The author is right in pointing out that one person voting or not will make no difference. However most people are civic minded and such logic does not apply. That is why I think voting (and lots of other things) should NOT be compulsory. We should let civic society play a bigger role in our lives and the government should play a much smaller role. In my opinion forcing people to do stuff is often counter productive even though it is quite fashionable.

A low voter turnout could be a sign of a healthy society. It may mean that people do not expect the government (via coersion) to solve their problems. It may mean that people rely on personal enterprise and community to get things done. Why wouldn't this cultural state of affairs be something to celebrate. It would mean that we were mostly interested in talking to eachother rather than legislating eachother

A good comment from Corrinne Grant the other day, made me think about the benefits of compulsory voting: At least if everyone has to vote, the Government has to do its best to be fair to everyone, and not neglect segments of the population who are known to not vote.

Afterall, we already have pork-barelling, how bad would it be if they knew they didn't need to worry about certain areas, as they will never end up voting them in or out?

Polls have to be taken with a grain of salt. But, say that 71% of voters did want to continue with the undemocratic indignity of compulsory voting at the time of the poll referred to (27/9/05), 87% said that they probably would vote if voting was not compulsory. So why do they need to be compelled? Perhaps they asked themselves the question: am I really so stupid that I have to be forced to turn up at a polling booth to exercise my democratic right to have a say in the running of the country? Or decline to vote if I so wish?

The tired old one about not really being forced to vote, just forced to cut into your Saturday to have your name marked off the roll, is nonsense. Politicians don’t care whether or not you actually cast a formal vote, as long as they get the majority of the formal votes cast. They are just so keen to promote their ‘democratic’ credentials once every three of fours years (and act undemocratically in between) that they undemocratically force you to go to a polling booth to make it look as though you have had every chance to have your say. You don’t even have the chance to say, “Stuff the lot of you”, by leaving your name on the roll they check without a pencil line drawn through it.

Please note that the PM doesn’t personally hold with fining people for not voting – and wonder why.

I don't think that respondents have a sufficiently cynical view of the Australian electoral system when they write about compulsory voting. Compulsory voting helps the party that happens to be in power, whichever it is. The main reason for this is that no matter how hard they try, a party cannot help occasionally hurting some of its core supporters. They are too dedicated to the party to vote for the opposition, but they could stay at home. The other reason why compulsory voting will stay is that electoral funding for each party is based on its first preference vote. Each time I vote for the Senate I vote in such a way that the party I prefer does NOT receive the electoral funding. This is completely legal, and if I have time I ring in when the Chief Electoral Officer is on the air to spell out the system and have him confirm that it is legal and will have the desired effect. What I would like to see happen would be compulsory attendance at the booth, where you would be asked "Do you wish to vote". It is, of course, illegal to advocate an informal vote, but judging from the performance of all governments lately I would expect it to increase sharply at the next elections.

I am in favour of compulsory voting once you have enrolled. What irks me is the system of preferential voting which dictates that one must place a number of preference in every square.
I am in favour of optional preference voting where I give a preference to those Candidates I support and give no preference to those Candidates who are not worth voting for.
I look forward to such a change

Peter Tucker's paper is refreshingly objective. For the record I support the principle of compulsory voting, a viewpoint which the paper endorses.
An important negative to the arguments of those who support voluntary voting is the probability ( and reality in some countries including England) of potential voters being encouraged to vote, and to vote in a particular manner, by being offered transport to the polling booth with a 'present' provided along the way.

Speaking particularly about Australia, I suggest that one policy related to voting which would gain majority support would be legislation which bans Party official from thrusting ' how to vote' papers into the faces of anyone approaching the polling booth.
This practice makes the voting experience an unpleasant experience, probably creates more informal votes, and is a waste of paper.
Surely a better system would be to have each cubicle in a booth display the 'how to vote' guidance of each canditate.
Mr Prime Minister, make this a policy and you will have the thanks of most Australian (Federal) voters.

Gadfly