webdiplomacy.net

For anyone voting in Australia, here is a map of where you can get your very own democracy sausage:

https://democracysausage.org

If I was in a country that made voting compulsory I'd demand more than a bloody sausage. A pint of cider as well at the very least.

Then I'd vote for anyone who is promising to end the ludicrous policy, and if no one was I'd draw a big cock and balls on the ballot paper and leave.

I used to be very opposed to mandatory voting, but the more elections I live through the more I wonder if the Australians are onto something.

In most Canadian elections, the parties' main goal is just to excite their own base to get off the couch. This has largely supplanted a good-faith effort to win over new supporters. The result has been parties adopting rah rah politics that have a hard time self-correcting or compromising.

Non-compulsory voting has very clearly skewed our politics towards the over 75 crowd, to the detriment of pretty much every policy decision.

Compulsory voting almost certainly means counting more votes from the very uninformed or apathetic - but it at least does so in a universal way. I'd wager no one is actually as ill-informed as rabid partisans who wouldn't dare miss a chance to vote - and compulsory voting helps water down the influence of this crowd.

Retaining the option to spoil a ballot seems like a good way out for those who really don't like the choices they're presented.

And if I can be compelled into jury duty, the census, etc., why not voting?

If you have compulsory voting there must always be a "re open nominations" option
, which I certainly support.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your point, Berti, but are you really saying that you favour compulsory voting because the ignorant vote waters down the vote of the fanatic?

That sounds like a solid foundation for arguing in favour of abolishing democracy altogether, but I'm not at all convinced it makes a case for cumpolsory voting

As much as anything else, compulsory voting destroys my argument in favour of allowing 16 year olds the vote. You can't do that, people say, as they don't have experience and most of them know very little about politics and frankly couldn't care less about who wins. That's true in a lot of cases, I reply, but it hardly matters because they're the ones that aren't going to vote. The ones that are interested, that genuinely care, that want to help change their communities are the ones who will vote, and we should give them the opportunity.

Every adult who wants a say deserves a say, regardless of how wise or deranged their opinion sounds to you. People who are happy to let other people choose for them, or who are quite content regardless of which of the likely contenders wins, should be allowed to go to the pub or relax as they see fit

Non-compulsory voting probably over indexes our politics on the elderly, the partisan, and the economically-advantaged. Maybe that's an okay trade-off if the alternative is an unseemly compelled vote that forces the least-engaged to cast a ballot. I'm honestly not sure.

Voting age is likewise a tricky trade-off. Many 16 year olds are probably more genuinely politically engaged, pay more taxes relative to their income, and otherwise have more skin in the game than the bulk of retirees. But they're typically under the legal stewardship of an adult who can vote, which seems relevant. Plus I remember myself at 16...

In a numerical sense, no single vote matters. But the composition of the electorate does matter a lot - and enforcing a genuine one-person one-vote outcome probably makes Australian politics sensitive to a broader constituency than systems where the non-voting pub dwellers and relaxers are systematically more likely to be from certain demographics (younger, working class, etc.). Building the habit of voting, even if by mandate, might cause some to become more politically engaged than they otherwise would have—but that's an empirical claim I can't evidence.

Maybe democracy just comes with some minimal responsibilities. Marking a piece of paper (with what could indeed just be a sketch of a veiny dangler) and eating a sausage every few years doesn't seem like a major imposition relative to other things democracies compel their citizens to do—but maybe an Australian could tell me that there is simply *no* benefit to mandatory voting in practice, in which case I guess the imposition wouldn't be worth it.

I don't think the sausage eating part is mandatory even in Australia, Bert.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Mon May 05, 2025 9:43 pm

Maybe democracy just comes with some minimal responsibilities. Marking a piece of paper (with what could indeed just be a sketch of a veiny dangler) and eating a sausage every few years doesn't seem like a major imposition relative to other things democracies compel their citizens to do

I would argue that this illustrates the problem with democracy in a nutshell. The perception, held by many, that engaging in democracy is a simple act of making a mark on a piece of paper that carries minimal responsibility.

