And out of curiosity, which countries?

Helen you obviously, like most others, do not understand that voting is not compulsory at all, the AEC just pretend it and you all are falling for it! It amazes me that with my crummy English, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?

The Australian Electoral Commission electoral backgrounder number 17 on compulsory voting, paragraph 24, states;

"Under subsection 245(15) of the Electoral Act the fact that an elector believes it to be a part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for not voting.'

Therefore, not against the law to not vote, hence not duty bound to vote.

One also has the right to accept the punishment for non-compliance. It is more practical to not attend roll call, which will, for registered voters, result in a small fiscal penalty. Which can be paid or easily waived by making reference to s245(15). Staying off the roll is a useful option and very easy to achieve. This can have some more serious consequences, including being jailed by the Sheriff until one registers. However one must practically picket the Electoral Commission and taunt them with no-compliance for this to happen.

As I succesfully submitted on 19 July 2006 to the court section 245(15) is unconstitutional as it infringes s.116 of the constitution unless "religious objection" includes "secular objection"!
.
You find that the AEC concealed from its brochure and that it was comprehensively deafeated by me on 19 July 2006 and one then has to ask is the Australian Electoral Commission deemed to be IMPARTIAL where it conceals relevant details that the Court upheld one cannot be forced to vote?
.
People should not be fined in the first place by a government department because that is the function of a court to do, as I also then successfully suiubmitted to the court.
.
And why should anyone have to confront a court where in the first place no fine can be legally justified?
.
Fact is the Commonwealth took me twice to court for FAILING TO VOTE and lost both cases against me!
.
As like anyone else who lost a case and is bound by the court decision so is the AEC and as such I view it fraudulently obtains people to pay fines, etc, well aware they have no constitutional right to do so!