Australia is one of the few democartic western nations that still has compulsory voting and fines citizens who choose not to vote.

There are many argumanets in favour and against voluntary voting, I do not wish to go into the arguments here but if others wish to comment that's fine.

I firmly believe voting is a civil right not a civic duty!

An ever growing number of Autralians are expressing theis view so I have just started a Facebook Group called NO MORE COMPULSORY VOTING

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=145462422130774&ref=mf

Facebook can be a powerful tool to ad the weight of numbers to any cause or argument.

If you support voluntary voting for Australia please go to the Above URL and join the Group.

I will be inviting people to join through any online forum or word of mouth but of course we need many more like minded individuals to help it go viral.

I predict that if voluntary voting was (re)introduced voting levels would very quickly fall to well below 50%. Which is the very reason compulsory voting was introduced in the first place. Australians are very cynical and very apathetic when it comes to politics and it is far worse now than it was in the 1920s. The problem then is it can hardly be called a democracy when less that half the population actually vote. While compulsion is not the best answer, better civic involvement and more political empowerment of the public would be better, it is the most practical way to achieve at least a semblance of democracy for Australia.

This discussion is already progressing on a different thread. Please see my comments there:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3769#93148

I have always maintained that voters should have a certificate, meaning that when they pull up at a voting booth they have proof that they comprehend the voting system & the differences of political parties' doctrine.
This must become part of school education. The problem presently is that far too many voters are un-informed & make ill-informed decisions at the polling booth.

You have until monday to enrol, and they dont ask for ID. I'm sure Fred Smith and Donald Duck are already taken, but there really is no limit how many you want to register.

So voting is compulsory, but enrolling to vote is completely unregulated.

So, it kind of already is voluntary.

You're comment is obviously a considered one but consider this... if democratic representation is truly the goal then in a true democracy even the cynics and the most apathetic citizens have a right to express their views; even if that view is "I don't care and I'm not voting" ...

If the numbers of voters fall to less than 50% with voluntary voting (because so many are apathetic, undecided or just confused) then the result of the election would actually a truer representation of the opinion of the populace than it is now

And to those who keep using the reasoning that it's “already voluntary” because you can cast a null vote or the registration system requires no proof so so people can register more than once or cast a vote for someone else or buck the system one way or another. As I keep pointing out you are not making a good argument for keeping the status quo, in fact you are probably presenting more reasons that only those who truly want to vote should vote and the voting system should be overhauled.

How could any government call itself legitimate when the majority refused to vote?

No way is that democracy.

I reckon, if your thoughts are "I dont want to waste my time voting, I would prefer to go fishing instead" maybe that is apathy.

If your thoughts are "Well neither candidate is much chop, but I'll get fined if I dont vote" is not really a fair way of getting the best person for the job.

Position 1 on the ballot paper gets 20% of the vote every time, for which Fred Nile is very grateful to god for... in this day and age of computer randomisation, why is this rort still going?

Its always the same, people say if you dont vote you cant complain about who runs the country. My take, is that voting under the biparty preferential voting system means you cant complain if you do vote.

Mikk... It's true government shouldn't consider itself completely legit if the majority decide not to vote but you should also consider the true definition of democracy ( true democracy is not about outright majority rule)

Here's one definition...
“government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” – dictionary,com.

Here's another...
“the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves” – Cambridge dictionary.

No definition I have ever seen refers to majority rule... in fact the reason democratic nations have constitutions is to protect minorities and individuals from the tyranny of majority: even if that majority is a cynical and apathetic mas

And to my “Bogan” friend (no disrespect intended)... I would most definitely rather go fishing than vote in this upcoming election, not because I'm lazy or apathetic but because catching some fish and cooking a nice meal is a far more relevant & rewarding pursuit for me at present that voting in an election where no party or candidate is even close to representing my views or philosophies. As a citizen in a true democracy I would have the right to go fishing and let those who feel represented cast their votes.

As much as I would like to agree with you vociferous I concur with mikk's approach on compulsory voting.

I agree there is a contradiction in the concept of choice and democracy. Democracy is not a perfect system and I guess this is one of those quirks that could be seen as a contrary.

