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.