Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

Democracy shouldn't be optional

Parliament's best-known saviour of the arses of lying rodents, the Queensland Liberal senator George Brandis, is a great advocate of voluntary voting.

And his enthusiasm is not simply because ending the present compulsory system would deliver to the conservative side of politics an automatic swing of up to five per cent - a permanent, built-in electoral landslide. Good heavens no: it is entirely a matter of principle, and that's why Brandis thinks that the Labor Party should put aside self interest and support the so-called reform as well.

Not, of course, that he needs them: after July, the Coalition would be able to push the necessary legislation through both houses no matter who objects or why. Welcome to the brave new world of the Coalition dictatorship.

Actually, although John Howard himself is in favour of the change (and why wouldn't he be?) it will not be introduced for at least another year; the polls show that a large majority of Australians are in favour of our unusual, but by no means unique, system and that a fair bit of softening up will be needed before the switch is thrust upon them. So, not a moment to lose: the heavy artillery, in the form of senators Brandis, Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz, is already being brought to bear on the still reeling voters.

Essentially the arguments for voluntary voting are two: first that the franchise is a right, not an obligation, and to penalise people who choose not to exercise it is ethically wrong; and secondly that compelling those who do not want to vote to do so means that elections can be determined by the uninformed and apathetic rather than those with a real interest in the political process. Neither stands up to serious scrutiny.

Firstly, even under the most laissez-faire democracies, some things are compulsory, and not just unpleasant ones like taxation. Our constitution makes education compulsory; would Brandis, that champion of an informed electorate, wish to change it? The right to universal suffrage was almost as hard won as that of universal education, and is similarly best protected by making it a duty - albeit a very light one.

People are not in fact compelled to vote; they are compelled to enrol, and occasionally to go to a polling station to have their names crossed off; what they do after that is up to them. There are federal elections every three years and state and local government elections every four years.

Assuming that turning up for each of them involves half an hour (which it rarely does) this involves the loss of just five hours in every 12 year cycle, or just over a day in the average lifetime. It seems a small price to pay for living in a democracy. To suggest that it is some kind of insupportable burden inflicted on the citizenry by an authoritarian regime is ludicrous.

And so is the argument that voluntary voting somehow produces a more intelligent outcome - look no further than the United States last week. Voluntary voting encourages the drop out mentality - my vote doesn't really make any difference so why should I bother. In fact, why should I bother about anything to do with politics, or with society, or anyone else at all. If compulsory voting achieves nothing else, it at least occasionally reminds people that they are part of something bigger than themselves: no man is an island.

And by dropping out themselves, the deserters leave it to others to run the place: the well organised groups who are fanatical about paying lower taxes, or owning guns, or imposing strict religious views on others. Voluntary voting opens the gate to extremists of all kinds. Compulsory voting is a guardian of decency and moderation.

And finally, there is the sheer matter of waste. Already in Australia there is a huge concentration on the marginal seats, the ones where compulsory voting ensures that the result will be close. A voluntary system would mean that concentration would intensify, but it would be increasingly limited to groups within those seats: only those with a record of voting would count.

But on top of that vast amounts of energy which could be better spent on policy would be devoted just to persuading people to enrol and vote. Resources would be diverted from arguing about the merits of competing proposals to finding new ways of luring the reluctant masses to the polling booths.

Believe me, I know: I once worked in an election campaign in England, and the main thing potential voters wanted to know was whether they could get a lift to the booth and be rewarded with a cup of tea and a biscuit when they got there. And this is meant to produce a better informed, more considered, campaign and outcome? Of course not; but that wasn't the point. What it did produce was a comfortable bias in favour of the Tories; in those days wet weather alone was worth a swing of up to 10 per cent, simply because conservatives were more likely to have their own transport than were Labor supporters.

Today and in Australia the margin would be less, but still well worth having, as Brandis is honest enough to admit. From my experience the compulsory system is not only fairer, but superior in every measurable way.

But in any case, let's not talk about principles. The only principle involved in this debate is that of the Coalition's God-given right to rule. The rest, as usual, is humbug.