Dear ETS!

I've heard some convincing arguments against voting for Ralph Nader, my pick for prez, but I have to say that Geov Parrish's dig against him (in "This Election Sucks," Oct. 25) for favoring compulsory voting does not hold much weight. Geov calls compulsory voting "a solution more common to third world despots than true democacies," but I'd like to point out an exception to Geov's rule: Australia.

I've never been to Australia and wouldn't argue that it's a utopia, but consider these aspects of a country with compulsory voting: It has free (or nearly free) health care and university education, stronger social security than in the US and less disparity of wealth, little homelessness, no death penalty, and no nuclear weapons. Many political factors contribute to these progressive policies, but I'm sure the country's voter turnout rate -- something like 98% -- plays a role.

As Sarah Wright, an activist and UW grad student from Australia, puts it: "Actually, I am a fan of compulsory voting. I think that a democracy that is going to function has to be as participatory as possible ... Once people have to vote, they then have a greater sense of ownership over who they vote for.

"You don't have to vote for the candidates if you don't want to. You can write whatever the hell you like ("fuck you," for example, would be an option). In fact, you can rip up the ballot if you want -- all you need to do is go to the polling booth on election day and mark your name off the register. If you don't turn up, you get a fine. I think it's $20."

Though I share Geov's healthy distrust of government interference in people's political activities, I disagree with his view that compulsory voting is authoritarian. It seems to me that in the pursuit of a more democratic society, governments are justified in demanding a few things, such as for children to attend school, for the wealthy to pay taxes, and for everyone to take part in shaping politics.

Jeremy Simer

ETS!

Oops! You missed that one. Among established democracies, Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg all have some form of compulsory voting. Until recently, even that highly revered bastion of European liberalism, Netherlands, had compulsory voting. The rationale for it is really not all that evil -- the "penalty" for not voting is really slight, something like a parking ticket, a fine of $20 are so. Even so, for instance, in Australia which has a voter turnout typically of 92 percent of eligible voters (compared to the U.S. turnout of less than 50 percent), the eight percent that don't vote in Australia represent a million or so people, far more than the government can mail their "penalties" to or collect from. So a lot of people never even receive their fine, others don't pay it (and no additional punishment happens to them). Still, the compulsory voting is considered to be a way of the government/society saying "hey, voting is important, it's your civic duty." In a country like ours where the voter turnout is embarrassingly low, I think the reasons for compulsory voting should be considered more seriously. I mean, really, what's the worst that could happen? At least in the discussion, it will bring to light other reasons people don't vote, and why they don't want to be compelled to vote -- like, there's nothing worth voting for.

The specter of some Third World despot marching people to the ballot box at the point of a gun is really a stereotype that, as far as I know, has little resemblance to reality, even in Central America and Latin America. Certainly not in European countries or Australia.

Keep up the great writing at ETS!

Best,

Steven Hill

The latter generally doesn't apply in Australia or Europe, where minor parties get into the legislature and form coalitions and major parties are considerably to the left of anything the Democrats have uttered in years. Compulsory voting, in the absence of reforms that would actually give people a stake in the process, smacks of a quick, dirty effort to legislate one's own legitimacy. That, in my book, is the mark of a despotic state--"exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrannically," according to my dictionary. You, Steven, have also criticized Nader's current favored ballot reform, None of the Above. You can't have it both ways. Either Nader is making a good attempt at trying to restore democracy, or he's making a misbegotten effort to prop up a corrupt process.

ETS!,

And see how they run. Already, the presses of the central committee are warming up, generating the idea among people that a third party effort is to blame for the defeat of a candidate useless to any progressive movement.

The bullyboys of the Democratic hacks are already running their mouths, saying that Nader had better never come near any effort they're part of, as if the personality of the candidate were the guiding factor of this third party constituency just as it is for the so-called Democratic party. It's disgusting, but what else can one expect from party line zealots? It is fortunate for these lunkheads that the much ballyhooed American revolution was not dependent upon the resource of their kind of thinker, otherwise they'd be competing for their dearly esteemed market share with other members of the British commonwealth.

Do you know that Walter Mondale once said that Jesse Jackson cost the Democrats the election of 1984? This was just prior to the destruction of the Rainbow Coalition as a vibrant, combative force in the Democratic party in the late eighties. The DLC drove the livelier factions out of the Democrats, and now resent the fact that many of us went somewhere else. Moreover, they can't believe we would have the effrontery to vote for someone other than who they've selected for us had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot!

Well, I've voted third party four times out of the six presidential ballots I've cast, and the only two votes I've ever regretted were those I cast in 1988 for Michael Dukakis and the one I cast in 1992 for Bill Clinton. In the former case, I voted against George Bush for Michael Dukakis because I didn't want to vote for a candidate that couldn't win, and in the latter, I voted against George Bush and for Bill Clinton because I didn't want to see a continuation of his policies against the children of Iraq. And, wouldn't you know it? In each instance, I voted against my guiding impetus. In voting for Michael Dukakis, I voted for a candidate who couldn't win, and in voting for Bill Clinton, I voted for a continuation of Bush's policies against the children of Iraq. Moral to the story being that a ballot has to be a "pro-active" effort at the very least, if one is going to be able to live with oneself later. Vote for Al Gore? I've been watching the bastard for a long time, and quite frankly, I'd rather eat dirt.

And on that bright note, I hope this finds you well. Stay strong.

M.H. Perez

ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.