Does Australia have some kind of cash incentive for voting, or anything like that? I remember hearing something of the sorts once, but I can't find any information on it.
Printable View
Does Australia have some kind of cash incentive for voting, or anything like that? I remember hearing something of the sorts once, but I can't find any information on it.
Nope
Damn. :(
Why?Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Damn. :(
I'm writing a paper about voter turn out in the US, and I wanted to suggest tax incentives (along with a few other things) as a possible solution to increasing turnout. And I had thought Australia had that, so I was going to use it as an example.
Guess not.
Dude it's compulsory!!
We dont have a choice thats how we get a good turnout!
Tricky hey!
They have to vote or they end up taking in the...
hey! what's that over there
*runs to his new home*
Tax incentives would be staggeringly expensive to administer and could only come about with a corresponding increase in taxes somewhere else.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
I'm writing a paper about voter turn out in the US, and I wanted to suggest tax incentives (along with a few other things) as a possible solution to increasing turnout. And I had thought Australia had that, so I was going to use it as an example.
Guess not.
The cash incentive is that you don't get fined if you vote. :)
Thanks for your opinion. But this is my paper. There's no room for yours.Quote:
Originally posted by John McKernan
Tax incentives would be staggeringly expensive to administer and could only come about with a corresponding increase in taxes somewhere else.
Well it sounds like it's going to be a well thought out discussion then... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Thanks for your opinion. But this is my paper. There's no room for yours.
Sorry.
I'm just stressed as hell with this paper. Why couldn't I get an easy topic like gambling?
The key to an informative and useful essay is not to suggest anything you can't evidence, and also to acknowledge the flaws in those suggestions.
Saying something would work better, but not highlighting the downsides whatever they may be is never going to be overly convincing.
That's why I'm protesting to make it legal to run over protesters - they live in a utopian dream world where everything would be perfect if we implemented some socialist reforms. Bring on the snowplows! :cool:
What about issues such as the massive number of people, and the land area governed supposedly by a single individual. I wouldn't turn out to presidential votes in the US either. Who gives a toss about some ratbag ****** in the capital? Not like he's ever going to visit my backwater little town except to impress his stockbroker friends and get some stories about 'that day he roughed it in the slums'. :rolleyes:
So you get fined if you don't vote? I don't think that will go over well with my teacher. He's way too liberal.
John - I get you point. But I simply have no other alternative. I guess I'm aiming for a C+ with this paper. I just don't want to do it. It's the fifth we've had to do this year.
I just don't care anymore.
lol of course.. they only way out of it is to **** it up, or vote for ppl that you know can't win or whatever...Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Dude it's compulsory!!
We dont have a choice thats how we get a good turnout!
Tricky hey!
if you don't vote you get fined.
opps forgot what forum i was on... also only read the first 5 replies..:)
Ok RJ, so just say you don't agree with some potical decision and you want the government to change its view, not cause you are socialist, just cause you think they have got it wrong... Apart from wait till the next election, what you gonna do to get accross your message through to the government?Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
The key to an informative and useful essay is not to suggest anything you can't evidence, and also to acknowledge the flaws in those suggestions.
Saying something would work better, but not highlighting the downsides whatever they may be is never going to be overly convincing.
That's why I'm protesting to make it legal to run over protesters - they live in a utopian dream world where everything would be perfect if we implemented some socialist reforms. Bring on the snowplows! :cool:
But by voting for people who can't win, their preferences invairably go to one of the two parties, so you're really voting for them anyway.
:)
What about some sort of internet/phone voting system? Wasting a day to fill in one bit of paper is ****ed.
True, thats gonna come in soon i think, specially for older ppl, but nuc, what about protesting, like throwing rocks and stuff.... :)
rolling marbles under the polices horse's hooves ;)
If I ever felt that strongly about some government decision, which is unlikely :p , my first response wouldn't be to piss off everybody who might want to support you by blocking city streets at peak hour or attacking police.
If these groups have such a strong influence, then why don't they have a slash at going into government themselves? And if not, then they are the minority, and the government isn't going to listen anyway.
Attacking police, blocking city streets, and making life extra hard for people who have to work every day, and aren't handed everything on a platter, like some of these protesters - the student ones especially, who don't need a job or have any responsibilities because mummy and daddy (or the government, ironically :rolleyes: ) give them what they need to get by, isn't going to solve anything.
Now that's a good idea RJ, or you could broadcast infomercials at the voting sites, seppos love those things...
Hold those horses JD....Never said I agreed with illegal violent protests ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
True, thats gonna come in soon i think, specially for older ppl, but nuc, what about protesting, like throwing rocks and stuff.... :)
rolling marbles under the polices horse's hooves ;)
See above. Forgot to leave the quote thing in.Quote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
Ok RJ, so just say you don't agree with some potical decision and you want the government to change its view, not cause you are socialist, just cause you think they have got it wrong... Apart from wait till the next election, what you gonna do to get accross your message through to the government?
Hey i play fair... they threw the first rock :)
Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
If I ever felt that strongly about some government decision, which is unlikely :p , my first response wouldn't be to piss off everybody who might want to support you by blocking city streets at peak hour or attacking police.
