Forest Gump, I understand your semantics, but you seem to have forgotten about a Liberal policy that has not taken lessons from the past, but is back in the past.

The way Howard has given so much respect to the US President, especially one who is not one to be proud of, proves that he believes too much in loyalty, when Australia at this stage though needing America possibly, should be brave enough to peddle its own canoe a bit.

As an old retired farmer who has done well spending his time on such problems, really agreed with Malcom Turnbull in his welcoming vision of a new light for the Libs. But guess he shot his mouth off too much with not only
his promise to quit wornout ideas like work choices, but also a promise to say sorry to our dinkum dark
native Aussies.

Maybe Rudd might have gone too far giving inexperienced Stephen Smith the job of Foreign Affairs, but doubt if Stephen will suck up to Bush the way Howard and Downer have done.

Besides breaking proven democratic rules by rendering useless the Arbitration Court, in many ways the Libs had
regressed back to before 1850 - especially in their forelock two-finger tossing to our evidently superior cousins, the English-speaking global hierachy.

The figure for turnout is gradually going up as the remainder of the votes are counted. I guess the AEC just posted the figures prematurely.

You are a liar freediver.

You said: “Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.”

I said: “Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.”

To which you responded:

“No I'm not. Youa re pretending it has something to do with preferential voting. It doesn't. If it was compulsory voting that was your issue, you would focus on that, not rpeferential voting. The fact is you have to misrepresent preferential voting to make any kind of case.”

However, this is what I said in my first post:

“Particularly given the fact that ultimately, regardless of who you vote for, in order to cast a valid vote you must preference either of the major parties. If you don't want to vote for them why should you be forced to - twice? First voting is compulsory - you get fined if you don't vote. Second - when you vote for someone else, you end up voting for Labor or Liberal - who are both pretty much exactly the same. Why bother? It is highly anti-democratic, and a prop for the 2-party system.”

which can be found here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306#23309

Quite clearly, I indicated that it was undemocratic because it is compulsory, and because it is compulsory to vote for either of the major parties. Quite clearly, I have not anywhere stated that I want to instate compulsory optional voting. Quite clearly, I am not pretending anything.

Quite clearly, you are misrepresenting my argument – not once, but twice. You are a liar.

This is my last post to you freediver. You are a liar – a deliberate liar. Your arguments are circular, you use selective quotes without considering the full development of an argument, and your statements are unsupported by anything other than your own questionable authority. You are not interested in reason or truth. No wonder you think its OK to be forced to vote for the major parties – you share their modus operandi.

Mmm very gradually going up Freediver but I would still say a matter for concern. The percentage of the vote counted is also now high enough to show that there is a significant decrease in the participation rate.
Include those who choose not to be on the electoral roll (as opposed to those who were too late) and the overall figure is even higher - and may well be as high as one in five.

That raises other questions that need answering but they would be off the topic here

"I indicated that it was undemocratic because it is compulsory

But that's just wrong. Seeing as you seem to be stuck on this issue, I'll give you a hint - if the majority of citizens support sompulsory voting and it was implimented by an elected government, doesn't that make it democratic? Democracy and freedom are not the same thing.

You keep insisting my arguments are unsupported, yet you refuse to participate in the other thread where I am supporting them.

Communicat,

I cannot agree with your interpretation of the turnout figures showing a significant decrease in participation rate.

Just to ensure that we are talking about the same thing, the turnout figures being posted by the AEC in the Virtual Tally Room, and upon which you commented in opening this topic (whatever the correct ones prove to be) relate only to those persons eligible to be electors who have enrolled. The non-participation of persons eligible to be electors but who have not enrolled is an entirely separate issue, one worthy of a discussion on its own.

The very idea of trying to relate apparent voter turnout during a progressive vote count in a VTR to a final turnout figure at a previous election is a nonsense. Until the count is complete no partial figure means anything! Why the AEC chose to design its VTR in this way to throw up such a nonsensical (and misleading) figure for turnout is not clear.

As a spot check, I have looked at and interrelated figures shown on different linked AEC VTR pages for several Divisions. This is how I proceeded:

First, I got the total enrolments from the (Division Results) NSW link shown on the 'Turnout by State' page (reached via the link given in my earlier post) after clicking, for example, Dobell.

Next I clicked 'Two Candidate Preferred By Polling Place' shown above the table title bar on the Dobell main page. From this tabulation you can get the total ordinary vote (the vote cast on election day in all polling places) by a process of subtraction of Absent, Provisional, Pre-poll, and Postal categories. It must be noted that total informal ordinary votes are not shown.

I then clicked 'Declaration Vote Scrutiny Progress' to get the total declaration vote enveloped ballot paper issues.

By adding total declaration vote issues to the total ordinary vote, and then dividing by total enrolments, I got an approximate turnout for Dobell of 94.3%. Postals received too late, and informals, will alter this somewhat.

Such turnout has been par for the course for years.