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