Banjo

“The simple fact is that they benefit, so why should they change it?”

That’s exactly right…..and aren’t the major parties a colluding pair of vested-interest mongrels in this regard!

But what gets me more than anything else is how something so blatantly antidemocratic can remain virtually unrealised by the populace.

Even amongst the good thinking people who contribute to this forum, particularly on subjects such as this thread, awareness is practically non-existent!

It is really quite bizarre!

We can’t expect either major party to change the system as a matter of principle (although Goss did exactly that, to his great credit). We can only expect it to be changed if enough outrage is expressed within the general community.

So where’s the outrage? Are there many things that deserve a greater cry of outrage than this fundamental violation of democracy??

I agree with those who say that voting in Australian elections should not be compulsory. However, I'd go further and suggest that prospective electors should be required to demonstrate some basic knowledge of the Australian electoral system and of current affairs before being allowed to vote.

It seems ridiculous that our excuse for a democracy is dependent to a large extent upon requiring reluctant and ignorant voters to turn out every few years to elect candidates, about whom they know little, to parliaments and councils - about whose workings they know even less.

If you think this sounds elitist, just try discussing with your average citizen how preferential voting works, or their knowledge of the Australian Constitution.

Pretty much, everybody has said what needs to be said about this topic and of course every person has been completely correct, with respect to their own opinion. Isn't that nice?

We're lucky to live in one of (if not the most) peaceful nations on Earth and coincidentally enough, we're one of the few (perhaps only) nation that has compulsory voting. I wonder if that's purely a coincidence.

On a tangential point, one of the things that I find most peculiar about compulsory voting is the use of pencils to leave one's mark upon the voting form. Having spent a bit of time in vote scrutineering in the distant past, it became obvious that the opportunity for unscrupulous vote counters to smuggle in and use an eraser and pencil on some votes to change them was very much a possibility. Especial since the advent of "1" only voting.

Vote counting after polling booths have closed is hardly a very organised affair with party scrutineers rushing around all over the place in a seeming panic - votes are literally being handled by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Say no more...

Can anyone advise why we continue to cast our votes in pencil and not a more permanent scriber such as a ball-point pen?

CJ, I agree that voters should be required to show a certain level of understanding of the system, parties, candidates and policies, before they can vote.

But why would people bother to educate themselves? Surely if there was this requirement within an optional voting system, it would just mean more people opting not to vote.

And if voting was compulsory, it would mean that this level of knowledge would be compulsory, which would mean fines for those who didn’t pass the pre-voting test!

Such a system could discriminate against indigenous people, many immigrants and those at lower socio-economic levels, if the means of educating them or providing the information were not up to scratch. But with the right education and publicity setup, such a system would empower these groups.

I think that we have to have compulsory voting. So that means that if people are required to have a certain level of basic knowledge in order to vote, there would have to be a fine or significant penalty of some sort in order to get everyone, or the vast majority to hold that level of education.

It would also mean pouring a great deal of effort and money into education programs.

So which is the best option;

having system that enforces that sort of thing,

a system that obligates people who don’t understand anything about what they are voting for or who don’t give a hoot, to cast a vote,

or an optional voting system that places no requirements on its citizens to contribute to their governance and which basically fosters ignorance and apathy?

I’d suggest that the first option is clearly the best.

Maximus, you should get some kind of prize for this remark:

>>We're lucky to live in one of (if not the most) peaceful nations on Earth and coincidentally enough, we're one of the few (perhaps only) nation that has compulsory voting. I wonder if that's purely a coincidence<<

Australia has been involved in both World Wars, and in America's Vietnam War, over the past hundred years. I think there are quite a large number of countries who can boast a more peaceful past.

Switzerland, for example.

Officially neutral since 1815, apart from some internal troubles in 1847 Switzerland has been a haven of peace. But most relevant to this discussion is that it has dabbled with compulsory voting in the past, but has abolished it in every Canton except Schaffhausen. Even there, the fine for failing to vote (which, by the way, is strictly enforced) is a massive SFr3. Enough for a cup of coffee. A small one.

The reason Switzerland is relevant is that they are one of the - if not the - most electorally active countries on earth. Not only in parliamentary and Cantonal elections, but referenda by the score.

The arguments for compulsory voting are limited to those who fear change of any kind - there is absolutely no sustainable logic that supports coercion.

So we get a broader part of the community.
So as not just those partys with influence, but for all to stand and make their mark.

Why do you think i have been trying to create the Australian Peoples Party for a better choice.

This is at least i for one am standing up to the tunnel vision parties.

As i cannot post policies if you want you will have to email.

swulrich@bigpond.net.au.