I am tempted to agree on one hand, but then I would hate to see here what happens in the US, where government is formed on the basis of 50% approx representation. Although I believe this increased with Obama's nomination.

There is still the donkey vote which in itself is a protest vote for those who don't feel represented. There are also a bevy of Independents and minor parties should the majors fail to satisfy. Most people would still give their vote on their preference even if it is the lesser of two evils in many cases.

All good. Would be silly to call myself a bogan then complain when others do as well...

Although USA has voluntary voting and fixed terms of office and a few other things we could do with, their elections are a bit of a joke in the showy way they are presented. The problem with showy, is you end up with Dirty Harry and the Terminator running the show...
Their voting system is also tedious in the way it takes about 18 months to have an election, and it pollutes our news reports night after night.
On the face of it, the party that puts on the most expensive show wins.

Of course, public sentiment of the times is geared towards "firsts". The first black president or first female PM, might not necessarily be the best person for the job. Even a self-confessed redneck like me can see we have a long way to go, before we can discuss Obama's or Gillard's achievements or lack thereof without including their minority status. Why does a redneck have to be the one to point out black isnt always bad, and female isnt always good.

Strangely, I agree mostly with individual on this issue, and I've expressed similar sentiments here at OLO before. If voters had to show some basic knowledge of our political system before being allowed to vote, then that would remove in one fell swoop much of the motivation behind the tendency for both major political parties to 'race to the bottom' in their efforts to secure the voting preferences of ignorant dropkicks who only vote because they have to, not to mention discouraging the moronic 'presidentialism' that has become a feature of Australian Federal elections.

I've found that a simple way of assessing people's electoral competence is to discuss with them what they understand about preferential voting. In short, a frightening number of people haven't got a clue about how it works.

Incidentally, under the kind of voluntary, qualified democracy that I'm suggesting, I think that optional preferential voting would be the way to go.

There is certainly room for electoral reform given under proportional representation a government can be (and has been) formed with less than 50% of overall votes.

I agree with Voci.

The ultimate freedom is not to have a vote;-it is to be able to choose to use it-or not. (I DO know we just need to have our name ticked-not actually vote. That itself highlights an hypocrisy).

I completely accept and understand the theory that voting would plummet. So be it.

That prospect would keep politicians on their toes! The 'taking for granted' of the voter is offensive.

I know it would not perfect. What is?

The current situation is a tedious 'more of the same' ritual. It allows the two majors to use us as they wish. And they know it.

God knows we need a bloody shake-up!

And something else. I am certain that if the voting public were really ticked about a Government-they WOULD front up readily to kick them out of office.

It has already proven in a court of law in a section 78b that compulsary voting is unconstitutional, but the pollies, the parties and media just do not want to tell you.

It is easier to control gullible people.


http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com/Home_Page.html

Stuart Ulrich
Independent for Charlton

I agree with vociferous, the notion that voting should be voluntary.

Imposing it upon people and penalising them for not conforming to the expectations of the state is a form of despotism.

I further disagree with the notion of preferential voting.

That is just a game of favourites. Iof someone cannot be elected by means of first past the post, they do not deserve to be elected.

Preferences is like double-dipping and the result may mean the one who was the biggest compromise is the winner, not the one who was the first choice of the electorate.

Observations that voluntary voting will reduce the turnout are irrelevant.

We have a community which is populated by those who care and those who “do not give a rats....”

Forcing those who “do not give a rats....” to vote does nothing for the quality of the outcome, all it does is impose a duty of arbitrary performance on the indolent to do something against their personal choice.

Of course I am still waiting for the day when government of either persuasion follows the expectation of the electorate and reinstates the death penalty

What many here fail to realise is that Compulsory voting and compulsory preferential voting suits the 2 major parties and as they set the rules, that is what we have.

Of course voluntary voting and voluntary preferential voting would suit the people better but that won't happen.

If we really wanted to be democratic we would have Citizen Initated Referenda as well, but that all takes power from the politicians so that will not happen either.

Unless something dramatic happens we are stuck with what we have.

For me I usually vote for an independant, so as not to give either major my $2 for primary vote, and put the least liked major last. You can also do what Ludwig said, simply get your name marked off the roll and put the papers in your pocket and walk out. So we do have choices.

