Categories: Polls

If Canada’s democracy is indeed broken, as Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne suggest, would mandatory voting help fix it?

…

by macleans.ca on Monday, September 21, 2009 12:12pm - 109 Comments

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

I’m not sure how anyone can argue against this, given that people still have the right to refuse a ballot. It ensures that people who don’t vote are doing so based on conscience and not laziness.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Explain to me how dragging out the lazy free riders to vote is going to help our democracy?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I think you are confusing "democracy" with "nation"
kcm

Not sure how relevant it is but, when i lived in Aussie a good number of years ago, it was an open secret that mandatory voting was a bit of a joke, compounded by their voting system. As i remember it you had to mark off a number of choices on a preferential ballot. Obviously no-one wanted to give their second or third choices to the rival party, so for a while the communist party was pulling in a disproportinate share of the vote. Different system, different time [ does anyone know if they fixed this? ] but an example of what can happen if you combine M.V. with a quirky system. I know this doesn't entirely hold up – those strategic voters may have cast their ballots so anyway – but i wonder how many compelled voters did likewise? Wonder what compelled voters will come up with here?

kcm

Just because i love being contrary here: i believe one of the net effects of a manditory vote in Aussie is that it's no longer seen as a big deal there. Sorta like wearing seatbelts and hemets on motorcycles…isn't it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Off the top of my head, it sounds communist. Anti-free market. Coercive. Big Brother-ish.

You are worried about laziness impeding a citizen from voting; aren't you worried that forcing them to vote means that approximately 40-50% of the result will have been based on a multiple-guess level of consideration? Do you think someone forced off their a*s to go down to the poll is then going to have the ethical strength to forgo putting a little X somewhere?

Anyway, you asked.
Matthew Fletcher

A voter cannot refuse his or her ballot in a federal election. If a person wants to show up but not vote, that person must invalidate his/her ballot – which is different again from spoiling.
Ken S from Ramara

You can still vote and vote "none of the above" by taking the time to go vote; have your name crossed off the poll list and refuse your ballot. Not showing up is disrespectful of past CDNs who sacrificed for the priviledge of voting!

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Fair enough. How will it help the nation?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

We get people engaged in things by engaging them. If we want people to get interested in the politics of their nation, we need to make sure they have some reason to be so. Having to vote is probably enough of a reason for people who generally avoid voting to at least have a cursory look at the political parties campaign platforms. From there, who knows, some of them may even decide to become educated.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

If people can't get engaged by having a voice in the country they live in, in helping to set its future course, then I'm not too inclined to give a flying f**k what they might bring to the table if forced. It smacks of social engineering, and has an underlying feel of paternalism. Maybe we could offer a Happy Meal toy or something for showing up to vote – I hear the unwashed, uneducated masses respond well to shiny things.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

To be honest, I'd prefer that as well. A tax credit for voting as opposed to mandatory voting.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Arrrrrrrrrgh!
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

NO! No frigging bribes, and no state-enforced compulsion. Vote because it's your duty as a citizen, or don't vote for whatever loser reason (or no reason) you care to claim as your own. And that's it.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

To be honest, I'd prefer that as well. A tax credit for voting as opposed to mandatory voting. Give people a personal reason to vote, and maybe along the course of the way, they'll come to see that voting, even on a national level, can effect them personally in other ways as well.

Fotis

You can force people to vote by passing laws but I would much preffer the only people who voted were those who were informed on the issues and cared about the results.

If people are voting then they don't care enought of about the state of things to bother to vote. If they don't care enough to vote it is likley becuase they are complacent or not informed on the issues of the day.

I would rather these people not vote.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Maybe they're complacent and not informed on the issues of the day because there's no reason for them to become so. If we require them to vote, suddenly they have a reason.

Paul O

Those who claim that Voter Turnout has declined haven't looked at the numbers. Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells should both know better:

Sure, the percentage of folks on the voters list who actually cast ballots has gone down. But not because the number of voters has trended down. Rather, it's because the percentage of the population on the voters list has trended up.

