So is there any practical hypothesis of WHY compulsory voting is better than NON?
Nothing more than "people aught to- because they should" on a matter of their own personal morals. Meanwhile, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and France are magically doing quite well without it (countries most people who bleat about the 'dangers' of voluntary voting seem too lazy to look into).

And let me tell you something about the Jury in this country. The jury serve an almost entirely ceremonial function. Judges are at considerable liberty to abort a trial at their own discretion, and cite a prejudiced view towards the jury's capacity to determine guilt. In Germany the jury system is now abolished and with no noticeable social impacts. So a jury's only function is to determine guilt or innocence if the judge actually allows it. Waste of time.

It is becoming more apparent that BOTH compulsions should be scrapped for quite practical reasons.

Re skeptic: "You say that Latham’s voting blank and the implicating suggestion to others to do likewise is wrong but you certainly mean illegal (unless you are preaching to your readers); as illegal as was Albert Langer’s refusal to vote?"

No, what I called "wrong" was Latham's interpretation of the meaning of compulsory voting. At least in the celebrated case against him, Langer did not refuse to vote. He put forward an interpretation of the requirement about numbering the squares (wikipedia has a useful short article on it, seems accurate). Also I try not to preach, but I do try to persuade, and I like a good argument.

Re Geoff Davies: "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."

On the contrary, full preferential voting usually (but not always) advantages minor candidates. Adam Bandt would not be the member for Melbourne without preferential voting, and probably not the member if there were only optional preferential. Also, from a comparative perspective, Al Gore would almost certainly have been president in 2000 if there had been preferential voting in the US. The LDP in England know what preferential voting would do for its parliamentary numbers. Finally, if full preferential voting is a conspiracy of the major parties, why does the Liberal Party periodically try to get rid of it?

Re sarnian: "The only two countries in the world, which have compulsory voting, are Australia and the USSR, which bequeathed it to the present Russia."

This is not the case. Many countries have compulsory voting, eg see www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf. I am open to correction, but I don't think that voting was compulsory in the USSR, and it isn't compulsory in Russia.

The best way to minimise informal voting would be to have a compulsory additional candidate on each ballot, namely "Vacant". "Vacant" would have preferences like any other candidate, and if "Vacant" won the election, the seat would not be filled for the duration of that Parliament. Even better would be to allow voters if they wished to be registered as a supporter of a particular party, and their vote would be automatically entered for it on polling day, without them having to attend. What a comment on the system to have voters who were registered "Vacant" for elections and "No" for referendums.

Another point that need to be mentioned on the subject of compulsory voting is Section 245 of the electoral act, which provides that if a person fails to vote, and is sent a request to state the "true reason" why, that if he states that he did not vote because it was against his religion, this statement must be accepted as conclusive, and no further action will be taken.

In other words, the whole thing is a joke.

Think also of the other benefits of informal voting; each informal vote means that a political party is deprived of $2.31 in public funding, and many people would consider this very worthwhile. People like myself seek out an obscure ungrouped candidate on the ballot papar to receive my first preference, in the hope that the candidate will receive less than 4% of the primary vote, and that no public funding will be paid to anyone.

isabelberners:"here is one of the things that perplexes me about what Mark Latham says."

Me too, which is why I chose not to participate at all. I did so inadvertently in the last State election, being unexpectedly far from anywahere I could vote on the day.It cost me $154 by the time the SPER extras were added. I'm happy to pay the same this time around,although I fail to see how fining me assists the democratic process. I'm also at a loss as to the why the only specified valid reason for conscientious objection should be religious. I objected in this election on the grounds that the party political system had produced a situation in which there was no useful way to determine a preferred outcome because narrow sectional interests have become the dominant influence on political decision-making.

I like the idea of a "vacant" box. If that had been available this time, I'd have voted.

Some of the replies are simply astounding and hard to understand in a country with a democratic tradition and civic and citizenship education.

examinator was right to draw attention to the Green tribalism apparent in some replies. The concerns about preferential voting or even that some people vote at all are more about partisan advantage, and any concern about rights or liberty is rhetoric to disqualify or failing that, discourage voters. Obviously the Greens protestations of concern for the disadvantaged doesn't extend to letting them vote. No surprise that one. With the Greens, it doesn't take much of a scratch to reveal to ugly totalitarianism beneath.

Maybe some voters are not as politically aware as some OLO members might credit themselves, but then again they are most likely more practical, have better common sense and are not bigots either. Which would most prefer voting or on a jury, the bigot who regularly denounces his fellow Australians as 'racists' and worse, or the smiling checkout chick whose vote is advised by rising prices and comments of the hundreds of people she meets a week?

On the far right, compulsory voting is opposed through hope that a change will advantage them and now the looney Left believe that abolishing compulsory voting will help them because activists vote often, but the supposed uncommitted plebs do not.

For others, what can explain the stupidity of deliberately wasting their votes or relinquishing their vote or preferences, when it should be apparent that their ideal candidate and party might only exist in their dreams? Has it entirely escaped their notice that it would be the rare candidate indeed who didn't put himself forward because he felt driven to serve his constituency and nation? Is it their sense of powerlessness and learned helplessness that cause them to be victims of their self-imposed limitations?

Australia does very well with its turn-out for elections. Is far better than systems where votes are bought and cars are despatched to pick up the votes for particular interests.

Green tribalism?

<< Obviously the Greens protestations of concern for the disadvantaged doesn't extend to letting them vote. >>

That's bizarre. Who's said anything about not letting people vote? I thought the discussion here was about whether or not voting should be compulsory. I've offered my personal opinion that I don't think it should be, and I have no idea whether the Greens have a position on the issue or not. I can't recall it being discussed.

Cornflower's visceral antipathy towards the Greens is well-documented here at OLO, but that's no excuse for just making things up.

examinator - there's a distinction between "duties" and "responsibilities" that goes beyond the semantic. Personally, I have few duties and many responsibilities, the former being stuff that I'm required to do by others and the latter being stuff I'm required to do by my own values.