"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

Thomas Jefferson 1774

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Ask the Left Wing Marxist Dictators why they have compulsory voting.

Well okay, I guess Dictators would be fine with it if there is just one name people vote for. Which is the real problem when discussing 'democracy' withing totalitarian countries, not the fact that they are compulsory.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

Thomas Jefferson 1774

Easier said than done. There is no universal definition of common sense, hence laws and how they should be interpreted will always depend on how they are written.

Yeah but here we are talking about government. Its not like you can opt out of that. You can perhaps choose not to vote, but that doesn't mean that the actions of the government no longer concern you. And if you opt out of voting, you essentially let a minority rule you.

A wannabe dictator would never want compulsory voting, because its much easier to be a dictator when everyone is is fine with a minority telling the majority what to do. Why give that away?

This is correct

It is easier to rig the vote if less people vote . Notice how some elections come done to just a few votes

---

Yeah but here we are talking about government. Its not like you can opt out of that. You can perhaps choose not to vote, but that doesn't mean that the actions of the government no longer concern you. And if you opt out of voting, you essentially let a minority rule you.
A wannabe dictator would never want compulsory voting, because its much easier to be a dictator when everyone is is fine with a minority telling the majority what to do. Why give that away?

This is correct
It is easier to rig the vote if less people vote . Notice how some elections come done to just a few votes

Al Gore vs George Bush was one of theme.
In Florida there was a problem with the ballots and...
Who won?

Is Australia a Leftist Maxist State then .!!!

NO

So i say again % of people that vote over 91 yr period , facts not theory please

Yes Communists do have compulsory voting your right . However Brain Washing ideology from a 100 years ago is for a different thread . As both Russia , and North Korea China Berma are from another time , a skerge we haven't got rid of yet

So i say in a free democratic Country why is compulsory voting bad again

The Communism argument was also used back in 1924 but Australia is not a communist country so that's just crap

Revolutions are why those country's above are why they are the way they are now , up to 100 years later .

---

Exactly why do you think compulsory voting is a good thing? And might it, in your opinion, possibly have any negative consequences?

It does prevent that other kind of tyranny, the tyranny of the minority. Look at the US, its currently ruled by what is essentially only a fraction of the people. State elections have horrible voter turnout rates, like literally less than half of the people show up. That half is then roughly divided in half as well with one half being a bit bigger than the other. So that basically means that 25% of the people get to rule the other 75%.

Yeah, its peoples own fault for not voting, but even if all those people just don't show up because they just don't care at all, I think its unhealthy for a democracy.

Now this gets worse since the people that do show up at all the elections are also the people that often have more extreme views than others. Its why the Tea Party does so well in the primaries and on the local level, but why they can't get someone elected to President. At the same time, while people are more likely to vote for the president, that is arguably also one of the least important elections. Yeah it determines who becomes the guy sitting in the Oval office, and yeah thats important. But, most of the policies that actually directly affect people are done on the local or State Level. And when Congress isn't working with the President, you see how paralyzing that works on the Federal government.

Mandatory voting would alleviate some of these problems. Yeah, some voters would not be that informed. They are still more likely to vote for moderate politicians, which could help bridge the current gap between republican and democrat and might lead to some more bipartisan cooperation.

Good post, Мишель

Please pardon me if I do disagree with part of it.

I do agree that it would be best if a much higher percentage of people DID vote, but only if they are educated on the issues. I disagree with you that the 'uninformed' would be more likely to vote for moderates. They WOULD and DO vote for who they are TOLD to vote for by those above them (union bosses, etc.).

Personally, I would rather that they not vote than be the ballot-box-puppets of various elitists, cementing their lock on power.

Tell me, Мишель, and you too, Glenn, is it permissible under compulsory mandatory voting, to turn in a ballot with some races on it not voted in, or even a totally blank ballot (no votes for any race)?

Why is this important? Well, voter apathy is not the only reason for not voting. Sometimes, not voting is a protest action. Does compulsory voting still allow this valid protest action?

The MAIN problem with politics in the USA is that it is framed as a False Dichotomy. You yourself, Мишель, refer to it in the following sentence:

They are still more likely to vote for moderate politicians, which could help bridge the current gap between republican and democrat and might lead to some more bipartisan cooperation.

The Democrats and The Republicans are NOT the only possible choices. But, both would like everyone to believe that they are -- that elections are a binary choice between the two. This is incorrect.

