Contrary to Greg's assertion, Australian citizens do not face the possibility of jail for "persistently" failing to vote at federal elections (and referendums). Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides for an administrative fine of $20 for failure to vote without a valid and sufficient reason (less than a parking fine), to be paid to the relevant Divisional Returning Officer within a certain time frame. If the offender refuses to pay this fine to the DRO, then the DRO will usually take the matter to a magistrates court for enforcement, and the court can impose a penalty of $50, plus costs, for failure to vote. If the offender refuses to pay the court-ordered penalty, then the court might then order a jail sentence (usually one or two days), or community service, or goods seizure, depending on the local jurisdiction. Occasionally, the odd non-voter chooses to go to jail rather than pay the fine or penalty, in order to make a political point about compulsory voting (and wallow in the media attention that follows). However, there is no evidence to date that the courts take into account "persistent" failure to vote in making such orders. Grace Pettigrew.

voting with preferences makes a mathamatical mockery of democracy.
Just like in keno the gambling game.This system has been devised to give the two major parties an unfair advantage which by no account is democratic.

I had a good friend killed in an auto accident because he had to go out to vote.Compulsary voting cost him his life,does one think that this system will give his daughter compensation.

As the one form of political organization designed to accord ‘power to the people’, democracy grants ordinary citizens the greatest opportunity of influencing public decisions, yet some like Maddox argue there is no satisfactory definition of democracy since the term is the paradigm case of the ‘essentially contested concept’ (Maddox, 1996).

For the ancient Greeks, government is as much the concern of those who are ruled as of those who do the governing. Therefore a democratic system should place the means of rule at the disposal of those who would otherwise be expected only to be the governed (Maddox, 1996). Democracy for Maddox is an open political system, set within a pluralist society and implies a competition for power among would-be rulers and a struggle on the part of the ruled to keep their rulers in check. It is however highly contestable whether forcing people to vote to maintain 'people power' is democratic!

Hirst perhaps best encapsulates Australian democracy when he argues its distinctiveness on the basis that there has been for example, strong opposition to military conscription but not to compulsory voting, whereas Australian egalitarianism has not led to a universal welfare system nor prohibited the growth of private schools (J. Hirst, 2002). He also argues that politicians have been held in contempt, but governments have been competent and efficient, people have been scornful of British snobbishness but loyal to a British monarch and suggests that whilst there are no grand statements about Australian democracy, the values that underpin it flourish in Australian society at large (J. Hirst, 2002).

In the Australian situation, where for example I have witnessed local council voter turnouts of 10% in the days of non-compulsory voting, I shudder to think about how minority groups might secure power and rule against the wishes of an apathetic majority in a non-compulsory voting regime.
"TILES"

Compulsory voting is essential for a democracy - especially one run on a mandate-system.
Barns - for all his political enlightenment; even more ironic given that he was involved with the Republican push - should know very well that the US is not a democracy - it is a republic. More so, it is a limited constitutional republic.
A limited constitutional republic, by definition AND (in the US's case)practice has the government constrained behind separated tiers of goverment and transparency at all levels, as well as a media that is free to inquire AND publish as it sees fit.
This type of political system is, of course, anathema to those who sponge off the Westminster political process, least of all our venerable politicians.
The form of democracy that we so loudly laud, relies on a 'majority rules' response to allow the politicians to push through what they deem relevant to their mandate.
Having the voting input compulsory just makes the system, naturally, skewed since you have many young people(who really have no idea about the REAL issues-only those emotive issues that are plugged by the media; a media that is produced by really only two sources)as well as others who really aren't interested in the process, put their 2 cents worth in which can make or break an election result.
Then again, the first rule of journalism: never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Greg Barns has got it wrong on the history and the contemporary implications. Compulsory voting was introduced in 1924 after both majors got a shock in the 1923 federal election when a number of independent candidates polled very well. These were loosely co-ordinated in a group called the Australian Guild of Political Freelances, founded by Professor Meredith Atkinson. Atkinson's group was concerned about the rise of the party system and its implications for parliament and political participation. Cynicism about the democratic process was strong in this period, similar in many respects to the current period.

When both majors got a shock in the 1923 federal election, they colluded to introduce compulsory voting, which "dealt with" the cynicism issue, and made electoral outcomes much more predictable, particularly in so-called "safe" Liberal and Labor seats. Thereafter, the majors had no fear of losing to an independent in these safe seats - for the next three generations.

The tyranny of compulsory voting today remains its implications for the relationship between citizens and the party system. Both major parties want to be able to "manage" our democracy - controlling parliament and electoral processes by working the "either them or us" dynamic to their favour.

For example, in the 1992 state election in Victoria, pre-election opinion polls showed support for independents and third parties to be at an unprecedented level of around 28% (ALP 22% and the Libs 50%). Once the election was called, the Libs campaigned against an independent vote (equating it to a Labor vote), and Labor did the same (equating it to a wasted vote). By demonising each other for their own survival, the majors held off the independent challenge. Labor and Liberal need each other more than they need the electorate, and have done since 1924.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au