There is some merit in this argument . The qualification I have in agreeing with it is that bogans might be incited to vote so as to defeat some sensible proposal , or to introduce some reactionary legislation [ anti - refugee or bring back the death penalty ] by shock jocks and One Nation style politicians . With optional voting , intelligent , though apathetic , electors might not bother to vote .

When voting is not compulsary the poor are subtly and systematically disenfranchised. The standard of political debate would not rise. It would merely favour the rich over the poor. The so called greatest democracy (USA) does not have compulsary voting and I do not believe that political debate over there is particularly uplifting.
Margaret

Lees has pointed to a problem in the populist nature of politics in modern democracies. However,I am not convinced non-compulsory voting will fix this problem. Other democracies have non-compulsory voting and have essentially the same appeal to a lowest common denominator on a range of issues. Perhaps what might be most useful is if the major parties agreed on some basic principles around the rights of asylum seekers or if a charter of rights was enacted to provide a check on any potentially more outlandish legislative decisions. Such a charter of rights, if drafted accordingly, could allow any government decision to come under the scrutiny of international convenents to which that government, on behalf of its people, is a signatory. Imagine that!

I most definitely support optional voting; if people don't care about what's happening, they are not doing anybody a favor by being forced to vote. The outcome will most definitely be random votes based on some vaguely-remembered ad, radio discussion, or what some friend said which party stood for what- and that should NOT be what voting is about.
Not to mention the lines would be much shorter.
In fact I could see it now- we have a special day called "Voting Day"- where we stress that every voter will hop into their cars and clog the roads to vote- it will mean anyone that goes out and votes gets the rest of the day with low traffic because everybody else decided to avoid the jams!

Oh, and Malcolm Fraser most definitely IS a small minded bigot- no arguments there. Quite frankly as an unrepentant Minister of Defense and advocate of the Vietnam War, I think we should ship the old ratbag over to Vietnam or Geneva to answer for his crimes- be ironically a taste of his own medicine actually.

Optional voting is not a "freedom", it is a cop-out.
Optional voting does nothing to improve the debate - public choice theory states you focus your effort on the median "potential" vote. To exclude competition for bogan votes you would need to formally disenfranchise them...
Optional voting permits the most objectionable of political strategies - encouraging people not to vote and then complaining that the Government is unrepresentative.

Voting cannot be compulsory and secret.

In the closet of a voting cubicle we have the choice of voting and not voting.

I voted informal all my life.

History teaches that Politicians are charlatans and that the greatest politician is the one who has committed the most of crimes against humanity.

The downside to optional voting that the Americans complain about is that a huge amount of funding is spent on trying to encourage voters to register, then vote.

They even bus them to voting booths.

So while we complain about the amount of money spent on elections and by various lobby groups and semi-official parties (as a means to spend even more, with no source of funding having to be identified - like Getup!) it would be worse, possibly if the money was diluted by having to bolstor the actual number of voters.

So instead of having all the paid political advertising on policy and various scare campaigns, we'd have to sit through ads trying to get interest in voting - so in effect, 2 campaigns at once.

Should people vote, only if they are interested, should the be coerced with rewards for voting, no .. but the temptation is there.

Congressional districts in the US are up to their ears in deals for voting lobbies and interest groups.

It is far worse there than here, most Americans I know would much prefer compulsory voting, and remove the campaigning for the disinterested.

Oh, and I believe Malcolm was Minister for Army, but otherwise agree with hazza that he is an old criminal who is trying to remake the image history has of him .. bloody unlikely!

While I have always sided with the optional vote, I still found the elitist attitude expressed in this article rather objectionable.
I have several friends who came to Australia from the UK or New Zealand. Most of them are highly intelligent and have high paying jobs. One was at one time an assistant town clerk, and is now fairly high up in Canberra, in the Tax Office (although I don't hold it against him).
All of these people avoided becoming naturalised Australians, largely because it enabled them to avoid voting.
You don't have to be under educated or apathetic to be disenchanted with the Australian political system.
Personally I think the best reason for optional voting is that when our Masters tell us to “eat cake”, the rampage will hopefully be to the voting booths (should a working class hero arise), instead of the streets.
Compulsory voting has done nothing but entrench the status quo, and synthesise the major parties into squabbling for the centre court.
PS, although I remember Fraser as an arrogant, ruthless and thoroughly dislikeable PM, he was never a redneck; at least in any racial sense.

Excellent suggestion. "Bogans" don't bother to vote. We should go further and award extra votes for people who have earned them. There should be much more value for instance in a vote by a university graduate than one just freed from Boggo Road.
Extra votes could be earned by getting a university degree, an award from the state (AO etc), paying much more than the average in taxes, giving employment and perhaps for any other recognizable success in life.
Surely this would improve the standard of behavior and policy making for both the Govt and the opposition, where currently they tend to play to the lowest common denominator. No one can say this would be a bad thing.

"Excellent suggestion. "Bogans" don't bother to vote."
Now there's an intelligent argument against compulsory voting.

I should also point out that Canada, New Zealand, and virtually every single country on the European mainland save Lichenstein do not force people to vote, (and if you want to count it, one out of Switzerland's 26 cantons- leaving 25 that do not);
And only 2 other countries have compulsory voting that is not forced (Belgium and Greece).

I'd say that is evidence enough that these countries are running perfectly fine.

In fact, they're actually a lot more active in policymaking than we are- and it may well be that the people voting in these elections are voting because they specifically want a party endorsing their preferred policy, and thus the parties actually have to stand for something and expect to do something; here disgruntled voters pick the 'least worst' of two majors and surprise- our parties are racing to the bottom- knowing that they do not have to do anything at all so long as their PR doesn't fall behind the opposition.

So again- bring on Optional Voting.

The reasons against it are minor and absurd, while the positives would be practical and substantial.

Dickybird:

“No one can say this would be a bad thing”….if it wouldn’t ….

…Maintain the entrenched role of elitism in Australian politics, and, as a consequence promote the anarchist (Bogan) cause. All citizens to the ramparts (with a Greek flag) please!

I agree whole heartedly that compulsory voting should be scrapped. If you don't wish to be part of the process then fine - you accept the outcome of the vote of those who do - and have another chance next election if it's not to your liking.

