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.