I can see why this chap is a youth reporter! I agree wholeheartedly with what he has said and some phrases in particular struck me as being terribly close to the truth:

"Unburdened by mortgages and kids, the “youth voice” is met with deafening silence or indignation when it deigns to interject with the question, “How can something morally wrong be economically right?”"

I have a big fat mortgage, 2 kids in child care, and my wife and I work long hours to make ends meet, but I can't help but being horrified that our politicians have turned the Australia I chose to become a naturalised citizien of 6 years ago from a country aiming to reconcile our past with our future, provide the best possible society for everyone, and fit into our region into one where we pick on the weak, harrass the unfortunate, and harangue dissent.

If the expression "It's unaustralian to ..." gets misused by pollies one more time I just want to get up and punch them on the nose. (False) patriotism is last refuge of the scoundrel.

The second phrase that caught my attention was "To young people such as myself, the two major parties locked in their seemingly endless arm-wrestle for electoral supremacy, offer little more than a choice between Fruit Loops and Coco Pops - both saccharine, hollow in the middle and of dubious nutritional value. You wouldn’t want to eat them every day if you expected to “grow up big and strong,” and neither will Australia."

How true. And what a pity the only possible choices, the Democrats and the Greens are really currently not choices at all...

I consider myself a (relatively!) young australian, and I want to make a difference. I think there are areas in which the youth and other voices can be heard and that may be the senate or it may be in other non-government organisations. Either way, it is not really acceptable to say "the situation is terrible, it's so terrible there is nothing I can do", the situation demands action.

Disengagement lets them win, and none of them deserve to win.

Ian

Great essay Tim. But one thing you might keep in mind. You have parents and perhaps grandparents who are also voters. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that these people do not have your interests at heart, as well as their own, when they cast their votes. As a grandmother I can tell you that I worry about both generations that follow me, from a very personal point of view, and sometimes might cast my vote, or voice my protests, more in line with their interests than my own. Politicians really miss the point when they target me solely as an older voter, and market their policies only at my own self-interest, as defined by market research, demographic analysis and focus groups. Blunt instruments these, and they diminish us all.

The best way for the youth to change the system is to be part of the system, not turn away from it.

There is no reason, in theory, why a youth party could not win seats in the senate if they chose to run, but there is no guarantee all young people would vote for the party.

The problem is young people don't consider themselves one solid group.
I am young (24) but I have two children and a mortgage. I don't see myself as young first and foremost.
I see myself as a husband, a father, a journalist, a big brother and then maybe a young person.

I am different from a young person who is training to be a doctor, owns a cat, catches the train to work everyday.

Youth is not a political force because it is nowhere near a homogenised group.

Perhaps one of the only things that would unite them is what they want for the future - a majority of them will see themselves getting married, having children and buying a house.

The youth period of your life may only last 10 years (18-28, below that you can't vote)whereas the middle section of your life lasts probably thirty years (your mortgage/family life).

And most people have a different outlook on life when they are 45 to when they were 25.

If you go back further and get the opinions of 10 year-olds they may just want those coco pops and fruit loops you mentioned in the article.

What was it churchill said, something about voting with your heart when you are young and head when you are old.

An ageing population shows we are older for a much longer period of our life and that's the age bracket the pollies pitch to.

I'm sure Tim's attitudes will be different in a couple of decades time.

keep up the good work, though

t.u.s.

I must add to the applause that Tim is getting. The sad reality is we get the Polly’s we ask for. Most Australians don't unfortunately put a lot of thought into how they vote. Even less get involved in politics. Most people I talk to say all pollys are the same which in the most part true. The two party system gives stability but it is incapable of truly representing the populace.

Kenny, it does bring stability as well as the ability to get things done reasonably quickly.
a ten-party system would spend a lot of time compromising (not a bad thing in itself) and could easily get bogged down and nothing would get done.

Exactly, Just take NZ or Italy for instance each have got many parties in the parliament. So while most Italians can find a polly who closely reflects their pov also find their had many governments and like NZ can't get anything but the most basic motions through the houses. I think the best the we could do is allow a bit more open decent within each party with polly’s being able to rep their electorate without fear.

I think most members do represent the interests of their electorate - the ones which are guilty of not doing it the most would be ministers and shadow ministers.

