Why Australian system isn't as corrupt as the U.S.
From a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald about the widening Abramoff money scandal, the reasons Australia doesn't suffer from the same rampant corrupting influence in their system.
First, parties in Australia are stronger. In the US, each of the 535 people who occupy their seats in Congress run on their own, raise their own money, develop their own positions, and are responsible to no one but themselves and their networks. This anarchic system feeds an insatiable hunger for money, and makes each politician an addicted scavenger for funds, in thrall to the suppliers.The money chase in this country is literally corrupting our entire system to the point where democracy as an ideal does not even exist. It's perverting and corrupting our entire political process.
Here, it is the parties that select and endorse the candidates, that raise and distribute the lion's share of the funds, develop the platforms and policies, and enforce discipline. Strong parties have always led to healthier democracies.
Second, compulsory voting reduces the need for money in political campaigns. In the US, with voluntary voting, unlimited funds are required to push your voters to the polls. Like nuclear war, you can never have a sufficiently large arsenal of weapons. Here, with universal turnout assured, campaign spending is more restrained. The US economy is 15 times larger than Australia's but its campaign expenditures are 40 times greater. Mandatory voting reduces the weight of political contributors on the system as a whole.
Third, sunshine is the best disinfectant. In the US no one quite knows where Moveon.org (which goes after Bush) or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which demolished John Kerry) get their funds. But these groups are formed to get around campaign finance rules, particularly those limiting funds from corporations. Here, as corporate contributions are legal, parties and recipients have to report their receipt, and do so cleanly. Unless taxpayers want to assume the burden of complete public funding of political campaigns, there is nothing wrong with contributions from private sources, including business and labour, as long as it is all disclosed in a timely fashion so voters can take into account who is bankrolling the names on the ballot when they vote. Maintenance of a rigorous and timely disclosure regime is critical.
Could or should Australia's checks on this corrosive and corrupting influence be implemented here?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 1/07/2006
3 comments
3 Comments:
I would assume that the Australian ballot always includes a "none of the above" option.
Though I'm sure that the argument would be made that compulsory voting violated some sort of constitutional right or other, I'd say that it certainly could be instituted fairly easily.
The argument could be made that it's simply a duty of citizenship and therefore constitutional.
There could easily be provisions written into any such law which would make exceptions for various situations, such as homebound people, the elderly, etc., and with broad provisions for absentee and early voting, the argument that it was a burden to some people to get to the polls on election day would be largely removed.
I would also imagine that the penalties for not voting wouldn't exactly be too steep.
Even if we had such laws, I'd imagine that some people, disgustingly in my opinion, would continue to avoid voting from some misguided notion.
But as long as there is an option to vote for no candidate, I don't see how it could be argued that compulsory voting is coersive, (though I'm sure some would.)
And as long as it would accomplish the twin goals of increasing participation in the democratic process and diluting the corrosive influence of money in politics, I'd say it's a very worthy idea.
High... thanks for finding that link. Very interesting examination of the idea of compulsory turnout.
It mentions one aspect that I'd considered as well, that a compulsory voting law would serve to increase participation largely by simply changing the social "norm", making it odd to not vote, rather than vote.
I'm sure in the U.S., there would be many many more voters who would respond simply out of the peceived pressure to conform. After all, many people are more lemming-like than they'd admit.
And massive resistance to this idea by the right is also assured, as you point out.
They've long sought to depress turnout by any means necessary, though this turned around during the '04 presidential election where they launched massive GOTV efforts.
While their opposition may be the kiss of death to such a proposal, at least while they hold all three branches of government, it can be seen as yet another strong argument FOR such a proposal, as if the votes of ALL the people are counted, we'd be much less likely to have to suffer from right wing dominence in our government.
To quote myself (I love doing that) from this old string on my blog: "It is pretty hard to get very excited about the ins and outs of a system designed to do the impossible. Money is undeniably a form of political speech, and controlling it will inevitablly prove to be an exercise in frustration.
"Make sure there's a first-rate disclosure system so that I can follow the money, and give away to your heart's content -- forget all the crap about who can give how much under this circumstance or that."
Besides the Evans thing, a good local example of the money nonsense is the to-do in Iowa's First Congressional District over Mike Whalen's restaurant ads (are they or are they not illegal corporate contributions?)
Course, your good buddy Tom DeLay wouldn't be under indictment down in Texas in a no-strings attached contribution system. But, hey, you can't have everything.
Mandatory voting? I don't know ... maybe. But my libertarian core is instantly offended by the idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home