Bits and pieces
Friday, April 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pmI got a reply back from Expedia telling me to call a certain number. The number didn’t work. I wrote back to them asking if it was an Australian number. They didn’t answer that, but gave me another number. It also didn’t work. Finally they say it’s a non toll free overseas number. I’m currently talking to an Indian call centre over a staticky line. I’m on hold… ah, now she’s saying they did give the airline the ticket number. Of course. Impasse. Nothing I can do, really. Perhaps they’re telling the truth, however, I haven’t been impressed with Expedia’s service. Won’t be using them again.
In the queue at the ticket counter I got chatting with an American woman. Our talk got onto politics (they had been in Bhutan, which is about to vote for the first time) and I mentioned that a federal election was coming up in Australia. She didn’t know that voting is compulsory here and was very surprised. How did we enforce it, she asked. Well, we don’t have squads dragging people out of their homes and marching them to the polling booths, but if you’re on the electoral role (which not everyone is; some people never register to vote) and you don’t vote, you’re fined. There are exemptions for the elderly, the ill, people who are overseas and others who are unable or incompetent. She gave the impression of thinking it a bit much to require people to vote, and said she didn’t know how Americans would react to compulsory suffrage. So often, she said, there’s no one you want to vote for. She saw voting as a right which you could choose to exercise or not. I couldn’t think of a defence of Australia’s system until after I’d left the queue. The answer, of course, is that where the people are sovereign (never mind the Windsors), it’s perfectly logical to think of voting as a duty more than a right. Sure, most of the time you’re choosing the lesser of two evils, but that’s part of a sovereign’s job. As I’ll be overseas again by then I won’t have to vote, but I’ll be putting in my postal vote anyway - choosing the least worst of two untempting choices. (NB - not a criticism of countries with optional voting, just a stab at explaining why we make it compulsory.)
Pros and cons of home:
+ve: I can drive.
-ve: I have to drive everywhere because nothing’s within walking distance.
+ve: tree-lined streets.
-ve: Bloody fucking felching leafblowers. What’s wrong with a rake?
+ve: velvety quilted toilet paper.
-ve: no hose.
+ve: I can understand everything I hear and read.
-ve: I can understand everything I hear and read.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I have long believed that the most important reason to vote is to honor the people who died for your right to do so.
No, you may no longer believe in what has come of the system, but you have the right to let your voice be heard.
Every time a person chooses not to vote they should ask themselves - whose memory am I dishonoring today?
April 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I see your point, W - though for me the most important reason is simply and prosaically to try to put in power the better candidate. I know people in safe electorates feel powerless, but a safe electorate can change hands if enough voters get fired up for change.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
What you said in the comment above is why I think people should vote. Less than half of the eligible UK population votes, and I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the other half voted. Maybe we’d wind up pretty much the same, or maybe not. But at least we’d have the people in power that we knew the majority wanted there, or as close to the majority as a first-past-the-post system allows.
What really bothers me are people who bitch lyrical about the current state of political affairs and then refuse to vote because they don’t see the point. IMO only people who’ve voted can complain about the election not going the way they wanted it to.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
What bugs me is that too much of the local population is too uninformed about the relevant issues to make an intelligent decision. Worse, those are the ones who tend to vote.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:33 am
What Tim up there said - I don’t think those uninformed about the issues they’re voting on should be voting, personally.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Alankria - I don’t know how it would turn out in England, but Australia’s population spread over electorates means we often don’t get who the majority want. There are a lot of sparsely populated rural electorates that traditionally vote Liberal (or, technically, Liberal/National coalition), while the densely populated urban electorates are more likely to vote Labor.
Tim - You’re probably right, though while you can get informed about the issues (if you have time) it’s hard to get informed about politicians, I think. One that looks good in opposition might disappoint in government. Now and then I think about how we might try to get a better democracy, and all I can come up with is better education.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
many of those who seek office I’d rather not see being allowed to run a post office, much less a country. But that’s a side issue.
No good choice is a crappy reason not to vote though, the person who will get elected will still be one of those bad choices - but it will be the bad choice picked by someone else. Being uninformed is better, but then you have to worry that those who are informed are a different demographic.
In any given election cycle in the states you have to worry about at most 20 people, usually 10 or less. With the internet is that even a day’s worth of research, considering most people really only consider a few core issues that matter to them. Or, we’re paying for them, might as well get the ones who suck the least.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
What would you say decides elections (or the minds of those 20 people) in America? In Australia it’s usually the economy - especially interest rates. And what makes safe seats in the US so safe for one party or the other? I get the impression - could be wrong - that your electorates are even less likely to swing than ours.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
The US economy only looses elections. No matter how you may promise to make the economy better, most people won’t believe it. If it suddenly starts doing badly, we start tossing people out. Considering economy is a boat it’s rarely fair to the currently elected bunch- it takes longer than an election cycle to speed up or slow down. The US tends to look at every issue in a binary fashion, and one party or the other picks and side, and the other stands against it. Many people either vote one party more or less forever, or vote whoever is better for their one issue. Be it war, abortion, religion, equal rights, or whatever. Sometimes those decisions aren’t too deep, but in general we’re a well informed country with a reasonably honest government. I think our government doesn’t change much because we’re basically a merchant society without a ruling class. We like competition, low prices, and quality goods. With that formula, it’s difficult for the situation to get much worse, and hey, if they situation is better then there’s no real need to throw the goons out. We have a mini mostly non-violent revolution of power every twenty years or so. Fairly often we remind those in charge that the same laws apply to them as us. It works here.
also, there’s “The American Way” core value that both parties share. For the most part. The core of our government is to find a middle ground that most people can agree on. Otherwise, politicians are lawyers. Advocates. We go the way that makes the better argument. Sometimes we let one side or the other have slightly more lawyers. That’s just how it is.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I should have said that the economy loses elections in Australia, too. If it’s going along fine, the incumbent party has a strong advantage. Some issues in Australia have bipartisan agreement (at present), e.g. support for the American alliance, protection of abortion rights. Though individual politicians may air dissenting views, neither major party is likely to suggest a turnaround in policy.
April 29th, 2007 at 7:32 am
this says it all, I think
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of adults in the United States say they expect their lives will improve in the next five years [Best in the world!] . . . At the other end of the spectrum, only 23 percent of Germans, 35 percent of Austrians, 36 percent of Belgians, and 37 percent of the Dutch expect their personal situations will improve.
…
our politicians probably have lower turnover than in a lot of the world simply because we believe we’re doing better and will be doing better. Which is largely true. For the most part your job is safe when what you’re responsible for does well.. even if it has little to do with you, precisely. Especially when it’s something as complicated as a country.