Our local member here is Coalition (national) and she is very good. fought pretty hard for local things and has been prepared to pipe up on things like telstra.

anyway. There will be dissent come July when the coalition gets control of the senate because a few backbenchers will be wanting certain things. look at the talk already about tax reform etc.

t.u.s

More applause from this corner. But Tim, don't be fooled by the "yes, but you'll understand it better when you grow up" brigade. After all, they are the people who have for the past few decades actively sanctioned the self-serving and functionally dishonest political system we now endure, a system that is everything you accuse it of, and more.

The most obvious example in the self-serving category is the way in which they remunerate themselves, in salary, superannuation and "expenses", awarded with shameless disregard of any responsibility to the taxpayer. It is no wonder that they stand idly by while the so-called captains of industry perform the same trick with their shareholders' money.

The functional dishonesty is inherent within any system that, while purporting to be based upon "free choice", is anything but. In much the same way that Microsoft is able to extort a tax on every PC as a result of its operating system monopoly, our system has allowed the establishment of a self-perpetuating electoral monopoly. Choice is largely illusory, thanks - as you point out - to the fact that policies are regarded as dangerous to, rather than an essential ingredient of, any political campaign.

Underpinning this shaky edifice is the totalitarian concept of the compulsory vote. Voting should be a right in a democracy, not a tool for political manipulation. Withholding that vote should be an equal right, indicating - not the abdication of a responsibility, as we would be told - but that quite frankly, there is nothing there worth voting for.

But it would be a crazy loon of a politician who would risk his power, gold travel card and massive superannuation on such a platform, so don't hold your breath. Disengaging becomes the intellectually honest choice in these circumstances.

Fair point Pericles but why is it that the Coalition has floated the idea of voluntary voting.
Probably because it would be the leftist elites who would exercise their right to withhold their vote and the libs would win even easier.
t.u.s

>>why is it that the Coalition has floated the idea of voluntary voting.<<

Do you have recent examples t.u.s.? I have seen evidence of the idea being floated in South Australia a while back, but the most recent reference I could find - not that the search was particularly exhaustive - was a resolution from the 2003 State Council of the Victorian Liberal Party: "That this State Council calls on the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, and the Victorian Parliamentary Liberal Party, when in Government, to implement non-compulsory voting in all future elections in all tiers of government."

The recorded comment against the motion was "Undebated. Strong Opposition"

I certainly cannot recall a serious debate on the topic in the past twentyfive years. In fact, every time I have brought up the topic, I have been told that such thinking is un-Australian, the catch-all accusation designed to close any discussion.

But I have noticed a number of commentators echo your points - that Howard would like to introduce non-compulsory voting, and that this would disadvantage the non-Liberal vote. If you have any primary sources (i.e. not just an opinion) I'd appreciate it if you could point them out.

l think that this article proceeds on the basis of a couple of flawed concepts.

1. Youth is a distinct group whose 'issues' must be addressed.
Youth is a relative concept. 40 looks youthful to a 70 year old. Youth is ephemeral... here today, gone tomorrow. Youth passes. Building a political movement on that ground seems a bit shakey. It is also yet another division or wedge or difference. We are talking politics so l guess its natural to stroke the differences.

2. Youth has a markedly different set of concerns.
They are people like everyone else and l doubt that their concerns are fundamentally different. They too get older. Do they loose their youthful concerns with each passing year? Are 'youth' issues not relevant to all that live in the same society inhabited by youth? Are parents disinterested in the issues of youth? Are youth not interested in issues that effect older folks given that each passing year moves them away from youth and toward 'un-youth?'

2. Voting makes a difference and yields better outcomes.
My understanding is that Australia is one of only two democratic countries in the world that has compulsory voting. Notwithstanding the apparent irony of enforced democtratic participation, all those other democratic nations that allow a basic choice to vote, or not, do not seem to be doing any worse than Australia. Most people in the world just get on with building productive and meaningful lives, notwithstanding the nature of governance. There is a school of thought that says that compulsory voting is a smoke screen or sham for rationalising political machinations by proselytizing an invented 'mandate.'

There are some interesting things about voting. Left and right voters are quite evenly matched. They effectively cancel each other out. They vote the same way for their whole lives... along ideological lines. This suggests that the issues are of no concern to voters. That voters do not vote with their minds but rather their hearts. The majority of us vote the way our parents do. Around 10% of voters swing from one party to the other. An opposite vote in a blue ribbon seat is a practically 'wasted' voted. A swinging voter who resides in a blue ribbon seat is a wasted vote. It is the swinging voters in swinging/marginal electorates that determine elections. Hence the pork barrelling and generalised pandering to these electorates during election campaigns. Therefore the argument that we are in fact beholden to a relative few.