Absolutely right Banjo. However the only way to try and get better government would be to offer multiple votes for those that qualify. Have a degree, pay more than average income tax, have a top job, run a small business etc etc.

This is not a new solution but it is hard to argue against it. Why should the drunk down & out have the same effect on govt policies as those with more brains.

Hey, maybe one could get his name marked off the roll, then take the papers out the front and auction to the highest bidder. I wonder how much a candidate would be willing to pay for a couple of blank ballot papers.

Surely someone has thought of this before. Quick way to make a buck and pay for the inconvienience of going to the polling place.

Maybe put an ad in local paper a week before voting. it would cause caos if it became the in thing. Blank Senate ballot papers on Ebay.

Bet they would soon make a law stopping it. Maybe already is a law.

We don't have compulsory voting...we have compulsory attendance at the polling booth. If you don't want to vote then walk in, get your name marked off, and put the blank papers in the appropriate box. Done.
This is perfectly legal... although telling you its legal is illegal.

ABSOLUTELY YES.
Voting must be voluntary, in every aspect (voluntary attendance, preferencing and permission to allow the party you vote for to give their votes to another party or not.

Forcing unwilling and uninterested people to vote just damages our governance that it provides a greater degree of security towards corrupt, inactive parties through apathy.

It most definitely FAILS to engage voters. Our past elections are rock-solid proof.

And Vociferous is absolutely right about that nauseating argument about "not compulsory to vote" just reinforces it as unnecessary.
To me it seems such people have no motive but a fear of change, and no argument to make.

No way should voting be voluntary.
I have often spoken to people from the UK and US about this.
After experiencing voting here their comments are firm that it should
be compulsory.
The reasons are that people, when they know that they will have to
vote, actually look to see what it is about and what the candidates are saying.

They then decide which way to vote. A fraction, small I think, may just go and get ticked off.
The result is the election is fairer, rorts are minimised, and compared with other countries,
the mad keen political followers do not end up running the show.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I refused to be required compulsory to vote, even so I was a candidate in elections, and by this didn’t vote. The Commonwealth then did a 5-years epic legal battle against me for FAILING TO VOTE and on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, as the Framers of the Constitution made cleaqr that voting was to be voluntarily! I do not oppose voting but opposing compulsory voting.
Also, I oppose the swindle of voting where any primary vote nets the candidate about $2.20. Meaning that where my wife and I do not vote then we save $2.20 for the Senate each and $2.20 for the HoR each saving taxpayers a total of $8.80! If this were translated to thousands of electors not voting then this would save a lot of money. A start to teach them not to use a vote for financial purposes.
The whole voting system is rigged where the above the line favours candidates and independent candidates generally are missing out.
I neither vote in State or municipal elections, despite I was a candidate – no more I think – so the only candidate who never voted even for himself!
This time my wife is going to vote for me, not that I am a candidate, but a pretend vote, and I will put a sign up in the front yard to vote for me! Now that can be some fun people searching on the ballot paper for me (the unlisted pretend candidate).

If less than 50% turned up to vote, the end result would still be that a government would be elected. Those who didn't vote would be throwing away their right to have a say for the next three years, rather than having a say through their abstinence. Not opening your mouth is not sending a message - just ask Sir Thomas More, whose silence got him in a lot of trouble. It allows words to be put in your mouth, rather than allowing you to say what you really think.

If we're after a truly democratic outcome, then the outcome of an election in which the greatest percentage of voters abstained would be that no government would be elected at all. While it sounds delicious, it's hardly practical.

The argument about the dangers of low voter turnout is based on assumption and irrational fear that I refuse to entertain.
I Have been doing research into Electoral law; looking for any precedence in cases where citizens have refused to pay fines after not voting. There are apparently some reasons accepted as valid excuses. However government has removed these records from the reach of citizens through freedom of information. A clear sign that they want to avoid the snowball effect of others citing similar reasons. I found that; the very old/frail, intellectually handicapped and very pregnant women are amongst those considered to have had valid excuse. These are all fair enough and logical. There is however one form of exemption that disturbs me; apparently those who cite religious conviction (Jehovahs Witnesses for example) as their reason for not voting have been exempted. What I object to is that a person with perhaps only casual devotion to a religion may have more rights in this regard than other citizens. Specifically those who object to voting as dissent and protest because they won't compromise their views about the issue or in other words a person who may be very devoted to this cause on ethical grounds. Another case of an arguably irrational belief in religion getting more respect and consideration from government/society than a person citing civil rights and ethical thinking as their driving conviction. On this point alone I'm even more determined to push this issue as far as I possibly can.