There are other political positions out there, many of which have associated political parties.

If you are concerned primarily about environmental issues, what is wrong with voting 'green party'?

If you are concerned that some level of reforms in government would benefit the nation, what is wrong with voting 'reform party'?

And if you are concerned, as am I, about erosion of freedom and liberty under big-government, what is wrong with voting 'libertarian'?

These three are just those that quickly come to mind. There are a multitude of others.

As to:

more bipartisan cooperation.

More of that False Dichotomy. As I said, US Politics are currently organized as effectively a binary choice between the Democrats and the Republicans. In reality, these two parties are EXTREMELY similar in their methods, only having a slight difference in their 'favored' group. The Democrats being center-left and favoring the poor, the working class, and the minorities. The Republicans being center-right, and favoring business and military interests.

Their similarities, which vastly outweigh their differences, are that both parties are Big-government, tax & spend, authoritarian stateists in their methods.

Both parties have arranged things so that they have, between the two, a virtual lock on the electoral process in the USA. Other parties have an EXTREMELY hard time gaining any sort of representation, no matter how popular they are, due to the way the Democrats and the Republicans have set things up.

Perhaps some reform is needed in the way we vote for our Federal Legislative representatives, because the current system is horribly broken.

When considering the Authoritarian vs Libertarian axis on the political graph, the only time the terms 'left' and 'right' are important are in the middle of the axis. At the far Authoritarian end, these two terms are meaningless since the nation is governed by the whims of one person, a dictator. At the far Libertarian end, the terms are effectively meaningless because Government has no power to favor one over the other.

The more power is centrally concentrated in government, the easier it is for the society to slide down the slope to the far Authoritarian end, ending freedom and liberty.

Obviously, the far Authoritarian end of things is to be avoided like the plague.

The far Libertarian end of things (Libertarian anarchy) is to be avoided as well.

I am a Libertarian minarchist. Some level of government *is* required, mostly to protect the People from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. And some level of taxation is required to support it. Legitimate governmental entities are, in my opinion, military, police, fire departments, courts, prisons, and various executive and legislative entities at various levels of government.

I know that you believe differently, and that is your right. But by the same token, I have the right to believe as I do. I realize that Libertarianism is somewhat of a doomed concept, due to all the People that now have vested interests in the status quo. But, they are my principles, and I have the right to act on them as I see fit, as long as those actions do not violate other's rights. Discussing and voting according to my principles is perfectly fine. Trying to force my principles on you or someone else isn't.

ALL political commercials and soundbites are prohibited. The only exposure of the issues and candidates allowed would be televised debate.

http://www.aec.gov.au/

rules about this are contained there

Second All statements and promises made by all candidates are subject to slander, defamation and perjury laws. With imprisonment as punishment for the most egregious offenses.

Come under Common law Provisions of Law , As is the Case of the current tresurer Joe Hockey whom has brought a Defamation case against a news media company .

http://www.smh.com.au/national/joe-hockey-defamation-case-who-is-the-ordinary-reasonable-reader-20150316-1m0e0x.html

Third Lawyers are prohibited from seeking or holding public office.

mm well i have to agree there but doesn't matter when talking voting , there still going to be there either way

the third is due to my long held belief that laws written by lawyers are the same as Developers writing the Building Codes.

I agree there possily why your Boss can take a insurance poly out against you

But you can't do the same to your nabours house against fire .

I would like to see our Constitution changed to refelck this

NO LAWYERS IN PARLIAMENT

---

Good post, Мишель

Please pardon me if I do disagree with part of it.

I welcome your dissent :)

I do agree that it would be best if a much higher percentage of people DID vote, but only if they are educated on the issues. I disagree with you that the 'uninformed' would be more likely to vote for moderates. They WOULD and DO vote for who they are TOLD to vote for by those above them (union bosses, etc.).

Well yes, informed voters are the best kind of voters. Some remarks here. First of all, I dont think that people who don't vote are necessarily uninformed on the issues. Perhaps not all issues, but no one is ever informed on everything. Second of all, if voting becomes mandatory, there is a good chance more people will take an interest in politics, even if its just doing an online test asking about their stance on certain issues to reading a brochure with each parties stances on certain issues. I mean, if you have to go out and vote, you might as well check out what you can vote for. I don't think however that there are a lot of people who walk into a voting booth and just pick someone at random.

While yes, its possible for others to influence peoples voting behavior, but the same is true when voting isn't mandatory.

