There is some merit in this argument . The qualification I have in agreeing with it is that bogans might be incited to vote so as to defeat some sensible proposal , or to introduce some reactionary legislation [ anti - refugee or bring back the death penalty ] by shock jocks and One Nation style politicians . With optional voting , intelligent , though apathetic , electors might not bother to vote .

When voting is not compulsary the poor are subtly and systematically disenfranchised. The standard of political debate would not rise. It would merely favour the rich over the poor. The so called greatest democracy (USA) does not have compulsary voting and I do not believe that political debate over there is particularly uplifting.
Margaret

Lees has pointed to a problem in the populist nature of politics in modern democracies. However,I am not convinced non-compulsory voting will fix this problem. Other democracies have non-compulsory voting and have essentially the same appeal to a lowest common denominator on a range of issues. Perhaps what might be most useful is if the major parties agreed on some basic principles around the rights of asylum seekers or if a charter of rights was enacted to provide a check on any potentially more outlandish legislative decisions. Such a charter of rights, if drafted accordingly, could allow any government decision to come under the scrutiny of international convenents to which that government, on behalf of its people, is a signatory. Imagine that!

I most definitely support optional voting; if people don't care about what's happening, they are not doing anybody a favor by being forced to vote. The outcome will most definitely be random votes based on some vaguely-remembered ad, radio discussion, or what some friend said which party stood for what- and that should NOT be what voting is about.
Not to mention the lines would be much shorter.
In fact I could see it now- we have a special day called "Voting Day"- where we stress that every voter will hop into their cars and clog the roads to vote- it will mean anyone that goes out and votes gets the rest of the day with low traffic because everybody else decided to avoid the jams!

Oh, and Malcolm Fraser most definitely IS a small minded bigot- no arguments there. Quite frankly as an unrepentant Minister of Defense and advocate of the Vietnam War, I think we should ship the old ratbag over to Vietnam or Geneva to answer for his crimes- be ironically a taste of his own medicine actually.

Optional voting is not a "freedom", it is a cop-out.
Optional voting does nothing to improve the debate - public choice theory states you focus your effort on the median "potential" vote. To exclude competition for bogan votes you would need to formally disenfranchise them...
Optional voting permits the most objectionable of political strategies - encouraging people not to vote and then complaining that the Government is unrepresentative.

Voting cannot be compulsory and secret.

In the closet of a voting cubicle we have the choice of voting and not voting.

I voted informal all my life.

History teaches that Politicians are charlatans and that the greatest politician is the one who has committed the most of crimes against humanity.