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