Compulsory Voting is a necessary part of ensuring that Australia continues to be represented by individuals that the majority of people approve of.

I understand that this is exactly what this article is claiming is not occurring. Preferential voting is an Australian tradition, and it successfully operates to choose a candidate which the majority of people are content with. It may not be everyone's first choice, but the preferential system allows everyone to decide who they prefer. To my mind, this is far more favourable than a first past the post system, where the winner often has a rather small minority of the overall vote.

One side-effect of this that the article successfully identifies is that major parties get a big piece of the pie, but this is just the nature of democracy - that most people preference middle of the road parties over radical ones.

As much as our system has its flaws, the alternative is a UK or US style system where optional voting means that more people vote for Big Brother than for their Member of Parliament. If only 40% of the population vote, and therefore a majority of those (say 21%) vote for the government in power, how can we call that representative democracy?

One final point is that optional voting creates a non-representative outcome. Radicals who desperately want wide social change will exercise their right to vote, but average everyday Australians, apathetic about politics do not exercise their right to vote for the middle of the road parties. Hence, we form radical government.

RobH - Law 101, I am not sure that you have quite grasped the issues here.

>>Preferential voting is an Australian tradition, and it successfully operates to choose a candidate which the majority of people are content with<<

That is exactly what I suggest is not occurring, in that it is entirely possible to object to being represented by either major party, only to see your vote disappear into the pocket of one or the other - without you even knowing, ahead of time, which.

How can you assume, given this is our only means to express our intention, that it produces a result that "the majority of people are content with"?

Where's your evidence? Because logic is against you.

>>this is far more favourable than a first past the post system, where the winner often has a rather small minority of the overall vote.<<

True, but at least those votes were intentionally cast in that direction.

>>As much as our system has its flaws, the alternative is a UK or US style system where optional voting means that more people vote for Big Brother than for their Member of Parliament<<

This is utter nonsense.

"According to programme-makers Endemol, there were 6,363,325 votes cast during the 2004 live final of Big Brother 5. There were 27,128,130 votes cast in total the 2005 general election."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm

>>If only 40% of the population vote, and therefore a majority of those (say 21%) vote for the government in power, how can we call that representative democracy?<<

But if our vote is taken away from our preferred candidate and given to another whose views we might violently disagree with, how does that differ from a rigged third-world election?

>>optional voting creates a non-representative outcome [and would] form radical government.<<

Where, for example? Name one.

I find it interesting that when people want to claim superiority of our system over other forms of democracy, two nations (of dozens) keep popping up. You know, Finland is also a democracy.

Also, just because a lot of Americans don't vote doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant, or that they have been manipulated or excluded. Maybe they just choose to live their own lives and have no desire to hold sway over others (although groups like the Free State Project initially plan to use democracy against itself in achieving such aims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project or http://www.freestateproject.org/).

To those casting an informal vote, do you realise that, 1) you're still endorsing the system by turning up, 2) even if only one person votes properly, a candidate can/will be elected? Resistance is futile within the system.

I have my reservations about our system of voting, or the candidates, but that's not why I don't vote at all, and why I'm not enrolled on the electoral roll (which is an extremely futile gesture, I know). It's because I don't believe in democracy. It's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It basically means that two idiots can tell one genius how to live and run his own life. I find something ironic about compelling people to vote.

It doesn't come from any desire to hold a revolution (since all revolutions are doomed to failure). It doesn't come out of ignorance or apathy. It just comes out of the realisation that I don't agree with the system, but I won't change it, so I try to live between the gaps as much as possible. Crazy, I know.

I am embarrassed when I tell friends in America and Britain that voting is compulsory here. It makes us seem like a third world dictatorship.

Freedom to vote also means freedom NOT to vote.

I probably will continue to vote, but when a $150 fine hangs over my head, like the sword of Damacles, then I really feel like my government does not have my best interests at heart.

I feel more like putting in an informal vote when it is compulsory, simply to express my freedom.

Do it, Tassie.

We don't have compulsory voting - we have "compulsory turn up on the day and get your name crossed off". After you've performed this "duty" you can do what you like with the ballot paper.

If you're really passionate, don't go - just cop the fine as the cost of principled action. It's only fifty bucks. Cheap protest if you ask me.

You could go even further. Non payment of the fine should attract the attention of the authorities. You can protest loudly to the media, get people onside, form an anti-compulsory voting party, run a campaign and then people can maybe exercise their compulsory vote in your favour and you can change the system.

Step Up!

Nice one, Shorbe.
Is there any way I can get off the Voting Register now I'm on it -- apart from dying?
At the risk of boring people, I repeat my warning about "Independent" candidates. 90% are front men and women for religious fundies... be aware!
As for paying the fine as a protest. You'd be protesting to a computer-generated form; probably not very productive. I like the idea of a large group not attending, not paying the fine, then having their day in court surrounded by media frenzy -- except that having only two and a half newspapers in the country both run by people with vested interests in maintaing the status quo, you'd be lucky to be reported on page 12.