The essence of politics is power and the essence of governance is control. l suspect that many people have a fundamental problem with the negative undertones of these realities. That may be a fundamental contributer to voter lethargy. For me, politics is a huge distraction. It saps mental energy and keeps me off balance. l dont' like that. l prefer to determine the things in my life over which l have direct influence and build a positive direction on that basis. The narrowly constrained perception and divisive nature of political punditry seems to be influentually destructive. It constantly forments discontent. l suspect that the 'youth' do not want to embrace the inherent negativity and divisiveness of politics. They want to get on with starting their lives rather than being tainted and discouraged by a lanscape of insistent discord.

Rather than 'getting more (young) people interested in politics' why not reject the abdication of personal resonsibilty by laying it off onto politicians and governments and actually get involved in society. Is that not the place where differences are actually made. Rather than numbering boxes every few years? Paraphrasing an unrecollected individual... 'politics is the process by which we avoid involving ourselves in matters that rightly concern us.

I think you misrepresent Mr Martyn's position a little. I did not read into it that he considered "[youth to be] a distinct group whose 'issues' must be addressed". In fact, I thought he stepped around the claim admirably, by referring only to "young people", and how they were unimpressed by the example set by their elders. I certainly didn't see any attempt to suggest they should be mobilized as a political force, instead describing their tendency to disengage.

On the same basis, I didn't read into it any suggestion that youth has a different set of concerns. His remarks were aimed at the perversion of the process that takes the political agenda out of reach of ordinary people, and as such in may places he did not need to add the word "young" before the word "Australian" at all.

Your points are well made without these distractions. I do take issue though with the suggestion that we all just let the politicians get on with it, which is what I understood from your remark "..why not reject the abdication of personal resonsibilty by laying it off onto politicians and governments and actually get involved in society. Is that not the place where differences are actually made. Rather than numbering boxes every few years?" If the government didn't take so much of my hard-earned wages in conducting their charade, I'd probably agree, but as it is they leave me with no surplus to use in direct unilateral action.

There is still a fundamental issue unresolved here, with or wothout compulsory voting: what, exactly, is the role of an Australian Government in the 21st Century? And its corollary, what are we prepared to allow them to spend our money on, and what are we prepared to pay for ourselves. Schools? Hospitals? Roads? Defence? Big Business? Small Business? Right now, the movement is inexorably towards the outsourcing of as much as possible, which will not have escaped the notice of our young citizens. They can be forgiven for wondering what exactly their vote will produce, change or impact.

Australia does have compulsory voting, but it may create elections that are less prone to rorting. In countries such as the US, there can be a large % of voters that often don’t bother to vote in some electorates. These voters become like undecided or “swinging” voters, so political parties can begin to bribe or pork-barrel to these voters. Politicians such as LBJ even used standover type tactics (sometimes employing people who could be regarded as gangsters) to get these swinging voters to vote for him at crucial elections, where a few hundred votes could make all the difference.

So compulsory voting may actually limit (but of course not completely exclude) vote bribery.

I keep thinking of the concept of removing political parties from the senate, and just having independents in the senate. The senate is supposed to be the house of review, or “house of conscience”. But usually if I vote for a senator, I end up voting for a political party also, which I may not want to do.

So take out political parties from the senate, and have only independents who vote according to their moral conscience, not according to party politics. This might help get some morality back into politics, and increase the public’s confidence in government. This would be particularly the case for younger voters, who often seem cynical about most things to start with.

Young Australians are, by and large, familiar with the political process; they just do not want to be part of it.

An aspiring young Australian born in the 80's would by now have had the chance to vote a few times.Depending upon timing they may have voted in a variety of local, state or federal contests. They would now be aware that their role is marginal to the entire process. They are like the rest of us a means to some ones else's politic end, or beginning, if you get my drift. We are presented with a narrow band of issues an increasingly narrow body of players present to us as the issues of the times. It is that small menu of options we praise as our access to freedomof choice. They however, being new to the process, haven't developed the middle aged habit of voting for the sake of it. They know that now more than ever voting is a lost cause and have elected to leave the process alone.

