Shorbe, I certainly am coming from an opposite direction to yourself because for starters, we are not born free as you say. Surely you'd agree that we are born totally dependent on just about everything and are deemed a dependant. Any freedom we want comes from a wealth of learning, interaction, experience and discipline in an interconnected environment.

However, when people discuss any issue like freedom for example, they are likely to do so through different ..... even mutually exclusive ..... a priori sets of assumptions or beliefs about the nature of reality and the human place in it. For all perceptual, emotional, and behavioral purposes, people in fact can live in quite different realities. With such species dissociation, it is not unusual for different groups to be psychologically unable to draw compatible conclusions from the same fact. How do people then cope with this situation? Democratically and inclusively, perhaps? How else but through consensus?

The measure of a society in anyone's value system would place significant emphasis on the core public institutions; public transport and infrastructure; public health; public schooling, education, museums, galleries, libraries; public places, spaces, parks, reserves, beaches, sporting fields, and so on. Then there are public procedures and processes important for maintaining and deepening public trust for ensuring active, participatory democracy that enrich our public life at the local, national and global levels.

Shorbe, when you say about public services .."those that I will use I can pay for privately" are you not hinting at an Australia as a value free nation of renters who live in gated communities? Well I do not doubt that there are plenty of "champs" out there in our mis-leader Howard's Australia that would love this trophy life style .....but ..... The difference between champ and chump is U.

Woldring states that the introduction of voluntary voting in Australia would increase the quality of the vote. This is a generalisation and does not outweigh the negative consequences of having less than half the population vote and does not take into account the fact that, with voluntary voting, many poor people would be less inclined to vote, as happens in other countries, not because they are disinterested, but because they would find it very difficult to get to a polling booth.

Woldring also states that compulsory voting forces the major parties’ policy programs to the centre of the spectrum and this has helped make them become look-alike parties. Forcing the major parties' policy programs to the centre is actually a positive, as it highlights their policies and forces them to be scrutinised. A danger the ALP faces in the run up to this year's Federal election is strong scrutiny of their policies. Many commentators are saying that, while the ALP's primary vote is high at the moment, it is still to be really tested, and many voters are still undecided about whether or not the ALP would make a credible alternative government.

In the end, we are talking about democracy, that is, government for the people and by the people. In most countries, voluntary voting means that at least half the population do not turn up to vote, as mentioned by Woldring. When so few people turn up to vote, as a result of voluntary voting, we are making a mockery of democracy. If we take the 2000 US election as an example, we had a situation, in a country with voluntary voting, where, George W Bush received approximately half of the popular vote. The voter turnout for that election was about 50%. Rather than voter quality increasing in that election, we had a situation where they now have a President who was elected by, at most, a quarter of the eligible voting population, and they call that democracy. Let us not take that route and damage the integrity of democracy in this country.

All well and good Nils but, don't call it democracy.
Those persons who come out to vote in a free vote democratic system and those that don't both make a statement to the electorate. "There is something wrong with the way things stand now. One, I am voting freely in hopes that this next person has the scrota to effect the change necessary, or two, I refuse to vote in support of the continuation of a poor prognosis and hope that my protest is of note and promotes recovery of efficient government."
Those that have to vote by law, are not participating in democracy per se. They're following a law. If the law was rescinded and only 50% came out to vote wouldn't that send an immediate message to the countries leadership, or would everyone just pass it off as typical of fat a$$ lazy Ozzies.

This may seem like a silly question, but it occurred to me while reading back over this thread:

What's to stop somebody who knows my name and address voting at several booths? Given that there is no ID requirement, anybody could walk up to any polling booth and say that the're CJ Morgan and quote my address. What happens when that occcurs - as it surely has (at least to someone)?

Does the Electoral Commission have some process for dealing with that kind of fraud, not to mention others?

I ask these questions seriously, because I'm buggered if I know what processes are actually in place to prevent electoral fraud in Australia.

C J Morgan,
I suppose there is a first time for everything. I agree with you.

There is nothing to stop a person impersonating you or me at a polling place and several times over, at different booths. This has been known to happen and the CEO has to count all the votes as there is no way of checking or knowing which is fraudulent.

It also has been known for someones cat to be registered to vote and other ficticious names registered. One needs more indentifacion to open a bank account that to register to vote.

The whole system is open for abuse. The reason for the earlier cut off date for registration is so CEO staff can check the validity of new registrations, addresses and so on.

If we had an identifacation card it would help a lot. I think all eligible voters currently would have a Medicare card or Tax File Number so I ask why not use one of these for voting identifacation.

Probably the only thing I find myself in agreement with John Howard about.

I strongly believe that people should vote but laws to compel them to do so are silly.