"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.