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?