Well the homophobes need time to mount their mendacious and divisive campaign hence the delay (consequent approval dropping like a stone and at f terminal velocity) inherent in a very costly non binding plebiscite!? I promise it'll be binding, trust me I'm a politician and never ever backflip.

Simply put, to avoid the delay and millions that can be put to better use, is as simple as voting for the other side of politics, however unpalatable!?
Rhrosty

We could probably do with some changes, but what this bloke suggests needs to be viewed with suspicion. He is a known radical. Getting the help of the ABC and republicans, as he suggests, is a clear indicator of his politics! He wants what he wants, not what would be good for Australia. He claims that the present goings on are driving voters away "in droves". Driving from what to where? As Australia undemocratically forces people to vote, we cannot show our displeasure by not voting.

Dear Ttbn,

The guy may be from the ABC and has his own agenda (perhaps he wants to be a minister), but we can always say 'No' to what we do not like and what he suggests brings us a step closer to democracy. One of the questions of the plebiscite could even be "should people be forced to vote?".

We can already show our displeasure by not voting (or voting informally, drawing something rude on the ballot paper) - but what politician cares about our displeasure anyway? on the contrary, they enjoy to see us suffer!

Yuyutsu,

He has no connection with the ABC that I know of; he is an academic who is the sort the ABC likes to appear on Q&A. It's his belief that the ABC should have something to do with his plans that I fund laughable. Yes, the compulsory voting could be included, but I don't think there is any chance that politicians will slacken their grip on us anytime soon. Remember the call for CIR's. They didn't even bother to respond. I don't think that casting an informal vote by writing rude remarks has any effect, nor would voluntary voting. All politicians are interested in is getting move votes than their opponents, weather all eligible people vote, or only some of them. It's the democratic principle of voluntarism that concerns me. I would still vote.

You don't want to get out of bed and go and vote! And like any juvenile you storm in and take your bile out on the ballot completely inanimate paper!

Well done and worth the wait and any and all agro, that'll show them hey?

Surely the ballot paper will be seriously offended? Nobody else, gives a rats!

But particularly the sitting incumbent!

Dumber than dumb dropkicks who vote informally, should just vote for the incumbent, given in effect that is what they do as they waste one of the prizes/privileges, other folks are dying for in their hundreds of thousands, of democratic freedom!

A real protest vote would place the incumbent last and his/her preferncing partners immediately above!

A real protest should result in some visible NOTICEABLE effect! AND ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES!

Like say a self satisfied self serving fat cat unexpectedly, voted, against all the odds, [like PM Howard,] out of office!

And critical in a fiercely fought close run election, where every seat counts and is critical to the final outcome.

And arguably LOSING the only consequence that actually focuses the mind and the attention of political parties and politicians alike!

With all else just regarded as the unhappy fortunes of the war of ideas?

Last election the informal vote and absenteeism was, I believe, a combination, if memory serves, of some 40% of eligible voters!

Had those folk all got up off of their backsides and placed a formal vote that could have been counted, they could have changed the government; and or, limited intransigent recalcitrant governments to a single term! Or prevented the rise and rise of Mr Abbott?

Now a few single term parliaments is how to cast an effective protest vote, with a real punitive outcome!

Q: how can you tell when a polly is telling pork pies?
A: his/her lips are moving.
Rhrosty.

Good idea Klaas. However I think for changing the constitution voluntary voting would be a lot safer. Something as important as that you really need the considered vote rather than the donkey vote.
Also the reason the constitution “has been so difficult to amend” is simply because most proposed changes over the last century have been about the federal government attempting a power grab and being rightly resisted by the public. Yes, they would certainly like the system in Victoria where to change the state constitution all pollies have to do is pass normal legislation.
Another thing is that a movement to offer these plebiscites / referenda must appear as non-partisan as possible. You’re not really furthering that impression by comments such as “As Convenor of the ABC Friends of the ABC , last year I approached all ABC Board Directors and encouraged them to involve themselves, and the ABC, in more progressive programming!”