels]

Sorry, but your name came up as someone in connection with Evans; hence the references.

Well, since being a selfish p.... is wrong, you're clearly in the wrong in your "democratic" choices.

I have answered all your questions -- it's not my fault if you don't/can't read my answers.

Australia has implemented mandatory voting -- an entire country like that (especially Australia) isn't wrong when it goes down that path.

It's not about pushing people around either, as you put it, but about making the entire system work, and it can work only if all those in it pull their weight.

Sorry, but unless you can show me that you are at least somewhat a decent person who is not only concerned with his own beer-drinking or hockey-watching time, and how going to the polls would cut into that "precious" me-time for you, I refuse to waste my time with someone who leaves his dirty boot imprints on our democracy.

If you want to live in anarchy, then (a) go live on an island or (b) have yourself committed, but please spare the rest of us normal people (because as I already pointed out, anarchy is only for psychopaths).

[Ben]

Interesting how Ron Good claims that he doesn't have time to vote, but he DOES have time to write long posts explaining why he doesn't have time to vote!

I agree with you, Werner that non-voters give up all rights to the benefits of democracy. It disgusts me when people say give excuses for not voting, and then complain about the outcome. If you don't vote, then as far as I am concerned, you forfeit your voice.

But I am skeptical about mandatory voting. I once read an article about the Australian system, and there were people who just randomly choosed a candidate at the polls because they had to vote, and they didn't care who they voted for. I admit that this is only one article, and the survey was probably not scientific, but that possibility does worry me. Personally, I REALLY despise non-voters, but forcing them to vote could make things even worse.

In short, I really don't know how to solve the problem of low-voter turnout, but I am skeptical of mandatory voting as the solution.

[Werner Patels]

Thank you, Ben. Your comments are appreciated and well received.

[Ben]

I have been thinking about this issue some more. As I indicated yesterday, my main concern about mandatory voting is as follows: while it will almost definitely force many more people to vote, they still won't necessarily vote INTELLIGENTLY. In other words, mandatory voting will not make them any more likely to learn the issues and then vote for the candidate that they think is most qualified for the job. Otherwise, I really like the idea of mandatory voting, because I strongly believe that voting is the single most important duty a person has in a democratic society.

Well, after some thought, I have the following proposal. Make voting mandatory, but in addition, force voters to write a simple test before voting. This doesn't need to be a long test -- maybe just 3-5 short-answer questions, asking them to specify the main issues of the campaign, and each party's view on each issue. For simplicity, the parties could be limited to the Liberals, PCs, NDPs, and Greens, but the voter could address other parties' views if they want. The test would also be designed to ensure that he voter is not forced to divulge their preferences, i.e., it would be non-partisan.

If the voter gets a minimum 60% grade on the test, then they can vote who whomever they want. Otherwise, they are not allowed to vote, and they are fined some pre-fixed amount. If they don't take the test at all, and do not have a valid excuse (such as a family emergency or a recent injury) then they are fined a larger amount. The test would only take a few minutes, so they wouldn't have any excuse regarding time.

I admit that this is a bit of a radical idea, and will face a lot of ridicule from lazy voters who want to leave important decisions to strangers, but I think it is worth thinking about. And if all parties agree to the new rule (which they should, if they really are worried about low voter turnout), then voters will not have the option of voting for the party that would repeal the law.

[Werner Patels]

For me, Australia is a role model. Mandatory voting works for them just fine.

I agree it won't change people's IQ, but at least people will have to participate in the democratic process, which would make the eventual outcome at least halfway legit (unlike the current government in Alberta, which claims majority status but has the support of less than 22% of the entire electorate).