There was a time when the only reason to be on the voters list was because you wanted to vote. Then, it was because you answered the questions when the enumerators came around to your front door. Now, it's more likely because you filed a tax return.

The number of voters has trended up, with our most recent election tallying the second highest number of ballots cast in our history. But, it would appear that since about 1930, voter turnout has remained more or less stable at about 44% (even higher in most of our recent elections) of the population – that is, the number of voters has gone up as our population has gone up.

It's only when voter turnout is measured as a percentage of the voters list that we see numbers decline from about 70% of the list of electors in 1867, to about 60% today. With the change in enumeration systems, is that a consistent and representative measure? No. All that has happened is to place more eligible electors on the voters list who had no intention of voting in the first place.

Do the math yourselves – divide the total ballots cast by the (census) population at the time of the election:
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&a…

Once we have the facts in hand, rather than the media-created myth, we see there is no reason to cause disrespect for the law by calling those who do not vote as lawbreakers.

hosertohoosier

You make a very valid point, however I am not sure I agree with you 100%. The problem is that population is not the same as the population of eligible voters. Turnout (as a % of total population) is going to be lower when women and some minorities can't vote, for instance. Moreover, the age structure of Canada's population has changed over time. Today, proportionally, far fewer people are under 18. Thus a larger share of the population is able to vote.

The best measure is the percentage of people that voted of all eligible voters.

In 2006 there were about 22,578,000 Canadian people over 18. 14,908,703 voted. That makes turnout of about 66%.

In 2008 (there is a chart for 2008 on statscan) 13,929,093 Canadians voted. Approximately 26,360,000 were eligible (stats Canada combines some 18+ people and some younger people into the same age group). So voter turnout was about 53% by that standard (lower than the number you would assume from the voter's list).

How does that compare to say, 1997 (I am trying to pick elections that were close to census years)? In the 1996 census there were 21,756,000 people 18+. 13,174,698 voters showed up to vote. By this standard, turnout was 60.6%.

I think that, despite my skepticism, it is probably the case that voter registration numbers screw up our perceptions of voter turnout. You might also add that it is suspicious that since 1968 (so excluding extensions of the franchise), voter registration has grown 218% while population has grown 157%.
William D

With every passing day we lose more and more freedoms. Like the frog in water slowly boiling we will wake up one day to find there is no pretense left of democracy and totalitarianism will be the order of the day. When both parties stink what is the point wasting the gas to drive to a polling station. They wanna pass another law–why not make one up that sends any politician to jail for 25 years who lies during the campaign. Now that would be a law I could believe in. As long as there is one law for government and virtually all its representatives (as evidenced by the police coverups) and one law for the unwashed respect for the system will continue to decline.

King Hughes

This is easy.

Over 50% of Canadians do not pay any taxes whatsoever. This means that half of the remaining Canadians are liable to pay for the aforementioned non paying half. Let’s call the non-paying Canadians Zero Liability voters or Slave Drivers.

Doesn't that make slaves out of the tax paying half who are therefore, in bondage to the receiving half who have no liability at all?

So…slaves work and pay taxes. The taxes are then distributed amongst the Slave Drivers who are recipients of the benefits of slave labour.

I say the slaves get to vote and, without question, absolutely no one else!

hosertohoosier

So you would disenfranchise all seniors, home-makers and [most] students from the electoral process? Not to mention the working poor that make so little they don't pay taxes?

King Hughes

By the way, seniors pay taxes on pensions, and other investment income. Many students work part time, so they would pay taxes and be able to vote, too. Those students who don't work and don't pay taxes…no vote. Also, do you realize how much government subsidy (my tax dollars again) goes toward student tuitions? Wake up.

As far as the poor is concerned, I don't mind spending my own money on charitable causes. I just don't like the government spending my money on charitable causes. Why? Because they waste over half of it and don't insist on the able bodied poor working in order to receive my tax dollars.

