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.