[Sukrit]

The Australian federal election was called recently, however I can't see any candidates worth voting for. No one comes close to Ron Paul in terms of integrity and trustworthiness. The LDP, for example, has watered down freedom principles so much that if they ever do get elected, I suspect they will compromise liberty even further. So I guess I should take the $50 fine for not voting? See here for some of the costs of voting.

A cost of compulsory voting is we don't have stuff like this to encourage voting.

[HenryDavis]

YouTube- Pretend You Give A Shit About The...

[MichaelC]

By and large - the whole discussion of voting as a strategy is a red herring (will post the Rothbard quote below).

A common quip is that "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" - Emma Goldman.

Well here in Australia, they also made it illegal not to vote. Compulsory voting (AEC link) offers some history of the practice.
One quote;

• The significant impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections appears to have been a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to less than 60% at the 1922 election.
• Compulsory voting was first advocated by Alfred Deakin at the turn of the 20th
  century. Voting was voluntary at the first 9 federal elections.

And this recent backgrounder deals with compulsory voting in more detail, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 can be found here.

My understanding is that it is compulsory to vote, and a crime if you don't (if you have enrolled). So the tip is to not enroll, thus avoiding the hassle. Although apparently it is also compulsory to enroll?

I guess the status quo wants to maintain the illusion of legitimacy, by having a large section of the populace 'vote' for the 'system'? Often the argument of political stability is put forward as a good thing... but since when has the smooth transition from old ruler to new ruler - ever been a good thing? (Obviously not condoning the initiation of violence, merely the removal of it).

A campaign of "don't vote", "don't vote for the lesser of two evils", "mock the vote" etc could be useful - but here anyway, it is illegal to even promote such activities. (Recently read & confirmed this, forget where though - source pending).

[MichaelC]

From Wendy McElroy

Excerpted from a letter from Murray Rothbard to me [Wendy], dated October 1982, in which he offers a counter to the Voluntaryist contention that voting is immoral.

"To get on to voting, yes I believe that any legislator who votes for a tax or an aggressive law is illicitly participating in a criminal enterprise, but no I don't believe that the citizen voter necessarily does so. There's votes and there's votes. One problem with your view is that, in an important sense, it is not anti-statist enough. There is no real sense that we are all of us, willy-nilly, enmeshed in State coercion. Take George's [George Smith's] phrase, "The institution (the State) taints the individuals who work within it." But dammit we're all working within the monstrous matrix that the State has placed around us. I don't mean to be frivolous or kamikaze but we do all walk or drive on State roads, fly on State-regulated airlines, shop at state-licensed stores, etc. We are not responsible for creating the State; it is there, we are within it, and our task is how to get this damn thing off out back. But I can easily carry your argument one step further: driving on government roads participates in State subsidy, it sanctions the State, etc. Using government mails does the same, etc. The state will not disappear if we ignore it (Spies, Konkin), non-violent civil disobedient is hopeless and has never worked, even unworkable laws must be repealed via political action, etc.

George writes as if citizen voting is constitutive, that is, that everytime we vote in an election this creates and constitutes the State. It is almost as if the State would not exist if we didn't go out and vote. Nonsense! The State is there, and it gives us this area of partial choice with which to work. Even is everyone (except those running for office to work and their retainers) failed to vote, the State would keep rolling on.

There is one case, I believe, where a vote was constitutive in the United States: the vote for or against the Constitution. (Unfortunately, of course, the vote was not on the Constitution itself--it would have been beaten--but on delegates to state ratifying conventions.) Even though we did not have anarchism before, we had a much milder State, and anyone voting for the Constitution participated in the criminal act of setting up, instituting, a stronger government. Those who voted against the Constitution, on the other hand, were great.

Apart from that, I maintain that there have been no constitutive votes by citizens which should be considered criminal or illicit.

Furthermore, trying to push back voting by the legislator to voting by the citizen as criminal, gets into more difficulties. For how can, for example, Mr.Z who votes for a Libertarian candidate who loses be held responsible in any way for the criminal votes of a Democrat or Republican? Mr. Z tried his best to stop them. Which means, at least, pace Hummel that voting for a Libertarian candidate is perfectly moral so long as the LP candidate loses, since a losing candidate has no opportunity to do harm. But suppose that, by a fluke, an LP candidate wins. Then, it seems to me that there is no problem so long as the LP officeholder votes or acts purely libertarian--that is, votes against the budget, votes against all invasive laws, or if an executive, refuses to enforce aggressive laws and taxes, etc. But if an LP officeholder can be a moral and licit officeholder, then so can the guy who votes for him, and the entire argument in principle against an LP or voting for the LP or holding office as an LPer falls to the ground. But what if, finally, the LP officeholder sells out, and votes statist? Then he of course is a criminal aggressor. But how about the guy who voted for him? I think not. Surely the most we can accuse him of is error, of failing to detect the betrayal of promises that would occur in the future. Surely not an indictable offense.

Finally, I acknowledge full well that political anarchism is definitively breaking with the glorious anarchist tradition, especially the individualist-anarchist one. Well, so be it. As a rationalist, while I think tradition is important, I can't let it be my guiding star." - Murry N. Rothbard

[capitalism]

Originally Posted by MichaelC

but here anyway, it is illegal to even promote such activities. (Recently read & confirmed this, forget where though - source pending).

If that is true, I am disgusted.

[Eric31]

Clearly there are strong arguments for not voting. You can de-legitimise the government in a way.

BUT I think strategic votiing also can play a part. Depends on the election.

Compulsory voting is clearly designed to forcibly legitimise the Australian government, however I fear the green nutcases would be more organised than pro-freedom folks in "getting out the vote". Such is the lack of organisation in Australia on this side of politics.

[HenryDavis]

Well, the guns of government...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104400

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582

[Eric31]

AND VOTE!!!!!

[Sukrit]

It was not illegal for Mr Latham to promote the casting of blank votes, Australian Electoral Commission spokesman Phil Diak said.

"There's no explicit provision in the electoral act against someone telling someone else to cast an informal vote as an opinion or a view," he said.

However, it was an offence to publish information that could cause people to cast an informal vote, such as a misleading election ad.

So in short, it's not illegal to encourage the casting of an informal vote.

[MichaelC]

Originally Posted by Sukrit

So in short, it's not illegal to encourage the casting of an informal vote.

Yeah, I must have misunderstood or the source got it wrong. Cheers.

Informal voting - Australian electoral system via wiki

Those who do not wish to vote for any of the available candidates sometimes resort to informal voting—placing a blank or incompletely filled-out ballot in the ballot box.[10] In principle, informal votes are excluded from the election count. Resulting from the disputed validity of so-called Langer voting, it became an offence to cause voters to unknowingly vote informally. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, as of October 2007 "It is not an offence to vote informally in a federal election, nor is it an offence to encourage other voters to vote informally".[11] It is, however, an offence to "mislead an elector in relation to the casting of his vote". The number of informal votes is recorded, but they are not counted as part of the total number of votes cast. Around 95% of registered voters attend polling, and around 5% of Representatives votes are informal [12]