King Hazza,

Refer to my earlier post: "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."

The Australian compulsory voting system does its level best to encourage people to engage with politics, to participate and feel part of the final consensus (compulsory voting + preferential voting = as near to a consensus as is realistically possible) on who will represent their interests. The link posted by isabelberners and mentioned by federalist is relevant.

However it isn't just the voting that counts, voters should also avail themselves of opportunities to discuss their opinions and needs with elected members during the term of the parliament and they are free to influence policy and administration either through public agencies or direct to ministers.

For rather obvious reasons it is critical to keep people, especially the young, engaged with the political process and government.

this one looks like it will go on forever. but a few late random thoughts,

the electrical act doesn't require a person to vote "for" or "against" any candidate, just to rank the candidates who nominated in order of preference. Unreasonable maybe and certainly helfpful to the majors.

I think it does require a voter to mark a full preference order (as opposed to its instructions to the scrutineers after polling in assessing formality) and we could go chapter and verse if there was any point. Clearly, it can't create a meaningful offence for not marking a full set of preferences without abandoning the secret vote. That has not been the intention since shortly after the Eureka Stockade.

Is the Oz tradition of compulsory voting and a 95% turnout, or thereabouts, part of the reason why the supporters of losing parties do not turn to violent protest? Does it also mean we get boring parliaments because we do get the least detested by the vast majority of the voters?

@Pericles:
[[ This is the point at which I find I cannot no longer join the dots...
>>Australia's version of democracy - the best in the world ...<< ]]

I'll refine my wording: The legislative architecture of Australia's democratic institutions - the best in the world (though still not perfect) - requires individuals to ..."

There's only so much founding fathers can do; the rest is up to us.

* We've failed to teach our children about affairs of state such as political heritage, economics, and the rule of law.
* We've allowed parties to become supreme while individual character and integrity go out of fashion.
* We've forgotten what the Senate is for (the use of PR for Senate election has seduced us into thinking of it as just a House of Alternative Parties).
* We've forgotten almost the entire theory of state federalism, which was recognized by the end of the Enlightenment as the magnum opus of Western political architecture, and after allowing it to be broken down over decades we now frequently call for its abolition.
* We've indulged the media in the lazy practice of covering politics the same way racing commentators cover a horse race, instead of demanding that newspapers interrogate politicians on how they plan to advance Australia, and then explain their answers to us.

And in spite of all these failures of ours, our century-old political institutions have still offered us, on Saturday, what could be an elegant solution to problems of our own making.

That doesn't mean it's perfect or that no further refinement is called for. But I don't think simply aping our peers or abolishing compulsory voting would be a step forward. I think comparisons to other democracies are a case of tall-poppy syndrome, where Australia is the tall poppy.

Very well said Pericles. I can only answer this part:
"If this is what the best democracy in the world produces, who exactly are you comparing us with?"
I would guess:
-countries that don't actually have elections, so even if our system isn't particularly good we shouldn't be pointing it out
-A quick look at the USA and quickly assuming "Well MY country is better than that" (without asking why).

Anyway Federalist, sorry to burst your bubble but politicians have a strong ear to lobbyists regardless of how many people vote if they feel so inclined.
By the well could you point me to a huge act of court injustice in a German criminal court to remind me why we "need" to force people to sit as juries?

Cornflower, unfortunately those benefits are only based on theory. Our voter turnout is naught but a superficial statistic. The amount of politically-engaged people would change not a single bit. I've tried to see if the theory of engaged voters out of compulsory elections were true, but I'm instead seeing unengaged people going to the polls anyway and making decisions based on hearsay.

I admit I was wrong about the only two courtries who have to vote but…..
I am still convinced that it is wrong to force everyone to vote.
Maybe you should have to pass an IQ test when you register?

Now here's a thought.

By the end of Saturday night, I seem to recall that the total number of votes that had actually been counted was less than fifty percent.

But the pundits, the press, the politicians, were calling the result, down to the last few percentage points.

Please explain how a turnout of only, say, fifty percent of the electorate, would have affected the end result?

Would people who turn out to register a vote voluntarily, be of a different nature to those who choose not to?

If so, in what manner?

And would this actually be a better or worse outcome, than forcing the unwilling to vote for the least-worst candidate?

Just askin'.