For every person who is entitiled to something from government, there is another person who is responsible to pay for it. I'm an average taxpayer who has lttle to say in how the government spends my money. Why should those who receive tax money or pay nothing have any say in how the government spends my money?

Paul O

You should be aware that most 5-year-olds pay taxes every time they buy a pack of gum with their allowance.

Perhaps you mean to limit the vote to those who file income taxes. But again, people file tax returns based on their particular tax situation: many students, having an income below the LICO threshold for tax filing, will pass their academic-based tax credits to their parents, who can apply them against their much higher tax bracket.

It would be unfair to tax their parents in order for the student to vote, and it would be unfair to deny the student their vote based on their parent getting the corresponding tax credit.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Because we live in a society. And people who are not well off do not magically disappear because they are inconvenient for you. Because, as mentioned above, when you prevent a class of people from voting, there is no reason for politicians to represent that class — but they still exist. And when their condition gets desperate enough, they'll take matters into their own hands. It's happened many times over in the past. It'll happen again if we let it.

And unfortunately, the heads that roll won't be just those of the ignorant and short-sighted like yourself.

Incidentally, private charity is massively inefficient. Because it tends to go to specialized or fad "causes" which means that the popular causes have unpredictable cash flows that make it nearly impossible to plan, while the unpopular (but quite necessary) causes have no cash flow at all.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

You want to force me to vote? Next thing you know you will be forcing me to file tax returns too.

helley morris

Sometimes none of the parties or those running in the election are appealing. I say that sums it up right now. I wouldn't give my vote for any of them…NDP, Conservatives, Liberials, etc. When the Bloc have so much influence and I can't vote for them in my own province but their representation affects my province and its needs then I say something is messed up here. If there was a section on the ballot that said none of the above then I'd vote everytime there was an election.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Instead of mandatory voting, how about restricting the vote? Create some sort of voting license based on a test. There could even be a graduated voting system, where each level allows you additional privileges like voting in referendums, after dark, and the right to have campaign signs on your lawn.

Alan

It's worth exploring, but my immediate concern is how to ensure that the testing won't discriminate against certain groups. For example, someone with below average intelligence shouldn't be less likely to pass than someone with above average intelligence. Similarly, if it's a test that would require a fair amount of knowledge, how can we ensure that people below the poverty line are given the same opportunity to pass as someone who can afford a private tutor.

On a slightly more philosophical note, should we be restricting people from voting? For example, people with mental illness or people in prisons? I'm not trying to advocate one way or the other on this point, just a general question of how participatory we really want our democracy to be.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

This may not be popular to say, but I for one wouldn't lose sleep if the genuinely stupid among us weren't allowed to vote. Just think of how Toronto might be different today if Mel Lastman had never been mayor!

And I'[m not suggesting a test that requires a PhD in History or Political Science to pass. Just enough to know that you're being lied to when a majority of MPs proposing to form a government is characterized as a coup. Basic stuff like that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

…and we should have a political police in black uniforms running around administering this, and other, tests.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

…and we should have political police in black uniforms running around administering this, and other, tests.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

It sounds nice, but it runs into the problem that whenever you have a group of people who *cannot* represent themselves at the ballot box, you will find that government generally turns away from representing them until they make enough noise that they get power in the voting booths.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Nothing to stop the disenfranchised from getting their licenses and making their voices heard. And just think of the power a petition, for example, would have when signed by licensed voters.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

There is, actually. The test. Do you have to read to take the test — whether that's for the test itself or for campaign literature? You've just wiped out illiterates who could still have very valid opinions on who they want to elect based on who they met at their door.

Maybe you have to have been watching the debates? People without a TV now can't vote.

You need to know some details of our constitution and charter? The single issue voter, who doesn't care about anything except, say, what the government's position is on the seal hunt. This person can't vote now.

