Ludwig said:
There aren't compelling arguments either way.

Exactly. Anyone who gives up their freedom of choice without a compelling argument to do so is quite simply a fool. Since you agree that there is no compelling argument in favour of compulsory voting why would you expect anyone to give up their freedom of choice. All we are asking is that the government either provide that compelling reason or give us back our freedom to choose. Who knows we may even choose to vote!

There cannot be a compromise between two mutually exclusive positions. Either it is voluntary or it is compulsory. A voluntary voting system with considerable incentives to vote is still a voluntary system. If it has to have a 75% turnout then it is compulsory.

You just cannot have it both ways no matter how much you twist and turn and play with the English language.

The argument for freedom of choice in the matter of voting cannot be stated more clearly than it has been in this thread and it is pointless to continue discussing it.

Ludwig

"Maybe we could have a voluntary voting system with considerable incentives to vote."

What incentives? The risk here is that we are likely to end up in the position where our vote is being bought.

Phanto, you asked;

“…why would you expect anyone to give up their freedom of choice.”

I answered this a few posts back. I’ll say again;

‘If a little increase in the requirement for the populace to do certain things can change the balance in favour of the national good a little bit without significantly reducing personal freedom, then it should be done. There does not have to be an overwhelming advantage in increasing restrictions or required actions.’

And a requirement to vote really does amount to a minuscule decrease in our freedom.

“There cannot be a compromise between two mutually exclusive positions.”

Of course there can be a compromise.

It was you who said in you first post on this thread; “The reality is that there is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia”

It is really voluntary voting with a strong incentive to vote, or disincentive not to vote if you like. So there really is a sliding scale all the way from totally unfettered voluntary voting to what is effectively compulsory voting, depending on the magnitude of incentives, or coercions, or whatever you may like to call them.

I actually thought my compromise might have appealed to you. It is very disappointing that you seem to have rejected it outright.

O well, I guess we won’t be hearing from you again on this thread phanto. So thanks for the discussion.

.
Bronwyn

“What incentives?”

Well I guess the most straightforward incentive is a cash payment when you’ve had your name crossed off, have been into the voting booth and are walking out the door.

Maybe you could call it neutral vote-buying. But it is totally different to a particular party or candidate paying money or favours to voters, which is what I would call vote-buying.

So do you think it has any merit? Or should we stick with the legally compulsory system, which must have a penalty for those who then break that law?

Ludwig

I like the way you have tried to find some middle ground here. But no I don't like your incentive suggestion at all. To me it would be a very sad day if our vote had a price.

I'm happy with compulsory voting. I see voting as a privilege and can't understand people getting so hung up about it being a legal requirement. But then again I'm no rabid libertarian either.

Bronwyn

“I don't like your incentive suggestion at all.”

That’s fine by me. I’d much rather see it stay as a legal requirement, with small fines that are just big enough to get the vast majority of people to vote.

You are in favour of compulsory voting, but you are not too fussed about it being a legal requirement?

This seems to be contradictory. It can’t be compulsory unless it is a legal requirement, can it?

Ludwig

Of course it's contradictory. You need to do some re-reading!

Bronwyn