I find Lees reasoning as to how this might impact on either side of politics policy development in relation to 'refugees' AKA illegal immigrants rather ridiculous. I am not under-educated, uninformed, politically naive or married to a relative and am highly in favour of a harder line on illegal entry.

Most people I know are like minded, including one friend who was very sympathetic - until she got a job with Dept of Immigration looking after the needs of 'refugees'. Her attitude is now reversed. Her words, "We don't want at least 90% of these people in our country".

If you don't believe me check results of any poll since the boats started rolling in again regarding the MAJORITY (as in Democratic government) viewpoint.

With rights, come responsibilities. If you want to live in a democracy, then you need to contribute. In this instance, you need to vote (preferably, in an informed manner.)

Politicians already waste half their elected term getting us to vote for them. How much more time would they waste, if they had to convince us to vote at all?

In my utopia, politicians would see beyond job security (their job security) and do what was right for the country. As we, the voters, gradually got used to that change, so too would our attitudes towards politicians and voting. (With apologies to Plato)

Back to reality...

We already have optional voting. As 'skeptic' says he has done all his life, I voted informal in the last Federal election.
I called it my personal vote of no-confidence, and in that election it was very, very satisfying.
But I still had to go to the voting booth on the day, and I consider that a good thing. To spend a half hour once every three years is not a big ask from our system of participatory democracy.
We want to cherish our right to vote and resist any attempt to water it down. Not having it would be so much worse.

Hear, hear, Halduell,

Spot on. We do have compulsory voting even if attendance at a polling booth is not. Perfectly fine by me. People have to front up to renew their licences so why is this less important.

And to the posters who think Bogans are not all that politically savvy I have had some very grounded insights about the state of affairs around election time, often more so than what was coming from the pens of political analysts.

I remember a recently naturalized whinging pom berating a line of party supporters at a booth where I was handing out how to vote cards one election. He got into everyone's face about how ridiculous it was being forced to front up to vote and was quite abusive. Finally I said I was going to let him go in and get signed off but when he came out he was going to get my boot up his backside. Only person I have ever threatened physical violence toward at a booth. He found another exit.

He was accompanied by a rather timid wife and afterward I thought what a great thing compulsory attendance was since there was every likelihood she would not have been allowed to vote on the day.

Sorry folks, my post should have read "We do have non-compulsory voting even if attendance at a polling booth is not." 

Even that is clumsy but you know what I mean.

It is unclear whether voluntary voting would bring nore lenient treatment of boat arrivals. Those US states that border Mexico have taken some fairly harsh measures to prevent Mexicans from border-hopping.

I don't think this approach would work in the context of which the author writes because it paradoxically assumes both apathy and strength of conviction in the (author defined) 'bogan' vote around multiculturalism.

Given that the author describes the redneck vote as focal in electioneering strategy around immigration issues wouldn't there be no change? Those opposed to multiculturalism or asylum seekers might be more compelled to vote if policies are too radical or objectionable to their POV.

I reckon optional voting would only contribute to even more bland and non-reformist policies. When Obama stood for the presidency more African-americans voted than ever before in the hope for change particularly around issues of access - such as universal health care etc.

Informal voting is the optional vote but at least it gets people to the booths and many will choose to vote even if it is only on a 'best of a bad bunch' strategy.

Compulsory <anything> is wrong, including voting.

I do not, however, agree with the opportunistic nature of this article, attempting to achieve this or that election-outcome. It is simply wrong to command unwilling people to do things, then threaten them with punishment if they don't.

Rational-debate wrote:

"With rights, come responsibilities. If you want to live in a democracy, then you need to contribute."

No, I don't want to live in a democracy, or in any other "cracy" for that matter. My so-called "rights" are God-given, not man-given and there is no justification whatsoever for people ruling over other people against their will - that is simply a form of violence!

----

Csteele wrote:

"He was accompanied by a rather timid wife and afterward I thought what a great thing compulsory attendance was since there was every likelihood she would not have been allowed to vote on the day."

-If he really didn't want her to vote, it would be easier for him to pay her $50 fine instead.

Compulsory turning up to the polling station is one of the major reasons I like the Australian system.

If I could be pursuaded that those who didn't vote, wouldn't complain and whinge about the government in power, then I might have a different view.

This article is deliberately aimed at trying to disenfranchise a section of the community. The writer has an amazing arrogance in his own superiority.

Those commentators who assert that other countries are running fine without it, have, perhaps a different view than me about the engagement in politics of people in those countries.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote "-If he really didn't want her to vote, it would be easier for him to pay her $50 fine instead."

I think the fact that he was there to vote himself even though he was so against it was probably a fair indication he was one tight git.  Paing for his wife's fine would I think  have been inconceivable.

I have seen fathers grabbing one particular party's how-to-vote cards and thrusting them into their voting wife and children's hands. Hopefully the election officials inside were on their toes.

As to freedoms and rights surely living in a society means giving up some of them. For instance where do you stand on seatbelt laws, or jaywalking, or paying rates?

I think our democracy is better served with compulsory voting than without and it is a small freedom to sacrifice for those gains.

Dear Csteele,

"I have seen fathers grabbing one particular party's how-to-vote cards and thrusting them into their voting wife and children's hands. Hopefully the election officials inside were on their toes."

Hopefully indeed, but that describes a case of over-voting not of under-voting. Much better for democracy not to have those wives/children voting at all than to have them vote for someone else.

"As to freedoms and rights surely living in a society means giving up some of them. For instance where do you stand on seatbelt laws, or jaywalking, or paying rates?"

I would agree if living in a society was optional, but it is not.

Seatbelt laws - definitely wrong. It is none of anybody else's business. I would however be content if the government said instead: "no seatbelt - no medicare or disability-pension if you are injured: either pay the hospital fees yourself; take a special insurance for having no seat-belt; or die of your injuries".

Jaywalking - Do what you like so long as you don't hurt others or put them at risk.

Paying rates - Give unto Caesar what is his: if you are to use the money which governments print, then you are to abide by the conditions that come with that money. If however you live money-free, than nobody has a right to tax you.

"I think our democracy is better served with compulsory voting than without and it is a small freedom to sacrifice for those gains."

As I wrote, I am not here to serve democracy, but even then this is a case where democracy is dis-served by all the people who couldn't care less about the election-results, thereby diluting them with their donkey-votes.

