Yuyutsu,

I agree. Compulsory laws to protect other people are not remotely like being forced to vote. The same laws apply in countries where nobody is forced to vote.

.

Democracy is “government by the people” (OED).

It’s a method of collective informed decision-making based on one person, one vote.

The objective of democracy is justice. For it to be just, eligible electors must not only have the opportunity and power to influence the outcome of elections, they must also effectively exercise that influence in practice after being correctly informed of the relevant and pertinent facts.

Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority :

• More than 50% of all votes expressed should be in favour of the motion

• At least 66.6% of voter turnout, i.e., at least 66.6% of the total population eligible to vote, must have voted, irrespective of what or who they voted for.

Voting was voluntary in Australia at the first 9 federal elections. Compulsory enrollment for federal elections was introduced in 1911.

Compulsory voting was introduced in Queensland in 1915 by the Liberal Government of Digby Denham – who lost his seat at that election.

The impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections was a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to less than 60% at the 1922 election.

Compulsory voting in national elections was introduced in 1924. As a result, turnout at the 1925 election rose to over 91%.

Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, NSW and Tasmania in 1928, WA in 1936 and SA in 1942.

Voluntary voting at federal elections was introduced for Indigenous Australians in 1949 until 1984, when it became compulsory.

There are currently 32 countries worldwide with compulsory voting, of which 19 (including Australia) pursue it through enforcement.

10 of the 30 members of the OECD have compulsory voting.

The average voter turnout in our federal elections has been more than 90% for the past century. For the rest of the world, it has been about 69%.

.

.

I should add that I am in favour of voting blank (the so-called “blank vote”) being considered a valid vote in Australia and officially counted as such.

The interest in doing so would be to allow the importance of the possible discontentment of electors with the political offer to be measured and taken into consideration.

.

Dear Banjo,

«what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority»

But this is the whole joke, whether having a single, double or triple majority - majority of what?!?

You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided".

They could just as well have added the frogs into the mix and give frogs equal voting rights too, then in the true sense of democracy, "humans were found in a minority - the overwhelming majority has decided to turn the land into a swamp".

“Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority”. Banjo P

“Irrespective”? Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it. ‘Irrespective’ of what other countries do. Can you list these “other” countries? My investigation prior to posting didn't come up with the number you claim.

Personally, I have no interest in what other countries do or don't do. And your “double majority” made me giddy.

On the side, I know of people in Australia who don't vote who have never been contacted by Big Brother, let alone fined. And, while our own non-voter Diver Dan talks about a $55 fine, legislation provides for about 4 times that. But, if the people mentioned above are telling the truth, there is actually no fine at all. It would probably cost more than it’s worth to chase up a few harmless idiots who don't vote.

The system works without them, and it would work without those who were not forced to vote, as it works in countries where voting is not compulsory.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … double or triple majority - majority of what?!? »
.

As I indicated :

1. More than 50% of all votes expressed …

2. At least 66.6% of voter turnout …

That is what I call a double majority. 1 is a majority of votes expressed, and 2 is a majority of voter turnout.

And you explain :

« You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided". »

Your phrase "the majority of you decided" obviously refers to the mathematical majority of identical votes. There is nothing to prevent individuals of different cultures, philosophies, religions, languages, ethnicities, goals in life, and geographical regions in Australia, from casting identical votes, i.e., making the same choice on a particular topic.

It is not because they are all different from everybody else that they are obliged to vote differently. By the same token, they can all be thirsty and enjoy drinking the same water, Coca-Cola, or orange juice despite their differences. Different people can make the same choices for the same reasons or even for different reasons.

Except, perhaps, in the extremely rare case of identical twins, each individual is unique, no matter who they are, where they come from and whatever their origin – even each member of the same family is different from all the other members of the family. And while many children vote under the influence of their parents, some do not and vote differently.

They don’t have to be members of a different family “1000's of kilometres away” to do that. They can be children of the same family living in the same home together with their parents.

.