Any test for voting is inherently a bad one because it will exclude a lot of people who have perfectly rational reasons to vote for a certain candidate or party even if they don't care about the government in general. And who are we to say "Well, if you don't care about the same things in government that we do, you can't vote."

Not to mention, that I very much fear a slippery-slope effect to any such legislation. After all, it's not hard to rig a test so that it's not measuring knowledge so much as agreement with a certain set of positions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

No problem at all with oral examinations for those who cannot read or write.

Single issue voters? I thought we were talking about the governance of an industrialized nation with over 30 million citizens. Single issue voters are easily manipulated through wedge issues, and thus eliminating them would be beneficial.

"Any test for voting is inherently a bad one…" We don't let 12 year olds vote. A licensing system is merely an extension of that sound logic.

Don't prejudge the test, by the way – every effort would be made to ensure it's a neutral measure. Nothing's perfect, but perhaps we could have a First Ministers' meeting or something as a protection.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Especially on single issue voters. Remember that because government is based on a collective of all of us, those who only have a single issue they wish to vote on will of course be absorbed into the collective. If nothing else, their votes cause those issues to be examined by the leading parties where otherwise they may be ignored.

I think the opinion of the masses, even those who may be uneducated in politics, are extremely important in creating a nation that the masses are happy with. Ignoring them to move toward the Plato's fascism of warrior-kings will not, I think, turn out good for the society in the long run. Quite simply, we don't get people more involved in the political process by cutting them out.

Personally, I am myself a single issue voter. My current issue is "Will you remove Stephen Harper from power." My vote goes to any candidate or party that will lead to fulfilling that issue, regardless of their other stances.
kruegerh

if Canada would be a civilized country, they wouldn't allow someone demented like "Thwim" to walk around as a free man.-Period-!
http://myspace.com/ElectroPig ElectroPig

A license signifies giving away your RIGHT to vote and then "asking permission to vote" at a later time.

Anyone who suggest licensing is a good idea–in any personal case–is either woefully ignorant of the truth behind licensing, or incredibly unschooled as to what "rights" actually are. OK, if you want to build a backyard nuclear reactor, there should be some regulation, but we need a license to get married for christ's sake?!? Who did we sell our right to love to, and what did we get for it in return?

People need to start looking at ALL of Canada's problems as a whole, and quit trying to find solutions that work "for a specific problem." Specific problems, even when solved, ALWAYS seem to lead to problems elsewhere.

Our political imbeciles need to fix the problems by DOING INTELLIGENT THINGS, not by fixing tiny pieces of huge problems that they have created themselves…while completely neglecting the other 99% of the problem!

http://coyne kc

S.S Hmmm, a test for the voter’s license ; only if we can have a candidate’s competency test.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

See, the test is writing itself! Let's toss in a question about the criteria individuals use to assess a party or candidate.

kcm

That's not exactly what i meant, although it's not a bad idea. I was thinking a little bit more along the lines of a competency test for the political candidate. Perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone here. When the candidate knocks on your door you get to ask him some basic skill testing stuff and in the interests of fairness he or she can quizz you on your fitness to in fact ask those questions. Should make for for some theatre and maybe the odd brawl or two.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

That seems more than fair.
http://intensedebate.com/people/geogine geo

In the interest in fairness the candidate is imposing him or herself at the voters door pretty well uninvited. Why should the person answering the door be quizzed as to their suitability as a voter. The voter does not call for the election.