Phil;
"Those commentators who assert that other countries are running fine without it, have, perhaps a different view than me about the engagement in politics of people in those countries."
Strangely, I don't believe for a second that anyone who doubts that most western countries in the world with optional voting are actually more politically engaged than we are, simply has never bothered to check beyond "Oh but it doesn't work in America" against countries where it is clearly working and people are very politically engaged compared to us- and politicians are actually actively implementing policy;
The real driving difference between engagement is the frequency of binding referenda and the right of citizens to initiate their own.

In fact, so far, the fact that the opposition to optional voting has proven to base their arguments on;
1- only a single country with a high ratio of uneducated people, but were too lazy to check any others
2- short-sighted pettiness (sour grapes at people not taking their 'duty' seriously and voting- not realizing that those people are doing THEM a favor by not voting if they were not motivated to vote willingly (and thus more likely to get informed about who the candidates are).
And I'm saying this as someone who WOULD vote- I don't really care what party someone votes for so long as they've done their homework- but people who don't give a sh*it aren't helping their country- and it is quite clear that our sorry political state is made possible by the reassuring fact that people who have never watched even a political news story in their life are going to vote for people they are clueless about, depending on who made the prettiest advertisements.
And no- in the event someone was considering it- I do not support any form of compulsory 'quiz' to validate someone's vote- it's a retarded idea.

There is a saying- you can drag a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink;
Therefore;
You can drag a mug to the voting booths, but you can't force him to think.

"If I could be pursuaded that those who didn't vote, wouldn't complain and whinge about the government in power, then I might have a different view."
Great point. In fact, we optional voters could make a bumper sticker on those sentiments: "If you don't vote, don't whinge".
Sadly, I think most of the people I know who aren't into voting, aren't into discussing politics either.
Or religion.
In fact, there's zero chance of ever meeting them on OLO.
Maybe the bumper sticker should read: "Only OLOers should vote!"

"Only OLOers should vote!"

What a logical error:

Those who don't care, don't use OLO, therefore those who don't use OLO, don't care (and therefore should not vote)...

Rather leave OLO aside: those who don't care, should not vote!

Therefore, the logical error was...?

"Therefore, the logical error was...?"

All A are B, therefore all B are A

A = those who don't care about politics
B = those who don't use OLO

So all those who don't use OLO do not care about politics, and therefore should not vote, or in other words, Only OLOers should vote.

Hmmm.

Australia is one of the few places, where participating in an election is mandatory and enforced.

It is not so in UK
It is not so in USA
nor Canada,
nor Europe

Compulsory voting does exist and is enforced in Mexico, South America and Congo…. Neither of those places has any exceptional quality of democracy beyond those places where participating in voting is the decision of the people trusted to cast their votes.
Compulsory voting is not enforced in France nor India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

it seems t me, if someone, for whatever reason, chooses not to vote; it is not up to the officiating bureaucrats, in a democracy, to seek to impose an obligation on the electorate to vote.

Such an obligation is not democratic and flies in the face of reason.

If the bogans are too busy, squandering their welfare benefits on trinkets, instead of voting socialist into power to bribe them with more welfare, I have no objection

If the non-thinkers wish to be the non-voters, I have no objection

And whilst we are about it we would do better to go back to a first past the post system instead of this jackass proportional representation farce, which see tipping points of power handed to the fringe dwellers who stupidly vote Green

While we are busy reforming voting why not go the whole hog and use the Internet as a voting machine on every proposal. We could use something like the OLO surveys to actually decide on whether we all actually want a Carbon Tax or not.

Much fairer democracy

One of the problems to be solved would be the power it gives to the "Editor" or whoever decides the wording of individual proposals.

Alternatively any proposal that had been approved on the Internet survey could then go to Parliament to be drafted as a legal Act.

Or would it be even better to come to the Internet survey AFTER the Govt had passed it.

Lots of thought

"We could use something like the OLO surveys"

Do we have surveys on this site? Perhaps we should, but I'm not aware of any, is there a link?

"
"If I could be pursuaded that those who didn't vote, wouldn't complain and whinge about the government in power, then I might have a different view."
Great point."

NO. It's not.
If I had to choose between
1- having someone too lazy to vote, and later complaining somewhere about the caliber of our elected politicians; forcing me to simply get over it and be an adult about it.
2- having someone too lazy to keep tabs on politics between elections voting and impacting the governance of my nation, and me being forced to live with the consequences of their bad decision for another three years.
I think I know which one I'd sooner deal with. Ignorant people whining about something they're too lazy to influence is better than ignorant people changing the election outcome for the worst because they were too lazy to find out who they were voting for.
And for that matter they still whine anyway- and it is still out of their own laziness to put more effort into finding out who to vote for.

This is a link to an old survey from Graham Young

I have posted the questionnaire at:
http://polling.nationalforum.com.au/index.php?sid=25855&lang=en

or try

Graham Young [graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au]

Dear Yuyutsu,

It does seem a very American take to have on things. Individual freedoms are all good and fine and certainly worth fighting for but there are things that make a good society that are important too and many of our rules are directed toward empowering people who might not be well served by blind adherence to a freedom at all cost ethic.

Take seatbelt laws. Would a person's freedom to ignore them extend to his/her children? Should we also say to them "no seatbelt - no medicare or disability-pension if you are injured: either pay the hospital fees yourself; take a special insurance for having no seat-belt; or die of your injuries".

To mandate laws for a man's children still impacts on his freedoms.

Compulsory voting does in some measure protect the exercising of the right to vote while still giving those who attend the ability not to cast a ballot if they so desire.

You wrote “I am not here to serve democracy, but even then this is a case where democracy is dis-served by all the people who couldn't care less about the election-results, thereby diluting them with their donkey-votes.”

Donkey votes are to me a legitimate way of sending a message to political parties who must work to find ways of engaging the disaffected. It is not so much about serving democracy rather it is about serving our community or society if you like.

It is a small price to pay.

Dear Csteele,

Any connection with America is completely incidental: these are my independent views.

"empowering people who might not be well served"

-Avoiding to injure others is the primary moral imperative, serving others comes only second. Let those who want to be served ask for it first, or at least agree.