If these groups have such a strong influence, then why don't they have a slash at going into government themselves? And if not, then they are the minority, and the government isn't going to listen anyway.
Attacking police, blocking city streets, and making life extra hard for people who have to work every day, and aren't handed everything on a platter, like some of these protesters - the student ones especially, who don't need a job or have any responsibilities because mummy and daddy (or the government, ironically :rolleyes: ) give them what they need to get by, isn't going to solve anything.
I didn't ever say that violent protesting is the way to get your point across .... just pointing out that if there is a pressing issue, the accepted democratic way of disagreeing the the government is via a peaceful non-violent protest.
So what you are saying about is that unless you are a politician you can't disagree with the government???? That's a silly pov.
U still haven't answered my question.... what would U do if you disagreed with a political decision?
btw saying that everyone who protests is either socialist or a uni student is very small minded, as is suggesting that only minority groups protest.
I'm not saying only the government can disagree with the government. On some issues, a protest is warranted. The protests I'm sick of are these big ones where they want to protest absolutely everything all at once. They may as well form a political party and have a go, to see how popular their ideas actually are.
Demonstrations, such as marches through the city at times that don't piss off aboslutely *everybody* are fine. Who do these people want to convince exactly? They can't win when they make everybody their enemy - police, the government, big business, common citizens who get stuck in the city for hours, etc etc. What's the ****ing point? I've been listening to the 'soap box's on the radio - lucky if one in 5 people calling in are supportive of this sort of crap.
And depending on the particular situation, I probably wouldn't do anything active against the government. I've really got better things to do with my time. But what I would do is do something positive, perhaps donate money to charities, or go live in East Timor and help them rebuild for example, or some such. People who do the work, instead of spend a day of fun in the city living off everyone else are the people who make a difference.
I'm not. But alot of them are students - I have to pay for them in several ways - taxes so they can get youth allowance for not studying, and student fees so they can go buy themselves chemical suits for their protests, and I didn't say they were socialists, I said much of their 'solutions' suggest a socialist viewpoint (and indeed, many of the groups claim to be socialist, so I think it's a fair comment anyway).Quote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
btw saying that everyone who protests is either socialist or a uni student is very small minded.
'Solutions' such as cancelling third world debt. A giant ****in' bandaid that will just cause more problems than it solves. I'd be more interested in rational logical debate from people who take a minute to think about all aspects of the issue than a bunch of flag wavers (whatever flag that may be - freedom, equality, no WTO... :rolleyes: ) with alot to say, but very little to listen to.
Well, the point is to get people to notice and get media exposure, it is usually combined with political lobbying of the relevant political parties particularly those in the sentate at least here in Aus. So you work on the politcal power play and combine it with a demonstration to get exposure and demonstrate public support, cause as you yourself say it takes a lot to get people out of their houses and protesting in the streets. Such is the way of democracy.
I talk about that in my paper. Oregon, USA recently switched to an all mail-in ballot election where the ballots were sent out a few weeks in advance and voters could fill them out at their leisure, rather than having to appear at a certain place, during a certain time frame on a certain day.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
What about some sort of internet/phone voting system? Wasting a day to fill in one bit of paper is ****ed.
The voter turnout in Oregon in that election was approx. 80%, compared to the national turnout of 50.1%. Numbers haven't been that high in the US since the 1880 election in which the national turnout was 80%.
I also discussed the use of the internet as an election tool. In the USA, men have to register with the selective service at age 18, which can be nicely done over the internet.
Some states allow you to register to vote over the internet.
So why not be able to vote over the internet? Fraud? Crackers? It's all a matter of setting it up correctly. The last Presidential election showed us our current system isn't that great to begin with, so why not attempt other things?
The biggest problem with the system in the US is that the control over voting lies in the states. You can't have a uniform system, and the government can't impose any changes, except for small things in federal elections.
It'd either take a constitutional amendment, which is damn near impossible, or just a unified decision among the states that something needs to be done.
I've addressed this all with more clarity and organization in my paper. Maybe I'll post it when I'm done. But these are my thoughts on it.
Another thing that I addressed in my paper is that, in off-year elections, only around 45-49% of Americans vote for their representatives.Quote:
"Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below."
- Roger Baldwin
The most frequent reason given was that they didn't like either of the two. They must fail to realize all the other little small parties that make an attempt. if 55% of the population didn't like Republicans or Democrats, thought the system was corrupt and needed reform, don't you think they'd band together and vote in some members of parties calling for reform?
No. They simply just don't vote.
If only 49% of American's vote, and atleast 25% of the vote is needed for a particular candidate to win, is that candidate really representing the majority of their district? No. They're representing the majority of the minority that voted.
If that's a goal, then why do these people smear themselves by attacking police, pissing off everybody who's not at the protest (by blocking city streets - remember that stoopid cylce protest through thhe city and over the bridge some months back?)Quote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
combine it with a demonstration to get exposure and demonstrate public support
This is what ****s me. And to top it off, they are biting the hand that feeds them so to speak - the student contingent anyway, because so many of them bludge along on youth allowance, or their parents. I work basically a full time job, and do full time study - I work ****ing hard, there's nothing I hate more than lazy arse whingers.