And besides, the candidate can lie like a rug regarding any topic of concern and the voter will not know until it's too late anyway. For instance fixed election dates, or balanced budgets, to name a couple of lies. Then there are the biggies after they get in, like Income Trusts.
Dale

It's unlikely that voting percentages will improve until Canadians are somehow shown that their votes count for something. As you said, as long as we accept that politicians will not be held strictly accountable for pre-election promises, then there is very little incentive to vote? After all, what's the use?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

I have (jokingly) propsed this plan to co-workers and family:
- the ballot looks vaguely like the old Scantron forms that you used to get in grade school
- the ballot has two sections
- the bottom section is the same as the typical ballot (list of candidates – fill in the circle of your choice)
- the top section has 10 multiple choice questions such as:
>>>Canada's population is a) less than 10 million, b) between 30 million and 40 million…..
>>>the capital city of PEI is …..
- after you complete your ballot it is run through a scanning machine – your vote is prorated based on the number of correct questions, so my vote my count for 0.7 whereas Sean's or CR's would likely be counted at 1.0, and, well, I don't want to say whose ballot would not be counted at all….we can discuss that later.

Seriously, I'm hopeful and confident that we can come up with better solutions than that. If that turns out to be the best idea that is left standing after Coyne and Wells are done debating, you can thank me on Thursday.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Frigging brilliant.

What's a PEI, by the way?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Hi Sean:

Apparently your ballot only would have counted for 0.9 of a full vote (or less); perhaps you need to be exiled to an island.

The above is actually revision 1; revision 0 also had 10 questions, but it had a pass/fail mark set at 7 out of 10. After some "feedback", we came up with the prorated approach.

And to tie this in to the story that Kady posted on Friday about guessing the number of jelly-beans in a jar, the statistics that could be generated out of this scheme could be very entertaining. Specifically, after any election the raw vote counts should be published together with the weighted vote counts (the counts that were used for the actual selection of the winner). This would provide an interesting piece of evidence for the debate about which end of the political spectrum has more "smart" people.

Btw, in answer to the actual poll question, NO. However, if such a law was passed (and I wouldn't object too much) each ballot should include a none of the above option.
http://myspace.com/ElectroPig ElectroPig

AIn't that the feller who designed skyscrapers 'n such? d=^)

Dale

Let's make the test simple. How about restricting the vote to any Canadian who pays income taxes?
(Remember the fiddler and calling the tune?)
http://intensedebate.com/people/coastlogger coastlogger

I agree there should be some kind of test just not sure how to carry it out. For a start prisoners should not be allowed to vote. Part of going to jail is loosing your rights. Many dippers just blindly do what their union leaders tell them with no clue of the issues . Which is still better than not voting. A good place to start would be in High School. Politics should be a mandatory course in stead of some of the junk kids are forced to memorize. A simple test perhaps along the lines of who is the current PM . If you can't get that one you have no business voting in a federal election.
Bob

Instead of mandatory voting, how about getting back to the orginal plan for a Federa Government. In other words if a party cannot field candadates in 80 to 90 % of the ridings, then they should not be allow to participate in a Federal Election. Let the 3 remaining Parties get on with running the Country as true representatives of all of Canada….

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

No force voting. It inherently wrong.

I think if they want to increase voter turnout they need to start giving out swag. People will do and go places for free stuff. It doesn't even have to be big. I like the idea of giving out frisbee's. You could even mix it up, every 10th voter gets a Canadian flag.

People will vote for swag.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

No force voting. Its inherently wrong.

I think if they want to increase voter turnout they need to start giving out swag. People will do and go places for free stuff. It doesn't even have to be big. I like the idea of giving out frisbee's. You could even mix it up, every 10th voter gets a Canadian flag.

People will vote for swag.

http://intensedebate.com/people/geogine geo

I got a nice little sticker, but I would have voted anyway with or without the "I voted" sticker. mmmm, that might have been provincial.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

Yup I got one of those two. Sadly my child stole it from me moments later.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

Yup I got one of those too. Sadly my child stole it from me moments later.

Freedom

This is a shocking, mind numbingly ridiculous idea.
Democracy is about freedom. I will keep my freedom regardless of Andrew Coyne or anyone's idea that people ought to be forced to vote. If I choose not to vote, that is my choice.

Just try and take my choice away and see what happens.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Careful folks, I think he's hinting at getting off his couch.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Hi. Welcome to Canada. We live in a society here. We recognize that in exchange for certain freedoms we must give up certain other freedoms.