Tell me, Мишель, and you too, Glenn, is it permissible under compulsory mandatory voting, to turn in a ballot with some races on it not voted in, or even a totally blank ballot (no votes for any race)?

Why is this important? Well, voter apathy is not the only reason for not voting. Sometimes, not voting is a protest action. Does compulsory voting still allow this valid protest action?

Im not from a country with mandatory voting, so I dont know for sure how it works in practice in countries that do have mandatory voting, but as far as I'm aware and concerned, it should be possible to vote for nothing. Generally mandatory voting only means that people have to show up at the voting station and hand in a ballot after they are done. It does not mean its mandatory to actually vote for any of the parties, though that might depend on what country you are looking at.

I personally would say that if mandatory voting laws were introduced in a democracy (any democracy), the vote for no one option should always be possible.

The Democrats and The Republicans are NOT the only possible choices. But, both would like everyone to believe that they are -- that elections are a binary choice between the two. This is incorrect.

Oh I know that there are other choices as well. But in practical terms, those parties get like what? 5% of the votes? The fact is that those parties are really bad at getting their issues on the election agenda, subsequently they dont get invited to any of the big debates and their media coverage is almost non existent which means that their exposure to voters is minimal which then results in voters never voting for them, either because they are not really aware of the 'third' choice, or because they feel such parties don't stand a chance to win anyways.

For the time being, America is stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans.

More of that False Dichotomy. As I said, US Politics are currently organized as effectively a binary choice between the Democrats and the Republicans. In reality, these two parties are EXTREMELY similar in their methods, only having a slight difference in their 'favored' group. The Democrats being center-left and favoring the poor, the working class, and the minorities. The Republicans being center-right, and favoring business and military interests.

Their similarities, which vastly outweigh their differences, are that both parties are Big-government, tax & spend, authoritarian stateists in their methods.

Both parties have arranged things so that they have, between the two, a virtual lock on the electoral process in the USA. Other parties have an EXTREMELY hard time gaining any sort of representation, no matter how popular they are, due to the way the Democrats and the Republicans have set things up.

Perhaps some reform is needed in the way we vote for our Federal Legislative representatives, because the current system is horribly broken.

Not disagreeing with what you said, but still, despite being so similar, they currently are having trouble getting along. Bipartisan support, especially the last 6 years, is just terrible. Republicans vote against anything the Democrats want out of principle (and the democrats generally are not that much better).

When considering the Authoritarian vs Libertarian axis on the political graph, the only time the terms 'left' and 'right' are important are in the middle of the axis. At the far Authoritarian end, these two terms are meaningless since the nation is governed by the whims of one person, a dictator. At the far Libertarian end, the terms are effectively meaningless because Government has no power to favor one over the other.

The more power is centrally concentrated in government, the easier it is for the society to slide down the slope to the far Authoritarian end, ending freedom and liberty.

Im going to have to disagree there. Centralization does not mean society is sliding down towards authoritarianism. In the case of the United States, centralization has generally meant that power is centralized in one specific layer of government, in this case the 'top' layer and even that has been relatively minimal. That doesn't mean your freedom is diminishing.

In reality, the real danger to your freedom exists at a local and state level. Because no one pays attention to whats happening there, some serious abuse of power is going on. And on those levels it actually matters, because at those levels, the actual decisions that have an impact on your day to day life are made.

I am a Libertarian minarchist. Some level of government *is* required, mostly to protect the People from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. And some level of taxation is required to support it. Legitimate governmental entities are, in my opinion, military, police, fire departments, courts, prisons, and various executive and legislative entities at various levels of government.

I know that you believe differently, and that is your right. But by the same token, I have the right to believe as I do. I realize that Libertarianism is somewhat of a doomed concept, due to all the People that now have vested interests in the status quo. But, they are my principles, and I have the right to act on them as I see fit, as long as those actions do not violate other's rights. Discussing and voting according to my principles is perfectly fine. Trying to force my principles on you or someone else isn't.

Well I disagree with your political view point on this, but I respect you for having it :)

Tell me, Мишель, and you too, Glenn, is it permissible under compulsory mandatory voting, to turn in a ballot with some races on it not voted in, or even a totally blank ballot (no votes for any race)?

Why is this important? Well, voter apathy is not the only reason for not voting. Sometimes, not voting is a protest action. Does compulsory voting still allow this valid protest action?

