Shadow Minister, from your first post;

“Compulsory voting ensures that those that don't really care are forced to vote based on the latest sound bite that drifts through their head.”

Compulsory voting helps ensure that a greater portion of the populace develops a view on who to vote for and hence on what is happening in the governance of their country than would otherwise happen. If they have to vote, most will be prompted to think about it, whereas if voting was voluntary, many will just be totally apathetic.

Surely compulsory voting works towards improving awareness in the general community about government, policies, future directions, etc. And surely that is a good thing.

“Whimsical voting leads to whimsical government.”

A lot of people cast a vote which is not based on much understanding or consideration of what is on offer. This certainly needs improvement. But if 25% or perhaps 50% of the populace didn’t vote, do you think things would be better?

One problem with optional voting would be that those without a strong feeling about the candidates/parties/policies would be less inclined to vote while those with strong views on single issues would still be inclined to vote, based only on one issue.

For all of the somewhat whimsical nature of a large part of the voting public, I think that they can see past single issues and on to the big picture, at least to some extent. So in short, compulsory voting would give a more holistic outcome than voluntary voting.

From your second post;

“The more the state dictates what you do, the less freedom you have.”

Not at all. The highest level of freedom for the average citizen is gained with the right balance of laws/restrictions. And the right balance is that which suppresses all of the things that would be undertaken by the powerful, aggressive and criminalistic that would undermine our freedom in the absence of those laws, without unnecessarily restricting us.

Stronger governance, with what may appear to be more restrictions on the surface, could well improve average freedom, security and quality of life.

Jees Liberty. You’ve just joined OLO… and I think you should leave already. Come back under a different pseudonym, with a considerably better attitude.

You seem to be totally intolerant of anyone who has a different view to your own. Any one who doesn’t agree with you apparently has sinister motives, as is evident in these statements in response to me;

“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”

“…as well as your false motives in deliberately confusing a right with an obligation.”

“Your intent is decidely dishonest, playing semantic games…”

and in response to phanto;

“…your intent is deliberately tangential”

“And your implication is sillyness…”

It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who is quick to accuse others of dodgy motives without any foundation for doing so is very likely to have dodgy motives themselves.

Why not just debate the issues in a decent and tactful manner.

---
“Even if there were changes to the system I would still not want to vote [for any of the candidates in the forthcoming election].”

Me too phanto. No candidate has a platform that I endorse, or think is sufficiently good to deserve my vote. But that is no reason to make voting voluntary, and it is every reason for the likes of you and me; people who give a damn about our governance; to fight hard for reforms in the system.

Our differences are clear. They are the same differences that have existed in this debate for decades. Neither of us is going to concede. But I will say this; ultimately I there is not a great deal of difference between compulsory and voluntary voting. One works fine in Australian and the other works well in the USA.

I consider reforms that would allow a voter to cast their vote and preferences totally as they see fit to be much more important.

Sorry Bronwyn but you just can’t play the “I’m dumb and not ashamed of it” card. The issue at play is “are rights and obligations compatible or not” Either Liberty or Ludwig is right but the final judgement must rely on analysis of argument.
You give the impression that you are saying that you agree with Ludwig because you want to agree with him and if his method is qualifying something by simply stating it, then so be it. And if that is irrational then “Call me irrational, I don’t care”
Liberty gave the argument and then the analogy:
“The notion of a right is redundant when accompanied by an obligation to the same end.
As I have pointed out, I doubt you would consider paying a speeding fine a right.”
He may be wrong but if he is then it can only be proved by giving a countering argument, followed by a countering analogy

Edward Carson

I don't intend to get caught up in the pedantics of what I consider to be a fairly pointless debate, but yes I did agree with Ludwig and no I didn't expand as I had nothing further to add to his explanation. And you can call me whatever names you like.

In a civilised society such as ours it is perfectly natural that we all have rights and along with those rights come responsibilities. I can't see any value in your argument. To me some of you on this thread are too hung up on claiming your rights and too little prepared to consider your responsibilities. Any society functions best when the correct balance is achieved between the notion of personal freedom and the idea that we all need to forgo some freedom in the interest of the common good.

I can't see how exercising your right not to vote in any way helps the society in which you live. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. Surely we all have a responsibility to keep abreast of politics and to hold our politicians to account by casting an informed vote.

And no I wasn't playing the “I’m dumb and not ashamed of it” card. I was referring to Liberty's earlier questioning of Ludwig's logic and his patronizing advice to him to 'avoid presuming the premise you purport to prove, then enroll in some basic tertiary logic and critical thinking.' I have read many of Ludwig's posts in the past and have always found them extremely lucid and logical.

Is it a 'right' or an 'obligation' (moral duty)?

Make up your mind.

And whose morality? Do l have the right to make my own moral judgements or must l cede to your sactimony.

Informed? By what, by whom?

Is your information morally superior to the next person?

What informs your moral sanctimony.

Is it not enough for the voter to inform themselves of what information is relevant to their own interests, propelled by their own morality?

Or must they defer to your superior judgement?

Why even bother, in the face of such overt pretence?

Lets not even begin to decipher the sham.

Bronwyn said:
“I can't see how exercising your right not to vote in any way helps the society in which you live. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. Surely we all have a responsibility to keep abreast of politics and to hold our politicians to account by casting an informed vote.”

It helps the society just as much as voting. You can spend many hours a day ‘informing’ yourself about politics and come to the conclusion that you do not want to vote for any of the candidates. This should be a valid choice but compulsory voting does not acknowledge this choice in the same way it acknowledges the choice of those who choose a candidate. It does not allow people who do not want to choose to have the freedom to stay home on election day. That would be the logical thing to do. Why go somewhere at a certain time to do nothing. If you want to choose then you go to the polling booth – that is the logical thing to do in that case.

This may produce all sorts of fears about people abusing the freedom to stay home, the validity of the mandate and the end of democracy as we know it but these are all problems that must be solved by other means and not by forcing people to do something that is totally illogical.

Politicians need to present something that makes people want to get out and vote instead of forcing many people to get out and vote out of fear of being fined. It is like any relationship. It is much better to be together because you want to be rather than because you are forced to be.