Does compulsory voting favour conservative or liberal political
parties? We've just had an election here in Australia, and the
conservative government has been re-elected for the fourth time in a
row. Furthermore, they now have control of both the House of
Representatives and The Senate, meaning their policy can become law
more easily. One of their proposed ideas is to remove the compulsory
voting system that exists in Australia. My question is: would the
removal of compulsory voting affect which party is elected? Does
history show that non-complusory voting means that more conservative
voters turn up, or more liberal voters?

---

Clarification of Question by dzeaiter-ga on 13 Oct 2004 17:31 PDT

In Australia, there are two main parties:

Liberal - a misnomer. They're actually a conservative party.
Conservative socially and right-wing financially, but they advocate
"small government".

Labor. The more left-wing party - supporting unions and special
interest groups more than Liberal.

When I say conservative and liberal, I was talking in an American context.

Hi Dzeaiter,

What a great question. But please re-read your post. Conservative
Liberals? One and the same, or did you mean Liberal vs. Labor?

The history answer to your question I do not know. However, I believe
that it won't matter whether an election is compulsory or voluntary.
Each indecision will cancel the other out, until we reduce the
equation to a single voter. Our system of preferential voting will
further the argument.

I'm all for voluntary, as those who get off their collective arses to
make a difference will choose to vote. We have the luxury of being
able to vote. This should not be taken lightly, but the fewer voters
the better I reckon.
Only because it will fit with my selfish beliefs in voting for the Liberals.

Point is, I vote for business, commerce and my employer. I see no
sense in voting for a group of individual unionistic labourers,
dependant upon the employ offered to them.

OK, just stirring the pot. What are your thoughts?

Phil

Hi Dzeaiter,

The experience in the USA suggests that the party aligned with the
*wealthier* citizens is at an advantage when voting is not compulsory,
so it is probably not the answer to your (and my) prayers.

There are several reasons for the bias in favour of the "wealthy party":
* Transport to polling stations (especially in poor weather)
* Education is a positive factor in promoting political awareness
* Time off work to vote (not so applicable in Australia, where voting
is on Saturday)

There have been American presidential elections where the Democrats
have apparently been hammered because the weather was really bad on
election day, so poorer people, without convenient, dry means of
transport, were less likely to go out and vote.  This is the reason
why you may hear of poor would-be voters being "bussed" to the voting
locations in a desparate attempt by the Democrats to "mobilize the
vote".  The whole dynamic changes when voting is not compulsory, so
that the emphasis is not on persuading people that your policies are
the best, but rather persuading them that it is worth their trouble to
go out and vote.

As a fellow-Australian, I find the US situation very strange.  It is
further complicated by the fact that they vote on a weekday, and I do
not believe there is any legislative requirement for employers to give
the workers time off to vote.  As you can imagine, that further
disadvantages the party of "labor".

Hope that helps,
Lee.

As an aside, the original reason for voting on Tues. in America was to
make sure laborers could vote. For more information on this, check
out: http://www.bostonvote.org/vra/3/

It's my understanding that if you request time off to vote, it must be
given to you, but these days absentee ballots are so readily
available, even if this is not true, there should not be an obstacle.

Kriswrite