Seatbelts: the answer is Yes, children are included:

The first priority is the individual, the next one down is the family. So long as none of the individuals within a family volunteered to belong to a society or sought its protection, then a family should be free to remain out of that society, thus so long as a child has not been introduced to a society, either by his/her parents or by themselves, that society should have nothing to do with that child. Legally, a child who was not introduced to society should be considered similarly to a pet of his/her parents.

Compulsory voting: Once X is compulsory, it can not longer be called a "right".

Donkey-votes, here is a recent example:

South-Australia currently considers banning Halal and Kosher slaughter. Muslims and Jews consider it God's commandment to abstain from eating the meat of animals slain in any other method. Certainly loyalty to God comes before loyalty to state, so they would be justified in dying as martyrs rather than eating improper meat. Fortunately they can become vegetarian (which is best anyway), but let's suppose for argument's sake that there is nothing else to eat and the only remaining options are either starvation or voting for an alternative government.

With trembling and prayer they cast their votes, and there comes along light-hearted-Charley-Donkey, half-drunk, who's upset about being forced to get out of bed on the weekend, so he marks his ballot 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 without even looking at the names.

If that's called "serving community" (or society), then community (or society) is an evil thing that should rather not be served.

Hey Yuyie, nice cherry picking.
The full quote was:
'Maybe the bumper sticker should read: "Only OLOers should vote!"'
Perhaps you would be so kind as to work the concepts of 'maybe' and 'bumpersticker' into your algebraic expression.
I'm sensing Yuyie is still pissed that I refused to buy into her hokie religion; a parent's love of their children is a religious act which brings them closer to God, - even when the parent has no religion and lacks even the concept of a fictitious supernatural deity.
In algebraic terms, that would be 0 = B, where B > 0.
And you're offering lessons in logic?
Hmm.
Bumper stickers are traditionally designed to amuse, educate, enlighten or simply make a statement of the car owner's beliefs. If, in an optional voting society, the goal is to encourage more people to vote, then I would reiterate: “if you don't vote, don't whinge!” is a fairly obvious way to encourage engagement.
Likewise, if Graham wanted (for some obscure reason) to attract more traffic to his site, he might adopt my suggestion: “Only OLOer's should vote!” It could conceivably stimulate some interest in those wanting to discuss the rights and wrongs of voting. Or just bring in a bunch of people wondering what the hell an OLOer was.
Unless of course you subscribe to to the royal prerogative, that the 'lower classes' should never be allowed to vote, even on matters that directly concern them, or how engaged they are.

As to the incredibly simplistic notion of first past the post voting, in any election that includes more than 2 candidates it would be demonstrably undemocratic, inasmuch as it would almost inevitably result in the election of a candidate that the majority didn't like. Particularly I think in this country, where a significant portion -if not the majority- tend to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, rather than being in entire agreement with the policy platform of any one party.
Optional or not, the Australian preferential voting system is undeniably democratic, as no candidate can be elected unless they achieve at least 50% + 1 of the preferred votes, thus ensuring the candidate the majority liked least can't get in.

“Certainly loyalty to God” (a fictitious supernatural deity, belief in which is typical of primitive peoples) “comes before loyalty to state” (a societal instrument designed to enable large groups of people to live in reasonable harmony with each other -rather like primitive religious laws).
Certainly?
Does inflicting unnecessary pain on an animal also bring one closer to this deity of yours, Yuyie?
If so, who needs it.
If the only candidates in a ballot were Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Joe Stalin, who would a person of conscience vote for? I think many Australian voters feel they are given similar options, if not quite to that degree.

Hey Dicky, as to your proposal for online voting, suggest you check this out:
http://senatoronline.org.au/

Dear Yuyutsu,

I find it interesting to view our different approaches to issue. While I see compulsory attendance at a polling booth as a reasonable measure to safeguard the ability of the disempowered to participate in having a say in the way they are governed, you see it as an infringement on your rights.

I found the Howard government's stripping the right to vote from prisoners particularly offensive. One can easily imagine in such an environment that even with such a right a culture of disincentive from prison authorities may well develop.

You say; "Once X is compulsory, it can not longer be called a "right"."

I will have to give that some thought. Perhaps I might think
it is compulsory that employers in Australia provide a safe work place and it is every Australian's right to work in a safe environment. Leave that with me.

It's not a "right" to be forced to vote for a party you don't support- the fact that there is a semi-secret loophole after walking into the booth doesn't change the fact that the climate does in fact force people to do this.
It's actually in the same vein as forcing everybody in a country to vote for only the same one candidate against their wishes;

And the "disenfranchised" people argument is false- LAZY people are motivated to show up to the polls, the real disenfranchised (eg minorities) are sidelined more by having every person who doesn't care about issues that effect them or anyone at all, showing up and scribbling a tick next to a completely random person after flipping a coin because they didn't really care less.

And for some of you people I hate to burst your bubble, but governments don't regard donkey voting as protests- they LOVE donkey votes- and they try to actually turn these donkey votes into real votes for themselves (why they fight to get themselves positioned at the top of the paper- or wherever they think the moron doing it will start and finish).
If you people think government's take your childish whiny protests to heart, guess what- they don't. They only find ways to count them as votes for themselves.
Every time someone does this they are actually hurting their country through helping the same people they're trying to make a gesture against and risking putting them into government.

It's basically the difference between living in one's own lala-land, and living in reality and seeing the bigger picture- including from the government's point of view.

Many thanks Grim for www.senatoronline.org.au It seems to be a brilliant idea and should be given the maximum publicity

Dear Grim,

“if you don't vote, don't whinge!”

Perhaps you only consider it a slogan, but that would in fact be true if governments knew their place. If all legislation pertained only to the public realm, not interfering with what individuals or groups of individuals do or don't in their own space so long as it does not hurt the rest of society, then truly, anyone who does not contribute to the welfare of the public domain should remain silent if/when it is not handled in the best way.

"Does inflicting unnecessary pain on an animal also bring one closer to this deity of yours, Yuyie?
If so, who needs it."

I do my best not to inflict pain on animals. This, I tend to believe, brings me closer to God. If, however, I were to interfere with other's free choice whether or not to inflict pain on animals, then I would deny them the option of coming closer to God themselves in this way. I would have been denying them the option of expressing their love of God from their own hearts.

