There's an interesting article on this topic over at 'The Drum' today from Chris Berg of the IPA. Strange times indeed when I find myself agreeing with him!

<< Don't blame Mark Latham's 60 Minutes spot for the increase in informal ballots last Saturday.

Blame compulsory voting. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2992137.htm

@King Hazza, I said maximum participation dilutes the distortions of sectarian organisation of voting; I didn't say it can eliminate it. The fact that it still exerts influence as you rightly point out, means it is a clear and present danger, and all the more reason to want to keep diluting it.

The importance of juries has nothing to do with whether their competence matches that of judges. The crucial point is that juries can and do simply refuse to convict if they consider the charge unjust. This has become a rarer occurrence over time, because the history of juries has taught legislators that it's very embarrassing to write an unjust law only to have it fail in the courtroom because of public disgust at the law.

@Pericles, you started out saying "None of the people who voted either for Tony or Julia is now represented in parliament. The majority of Australians has now been disenfranchised."

Assuming by "Tony or Julia" you meant people who voted for Coalition or Labor proxies for Tony or Julia respectively ... Yes, they are represented in the next Parliament. But an unusually high number of voters this time rejected both parties without giving a mandate to either.

Some of them may have done so for silly reasons, but in most cases it probably came down to people's native ability to judge character and sincerity, which to answer @sarnian, does not require an IQ test.

Despite the unfortunate fact that for many non-Green voters the Greens were the only third option on offer, I believe the aggregate in this case has shown some collective wisdom. They've brought about a situation in which both parties - which have failed abysmally - will have to clean up their acts. The men who'll require them to do so seem to be of a higher calibre than the faction leaders who've been calling the shots up until now.

I consider this a very good outcome, and one which probably would not have occurred if the growing mass of disenchanted voters had expressed their disgust by going fishing on Saturday.

Problem with that idea Sarnian is that it would be an easily corruptible process:
For example, this hypothetical Q&A
"Which group does NSW Labor stand for the most"
A- the working families
B- The Left Wing movement
C- The Unions
D- Business lobbyists trying to purchase public property
Which do you think would be accepted as the right answer in a poll, and which people would be excluded?

Pericles, "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."

That was a TV show and so was the electioneering, which never touched ground for fear that the cleverly packaged offerings would immediately be found wanting.

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

The candidates are the best who will come forward. Maybe the time is better spent suggesting ways to encourage better candidates to step up to the block if that is the problem. I'd like to see fewer levels of government and fewer pollies overall and if it takes better remuneration to attract quality candidates, so be it.

Voluntary voting gives no incentive to those who feel less involved and probably feel powerless, to vote or take part in the democratic process. Voluntary voting be no better and most likely worse at supporting and encouraging these people to take their part in the democratic process. That should be of concern.

Particularly in a country with the massive immigration programs Australia has maintained for decades, it is prudent to do everything possible to assist people to engage with the political process and feel that they have a stake in it and are listened to.

contd,

It is unfortunate that some parents and carers of teens do little to encourage and assist them to manage their transition to adulthood, a key part of which has to do with their civic pride and responsibilities. The law is the same, some young people are disadvantaged by parents and carers who, for whatever reason, do not explain to youth what responsibilities and accountabilities are involved in the transition from child to adult as far as the law is concerned.

If we are falling down at preparing youth for adulthood, then that is where there should be change. It would be short-sighted to accept our own failure and pretend it is the fault of the disadvantaged themselves. Similarly, disadvantaged groups, especially indigenous and migrant, should be helped and encouraged to take up their rights. That is most unlikely where voting is voluntary.

If there is 'disillusionment with the political choice' or if there is a 'negligent and apathetic section' of the population, maybe the politicians and political parties need to accept that they are as much likely to be at fault than the voters they criticise. It is reminiscent of unions who complain of worker apathy, but do not think of the services they should be offering but are not. What about the political parties thinking about some QA, continuous improvement and and 'criticism is a gift'? Because especially where youth, indigenous and the elderly are concerned, political leaders like to say they are listening, but so often their behaviour says otherwise. Apathetic voters? Who says? Even if there are apathetic voters that is more a criticism of the political parties and culture than anything else.

Frankly I detect political opportunism and Social Darwinism in some of the haughty replies to the thread.

Hmmm. I'm obviously having a bad day, as far as communication is concerned.

Federalist opined:

>>Assuming by "Tony or Julia" you meant people who voted for Coalition or Labor proxies for Tony or Julia respectively ... Yes, they are represented in the next Parliament. But an unusually high number of voters this time rejected both parties without giving a mandate to either.<<

That is, from every possible perspective, simply not true.

The two major parties between them collected the vast majority of the primary vote.

How can that possibly be an indication that they were "rejected"?

My point stands.

The Green Party controls the Senate, ensuring that they have the last word on enabling legislation. 89% of Australians who voted have thus been disenfranchised.

And I'm not sure whether you got my point either, Cornflower.

I was simply observing that the percentages attributed to each candidate changed extremely little, by the time counting reached the halfway mark. Even now, according to the official tally room, only 76.08% of votes have been counted, and the result is unlikely to be affected by the three million or so votes as yet unallocated.

My point was that if the election can be decided by 50% of the people - or 76.08% of the people - why is it mandatory for 100% of the people to turn out?

Why not just those who want to vote for their candidate, or party?

>>Voluntary voting be no better and most likely worse at supporting and encouraging these people to take their part in the democratic process.<<

I fundamentally disagree. If the candidates were faced with two challenges, instead of one, they are likely to be more energetic in presenting their case. First, explain their policies. Then, persuade the public that their policies are worth getting out of bed for.

This election, I'm afraid, lacked both dimensions.

And it shows.