Sunday Musings: Don't panic about low voter turnout

Some musings for a Sunday before election day.

I love Molly Johnson, yes I do. Sure, as a singer, but I'm thinking mainly as the host of CBC Radio 2's weekend morning show. She has a soothing voice and her comments sound warm and heartfelt rather than the inane, tiresome prattling by other radio hosts on a certain tax-funded network that takes time away from the music I'd rather be hearing.  But I wish Molly (and anyone else who does it) didn't pontificate about how people should go out and vote no matter what.

George Jonas wrote a piece the other day about low-voter turnout being healthy for democracy. He suggested it shows that people are generally happy and high voter turnout is a sign of unease. I don't agree necessarily with his opinion on the desirability of low voter turnout, but on the other hand, it's also nothing to panic about. In a society where every citizen has the right to vote, then people who are interested and informed will generally choose to. The idea that people should go out and vote, no matter what, whether or not they know or care about the issues is facile. Mandatory voting is a position put forward by parties that have policies that appeal most to people who are ill-informed. When people say "you should vote" what they usually really mean is "you should vote the way I want you to vote."

The idea that everyone should vote whether they want to or not also stifles a political statement. There were elections I chose not to exercise my franchise because I didn't want to waste the time of formally picking the least offensive of a bunch of poor choices. Sometimes not voting is a statement that the political parties all need to do better. And I don't want to have to stand in line at a polling station to spoil a ballot. Not voting on election day can be a sign of apathy, but it is also a right and a choice and no one should tell you otherwise.

Molly said "women don't have the right to vote in Saudi Arabia, so make sure you vote for them tomorrow." Well gee, Molly, women don't have the right to drive in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we should drive to the polling station for them. And they aren't allowed to drink there either, so I guess I'll be drinking and driving for them. And they get stoned to death if they commit adultery, so give me a call if you..well..you see where I'm going with all of this.

The point is that we have the right to vote and that the critical cornerstone of democracy. But you are compelled to exercise a right, it's no longer a right, it's a burden.

Yes, everyone should vote. But because you're interested in voting, not because Molly or I or anyone else tells you that you should. And if you don't, that's your right too.

Eye on a Crazy Planet readers overwhelmingly oppose mandatory voting laws

Some countries have mandatory voting laws and whenever we have an election in North America, someone always brings up the subject of whether we should follow the example of countries such as Australia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and about eight others that actually enforce such laws.

Canadians and Americans have so far shown no significant interest in passing mandatory voting laws. The suggestion is usually an extreme reaction by those who have some inordinate concern about the lack of voter participation.

The most recent Eye on a Crazy Planet poll shows readers are opposed to mandatory voting laws by a 2.5 to 1 ratio.

As the recent municipal election in Toronto has taught us, when the election is interesting, voters will turn out. Although even in a very contentious, controversial election such as that, there was still less than 60% voter turnout.

But the fact remains that while voting is a citizen's right in a free country, so is not voting. It's a statement, and it shouldn't require citizens to be forced by the state to inconvenience themselves by appearing at a polling station to declare their lack of interest in voting in a particular election.

There are elections in which I haven't voted. It was my way of saying "all these candidates are a bunch of jerks and I don't want to participate in any of them getting power."

And frankly, low voter participation never bothered me. Why is it that some people derive some sense of satisfaction knowing that people who have no interest and little knowledge of public affairs or current events have selected those who make the choices that will affect society at large?

We're probably better off that lots of people aren't interested enough in the political system to vote. What would happen if these people who lack either the interest, knowledge, or motivation to exercise their right to their democratic franchise were compelled to use it. Would we have better leaders, or leaders chosen by an even less informed segment of society?

As far as I'm concerned, our system is working fine. I may not agree with the outcome of every election, but I am comfortable in knowing that people are voting out of choice and not compulsion.