Voting may be an inalienable right in this country, but with turnout barely ever reaching even 50 percent, there appears to be some sense of dissatisfaction of the electoral system among the non-voting public.
Last year I had the opportunity to track the Australian election campaign between incumbent Prime Minister John Howard and MP Kevin Rudd. And while their campaign included many of the standard election tactics used here in the US; sign posting, door-to-door campaigning, grandiose speeches and some occasional mud-slinging, there was never as much of a furor surrounding either party leaders’ march to Canberra. After following the respective candidates’ campaigns from Sydney to Perth and back, it was fairly easy to conclude that Australia was simply paying far less attention to their candidates than we normally do in the United States.
The concept of a subdued political campaign almost seems like an oxymoron when compared to the slugfest that takes place every four years in this country. Fundraising dollars aside, simply take a look at the past campaigns of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama, and it’s easy to witness how these candidates have been able spark a voter’s motor with something as simple as a slogan, a smile, and a populist message. But when gauging the average Australian voters’ interest in the election, most responses were on the verge of sedation.
“I guess I’ll vote for Howard, because Rudd’s from Brisbane” said Sydney resident and Navy veteran Matthew Quick, who then turned to his friend Tom Shaw, another Navy veteran, who laughed at the two choices. “Both candidates stand for pretty much the same things. I plan on voting, but only because I’ll get fined if I don’t.”
Australia has required all citizens to register to vote since the law’s inception in 1924. At the time, election officials assumed that compulsory voting would boost voter interest, in addition to turnout, which hovered around 47%. The Australian Electoral Commission now estimates that voter turnout stands at 95%.
And though forcing every citizen to vote may spark some political interest in the minds of Americans, critics of compulsory voting will no doubt worry about the flood of uninformed voters who could destabilize an election by voting for unqualified candidates. But Australians recently chose between Rudd, a 10 year member of the Australian parliament who speaks fluent Mandarin, and Howard, who served for 34 years in the Australian parliament and was the country’s Federal Treasurer for six years, so it’s not like either candidate is a pushover.
But while the Australian government argues that increased voter turnout is a better indicator of the will of the electorate, forcing a citizen to vote against his or her will is inherently undemocratic, and runs contradictory to a free society. Australian officials counter this disagreement by stating that the act of voting isn’t exactly mandatory. Since voting is conducted via secret ballot, there is no way to tell what the voter has done, aside from entering the voting booth. But forcing people to show up to do anything against their personal interests will no doubt generate indifference and suppress authenticity.
The concept of apathy towards politics is something that occurs here in the United States as well, but voter apathy in Australia also yields indirect beneficial side effects. Since everyone has to vote, the impact of mobilized special interest groups is significantly reduced. The upshot to this dearth of organized demographics is that the Australian political system is often a level playing field with incentive to treat different groups of people differently, thus distancing legislators from the lobbying groups that are so influential in the US political system. Additionally, the collective moan you just heard is from trade unions, gun owners, senior citizens and trial lawyers getting bumped to the back of the line. After all, if everyone has to vote, then how much is a group like the AARP or the AFL-CIO really able to offer a politician?
There is no doubt that forcing people to register to vote is in many ways a stark contrast to the free market political system enjoyed by the United States. But a diminished lobbying influence can also be seen in the Australian public’s general perception of its politicians. Canberra, the Australian capital, is less than ten percent the size of Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city. And despite being located halfway between Melbourne and Sydney (Australia’s largest city), Canberra wasn’t even built on the major highway that connects Australia’s two biggest metropolitan areas. So at least down under, the government is resigned to operating quietly in the background, as Australians follow issues they consider to be more pressing – like surfing, tanning and tracking the drama of American politics.
And perhaps operating quietly the background is the role that government is meant to play. We turn on the television and see the press events, photo ops and campaign commercials, but we wind up viewing our politicians in the same light as we view movie stars and professional athletes. This “star treatment” causes us as voters to overlook the operational skills and experience needed to manage our government, which blurs the line between what we’re looking for in our leaders, versus what we actually need out of our leaders.
So the next time you turn on your television to see Barack Obama gracing the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, or Arnold Schwarzenegger rocking out on stage with Dee Snyder, just consider the idea that things could be a lot more efficient if they were only a bit less interesting.