There is no longer any critical analysis within the politcal system. Parliament is no longer a forum to debate ideas that might advance Australia fair, far or anywhere; it is a forum to reinforce old prejudices, score politcal points in an attempt to shore up ones own position. It is a public pissing contest of the worst order. Confronted with unaffordable housing, limited and expensive post secodary educational opportunites young Australians are more likely to aspire to setting up a bar in Mexico than become part of a process that has disenfranchised them from the political process than embrace it.

Take for example the recent spray delivered to Andrew Demetriou by Sophie Panapolous in Parliament recently. Andrew publically went on the record as a second generation Greek Asutralian stating things could be better; the inference could be drawn that he was critical of the government in spite of his attempts to be even handed. Sophie went on the attack. She attempted to discredit Demetriou with reference to his failure to attend a football final and some information about rising ticket prices for AFL games; she went on to label him as an "elite". This wasnt spontaneous. It was planned. it was researched. It was a premeditated attack from a position of relative comfort. Was it an act of citizenship? Did it contribute to the exchaneg of ideas? Nope. It simply defended the status quo. It offered nothing to the political process. Iraise this only to highlight the fact people are aware of this monumental abuse of position. The "up town girl" is not alone in this nonsense masquerading as political process; put that kind pf posturing with the folly that is question time, galvanised deniabiltiy about every wrong doing of government, lies in government and universal moral cowardice and you can understand why young people walk away in droves.

Tim Martyn is concerned about the lack of engagement by young people in electoral politics and pointed to the responsibility that young people have to vote in a system that appears to ignore their needs and interests. The Usual Suspect suggested that the best way for the young to change the system is to engage and not turn away. Timkins, who for once is not banging on about evil women, introduces the very respectable argument that compulsory voting reduces the potential for corruption that is seen in other countries where huge amounts of money are expended in just "turning out the vote".

On the other hand, Pericles regards compulsory voting as "totalitarian" and a "tool for political manipulation". Pericles also says that he has not seen any serious debate on the topic of compulsory voting in the last 25 years, and asks for evidence that the Coalition has floated the idea of voluntary voting in recent years.

Compulsory voting was introduced for federal elections in Australian in 1924 (followed soon after by every State and later the Territories) and has been consistently supported by a large majority of the voting population since that time (around 75%), in polls that are conducted after the conduct of every federal election.

Australia is one of 19 other countries that have compulsory voting, who regard it as a normal civic responsibility like, for example, jury duty. In re-writing its constitution recently, Fiji introduced compulsory voting similar to the Australian model. However, it is unlikely that any of the major western democracies like the USA, the UK or Canada could now introduce compulsory voting, because it would have difficulty passing public debate on the "free choice" test that Pericles mentions (similar in nature to the Australia Card debate). But that does not mean to say that many senior government officials and political commentators in these countries would not privately wish for its introduction given the increasingly huge amounts of money (and corruption) that are expended just persuading people to vote, money that might be better expended in arguing the political issues on the hustings.

The two major political parties in this country are locked into support for compulsory voting because they are smart enough to know that voluntary voting would require them to massively increase their electoral spending in order to get the voters to the polling booths. At present the electoral commission expends limited public funds in reminding voters of their legal obligation to vote, in maintaining the electoral rolls, in educating the young, aboriginals, immigrants, the disabled etc on how to enrol and vote, and in ensuring that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, has access to the vote.

With voluntary voting, there would be no need for a continuous roll because there would be no obligations to enforce, the young and other marginal voters would drop off the radar electorally, political party workers would find their workload unsupportable in the immediate term, and the political parties would have to go cap in hand to vested interests to massively increase their party coffers. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

Whilst compulsory voting is not usually debated on the floor of the parliament, except occasionally when an electoral bill is raised, it is debated at length in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which convenes after every federal election. There are a few Liberals from the hard libertarian right of the party (eg Senators Minchin and Abetz), who see some advantage in volutary voting, and will put the case forcibly and frequently in this forum when the opportunity arises.

However, it would be very naive to believe that this debate is really about "free choice" or "liberalism". It is more about partisan electoral advantage. These hard men of the right are convinced that the introduction of voluntary voting will benefit the conservatives electorally, because if given the choice, it is more likely that the young who have never voted before, aboriginals in remote areas who find it difficult to cast a vote at the best of times, and immigrants who are not well versed in civics, will drop out of the system. The assumption is that these people generally vote left, so by removing them from the system, the conservatives will be advantaged electorally. This is the theory, but many in the Liberal Party do not agree, so at the moment it is all just talk.