Freedom

I'm glad there are amateur web surfers ready to decide to which freedoms I should and should not have. Don't make me get off the couch, you wouldnt like me when I get off the couch.
Freedom

"Welcome to Canada"? I was born here, thank God.
"We recognize"? You are speaking for Canada?

How bout you speak for yourself? Who elected you spokeman for the Canadian people?

I would remember not voting in that election.

Wilf Smith

My thoughts exactly. It's like freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I choose to vote. That is my choice in a free and democratic society. If I choose not to vote that is my right too. Just try and force me to vote.

Paul O

I agree. And as you have outlined above, ("Wells and Coyne believe our democracy is broken or particular reasons. Namely that we have perpetual minority governments and a parliament that is both vapid and raucous") it is not clear how the proposed reforms (mandatory voting, or as they have argued previously, a completely different electoral system) would correct the underlying problems.

The problems have been well diagnosed as arising from a centralization of power in the office of the Party Leaders, and away from individual MPs. Electing a "Party List" would concentrate that power further, rather than devolving it back to individual MPs.

Forcing current non-voters to vote would serve to dilute the messages inferred by each electoral result – an MP elected with a strong mandate would be argued to be an accident of fate rather than carrying the support of the electorate. And the party's central apparatus would exercise even more control over any rogues in their midst.

If there is to be reform, let it be in the area in which the problem has been identified: allow Ministers of the Crown to be drawn from the most qualified citizens rather than just the most available MPs and Senators, and have them answer to their respective Parliamentary Committees several times a year (rather than simply responding to Question Period attacks).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Tridus Tridus

Mandatory voting nicely "solves" the problem by ensuring that we have high voter turnout. It doesn't really fix anything. It doesn't make people care who wins, or care about the issues, or make politicians not act like lying jackasses all the time.

The way to fix this problem is for proper political education and to have leaders that make people actually want to vote for them. We have a real lack of those right now.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I've been doing a bit of reading on the subject, much of it on the exemplar of mandatory voting: Australia (there are other examples, such as Netherlands which adopted it and then dropped it in the early 1970s).

The pro arguments seem to take three lines. First, the obvious boost to voter turnout is touted (duh!). Second, the argument is that typically marginalized voices (I assume the poor, youth, etc..) are included (I really dislike that one – it smacks of social engineering and state paternalism). Third, and perhaps more compelling, is the idea that politicians have more leeway to propose needed but unpopular policies without fearing an electoral backlash of many voters staying home. I say the third is *perhaps* more compelling, but I've yet to find a reasonable example of an election where a nation benefitted from forced voting in terms of having policies on the table that would otherwise be impossible to raise (but my reading is limited so far, so there may well be).

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Sean, I commend your open mind being applied to the argument in favour of the totalitarian approach to government by, uh, consent. I am further heartened that you have (so far) emerged unscathed with the conclusion that it is not worth it. I look forward to hearing that your deliberations on this point bring you no further than my anchor: if you give any deference at all to individual freedom, you recoil in horror at the very concept.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Just to be clear, it's a non-starter for me. I don't know if it's an issue of freedom I'd go to the wall for (my right to walk about pantless is way ahead on that list). That said, Coyne perplexed me by even entertaining it. How can he can write a column complaining about boat licenses as an unwarranted intrusion, and then turn around and suggest forced voting?

The paternalism of it stinks. It sounds like an idea Justin Trudeau would get behind (Which ain't a compliment!).

More pragmatically, it's dumb symbolism. Presumably anybody can come up with a viable excuse not to, which is going to require some kind of massive bureaucracy to administer exceptions and ticket the scofflaws.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Just to be clear, it's a non-starter for me. I don't know if it's an issue of freedom I'd go to the wall for (my right to walk about pantless is way ahead on that list). That said, Coyne perplexed me by even entertaining it. How can he can write a column complaining about boat licenses as an unwarranted intrusion, and then turn around and suggest forced voting?