The Facebook group I started the other day has only four members so far; hardly impressive numbers but it's a start and it's early days.

So to any of the posters here who agree with my views and may want to do a little bit to help me spread the word and pursue this issue...

I say, please feel free to join the group, even if you don't have a Facebook account you can join and keep your profile private while adding your vote (pun intended) to the group and the cause.

Or if you really do not wish to do the Facebook thing yourself, perhaps you can send the link to friends and acquaintances who might.

http://www.facebook.com/Lord.Of.The.Starfields#!/group.php?gid=145462422130774&ref=mf

As I did set out anyone who has a athiest objection are in the same position as a religious objection. Also, as I proved in court even so I was acandidate I still cannot be forced to vote in any elections and the court upheld this!
.
People are voting often because of being terrosied by the Government (Australian Electoral Commission) that voting is compulsory and the Australian electoral commission concealing that they lost the case on 19 July 2006 against me!
.
Basicallty it goes about if one stand up for once rights as I do or just give in. And once you give in where does it stop as slowly the government will by increments take away all your rights!
.
Also, if say 50% of people didn't vote then they are no in the count and as such the election will be decided by the number of valid votes that were received! Just that the political parties could be for millions more in debts where they do not get the pament per vote of those electors who didn't vote.
For those who do vote if they VOTE for INDEPENDENT and if most people do this just for once then the political parties may just get the message!

On the issue of the superficial assumption that a large percentage of conscripted voter participation is more "genuine" than a low percentage of actually willing voters- let me ask this:
Is it "genuine" that people are effectively coerced, with threats no less, to position themselves to support a political party they would otherwise have felt no warrant to support?
How much difference is it between forcing someone to vote for the Liberal party alone, or one of a handful of parties they don't actually support?

And the whole ridiculous argument of a small voter turnout being illegitimate collapses when you consider that in Australia, only a minority of voters get their endorsed party into government anyway.

I'll sit and hope somebody can actually answer this, whilst not using the 'you're only forced to attend' argument that Voci already debunked.

Or, to make it easier, another argument- how 'informed' do involuntary voters get themselves?
Do they decide "Well I HAVE to vote, so I'm going to get a list of all the candidates I am eligible to vote for and read through all their policies"?
Or are they just going to recall a few speeches, a few stereotypes about the parties, and vote based on that?

So you know, I intend to continue voting voluntary or otherwise.

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion (even those who have the opposing opinions)... It's clear from the number of responses in such a short time that this is an issue worth debating.

I hold my conviction and I believe that given all the proper relevant information and an opportunity to amend the law, the majority of Australians would prefer a voluntary voting system.

So I'm turning my attention back to finding ways to give the cause some momentum.

I discovered that Senator Nick Minchin has been a passionate advocate of voluntary voting (I was unaware of this because I was lived in the USA from 1997 – 2006). I have sent a correspondence to his office even though I am aware he has announced his retirement.

I found this speech on the issue he made to the Samuel Griffith Society a few years ago... there's some interesting relevant info for anyone who is interested. Here's the link.

http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume15/v15chap8.htm

Vociferous,

I'll spare you the moral Lecture but I will point out that ignoring something doesn't make it go away.
All that you would achieve is lesser public participation in politics.
The US for example system has given cover for all manner of democratic abuses. Specifically exclusions of universal suffrage.
Apart from the nonsensical differences between states voting systems and exclusions. It does allow the extreme power lobbies unrealistic power.
Most of all is the low turnout around 60% of the population. In effect it means that a government is chosen by 31% of the population...hardly a majority or even representative of the population. Under this system the nutter brigade can muster significant knee jerk or manipulated significant minorities a 10% of the population voting as a block can and does distort the wider view.

