Bronwyn,

[[[[In a civilised society such as ours it is perfectly natural that we all have rights and along with those rights come responsibilities.]]]]

There are a number of logical errors in this statement. Here are a two:

1. You state that reponsibilities come along with societies which are "civilised", while also implying that a society is civilised if it comes with responsibilities. That is IF A, then B, and if B, then A. Circular reasoning, or colloquially: "pulling yourself off the ground by your own bootstraps".

2. You tacitly declare that "responsibilities" includes an obiligation to vote. This is presuming the premise you purport to prove (aka "Question begging"). Or as some put it, "restating your position as ostensible defence of itself".

Bronwyn, argument is purely about logic. All the opinions in the world contribute nothing. If you choose to enter a debate, then you must employ valid logical argumentation only. Anything else is simply that which clutters up the thread.

Phanto, your position seems quite paradoxical to me. No offence, but it seems rather strange for someone who is obviously interested in politics to be willing to not be involved in the electoral process if they didn’t have to be.

You have formed the view that neither major candidate deserves your vote. Presumably this is not because of apathy but is based on a pretty good understanding of what they have to offer and how their national management styles compare to your ideal. So if you have come to that conclusion, how then can you just simply opt out?

How come you aren’t out there howling your concerns to whoever will listen… and many that won’t?

We most definitely don’t need a voluntary voting setup if there are many people who would simply forego their right to vote if they didn’t like the offerings. If this was to happen, there would be a real danger of government becoming more out of touch with the constituency.

So how about lobbying for a formalised vote for no candidate instead of for voluntary voting. At least that way, we would know that a null vote would be a protest about what is on offer whereas a no show under the voluntary system would be a mixture of protest and apathy/laziness….mostly apathy/laziness with the protest component disguised and indeterminate.

yes but what is more precious is the rareity these days for citizens to creaet new political parties that are pro Catholic, and hence pro Jesus Christ , in terms of their policies to protect the unborn children whoa re killed at the rate of 100,000 per year in Australia; also the lack of a real 'labor' party that would control the finance sector along the lines of the great Bob Santamaria and the DLP.

Sadly we only have Protestant groups who are closer to business interests rather than the old Irish and traditional Catholic teaching that looks after ALL areas form morals through to trade unions.
To put 'family first' we need such a political party that would cause the kind of healthy conflict that we need to have in Australia; the nation that kills 100,000 babies each year but is jingoistic the rest of the time about silly sports. What a weak bunch we Aussies are.
Time for a political party that not only blames politicians but also has a shot at the dills in the electorate too who accept liberal govts and are about to put in Rudd who is really just another Lib compared to true Labor bread and butter issues.

Liberty

I mightn't be a student of logic as you so obviously are but I certainly have a better understanding of debating etiquette.

You criticise me but you have contributed nothing new to this debate. All you have done is denigrate other posters and nit pick over trivialities. You can't spell, you can't punctuate, your language doesn't flow, you have few ideas to contribute and your rudeness is surpassed only by your arrogance.

I don't usually make personal attacks like this, but I strongly resent your patronizing tone. I'll contribute to debate when and how I see fit and hopefully I won't be told again that I'm cluttering up the thread. Who appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes good debate? I can figure out for myself whether or not I'm cutting through. I don't need you to point it out for me.

I don’t think this debate is about politics. It is about freedom to choose my own behaviour instead of the government telling me what to do. The same principles could apply to many situations. All I want is the government to give me a good reason why I must vote or must attend the polling booth. No one can prove that compulsory voting gives a ‘better’ result than voluntary voting. The first situation impinges on my right to choose and the second does not. So all things being equal, unless proven otherwise, then the better thing in principle is to allow the freedom to choose.

If people want to be apathetic then let them be apathetic. Apathy might well be the most appropriate response – those people may have more integrity than all the ‘well-informed’ voters. No you cannot tell if people’s absence from the polling booth is apathy or ‘informed’ protest. In the same way you cannot tell if the votes that are cast are ‘informed’ or uninformed. Many people cast a ‘donkey’ vote. You cannot tell if an unmarked ballot paper is a protest, a mistake, apathy or whether the voter just left their glasses at home.

Once again you cannot quantify any of these things nor prove them so all things being equal it is wrong of the government to take away the freedom of choice. Compulsory voting takes away a freedom and voluntary voting does not.

Yeah Liberty, she’s got you there!

You’re rude, arrogant, patronizing and lack etiquette.
Obviously we can deduce from this that Bronwyn must be correct in her analysis of the issue, and thus compulsory voting is actually a good thing.