Compulsory conscription just like Compulsory voting.
Being forced to do something is hardly democratic.
Tradition is wonderful,Ned Kelly had the Police abusing his family because that was a tradition within the Police Force at the time.
Wake up Australia.
You say you are a mature democracy,yet you let the Government force you to vote.

The argument against compulsory voting on the grounds that it is not “Democratic’ is such a lame one that I cannot believe people use it. I would much rather be in a society which has a government that is elected where over 99% of people have voted than one where 25% of the population determine the government, as in the U.S.A. If we didn’t have compulsory voting where would the minor parties be.

If you don’t vote don’t complain.

Rather than concentrating on compulsory voting maybe we need to have a change in how we can vote. I totally agree that we should have a formalised donkey or protest vote to get a better indication of voter dissatisfaction.

Oh and to Brock what has this to do with a cold blooded murderer. The only difference between Robin Hood and Ned Kelly is that we know who Ned Kelly was other than that Ned being a hero is a myth.

Ludwig,
Have you really thought about what you have said? Forcing a knowledge test upon all the people and punishing those who fail!
Wow. Talk about the virtues of this antipodal liberal democracy. Sounds like something straight out of a George Orwell novel. Imagine talking to the person next in line at Civic Compliance Victoria while waiting to pay your fine. “So what is the crime you’ve committed mate? Speeding, drink driving, parking in a prohibited area? “
“err no. Actually its being ignorant.”

There is nothing wrong with only 55% of the adult population voting. Or 45% or even 25%. It still adds up to millions of people and it is the people who, more than others, think about and bother to take an interest in our nation’s affairs.
Check out the below site for a voluntary voting FAQ

http//www.compulsoryvoting.or

Edward

Why would the requirement for voters to hold a certain basic level of knowledge about their country’s political system and current politicians, parties and policies be any different to the requirement for our children to have a basic education or for all drivers to have a basic understanding of the road rules and to have demonstrated a certain level of competency to drive?

I see the need for voters to demonstrate some limited level of knowledge, or interest, as just an extension of this fundamental philosophy. It is not Orwellian at all.

Ludwig,

Two things
It is true we compel children to attend education but I think the underlying premise is that we are acting on their behalf to gain something for them that they would volitionally engage in if they were mature enough to understand. Ie if we didn’t force education upon them then at the time of reaching maturity, they would probably complain to the state as to why they were not forced to attend school when they were young and too stupid to know better.

With regards to wannabe drivers, we don’t actually fine people who never eventually pass their driving test. And we don’t force people to get driving licences. There are the luddite type people (Mennonite or Amish) who, on principle just walk or ride bicycles or horses or there are the others who make lifestyle choices of never wanting to drive a car.

Second, even though I am opposed to conscription and the income tax, I agree to the principle that the government can force people to do things when it is the only way some ESSENTIAL need for the country can be accomplished.
However I find it rather a spurious argument that the electoral contribution of those who don’t know or don’t care is really that essential.
One of the themes of 1984 is the permeating oppression of Winston Smith being forced to do this, to do that, to listen to his propaganda tube 24/7, to attend meetings etc. etc. All for the alleged sake of the state or the people.

www.compulsoryvoting.org

Note: it’s not the compulsory voting that I find specifically Orwellian (even though it is wrong), it’s your suggestion that all people should be forced to do tests, and then fined if they give the wrong answers

Edward, you wrote;

“I agree to the principle that the government can force people to do things when it is the only way some ESSENTIAL need for the country can be accomplished.”

Essential only?

Would it not be reasonable for the government to force, coerce, or provide strong incentives to get people to do things that are BENEFICIAL for the county, and for themselves?

Afterall, practically all laws are implemented for these reasons, are they not?

Laws force us to undertake certain actions and to not undertake others, for the greater good, but not necessarily for essential needs of the country.

So then, would it not be desirable to implement incentives or laws that get the populace to take a greater level of interest in the whole political process, and hence in the governance of their country?

Is it really satisfactory for a large portion of the populace to take no real interest in the running of their country, apart from one or two particular issues that affect them or which they might develop some sort of a view over?

I don’t think it is at all. I think that everyone should be required to have a base-level input into their country’s management, and for me that minimum level would be the requirement to vote and to know what they are voting for, or against, by way of demonstrating a very basic level of understanding of the parties, candidates and issues involved.

Surely this is not too much to expect.

.
You are against income tax! Interesting. If you don’t mind moving away from the topic of this thread, could you elaborate on this.