This un-Australian article is dodgy.

There is no proof that our compulsary voting system causes currupt politicians or causes the two party system to predominate, more than if we didn't have a compulsary voting system.

If anything, the preferential system favours the minor parties as people cannot ignore them when they are giving preferences. Those who would not normally vote usually give protest votes, rarely to the major parties. The NZ or German preferential systems would be even more generous to the minor parties.

In the US and the UK, voting is more of a priveledge than a right. Here it is a responsibility. It is also compulsary to pay taxes: our responsibility.

Australia's compulsary voting system is our well tested secure way to make sure that our voting rights are upheld. How many Australians would rather go to the football? Our founders knew our culture well.

Under current industrial relations, it can more be difficult for employees to find time to vote. This is not good for democracy.

When there's no obligation, you cannot insist on the time. Now that we have a casualised employment base, few can plan ahead to make postal votes. Who is that organised? At the moment, most employers at least understand that it is a legal obligation for their employees to vote. It is an obligation, not a priveledge and that is a big difference.

Two things we invented in Australia:

1. The secret ballot (QLD). It is now standard around the world.
2. Compulsary voting (SA). Other countries want to import it for good reasons. It works.

Australia has no interest in "exporting" its voting system. If other countries choose our voting system, then that is their choice.

The writer is barking up the wrong tram.

It is not our complsary voting system that causes the strength of a two party parliament. The concept that we want to "push" our voting system as an export is equally ridiculous.

How on earth did this writer manage to pass year 10 at High School?

An expert at what?

“To my mind the best solution is to have optional preferential voting.”

YES, travellingnorth!

This is perhaps the biggest factor in this debate… and something that the author fails to even mention.

Our disgustingly antidemocratic compulsory preferential (exhaustive preferential or two-party-preferred) voting system has facilitated the two-peas-in-a-pod political setup and the suppression of minor parties.

How can we possibly condone a voting system that can and very often does steal your vote and make it count where you have on intention of it counting?? ??

For example, if you vote Green and list your preferences as Democrat, Independent, One Nation, Family First, Liberal, Labor, your vote will most likely end up counting for Liberal, as the preferences will filter down. But you specifically put Liberal and Labor on the bottom because you didn’t want to vote for them!

I am flabbergasted by the existence of this system at our federal level and in two states: WA and Vic. And just as flabbergasted by the lack of outrage expressed over it, even amongst the good thinking people on this forum.

I believe that we should have compulsory voting. Every member of society of voting age should be required to contribute to our democracy at least at this most basic level, unless they have a very good reason not to.

But we MUST implement the optional preferential system across the board…with one change: a box for ‘no candidate’, so that voters can legally vote for no one if they feel that none deserve their vote.

This would effectively mean that voting is optional. But at least everyone would be required to go to a polling booth and have their name ticked off. If they are required to do that, they will at least think about their vote, rather than a large portion of people just not bothering at all if they didn’t have to turn up. I think this is a good compromise optional and compulsory voting.

I've always been ambivalent about the issue of compulsory voting. On the one hand, it's true that enrolled voters are not required actually to vote, but are rather required to attend a polling booth and have their name crossed off. Like Pericles, this is exactly what I did in the last Qld State election (and also for the first time ever, in my case because I only had a choice between a Labor nobody and the hopeless Nationals incumbent.

On the other hand, I'm always appalled at the level of ignorance displayed by many voters, both about the Australian electoral system and about the salient issues of the day.

Personally, I'd rather see the introduction of some kind of test of electoral competence before people are allowed to vote - e.g. a short multiple choice questionnaire on civics and current affairs, administered prior to voting in any given election. Not that this is ever likely to happen, but it would certainly increase the quality of electoral outcomes (IMHO).

The myth of democracy lies in 2 things. One, the lack of an easily accessable wide range of views and analyses apon which conclusions can be drawn. Secondly the lack of ability of an elected government to deliver what the people want. That is to say the groups paying the bills for election get preference. Until these points are addressed there will be no meaningful democracy.
If one is to give up compulsary voting one should also have a rule that any seat in which the vote drops below 66% should be declared null and void and a by election called. However, the combatants of he previous election should be barred from rerunning on the grounds that they are far too boring. If they can't do what we want they should at lest keep us amused.

There are some really good ideas here.

To satisfy the "everyone should continue to be obliged to vote" brigade, Ludwig offers the "no candidate" option.

How simple. How elegant.

Most seem to agree that the most undemocratic part of the process is the exhaustive preferential vote that effectively limits our choice to one of the two major parties. By allowing the voters to allocate their own preferences within the ballot paper - and by allowing that preference to go to "no candidate" - we resolve that problem too.

And if we then combine that with Whispering Ted's proposal that should the winner be "no candidate", then a re-election has to be held in that constituency. To expand on this a little, we might also insist that a year elapses before the next poll, during which time that electorate will not be represented in Parliament. This would obviously be an additional incentive for the voter to pick a real candidate if one was available, but would also be an incentive for the party in power to stick to their election promises for a little while longer.

By retaining the compulsory nature of the vote, we make sure that our citizens fulfil their democratic responsibilities.

By having the right to control our preferences, we eliminate the backroom deals between parties that the voter is not aware of.

By having the right to reject all the candidates offered, we send a message to the parties that they have to do better, and provide us with credible options.

Now, that would be a system worth exporting.

Hey, great idea. Then all those that vote for the minors could opt out of voting at all. Excellent. Might as well just have 2 names on each ballot paper,right?

We could have a minority electing our government from candidates the majority don't want. I suppose it's no different really is it. That's what we've had for many years already. No wonder the unwanted elected don't do anything for the people, they know most didn't vote for them at all.

Democracy doesn't exist here alright but this is ridiculous.

The only other choice you give minor party supporters (Note the majority of Ozzies don't want either major in recent polls in NSW) is revolution. Coup. Sounds damn good to me.