The paternalism of it stinks. It sounds like an idea Justin Trudeau would get behind (Which ain't a compliment!).

More pragmatically, it's dumb symbolism. Presumably anybody can come up with a viable excuse not to, which is going to require some kind of massive bureaucracy to administer exceptions and ticket the scofflaws.

But objections aside, I would like us to approach democratic reform (which is really institutional reform, in my opinion) with open minds and as much empirical evidence as we can find. If we approach any idea with ideological repulsion, we're not giving it a fair shake.

My own suggestion leans toward localizing our political framework where feasible. Coyne's suggestion to have MPs elect leaders would be a step in that direction. And it could be taken as far as decentralizing the federation further – but that's another debate!

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"it smacks of social engineering and state paternalism"

SeanS I have no idea how you can think that making everyone vote is social engineering but implementing a test to gauge whether you are allowed to vote or not isn't. As far as I am concerned, making people take a test to decide if they are allowed to vote or not is totalitarian. Elite voters voting for philosopher kings is not a way to enhance democracy.

If I was King for the day, I would make voting mandatory. If majority government elected, there would be mandatory election every four years. I would make Canada Day the day everyone votes. Everyone gets the day off, all they have to do is vote (which only takes a few minutes) and there is some connection made between voting and concept of Canada/ Canadian.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"it smacks of social engineering and state paternalism"

SeanS I have no idea how you can think that making everyone vote is social engineering but implementing a test to gauge whether you are allowed to vote or not isn't. As far as I am concerned, making people take a test to decide if they are allowed to vote or not is totalitarian. Elite voters voting for philosopher kings is not a way to enhance democracy.

If I was King for the day, I would make voting mandatory. If majority government elected, there would be mandatory election every four years. I would make Canada Day the day everyone votes. Everyone gets the day off, all they have to do is vote (which only takes a few minutes) and there is some connection made between voting and concept of Canada/Canadian.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

(I'm going to let you in on a secret: that part where I suggested a graduated voting license could permit one to vote after dark or display campaign signs on the lawn was meant to signal something.)
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

(I'm going to let you in on a secret: that part where I suggested a graduated voting license could permit one to vote after dark or display campaign signs on the lawn was meant to signal something.)

(and I hope like heck your King suggestion was in the same vein)

http://www.geopense.net GeoPense

Only if it was mandatory to vote the way I tell them to.
Mike T.

I like it! You can always spoil your ballot, decline the candidates or pay the fine if you are dead set against actually having your say.

And the uninformed vote is no worse than the stupid, misinformed or extremist vote, so I doubt it will taint the system.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Maybe we should force people to attend all candidates meetings, view political ads, and join parties too.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Thus does totalitarianism find a beachhead.

"You can always" be left bloody well alone!

Matthew Fletcher

Voting is a right. Every right includes the freedom not to exercise it at any given time or place. If a certain action is made mandatory, it is no longer a right or a freedom, but an obligation.

I am not required to maintain my freedom of association by showing up at an obligatory protest once a year.
I am not required to maintain my freedom of speech by registering all the comments I make on Maclean's blogs with the government.
I maintain my freedom of religion by subscribing to no religious belief whatsoever.

If voting were made mandatory it would no longer be a right.

I have voted in every single election I have ever been eligible for. If voting were made mandatory I would go to jail and stay there before I was forced to the ballot box.

http://myspace.com/ElectroPig ElectroPig

The 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Vote.

Yup…not such a good idea…

http://skinnydips.blogspot.com Skinny Dipper

The state would have to throw me in jail because I refuse to vote or pay a fine.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Meh. They'd probably just apply a non-voters tax or a garnishment to your wages. Nice try though.