As to "who needs it": as there is nothing but God, you would not be here to ask this question otherwise.

I did not, BTW, call God a deity, but I understand that you were referring to Muslims and Jews: well, I do not agree with their slaughtering practices - but then I do not agree with any form of slaughtering (I am vegetarian myself). I do however believe that their honest intent of serving God in this way, misguided as it may be, outweighs the actual pain they cause to the animal.

I really like your comments about the miserable quality of the Australian electoral system.

Dear Csteele,

I certainly agree with you that denying prisoners their right to vote is an atrocity. Australian prisoners are indeed denied more rights than in most other countries. I heard they are not allowed to bring books, clothes and other personal items into prison.

As for "to safeguard the ability of the disempowered to participate in having a say in the way they are governed", I suggest that this could be solved by people ticking a box when enrolling for elections, whether or not they wish the authorities to make sure that they vote. Obviously it is criminal to deny another their right to vote.

I think you would have guessed by now my view about "Australian's right to work in a safe environment". I'll leave you to contemplate on the issue.

Dear King Hazza,

I loved your comments about donkey-voting.

Perhaps compulsory voting in this country was born of a tradition of maximum enfranchisement. Australia was one of the first countries to allow women the vote and indeed the state of South Australia was the first in the world to allow them to stand at elections. Certainly women during that era made up the bulk of the disempowered in society

King Hazza put up a few examples of countries that do not have compulsory voting, one was Switzerland where 25 out of the 26 cantons do not, yet this is a country where women did not get the vote until 1971. Hardly a poster child for democracy.

It should be noted though that Australia did not give unrestricted voting rights to Aboriginal people until the 1960s. King Hazza's 'lazy' comment and Col Rouge's “If the bogans are too busy, squandering their welfare benefits on trinkets, instead of voting socialist into power to bribe them with more welfare, I have no objection” could well echo the arguments against giving universal voting rights to our indigenous folk back then.

It is interesting that in South America, where compulsory voting is prevalent in quite a number of countries, some have extended the vote to the 16-18 year olds although non-compulsory at that age. Again supporting an ethic of enfranchisement.

As to Yuyutsu's idea of ticking a box why not put one on the ballot paper marked with a picture of a donkey. Far easier for the 'lazy' people to tick rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6 and it would save donkey votes skewing the results as some have feared.

As to the notion that hordes are turning up to polling booths with absolutely no idea of the issues or who to vote for, poppycock! I have no problems in our parliamentary system of people voting purely on the personality and perceived character of the leaders and supporting that through a vote for the appropriate local candidate. I think in the case of Latham the people got it right even though purely on issues Howard should have been out on his ear that election.

"It should be noted though that Australia did not give unrestricted voting rights to Aboriginal people until the 1960s. King Hazza's 'lazy' comment and Col Rouge's “If the bogans are too busy, squandering their welfare benefits on trinkets, instead of voting socialist into power to bribe them with more welfare, I have no objection” could well echo the arguments against giving universal voting rights to our indigenous folk back then."

Horrible strawman; it would be the same if I actually demanded people who were uninformed were prevented from voting- and I'm sorry to tell you, being too unmotivated to vote isn't a restriction- it is as much saying that I'm restricting a person's right to be sober because I didn't ban alcohol, preventing them being put in a position of actually having to decide for themselves if they want to drink or not.

However, I could much more easily insinuate that with some states most likely continuing compulsory preferences, and all states continuing electoral representatives, that compulsory voting is more reminiscent of Robert Mugabe forcing people to vote for him.

After all, YOU are the one who wants to override people's right to choice and to make your own decision for them.

Dear King Hazza,

Robert Mugabe indeed. Lol. Okay, your straw man is bigger than my straw man.

At the last federal election before compulsory voting the voter turnout was under 60% but since then it hasn't dropped below 90%. I reject totally the idea that our democracy and therefore our country isn't better served by the participation of that extra 30%. As donkey voting contributes less than a percent to the result I think it is evident we are seeing yet another strawman.

Even Julie Bishop, the deputy leader of the Liberal party, in a piece calling for voluntary voting concedes “Turnout has never been below 90 per cent and while the number of informal votes can vary, there is little evidence as to what extent this represents acts of error, apathy or protest.”
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/vote--or-else-20100303-pgqd.html

The one party that consistently raises the issue of compulsory voting is the Liberals. Yet this is the same party that stripped voting rights from prisoners and closed the rolls on the day the election writs were issued instead of the traditional seven days after, thus disenfranchising close to 100,000 young voters. Would your response have been if they were too 'lazy' to register themselves knowing an election was in the offing then the don't deserve to be heard on election day?

Csteele you are still talking a complete load of rubbish;

Giving people the choice not to vote is absolutely nothing like actually putting in obstacles to people actually attempting to vote, or outright banning people from voting.
You obviously missed my last analogy entirely (and the fact that you can't think outside a liberal/labor issue shows a worrying lack of rational evaluation skills, and are only able to think in simple binary opposites).

Now, the voter turnout is nothing but a number for the people who showed up to an election station solely to avoid a fine. Some like to pretend this number in any way makes us look better- but they are simply shallow fools.
Now, if these people take the process seriously and are indeed enriching our vote, then certainly they will still be motivated to appear if voting were voluntary.
If they were not, I would hardly consider the vote 'enriched' at all; and the only people who disagree with that are ones who only want CV because they think it will help the chances of their favorite party getting in, or least favorite political minorities and parties forming a substantial vote- which is actually anti-democratic thinking.
I could very much compare the active policymaking and improvements done in Europe and even the USA under Obama as much more substantial to what we have been getting here- which has been almost entirely posturing.

Dear King Hazza,

Well this irrational, rubbish talking, analogy missing, shallow fool happens to think that compulsory voting has a role in empowering people who some would rather did not have a say, and if in doing so it happens to trample on your inflated notion of your personal freedoms being under siege then all I can say is get over it.

If you don't think raising the issue of the Liberal's track record on stripping votes from Australians and pushing for the end of compulsory voting was relevant then why not?

Basically you are saying if people don't measure up to your idea of "taking the process seriously" then they shouldn't bother.

Isn't that elitist claptrap?

I guess when the census paper is delivered this year you will be tearing it up because it is mandatory?

Alas csteele you still don't really get it.