The basic duty of the electorate should be to pay attention to what's going on and develop a half decent idea of what the various candidates stand for, intend to achieve, and whether there's a chance that they can actually make it happen. To do it properly carries responsibility and takes effort. And if you don't want to make the effort and shoulder the responsibility that's fine. There should be no shame in leaving the decision to your peers.

Yes, I broadly understand the point that forcing disinterested people to vote theoretically provides a greater incentive for politicians to pay attention to them, but if those politicians know that they're just going through the motions and not actually paying attention then that incentive is false. If they know their audience isn't interested in any detail they won't provide it. They will be more inclined towards vacuous earworm slogans, brief tiktok style reels, and the sort of guff serious voters hate. To hell with that. Give me low turnouts of people who care any day

Currently in the UK we get neither, Oct.

We get soundbites and lies, and we get low turnouts and people making ill-informed votes without a full understanding of the issues.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 1:23 pm

Currently in the UK we get neither, Oct.

We get soundbites and lies, and we get low turnouts and people making ill-informed votes without a full understanding of the issues.

And, even worse, we are forced to endure the endless slapstick comedy routines of Ed Davey

In all honesty, though, I think you do the British voter a disservice. The media are very good at finding numpties to interview who have based their entire voting strategy on an alcohol induced dream of Margaret Thatcher executing the Downing Street cat, but when you actually speak to people they're pretty solid on the issues. Sure, lots of people reach conclusions that you struggle to follow at times, but the general understanding of real people who vote is pretty good.

I do agree, though, that social media is increasingly full of very dodgy political adds that only vaguely resemble the truth. Labour seemed particularly bad in the local elections, but that may be largely due to me seeing a lot more Labour material than anything else. By contrast the leaflets through the door were pretty solid.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 1:58 pm

I do agree, though, that social media is increasingly full of very dodgy political adds that only vaguely resemble the truth. Labour seemed particularly bad in the local elections, but that may be largely due to me seeing a lot more Labour material than anything else. By contrast the leaflets through the door were pretty solid.

Labour's material this time around was *awful*, I am in complete agreement.

Then again, it must be difficult to make a strong argument that appeals to voters when you have no principles and your key policies can be boiled down to "continuing to hold down the incomes of the poor, but with more administrative competence than the Tories", and "grumbling about immigration, but less forcefully than Reform".

Truly dreadful.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 8:12 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Mon May 05, 2025 9:43 pm

Maybe democracy just comes with some minimal responsibilities. Marking a piece of paper (with what could indeed just be a sketch of a veiny dangler) and eating a sausage every few years doesn't seem like a major imposition relative to other things democracies compel their citizens to do

I would argue that this illustrates the problem with democracy in a nutshell. The perception, held by many, that engaging in democracy is a simple act of making a mark on a piece of paper that carries minimal responsibility.

The basic duty of the electorate should be to pay attention to what's going on and develop a half decent idea of what the various candidates stand for, intend to achieve, and whether there's a chance that they can actually make it happen. To do it properly carries responsibility and takes effort. And if you don't want to make the effort and shoulder the responsibility that's fine. There should be no shame in leaving the decision to your peers.

Yes, I broadly understand the point that forcing disinterested people to vote theoretically provides a greater incentive for politicians to pay attention to them, but if those politicians know that they're just going through the motions and not actually paying attention then that incentive is false. If they know their audience isn't interested in any detail they won't provide it. They will be more inclined towards vacuous earworm slogans, brief tiktok style reels, and the sort of guff serious voters hate. To hell with that. Give me low turnouts of people who care any day

For every individual, the probability of casting a decisive vote is effectively zero. Voting therefore isn’t a rational act - it’s expressive. People vote to feel good, to signal identity, or to affirm values, not because they can realistically expect to change the outcome of an election. This is especially true when they're vote is ostensibly in the service of some imagined "public good." The myth of the "informed" voter is mostly a rhetorical ploy by the affluent and educated to pretend their vote is a divining rod for social welfare, even though it is obviously no such thing.

So expecting voters to treat their ballot as a solemn high-stakes civic duty misses the point. The problem isn’t that voters are lazy - it’s that the system rewards superficial engagement. When individual votes don’t matter, rational ignorance takes over. That’s not a failure of the electorate - it’s the logical consequence of the structure.