Yes we can vote as a protest . the options are .

1.Don't vote and pay the 50 bucks fine , no biggy !

2.vote correctly above the line or number all candidates under the line

3.split your vote and vote 1 party in 1 house and another in the other house (gridlock as the yanks say but not always ) unlike there system

4.Write your all a bunch of XXXXXXX across the paper , This is a donkey vote or protest vote

5.move interstate for 12 months to drop off the elecrol roll and then move back and don't register , or don't register when you turn 18 which most do .

---

We also have the preferences system meaning a candidate if he/she does not get enough to win they nominate anther party /person to have there vote .This is voting above the line (there is a line across the top of the paper , above the line is the party names , below the line is all the candidates names)

This is why you can opt to number every candidate on the ballot paper if you chose too ,instead of letting the preferences take over .This is voting below the line

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm

---

Tell me, Мишель, and you too, Glenn, is it permissible under compulsory mandatory voting, to turn in a ballot with some races on it not voted in, or even a totally blank ballot (no votes for any race)?

Why is this important? Well, voter apathy is not the only reason for not voting. Sometimes, not voting is a protest action. Does compulsory voting still allow this valid protest action?

Yes we can vote as a protest . the options are .

1.Don't vote and pay the 50 bucks fine , no biggy !

2.vote correctly above the line or number all candidates under the line

3.split your vote and vote 1 party in 1 house and another in the other house (gridlock as the yanks say but not always ) unlike there system

4.Write your all a bunch of XXXXXXX across the paper , This is a donkey vote or protest vote

5.move interstate for 12 months to drop off the elecrol roll and then move back and don't register , or don't register when you turn 18 which most do .

That is good to hear, it alleviates one of my concerns over it.

However, as to this one:

3.split your vote and vote 1 party in 1 house and another in the other house (gridlock as the yanks say but not always ) unlike there system

I think you may have some incorrect information.

Our lower House of Congress (The House of Representatives) is elected for 2 year terms. Our upper house of Congress (The Senate) is elected for 6 year terms (roughly 1/3 of them elected during every 2-year House election).

There is nothing wrong with voting for someone from one party in the House election, and voting for someone from another party for a Senate seat (if your state elects one that particular year).

While the option exists for a 'straight ticket' vote (vote for the selected party's candidate in every race on that ballot), it is not a requirement, and many (perhaps most) voters (myself included) almost always do a 'split ticket'.

So, what do you mean by 'unlike there[sic] system' ??

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

Thomas Jefferson 1774

Easier said than done. There is no universal definition of common sense, hence laws and how they should be interpreted will always depend on how they are written.

The problem in the US is the endless argument over the meaning of 'is'. Common sense would dictate the law means what the accepted definition of each word means.

i.e. "shall not be infringed"

shall

v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill." 2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.(legalese that "may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

not

n. a negative declaration.

be

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
2. a. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
b. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested

infringed
v. abuse a privilege, abuse one's rights, advance stealthily, aggress, arrogate, breach, break, break bounds, break in upon, break into, commit a breach, impinge, impose, infract, interfere, interlope, invade, meddle, overstep, seize wronggully, take liberties, transgress, trespass, use wrongfully, usurp, violare, violate, violate a contract, violate a law, violate a privilege, violate a regulation.

Therefore under a commonsense definition "Shall"(an imperative command) not(negative declaration) be (remain untouched/unmolested) infringed (take your pick).

Simple, until the lawyers start debating the "metaphysical subtleties"

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I would like to see our Constitution changed to refelck this

NO LAWYERS IN PARLIAMENT

I totally agree with this sentiment, and would (if it were up to me) do the same thing here.

Lawyers... If we didn't have them, we wouldn't need them.

Kong you don't vote for your polly's in federal elections it's your states , right! !!

Here our states have nothing to do with Federal politic , They are independent and have and can make there own Laws , however Federal can override them under certain conditions .

However, as to this one:

3.split your vote and vote 1 party in 1 house and another in the other house (gridlock as the yanks say but not always ) unlike there system

we don't call giving one house like what happens in your congress to say the Dem's and the other house the Rep's

Breakdown here political party's

Labor
Greens
L.N.P (Liberal National Party)
Independent

The L.N.P is actually 2 party's (Country Party and Liberal Party (City))

To have Gridlock as you say we would need a hung parliament !