Forcing people to go to the voting stations empowers nobody; a person who feels their vote makes no difference would most likely feel less so in a voluntary system as the ratio of apathetic votes drops (and evidence overwhelmingly suggests, political action and accountability increases). In a compulsory system, they realize their vote is stacked up against an incredible ratio of completely apathetic votes.

Which places the truly disenfranchised to be more franchised under an optional system, and does in fact place the only people left out are those who are simply lazy, or sincerely uninterested in their available candidates.
Or to put it another way- the "helping disenfranchised" argument is bull.

The issue of you making a liberal/labor issue implies that you are the kind of person who can only think about an issue in terms of dividing it into a liberal/labor one, and are clearly unable to judge it otherwise.

"Basically you are saying if people don't measure up to your idea of "taking the process seriously" then they shouldn't bother."
Correct. If they don't care, and would have stayed home if actually allowed to choose, then they shouldn't be forced to vote if they don't actually want to. It's quite simple and probably the least elitist exclusionary stance you will get, as I'm not actually restricting their right to vote at all.

And no- I'm not against census papers "because they are also compulsory"- the fact that you mention that shows you really don't grasp the issue at all, and have no idea what we are talking about.

Well, with your one single argument (and handful of strawmen) shot down, how exactly does CV enrich Australia now Csteele?

Dear King Hazza,

I agree with what you wrote, but why are you attempting to apologize for elitism?

Being called an elitist was actually a compliment!
You belong to an elite who cares to think and express their opinions, here on OLO.
Those who would still vote in voluntary elections belong to an elite of people who care somewhat about society and to educate themselves at least a little bit about politics.

You should indeed be proud of your elitism!

Dear King Hazza,

This has all got a little familiar. I was sure you had tried the "you just don't get it" routine before, and indeed you have.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4424&page=0#112789

I asked then "Is this a favoured debating trick of yours? Post in an ambiguous manner then when your opponent trips down one path you slap him around the head for showing a 'lack of understanding'. Then move the goal posts."

I' m afraid the shrillness of your previous post gave you away.

As I suspect this will continue whatever I say I am loathed to spend to much time on attempting to tease out what you may or may not mean because I am unsure you entirely know yourself.

But for the benefit of the video tape I will put my position again. Our system does not force you to vote for any party at all, it mandates that each Australian either returns a postal vote envolope or gets checked off the roll at a polling booth.

What this means is those who are under the control of others be they domineering husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, siblings, bosses, prison guards, aged care facility managers etc who may impede them having the opportunity to vote have a greater chance of being heard under our current system. I also look with dismay at the skewed socio- economic ratios of voters in voluntary voting regimes and definitely don't want to see them in my country.

I'm proud of the system and the ethic behind it. We have a good history in enfranchisement and over 70% of Australians seem to share that view and want compulsory voting retained. That's good enough for me.

Dear Csteele,

"What this means is those who are under the control of others be they domineering husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, siblings, bosses, prison guards, aged care facility managers etc who may impede them having the opportunity to vote have a greater chance of being heard under our current system."

-So I wonder how far are you willing to take it?
Since there are thieves around, should it be compulsory to lock one's door and have a burglar alarm?
Since there are fraudsters around, should it be compulsory to present all agreements to the court before signing any?
Since there are rapists around, should it be compulsory to wear a chastity-belt?
Since there are SPAMs, should all E-mail go through a government moderator?

Fighting fire with fire, evil with evil, punishing the just along the unjust, is not a solution.

And in this specific case, if some one really wants to prevent another from voting, do you think this will prevent them? Say someone is locked up in a cellar as a sex-slave, do you think her captors will allow her to attend elections? No, they will simply pay the fine for her.

Certainly, preventing another from voting, or disadvantaging them if they do, is criminal and should carry heavy penalties. No sane person would want to spend years in jail for obstructing another from voting (and the insane are not stopped by compulsory voting anyway).
Also, ballots should travel to aged-care facilities and prisons.

"I also look with dismay at the skewed socio- economic ratios of voters in voluntary voting regimes and definitely don't want to see them in my country"

If that's your issue, then why not pay people for voting?
You will want to make sure however, that those "voters" actually understand what they are doing by the ballot, what elections are about and roughly what each party stands for. You will also want to make extra sure that the number of low-socio-economic voters, who would go to a great length to receive $5, doesn't suddenly multiply beyond their actual numbers in the population!

Funny thing is Csteele, I actually answered that other forum post directly, and your only response was "whatever" and you avoided me for the rest of the thread.
And just like in the last forum, I carefully explained for your benefit what my stance was, and you simply failed to understand because it didn't fit under a cookie-cutter 'conservative' stance or a 'liberal' stance; and anyone who said they were neither were just lying to trick you.

In that one, either you wanted to be nice to refugees and let them in, or you were a big mean conservative who was only angry because they're foreign, they'll take our jobs and we 'didn't know what refugees go through.

In this one, you either want to *force* people to vote, because you think you can *make* people involved in politics, and recording a number of people who lined up on election day looks good in the books and we can pretend this means people are "involved" or "enfranchised" as opposed to getting their name signed off to save 50 bucks- and if you disagree you definitely an authoritarian who was trying to ban people voting.

The reason I come down so hard on you is because your posts are pure hyperbole that of people don't see things YOUR way they must be some kind of exaggerated menace.
THAT, doubled with your inability to understand even a carefully explained post, is why I believe you don't understand these issues.

And we do have forced voting; The fact that the people don't take advantage of a legal loophole and cheat the system by leaving their sheet blank (which would have been the same result had they not been forced to attend), does not equate to being allowed to not vote.
It is like saying that despite the council signs saying littering is a crime, you are still allowed to litter simply because there is nobody around to catch you doing it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Leaving aside the notion that building castles in our little sandpit called OLO should in any way be regarded as elite could we look at your statement;

"Those who would still vote in voluntary elections belong to an elite of people who care somewhat about society and to educate themselves at least a little bit about politics."

Bunkum! Perhaps that might be true of those who were swinging voters but for the rusted on party supporters, who are going to vote for their party come hell or high water, let's not describe any such loft notions in their direction.

As to the question of how far we should take things I think we have the balance about right.

To the idea of paying people. May have merit if done properly. Might I suggest a 0.1% deduction on ones personal tax after voting in an election. Failure to vote would mean losing the deduction until the next election.