The government shouldn't incourage people to vote:p
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
The government shouldn't incourage people to vote:p
Hmmm... there just aren't enough smileys in the box to adequately convey my feelings about that one... :confused:
...Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
The government shouldn't incourage people to vote:p
Well if ppl don't want to they shouldn't have to vote. They should still be fined and the government would still get the money.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Hmmm... there just aren't enough smileys in the box to adequately convey my feelings about that one... :confused:
Right now, I'm thinking I need some sort of smiley combination of 'farf', 'snort' and 'if you said a word of sense, it'd be lonely'... :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Well if ppl don't want to they shouldn't have to vote. They should still be fined and the government would still get the money.
What I am try to say is that government could make it so ppl don't have to vote if they don't want to.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Right now, I'm thinking I need some sort of smiley combination of 'farf', 'snort' and 'if you said a word of sense, it'd be lonely'... :confused:
I think if people don't vote, then I have the right to slap them upside the head or kick them in the nuts when they start complaining about things.
Maybe that's just me, though.
Yeah. They could. But it seems the popular goal is to get people to vote for some strange reason.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
What I am try to say is that government could make it so ppl don't have to vote if they don't want to.
You can't tar all protests with the violent brush, it just simply insn't the case. Put yourself in the shoes of the black slaves and then what are you gonna do? Sit at home and let the government of the day continue on it's merry way?Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
If that's a goal, then why do these people smear themselves by attacking police, pissing off everybody who's not at the protest (by blocking city streets - remember that stoopid cylce protest through thhe city and over the bridge some months back?)
So we have a couple of stupid protests.... big deal, but don't cut the larynx out of society's throat.
The politicians no matter who you vote for the still do a bad job.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Yeah. They could. But it seems the popular goal is to get people to vote for some strange reason.
How so? On what grounds do you state this? Prove it.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
The politicians no matter who you vote for the still do a bad job.
I dare you.
OK, maybe my comments are too broad. I'll paint every one of these anti-WTO protests like that though. Since they started, they have been violent to some degree. The attacking police thing is my main problem. That's low. People who do that deserve a whooping.Quote:
Originally posted by Nucleus
You can't tar all protests with the violent brush, it just simply insn't the case. Put yourself in the shoes of the black slaves and then what are you gonna do? Sit at home and let the government of the day continue on it's merry way?
So we have a couple of stupid protests.... big deal, but don't cut the larynx out of society's throat.
And I'll definately put that stupid cycle protest thing in the 'wrong way to achieve your goal dumbarse' basket. I reckon a good many of those people who work in the city would prefer a public transport option if one existed, so why they **** would you want to alienate them completely?? :confused:
You can't decide for people who they are going to vote for.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
How so? On what grounds do you state this? Prove it.
I dare you.
How do you know they the person who won is going to keep their election promise? You don't. Most of Australia I think has labor governments while the fed is Lib.
Interesting 'proof'...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Interesting 'proof'...
Compulsory voting which forces everyone to vote and takes the decision away from the individual as to whether they want to vote or not. You shouldn't penalize people for choosing not to vote.
I'm all for using incentives.... I still think the Infomercial or live appearance by John Edwards might work with the masses, or how about having voting boths for men and women.... you could have strip shows for the men and makeup stalls like in David Jones for the women and get the large department stores to put them on for free, while the men will be happy to tip the gorgeous girls.
:D
I reckon in Australia, if voting was optional, we'd get about 5% turnout. And 4 of that 5% would be the people who hand out leaflets on 'how to vote'. :D
:D
It is prolly closer to 60% not that that's a bad thing mind you, cause those that miss out prolly are too stupid to make a sensible vote :)
Fines for failing to vote ... in this country, at least, would be nothing but lining the pockets of corrupt politicians.Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
So you get fined if you don't vote? I don't think that will go over well with my teacher. He's way too liberal.
John - I get you point. But I simply have no other alternative. I guess I'm aiming for a C+ with this paper. I just don't want to do it. It's the fifth we've had to do this year.
I just don't care anymore.
Hobo - just an observation from far too many years dealing with tax 'incentives'. And one your teacher would likely point out.
As far as forced voting ... far too many would be intentionally voting for whoever they thought would be the worst candidate - just for revenge. (People here are quick to shoot themselves in the foot over just this sort of thing.)
For us, probably the best incentive for voter turnout would be true election reform. This isn't going to happen any time soon, so...
Exactly:DQuote:
You shouldn't penalize people for choosing not to vote.
Where did I say I wanted to decide who they were going to vote for? And how are you proving anything?Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
You can't decide for people who they are going to vote for.
How do you know they the person who won is going to keep their election promise? You don't. Most of Australia I think has labor governments while the fed is Lib.
Yeah. You have no way to know if they're going to keep they're promise. But every politician nows that if they don't keep their promises, it's bye bye next election.
That's the game. You boot them out if they don't perform.