Which has happened . But things still got done . It's only ever the L.N.P that causes big problems . Come live down under Kong for a couple of years become a ozzie (dual citizen) and see if we don't change your mind a bit mate

---

I would like to see our Constitution changed to refelck this

NO LAWYERS IN PARLIAMENT

I totally agree with this sentiment, and would (if it were up to me) do the same thing here.

Lawyers... If we didn't have them, we wouldn't need them.

Isn't a lawyer a private representative, like a private congressman?

What is 50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

---

Isn't a lawyer a private representative, like a private congressman?

Nope not here , otherwise known as a solicitor , barrister , Judge

Laws are made in the parliament .

Lawyers usually refer's to Criminal Justice or Family Law

---

The problem in the US is the endless argument over the meaning of 'is'. Common sense would dictate the law means what the accepted definition of each word means.

Yes, and when all the facts concerning a case line up nicely with the common definition of those words the case is generally pretty easy.

The problem is when the facts don't line up nicely with the way the law is worded.

Simple example, lets say there is a law that makes child abuse illegal. That sounds really simple right? A common sense law, of course everyone says child abuse is wrong and should be illegal. But, what counts as abuse? Who is considered a child? Those are all words that can have different meanings to different people. So you need to further define those words. Well, child is very simple, you simply take an age limit as cut off point. But abuse? Well, in 99% of the cases, thats fairly simple as well. Sexual assault, physical assault, malnutrition, anything that could endanger the well being of your child.

Okay, so then what about parents that don't vaccinate their children? Parents that don't send their kids to school? What about letting them watch hardcore porn when they are 10? What about letting them play ultra violent video games when they are 10? What about having an unsecured loaded gun laying around the house? Those are situations that are probably not specifically covered in any law defining child abuse. And a skillful lawyer can argue all kinds of ways in all of those situations. I mean, surely not vaccinating your kids endangers the well being of your child? But the parents that don't vaccinate their children are utterly convinced that vaccinations are pure poison, its exactly because they care about the well being of their children that they don't vaccinate. Is that abuse?

And this covers a pretty straightforward problem. But there are plenty of things that require laws but aren't necessarily linked to such straight forward problems. Laws that cover more nebulous concepts, or that are more designed as frameworks.

The idea that lawyers make anything mean everything or nothing at their pleasure is just fiction. In the vast majority of cases, the laws are very clear and there is little leeway for lawyers to start arguing about the meaning of certain words in the laws. At the same time, whoever writes the law cannot account for every possible situation, nor can they look into the future and take technological progress and the way that affects society into account.

Yes, and when all the facts concerning a case line up nicely with the common definition of those words the case is generally pretty easy.
The problem is when the facts don't line up nicely with the way the law is worded.
Simple example, lets say there is a law that makes child abuse illegal. That sounds really simple right? A common sense law, of course everyone says child abuse is wrong and should be illegal. But, what counts as abuse? Who is considered a child? Those are all words that can have different meanings to different people. So you need to further define those words. Well, child is very simple, you simply take an age limit as cut off point. But abuse? Well, in 99% of the cases, thats fairly simple as well. Sexual assault, physical assault, malnutrition, anything that could endanger the well being of your child.

Okay, so then what about parents that don't vaccinate their children? Parents that don't send their kids to school? What about letting them watch hardcore porn when they are 10? What about letting them play ultra violent video games when they are 10? What about having an unsecured loaded gun laying around the house? Those are situations that are probably not specifically covered in any law defining child abuse. And a skillful lawyer can argue all kinds of ways in all of those situations. I mean, surely not vaccinating your kids endangers the well being of your child? But the parents that don't vaccinate their children are utterly convinced that vaccinations are pure poison, its exactly because they care about the well being of their children that they don't vaccinate. Is that abuse?

The idea that lawyers make anything mean everything or nothing at their pleasure is just fiction. In the vast majority of cases, the laws are very clear and there is little leeway for lawyers to start arguing about the meaning of certain words in the laws. At the same time, whoever writes the law cannot account for every possible situation, nor can they look into the future and take technological progress and the way that affects society into account.

Yes. It's a huge difference with laws and how they are implemented!

Lawyers... If we didn't have them, we wouldn't need them.

I agree we need them but do we need them in the Government making the Law !!!!

I don't say ban , outlaw ,them form doing what they are there for or any thing just not as a member of parliament making Laws . Guess who's got a Bachelor of Laws .....Yep Tony Abbott the Rhodes Scholar

---