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

Two things...

First, I wonder if those figures on Australia as to how many people turned up to vote includes postal votes and all other types of votes which don't require you turning up on election day.

Second, perhaps the lower house should introduce the ease of voting of the upper house... instead of listing my preferences I can number a party with 1 and have that party determine my preferences. If I can vote 1 above the line in the senate for party x, and have it give preferences along what it bargained with parties u,v,y and z, why not have the option of doing the same in the lower house?

I would just like to make the point that voting is not compulsory in Australia. You have the option, of course, of doing absolutely nothing and paying a fine, or alternatively, going to a polling booth and having your name crossed off then screwing up the paperwork and throwing it in the bin. But it is better to write some meaningful statement across the candidates names so that the paper cannot be used by a party hack to mark up an additional vote. I do this occasionally when all parties on offer fail my expectations. It is called an invalid or informal vote. This is often excused away as a vote from someone who has poor English. I say it is quite the opposite.

I think that registration on the electoral roll should be compulsory, but voting should not be. I really don't see why the coerced votes of people who have no real interest in how the country is managed should have the same value as the votes of those who really wish to express an opinion.

(Note: I am not saying that all informal votes come into this category. I would actually quite like to see how many people would cast informal votes deliberately, even if not required to vote.)

I am also in favour of optional preferential voting, a situation that varies from state to state.

Very good paper.

I think a distinction should be made between compulsory voting and compulsory attendance at the voting booth.

People should be freely able to exercise their right to not vote.

But I don't think it is unreasonable to require people to get off their backsides and go to the booth to do so.

So an additional square should be added to all voting papers: "None of the above".

If you want to express your disgust for the political process go along and tick the box!

Have readers taken the time to wonder why Australia is about the only 'democracy' to inflict compulsory voting on its people? Almost all countries which enforce compulsory voting are single party (communist) States which use the voting system to claim legitimacy for their rule.
Australia is no different, except that we are effectively forced to 'choose' between two candidates who invariably represent the major parties. (As both parties are dependent on funding from the same wealthy individuals and non-voting corporations, foundations, trusts etc. who usurp our representation in Parliament, the choice is mainly illusory.)
If electors wish to vote for a minor candidate, they can only do so if they accept their vote for that candidate will be perverted into a vote for one of the major party candidates. The only option is to vote informally, which means the elector is effectively disenfranchised.
Few Australians understand what happens to their vote if their first preference is eliminated during the count. Even fewer realise their vote can be conferred on any candidate standing in the election, including the last 'preference'. The factor which determines which candidate is accorded with the elector's vote is the relative number of votes cast by other electors.
Thus the 'preferential' voting system makes a mockery of the very concept of voting for anything. If you were asked to choose your favourite film from a list, and you chose, say, "Gone with the Wind", under the preferential voting system you could find your choice perverted to "Crocodile Dundee" or "Debbie Does Dallas". Would you remain so impassive about such misrepresentation?
Is it any wonder then that our politicians are fearful that a sizable percentage of the electorate will realise the utter futility of voting for minor candidates, and destroy their claims for legitimacy.

What are the elections for?
- democracy
What is democracy for?
- to secure individual's freedoms

Then what kind of an example it is when a democracy violates its citizens' personal freedom, ordering them where to go on a certain date?

We are not talking about terrorists that threaten society, but of innocent people who prefer to stay at home and harm no one: infringing their personal freedom demonstrates that for the Australian politicians, "democracy" is just an empty slogan. But what is worse is that 71% of Australians do not care about it either.

For Terje's benefit, a true democracy requires every citizen to be responsible for deciding the State or Nations Government, it give the population of ownership, unknown in "so called" democratic Nations such as the USA where the saying "vote, it won't make any difference, but vote anyway" is an urban myth, and over time, people simply don't vote. George.W.Bush was elected with a voter turnout of 50% last time, up from the normal 30%, do you honestly believe that a government should be elected of 25% of the country plus 1. Leaving 75% unrepresented, is that your democtacy, if so heaven help us if you and your evil ideas ever make it to law.

Why - in the case presented by SHONGA, 75% of the citizens are happily represented: the 25.0001% who care plus the 50% who do not care: that leaves many more winners :-)

If those 50% are ordered to vote against their will, we have only 25% happily represented and meaningless poll-results because they were 100% diluted by random votes (perhaps favouring the candidate who happens to be on the top of the list).

Yuyutsu, you obviously did not read my post properly, Along with the rights in a democracy there are also responsibilities, one of which is to cast a vote. This may come as an obscure theory to some "rights and responsibilities" however is is never the less true. It is the responsibility of every eligable citizen to vote, some people like to opt out of their responsibilities, on this page. Bush represents the minority who elected him, that's all, people in the USA have been brainwashed into thinking their vote does not count, so they don't bother excersising it. For demoracy to flourish it needs to be accompanied by responsibility. I hope you can understand that Yuyutsu, I can't make it any simpler.

What is responsibility?

Someone for whom the election results might mean life or death will certainly vote - but what about the one for whom who wins the elections does not make any significant difference?

What is more responsible for such a person:

1. to cast a vote based on random/petty differences:
- "this candidate appears first on the list"
- "this candidate's name is more appealing"
- "this candidate's voice sounds better"
- "if I vote for her, I will end up with 50c/week more in my pocket"
- "I don't really know why, but my family has always voted for this party"

or

2. abstain from voting and allow the vote to be decided by those for whom the results really matter.

I believe that choice #2 is more responsible and kind to others: a "pass" vote is as valid, responsible and representing as a positive one.