Would this measure address your concerns about abused freedoms? It certainly is not a fine as such.

Oh and were you planning on filling out this year's census form?

Dear King Hazza,

And a 'Whatever' was very tempting yet again. Your debating style is just too much hard work for me. I may not be the smartest in the room but I sure as hell ain't the dumbest and if I get frustrated by your method, especially when you get cornered, I don't think I am alone.

I am happy there is a compulsory minimum leaving age for our schools. There may be some very genuine reasons why a person might want to leave early, struggling with learning, required on the family farm, or as a carer, yet I think it stands us in good stead that we insist on it.

I understand that the teachers at my kids school spend 60% of their time on the 20% of the students who are struggling but I'm happy to pay that price.

I feel the same about our voting system. I still want the small minority who don't care at the table. I don't want myself on anyone else judging whether their interest in the political issues of the day disqualifies them from being prompted by the threat of a fine to vote.

Dear Csteele,

"Would this measure address your concerns about abused freedoms?"

Yes, the tax-deduction which you mentioned will address my concerns indeed. I just cannot see how it will address yours, because the socio-economic groups which you referred to do not pay tax.

"Oh and were you planning on filling out this year's census form?"

On becoming an Australian citizen, I agreed to observe the laws of Australia, so if I'll be in Australia at the time of the census (when, by the way? I may be away just then), then I will be filling the census form (that besides the fact that I enjoy filling such papers). Of course I only agreed to observe those laws, not to like them or to abstain from trying to change them in a democratic way.

I can't see however any justifiable reason why you, assuming you are an Australian-born, should have to fill that census.

That's sad Csteele-
The fact that you think I'm trying to be sneaky is actually your own fault- because I'm actually not attempting to be anything but direct. In fact, I'm actually being much more frank, and less prone to try to segue into irrelevant tangents to inflate my points in this discussion than you are.

So your stance is, you feel that people that don't care should be threatened with fines to show up, despite the fact that
A- it violates their rights and
B- worsens the outcome.
As opposed to letting people choose to include, or omit themselves and be responsible for their own actions, ensuring that anyone motivated can do so, and parties can no longer count on apathy to launch them into government and must try harder to demonstrate to more engaged people why they deserve to be elected.

This comment actually reinforces my belief that you can only understand simplified pigeon-holing;
"Perhaps that might be true of those who were swinging voters"
So our national make-up is composed entirely of either 'rusted on party supporters' or 'swinging voters'?
I wouldn't even want to think how you'd simplify the reasoning of voters on the Republic referendum.

Would you like another example?
The fact that you keep bringing up other 'compulsory' demands by government assuming this is a generalized "I don't like compulsory" argument.
Compulsory education requires children learning
Compulsory census requires someone providing government data to improve their understanding of who they are governing.
Compulsory voting simply forces people that don't care to do something they don't want to do for the sake of pretending we are more politically-engaged than we really are.

One of the major problems I have with OLO is that I've always been a sucker for an underdog.
In this instance, I feel a strong compulsion to stick up for Csteele, even though I don't believe in compulsory voting.
The only argument for compulsory voting that I can think of, is that it is -or could be- a valid way to express contempt for the general standard of candidacy.
If people in VV just don't show up to vote, it's just considered apathy.
If people just donkey vote, it's considered stupidity.
But if people show up and refuse to vote for any candidate, it should be viewed as contempt.
This I think would be a strong statement in a CV situation.
Unfortunately Csteele, it would be an even stronger statement in Voluntary voting.
We just need an advertising campaign:
“If every candidate sucks give them a Zero!”
Too long for a bumper sticker?

Grim:"But if people show up and refuse to vote for any candidate, it should be viewed as contempt.
This I think would be a strong statement in a CV situation."

We've had that discussion in the past and I agree with you. I confess here that I didn't vote in the last election because there was simply not a credible alternative Government being offered by either major party and I could see no reason to provide either one of them with any comfort at all, even that of second-last preference, so my protest was to choose not to participate. I took a similar approach to the last State election, when the choice was between a dishonest genderist and an incompetent nincompoop as Premier.

If there had been an option to vote "none of the above, find a new set of candidates", I'd have happil;y participated.

Dear Grim and Antiseptic,

I have no objection to a 'None of the above' box on a ballot paper, even 'A pox on both your houses' or some such refrain. Would this not met your criteria without damaging the integrity of our compulsory voting system?

Btw supporting the underdog should never be a 'problem' particularly if it is me.

Yep, that'd just about do it, I reckon. I'd also like to see a condition such that if "none of the above" received a majority, then a by-election is called, funded by the candidates as part of their nomination fee. If no candidate offers to stand or the fresh election yields the same result, then no representative is elected. I think this could be usefully extended to the Senate as well.

Dear Csteele,

"I have no objection to a 'None of the above' box on a ballot paper, even 'A pox on both your houses' or some such refrain"

That's OK, but I would strongly prefer the ability to vote for a small party (or an independent) without the need to preference one of the major parties to produce a formal vote. In the last elections I had to wear a clothespin on my nose to preference one of them in the second-to-last place.

Dear Grim,

"The only argument for compulsory voting that I can think of, is that it is -or could be- a valid way to express contempt for the general standard of candidacy."

So much for the rise in the price of tomatoes!

Unfortunately, ballot papers do not smell or stain. Also, most of those who are intelligent enough to feel contempt (myself included) do vote: at least it provides a small refund to one of the minor candidates, which should encourage more of them to register.

Dear King Hazza,

"Compulsory education requires children learning"

Everyone is learning all the time (unless they have Alzheimer). Compulsory education is about forcing children to learn the stuff that the government wants them to know (or think), thus molding them into a particular life-style and to become members of the kind of society which the government wants to have. Specifically, the Australian government wants young people to join what it calls "the work-force".

"Compulsory census requires someone providing government data to improve their understanding of who they are governing."

The idea of someone governing another against their will is sickening!

Dear King Hazza,

Jeez mate, you tout the American system as superior to ours then you have the gall to say halting compulsory voting in this country would mean "parties can no longer count on apathy to launch them into government".