But while no individual vote matters, the composition of the electorate does. You don’t get a better democracy by filtering for “serious” voters - you just get one that reflects the preferences of a narrower, often unrepresentative slice of society. Compulsory voting doesn’t guarantee thoughtfulness, but it forces politicians to consider groups that might not vote in a non-compulsory system: the disengaged, the young, the marginal, etc.

What have decisive votes got to do with anything? They're a myth, anyway. Even when an MP is chosen by a single vote, there are still 10s of thousands of people who can lay claim to that vote being theirs. But whilst the power of a single vote is small it is still significant, and every vote is counted and every vote counts.

I disagree fundamentally that voting is little more than a feel good exercise. Voting is a direct way of sending a message to the MP. If you vote Green the chances are you person will lose, but your vote is counted and the person who wins will see the Green vote growing year after year and they will tailor their way of working accordingly. If you spoil your ballot you are counted. If you vote for the winner you are counted. There are no wasted votes aside from votes for people you don't believe in. Every individual vote matters.

^ This still might indulge a little too much romanticism about voting.

In the same way that no single vote can expect to be determinative of an election result, it is extremely unlikely that a single vote will to be the one that moves the needle on decisions made by a particular party/candidate. Will the Green Party MP candidate give up if they receive 147 votes, but stay on if they get 148?

All votes move the needle. I don't understand your obsession with trying to identify a tipping point. It is neither possible nor desirable to do so. As far as romance goes, I find myself at a loss to explain why you value democracy at all if you have so little faith in the power of a vote

Your point seems to be that a single vote doesn't influence things much, but that everyone should treat it like a solemn duty anyhow for some reason? And those who don't pretend that their vote is very important should just grab a pint instead and leave voting to the motivated and informed?

My point goes a little further — from an individual perspective, voting basically cannot matter. But democracy’s goodness was never predicated on a single vote mattering. It works because participation in aggregate shapes the political landscape. Politicians don’t care if you voted Green — but they sure care if 200,000 people like you did.

I raise this not to be cynical, but to push back on the idea that only "serious" voters - the highly informed, highly engaged ones - deserve to participate. In a system where the marginal effect of one vote is tiny, expecting each citizen to be a political analyst misunderstands the nature of the act. Broad participation, even if some of it is casual, matters because it shapes the electorate politicians must respond to.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 10:05 pm

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Tue May 06, 2025 11:05 pm

Your point seems to be that a single vote doesn't influence things much, but that everyone should treat it like a solemn duty anyhow for some reason?

Then I suggest you read it again because I suggested nothing of the sort. I was, in fact, very clear about having no issues whatsoever with people who are not interested and who have no desire to get informed. Only people who vote have a civic duty to take their vote seriously, and where you don't have ridiculous laws that force people to vote this is broadly what you get

Frankly your vision of democracy seems to be little more than a demographic based consumer survey. You can do that, and indeed political parties do do that, without bothering with the actual democracy bit. The Chinese Communist Party have made it an artform

I do feel that we have strayed somewhat from the core issue of sausages

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue May 06, 2025 10:23 pm

Frankly your vision of democracy seems to be little more than a demographic based consumer survey. You can do that, and indeed political parties do do that, without bothering with the actual democracy bit. The Chinese Communist Party have made it an artform

Yes, voting really only matters in a numerical sense when it's done in blocks. It is indeed like a consumer survey, but actually worse in many ways, since the range of choices on offer at the ballot are even more limited. This is a well studied issue in political science with a long history of offending those who put too much stock in *their* vote.

Many people seem to misunderstand the vote for selfish reasons. Performing "informedness" and voting for "good causes" cause people feel like they're making contributions they are not in fact making - but probably could make if they wrote an op-ed, went door knocking, etc.

The great thing about democracy is not just voting, but the rest of liberalism. China and other authoritarian countries do indeed have their own incentives to find out what their people want and give them some of that. What they typically lack is a mechanism for a peaceful transfer of power, rule of law, liberal norms on speech and association, etc.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed May 07, 2025 9:40 am

I do feel that we have strayed somewhat from the core issue of sausages

I do wish election day were more fun in Canada. Regardless of one's views on Australia's compulsory voting system, what they clearly got right was ensuring elections fall on a Saturday and having some fun with it.