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.