So much of the budget of American campaigns and volunteer energy is spent in cajoling people into voting including driving them to polling booths. In other words getting apathetic voters to cast a vote. Effort only directed toward groups they feel would be prone to vote for their candidate, the rest can go jump. Not what I want for my country thanks.

And for the record I have not called you sneaky, my direct quote was "As I suspect this will continue whatever I say I am loathed to spend to much time on attempting to tease out what you may or may not mean because I am unsure you entirely know yourself."

As to your A&B explain what rights are violated and prove to me that the result is worse outcomes.

Finally the frankness and directness you speak of might be in your mind but not in my experience. Yuyutsu and I disagree on this issue but I am able to engage in the arguments they put. Yours do not have that property.

Take the census question I have put to both of you. Yuyutsu has at least been consistent by acknowledging "I can't see however any justifiable reason why you, assuming you are an Australian-born, should have to fill that census."

You however chose to cherry pick by saying "Compulsory census requires someone providing government data to improve their understanding of who they are governing." and thus is acceptable. 

Consistency is a virtue, otherwise you need a decent argument as to the reasons why you are being inconsistent. Yours are inadequate.

It is that inconsistency that makes it so hard to reasonably debate you. Stick to your guns in future. It may not change minds but it will perhaps give the both of us the opportunity to hone arguments to support our respective positions.

Csteele- I thought you'd jump up and down about the American System-

Worse outcome?
Let me demonstrate;
Name as many legislative acts as you can implemented at federal or state level in Australia that reformed or improved anything wrong with the country? Pretty hard isn't it? It's easy to recall several botched schemes, voter bribes, the carbon flip-flops, solar flip-flops, NBN flip-flops and a few privatizations, corrupt business collaborations and streamlining developers past local, legal and safety protection laws.

Now compare the oh-so-horrible America; legalized gay marriage in some states, Obama's medicare reforms, education reforms under both governments etc; it seems that the "big bad horrible democracy that is supposedly worse than Australia" is actually being a lot more pragmatic, don't you think?

And of course you entirely ignored that the Dutch, French, German, Austrian, Swiss, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Danish systems are also voluntary and lo and behold- are also much more active in domestic reforms, international agreements, EU agreements, and actively improvising their Euro from being drained by Greece- a country WITH a compulsory voting system.

And let's not forget New Zealand and Canada.

The fact is, Australia stands alone as a unique example where political inaction is completely standard despite the numerous things needing to be fixed. It has come to such a low point that neither the government nor opposition even actually set any policies during election times anymore- why would you think that is?
And while we're at it- could you explain the difference between the current Liberal and Labor party for me?

And to everyone else, unfortunately, a "None of the Above" vote will not work either. If a majority NOTA resulted in:
1- a re-election until a candidate is elected, it is nothing but a matter of "we will force you to vote until you vote for one of us"
2- the second-most-popular party gets in- it becomes a farce, and the outcome is exactly the same for the NOTA voters had they not have bothered to show up.
3- it actually disqualifies all candidates in the electorate, meaning only that the electorate will not be represented and the remaining electoral candidates will run the government (bringing us back to 2) or will result in government not being able to be formed, and requiring a re-election, (resulting in 1). Remember, Australia doesn't directly elect anyone- all votes go only as far as local representatives (proxies) in a large parliament.

So it becomes a protest- which I'm sorry to say, the government won't really care about as long as they can tactically ride it into government anyway. And it becomes a poor reason to expect people to be dragged to the booth.

And might I ask- what exactly is supposed to happen if NOTA actually resulted in no government at all during the 3 year period?

I would expect all the candidates in that electorate to very quickly revise their policies.
The first step would be to do some serious polling to establish exactly why all candidates were considered unacceptable, and what candidates had to do to get a result.
This is Capitalist Democracy. If your product doesn't sell, either take it off the shelves or change it.
It's interesting that all this discussion about so called 'Boguns' hasn't touched much on causes, so much as effects.
Why don't so many people consider voting to be important?
Most common reason I've heard, is that many people reckon it just doesn't matter who gets in; they're all as bad as each other.
And as Hazza pointed out, what's the principle differences in policy between the majors these days anyway?
Perhaps people would feel more connected, or feel that their representatives were more connected, if the Reps didn't make 5 times more money than the median of the people they are supposed to represent.
I doubt if many council labourers lose a lot of sleep over the latest drop in BHP's share price.

Its a possibility Grim, but it is something that parties will try to get on top of in other ways; the main one is they might simply continue their existing tactics (but invest in even heavier local advertising) and ride on the voters eventual fatigue of being continuously dragged back to the voting booths. Of course, they could simply make an empty promise (which brings us to a second point that once elected, the government has way too little accountability until the next election).

But another problem with NOTA is- by extension of the problem of an uninformed person voting a party on a whim, is that there is a risk that an uninformed voter might vote NOTA and scuttle other parties they didn't even bother to learn about, on a similar whim because they didn't like the two majors and probably the Greens- and made an assumption that the rest are definitely the same.

Hazza, if a majority of people in a majority of electorates vote NOTA it is surely a trigger for a DD and possibly a plebiscite. I think that such a result is extremely unlikely. Most people will still vote for their rusted-on choice, although I could see a possible problem if a party engaged in the shenanigans that saw Gillard supplant Rudd.

Let's face it, too, we have a Presidential-style campaign model these days. Many people would not be able to name even one of their local candidates: they vote on the basis of who leads the party. If neither party cannot choose a public face that is sufficiently acceptable to the majority of voters then they need to revisit their decision.

Furthermore, by making the candidates stump up a large deposit, forfeited in the event of a NOTA vote reaching a certain threshold (say 25% of the electorate), the costs to the taxpayer of holding a by-election can be reduced, possibly even covered completely.

Antisceptic that is actually unlikely

Governments such as those we have now would NEVER, ever, even dream of resorting to DD just to streamline an election; if they were desperate enough to change the system, they would probably terminate NOTA or disqualify the NOTA votes. Or they would simply throw another election with a raft of bogus promises or spookie stories about anarchy if nobody is elected until the result is different.
The idea they would allow the one thing that would kill their gravy train forever and strip away their favorite powers- just because they are placed in a stalemate with the other parties (and still being in the best position to turn it around)- is like saying if I were a used car salesman faced with a client who wasn't buying my car, I would offer him my house and control of my business as added extras.

And the above problems I mentioned would still be there.