When challenged directly by journalists, whenever the issue of compulsory voting surfaces in the public arena, Howard will say he supports it, because most of his party does. But he has remarked in the past that he understands why some people would oppose it. This is classic Howard wedge politics, and will likely surface again when he takes control of the Senate in July. There is an electoral bill waiting to be re-introduced that would close the rolls early when an election is called, which will have the effect of making it harder to enrol and vote for all those apparently "left" voters such as the young and other marginal voters. This will sail through the parliament unless some liberals with a conscience, such as Petro Georgiou cross the floor. And it is possible that compulsory voting will surface for debate at the same time, and could be dealt the death knell, after 85 years of providing us with a system that ensures that everyone votes, regardless of their circumstances.

Tim Martyn, I suggest you keep a watching brief on the fate of this electoral bill post July as it is likely to have an unprecedented impact on the ability of young people to engage in our electoral system. (For further information contact the Australian Electoral Commission, or consult their website, in particular the AEC Electoral Backgrounder No 8 "Compulsory Voting".)

Excellent post Grace

The vast majority of countries do not have compulsory voting. For the most part, one does not see countries of a similar social, economic and political position to Australia, offering a significantly and materially detrimental existence for its people. Many just get on with their lives and see politics as distraction. Not wanting their lives defined by the perpetual discontent, concerns and issues.

It is conceivable that compulsory voting is a charade that rationalises an alleged mandate. That may be the most important motivation that politicians have for keeping it... maintaining the facade of participation and self determination.

On a practical note, if you pay the paltry fine, you never need enrol nor vote. During election night coverage, they used to display the 'informal' vote. That sizeable minority that deliberately invalidates their ballot. They don't display that number any more. Last time l saw the percentage displayed it was nearly 10%. l suspect it is much higher than that now and is an embarrasment, hence its ommission. Interestingly, the previously reported donkey vote was round 10%, being around 1/5th of what is required to form government. Suspecting that this number may be much higher today, it suggests that we are already a nation of voluntary voters. Therefore a legal change would merely reflect an existing social trend. Let's see how long it takes the crystal ball gazing politicians to predict the past and catch up to community realities.

If this country ever removes the absurdly ironic compulsory participation in democracy, that is a day l will celebrate as an anniversary, to my grave. Then again, l am a bit of an idealistic dreamer.

Standard post from trade215 lots of words little said. What is said is wrong. http://vtr.aec.gov.au/NationalTotal-12246.htm

Trade215, you say that "compulsory voting is a charade that rationalises an alleged mandate". You would prefer that we have voluntary voting so that we don't have to worry about any mandate at all and governments can just get on and do whatever they like. This is OK with you, because you think nobody really cares anyway.

You also say, "during election night coverage, they used to display the 'informal' vote. That sizeable minority that deliberately invalidates their ballot. They don't display that number any more... I suspect it is much higher than that now and is an embarrasment..".

As Kenny rightly points out, this is utter rubbish. If you care to follow his link you will find the informal voting rate at every federal election stretching back for years, and you will also find copious research papers and statistical analyses on the subject. The usual informal figure is around 5% of the national vote, but there was a small increase last election which is still under analysis.

You might also discover that there is no evidence that the majority of informal voters "deliberately invalidate their ballot". Most informal voting comes from mistakes on the ballot paper, in marking a full preferential vote. There are any number of reasons for this. High informal rates are usually recorded in non-english speaking areas, or amongst the elderly, for example.

Finally, you say this allegedly high informal voting rate "suggests that we are already a nation of voluntary voters" Er, no, for reasons referred to above. In fact, polling after every federal election shows a very high rate of support for compulsory voting, as mentioned in my previous posting.

Cheers Kenny for the homily to the ad hominem. Good stuff.

Grace, government does what it wants anyway, so yes that will do as a reason for voluntary voting.

l suspect that a lot more people than we care to admit have never enrolled to vote.

'In fact, polling after every federal election shows a very high rate of support for compulsory voting, as mentioned in my previous posting.'
Funny that... considering voting is compulsory.

As for the dismissal that what l say is rubbish, rather than logically addressing the arguemntative substance... its easier to dismiss. Agreed on that point Grace. So here is my surrender to the easy road of dismissal... if you think l speak rubbish then just ignore me. No need to engage the garbage man if you think he stinks.

Afterall, thinking hurts.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php

ps. to Grace and Kenny... l don't have much patience for name calling dismissals and judgemental invective. Why don't we just ignore each other? All the best.