Marc

Forcing people to vote does the exact opposite of what I would like to see – having fewer, more informed voters. People are stupid (and I don't mean specific people, but as soon as you get a big group of us together….). Politicians know this. Politicians manipulate, lie, and tell half-truths in order to get people enraged about their opposition. I would much rather have people voting based on real information than on political spin. Unfortunately, we can't make people pay attention and actually try to find out the truth. If the guy in the suit said it, and he is with a party I am inclined to vote for, then it must be true.

The system is broken beyond help as far as I'm concerned. The rules are there, and they are blatant. The right figured it out years ago when the Reform party took over the Progressive Conservatives (and then dropped Progressive, making sure to maintain enough brand recognition to fool centre-leaning PC voters into voting for them) and united the right. Now all the Liberals and NDP are doing is splitting the rest of the vote so much that the united right is going to continue along with 35-40% of the vote and continue in minority parliaments.

The radical way I'd fix it: fold the NDP party and pass a law requiring any party that wants to run federally to have candidates in 90% of all ridings in every province. That will get us to the basic two-party system the US has and the only one that may actually work since some people are so traumatized (and revved up by rhetoric about it being undemocratic, despite it being the most democratic thing that would ever have happened in federal politics here) by a coalition government. The rules basically make this the only thing that will work. Unless you change the rules, then we cannot have a non-coalition, democratic, multi-party system that actually serves the majority of people in this country.

Bob

Your ideal is correct except they should drop the Block who no way can or will field candidates in 90% of all ridings in every province. Let's get back to the realization that this is Federal Politics not Provincial, so why can a Party representing one province be allowed to run in a Federal election? That would allow one of the 3 remaining Federal Parties to get a majority vote and get on with running this Country. Or maybe we should just have 10 or 12 parties, each representing a Province. I can see it now, nothing would get done, but everybody would get their say.

jo blow

there is never anyone worth while to vote for, despite the party, so why bother?

http://myspace.com/ElectroPig ElectroPig

If we simply look more seriously at "third parties" and listen to what they are trying to drill into our collective crania, perhaps we will finally realize that there ARE still viable candidated out there.

There is a REASON behind why Harper wanted to kill all the third parties…THEY MAKE MORE SENSE!!!

All three of the "established parties" know that the other parties WANT to see things fixed…while they want things to remain the same old game that the public ALWAYS loses at.

Paul H

The answer to the question is: Mandatory voting would not fix democracy. it would rather serve as another step towards a de facto dictatorship, where sooner or later, everything will either be 'mandatory' or 'forbidden'.
Bill D, Cat

Funny , those numbers look surprisingly familiar .
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

The problem with our democracy is that too many people vote, not too few.

Personally, I have always thought that democracy is far too important a thing to be left in the hands of the people.
Coyne is a Sad man.

We live in the greatest country in the world. Historically speaking, a virtual utopia. Saying the system is broken reduces the Mr. Coynes credibility. It gets a little tired when someone just opposes everything. If I go back in time and give Andrew a fire truck for Christmas instead of a new red jumpsuit, will he then turn into some that sees anything positive in this world?
LindaL

Quite frankly, if people are not paying attention then I prefer that they not vote. You can complain about too few people voting, but if it is the informed contingent who vote, then I don't see that as a problem. The WORST is people who have little idea of the issues, parties or even the personalities involved who nevertheless trot out to the voting booths thinking they are doing a good thing.
André

Mandatory voting….I think we have bigger fish to fry, like proper representation.
Dale

I believe that fewer and fewer people will vote, once they realize that their vote doesn't matter anyhow. I mistakenly believed that in a democracy, the will of the majority ruled.
In Canada, it seems that only the minorities rule. If you are anything but a hyphenated-Canadian, you are definitely out. How did we get in this mess?

hatepoliticians

once they realize that their vote doesn't matter anyhow. I mistakenly believed that in a democracy, the will of the majority ruled. "Quote

you are so correct, they are all liers, do not vote for shifty eyed guys. So just what rights do the Liberals have to complain? they had enough time to fix all that they complain about now.