“…how can something that is a “precious right” also be a “duty”? Aren’t the two concepts contradictory.”

Not at all Edward.

It is a precious right inasmuch as it is the vehicle for the individual to have their input into their governance, compared to regimes where the common people have no input.

And it should be a duty in a real democracy for everyone of voting age (+/- convicted felons and/or the mentally incapable) to have this minimum level of input.

It is thus both a right and a duty. They fit together perfectly well.

Ludwig,

[[[[It is a precious right inasmuch as it is the vehicle for the individual to have their input into their governance, compared to regimes where the common people have no input.]]]]
Clever try at confusing the logic.
The right to do something is a different animal to the thing that is done. You have tried to fuse the two together.

Specifically, the mechanism for input into government (voting) is independant of whether or not such mechanism is employed voluntarily or compulsorily.

So you have done nothing to counter Edward's point.
.
.
.
.
[[[[And it should be a duty in a real democracy for everyone of voting age]]]]
Cirular reasoning via synonym: "It should be compulsory because it should be a duty"
.
.
.
.
[[[[It is thus both a right and a duty. They fit together perfectly well.]]]]
The only place they fit together well is in your imagination and question-begging logic. Try to avoid presuming the premise you purport to prove, then enroll in some basic tertiary logic and critical thinking.
Until then, your logic is something like your politics.

Finally, understand that a duty renders a right superfluous. Even the common uneducated man understands this, and we know you do to: we doubt you would consider paying a bank fee to be a right.
So then we must conclude your motives to be a little on the dark side: your intent is to force your will on others, like any good socialist, and to disguise such intent with an ostensible concern for your fellow man.

The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia – there is only compulsory attendance at a polling booth.

Once you have turned up no one can force you to vote. You can take your ballot papers, put them in the rubbish bin and walk out. No one forces you to cast a vote.

I do not want to vote for any of the candidates on offer and it is quite clear that I do not have to vote so what is the point of making me go to the polling booth? Only those who want to choose one of the candidates should go to the polling booth – anyone else should stay away. This is called integrity and it is more valuable than democracy. Why does our government force us to act in a way which is not consistent with the way we think and feel? We are not denying the rights of anyone else by not voting. That is totalitarianism by any other name.

It is not my duty to choose one or other of the candidates on offer unless I have freely agreed to accept it as my duty. A duty is something I choose for a good reason and not something imposed upon me. Compulsory ‘voting’ is just that – an imposition. Freedom to choose one’s duties is a much better value for a society to have than a full ballot box.

It is my right to vote but a right is not an obligation. A right is something I can take or reject and this too is a more fundamental value than democracy. If I have to do something and will be punished if I do not do it then it is hardly a right.

Whenever there is no good reason for a law such as compulsory voting it is usually because it is masking some unsavoury agenda. In this case it is probably some form of bullying by the major parties trying to get disinterested people to vote for them.

This brings us to probably the most contentious issue in this regard. If the right to vote must be guarded so carefully, following the same logic it is then surely wrong for the uninformed to cast a vote which has the same value as those cast by "informed" people. No, this is just a silly idea. If people want to spoil their voting papers they can and will. That's the meanng of democracy.

Liberty, Ludwig
The expression was "moral duty", why don't rights and moral duties as distinct from legal duties fit together? The exercise of neither one is compulsory.

Of course it is important that people treat voting seriously . . . but soon you have problems.

How do you determine if people are making an informed choice? Who do you exclude from the right to vote? While plausable to begin with, what you avocate pretty soon comes to seem very ill-considered.

Nc