Helen, a good article, but there is something fundamental missing – the absolute right that we all have to vote for no candidate if we feel that no candidate deserves our vote or if we feel that the voting system is so flawed as to possibly make one’s vote count where the voter doesn’t want it to, by way of compulsory preferences in the lower house and senate if you vote below the line or pre-allocated preferences in the senate if you vote above the line.

In short, there are VERY good reasons indeed for lodging a blank ballot paper or marking your paper but deliberately nullifying your vote.

As well as these fundamental and quite disgustingly antidemocratic vote-stealing flaws, our voting system is fundamentally flawed in not offering us the formal option to vote for no candidate.

There should be a box on every ballot paper for ‘no candidate’!

I commend Latham for getting up and saying shortly before a federal election the very simple thing that a blank or null vote is an option well worth considering.

If there is to be any legal challenge over Latham’s actions then we should consider it in the context of one of the most basic principles of democracy: the right to not vote for any candidate, to abstain, to lodge a null vote, to lodge a protest vote, or however you might say it.

The real legal infringement here is surely the implementation of a voting system that doesn’t formally give voters this option, and which can…. unbelievably…. take your vote and make it count where you don’t want it to….which is such a profound perversion of democracy and of the very purpose of voting!

For as long as this situation exists, we should ALL lodge null votes in strong protest!!

The faults in Helen's argument are the failure to define "mark" and the idea that not putting a number beside someone's name is not voting. I can write something on my ballot paper without putting a number beside someone's name and thereby mark it. I also believe strongly that putting a preference beside a candidates name is, in effect, an endorsement of that candidate. When no candidates are available that have a serious, credible policy on the critical issues facing this nation - such as future energy supply, food security and population - then my "vote" is to not endorse any of the candidates. a protest vote is still a vote and Helen is arguing for the removal of my democratic right to object to any of the candidates. I believe strongly in compulsory voting and in the right to cast a "blank" ballot.

Very good article.

This disproves what you often hear people reply about compulsory voting "Voting isn't compulsory, it's just compulsory to turn up and put a ballot paper in the box."

This is incorrect. The law is quite explicit: you have to mark the paper with your vote and put it in the ballot box and you are breaking the law if you don't.

The fact that no-one can prove whether or not you did it, because voting is secret, goes to evidence, not law.

And presumably if a robber puts a gun to your head, and tells your to hand over your money so you do, that's fine, the robber is just "representing" you.

oops. Then I guess I better go surrender myself to the authorities. Post haste!

More specifically than the other comments here, I objected to the requirement to number every box. This rule is arbitrary, and a conspiracy of the major parties to disadvantage minor candidates.

I object to Labor's contemptuous attitude to Green preferences - that they've got nowhere else to go, so the merest crumbs can be thrown to Greens while they pursue the Coalition to the extreme right, to exploitation of fear, and into the gutter of spin, deception and manipulation.

So, in the lower house, I voted "1" Greens and left the other two unnumbered.

<< I believe strongly in compulsory voting and in the right to cast a "blank" ballot. >>

I’m with you there michael.

.
<< The law is quite explicit: you have to mark the paper with your vote and put it in the ballot box and you are breaking the law if you don't. >>

Yes Peter and isn’t that the pits of antidemocracy! This law has GOT to be changed!

.
<< oops. Then I guess I better go surrender myself to the authorities. Post haste! >>

Er…yeah, me too, bitey! ( : >\

.
<< So, in the lower house, I voted "1" Greens and left the other two unnumbered. >>

Which of course meant that your vote didn’t count Geoff, as it is compulsory to mark every square. So, your intention was crystal clear, but a corrupt and scurrilous voting system nullified your vote. Wonderful!