Finally the parties don't give a toss about the population's views merely what it takes to get over the line. A win is a win.
This is largely responsibly for the political paralysis that has thwarted Health care, Oil dependency and spawn their ridiculous security system
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10681861
A disproportionate %of the country is involved in Security spies DOD any wonder the US want's wars? they are good for business and jobs.

Heaven help me.
"All that you would achieve is lesser public participation in politics."
Like in Australia. Our 'participation' is essentially a facade based on coercion. Also, ignoring that the public don't really participate in politics at all because we have zero actual right to do so (no CIR).

Also
"The US for example system has given cover for all manner of democratic abuses."
"It does allow the extreme power lobbies unrealistic power."
Just like Australia. And they get away with it because a large percentage of voters don't pay attention to half the stuff they do and throw their support behind them on a whim. Without them such parties would face a higher ratio of informed people (hence the 'get out and vote' movement). Look at Bob Carr.

"In effect it means that a government is chosen by 31% of the population...hardly a majority or even representative of the population. Under this system the nutter brigade can muster significant knee jerk or manipulated significant minorities a 10% of the population voting as a block can and does distort the wider view."
Just like Australia- again. Labor usually only gets 40-45%, Liberal 36% and Nats 5%- our parties only need more seats than any other single party to win- not votes. Swinging voters (including nutcases) and minority senators holding the balance of power have ultimate say over issues.

I say again- there is NOTHING good about compulsory voting that's actually REAL- as opposed to superficial/decorations. Not to mention most countries with voluntary voting still have high turnouts (USA being an exception).

Thanks King Hazaa for saving me the trouble of repeating myself.

And to “examinator”,

I will add a few points...

To continually cite the US example as an argument against voluntary voting is a very narrow view of the whole issue.

A push for voluntary voting cannot logically be construed as ignoring the problem; it's actually addressing part of the problem.

Why spare me (or us) the moral lecture?

If you have a valid argument relevant to this issue based on moral grounds please share.

As for your argument that a government elected by less than a majority is worse than one elected by a majority it has a couple of major flaws:

Firstly...

You are claiming that the nutters are in the minority but history often points to the opposite being true.

Great innovators, great thinkers, great artists have always been in the minority but you could argue that the world would be in much better shape socially and politically if they had chosen governments and leaders rather than the masses.
Remember Hitler was also placed in power with the support of the majority of the German populace of the day; who were the nutters in that scenario?

Secondly...

As I have already pointed out; one of the major tenants of Democracy is actually to give minorities a voice..... or to “protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority” your argument would have us throw out a major component of Democracy (which has already been savagely distorted) in favour of even more Executive control.

~

And more to the point Voci, the problems claimed to arise from voluntary voting are just as easily so in compulsory systems, or NOT so in (almost every) voluntary system, and are the product of another problem.

It's like getting a flu and insisting that you need to take tablets to stop your nose from running, except that to actually stop the flu you would need to take a different dose of medicine, which you can't actually outwardly notice the difference of as it takes effect.

Gentlemens,

What exactly are you trying to achieve by this topic and secondly what is it that you reason will be achieved by making voting optional.?
Keep in mind I did preface my comments by "ASIDE FROM ....." this was to indicate to you to disregard the *US peculiarities *, other than to note the optional voting system can cover a multitude of sins.
My salient points were that If one drills down all that is achieved by optional voting
is lesser participation in actual voting .
It exacerbates the power/domination of the extremes. ..that affects for both sides....Sadly Western democracies tend to spawn the politically wantonly ignorant and lazy and most of all Greedy.
NB what it doesn't do is make the electorate more knowledgeable on political issues or ensure the view/ forced consensus of the absolute majority or better decisions .
Lamentably western voters have lost the point of Society and Democracy.

Societies are created for collective human good. To ensure that the society is run to ensure Entire collective good as intended we have the concept of Democracy as in (EVERYBODY has their say). Logic then dictates if there are exclusions then the overall effect will be dominance of specific interests ergo * neither the point of society or democracy is effectively fulfilled (to the best of our abilities) IMO no thanks.

We in the west further confuse the issues by miss interpreting concepts like “rights” placing them above Both society and Democracy. We fail to see the reality that 'rights' are necessarily limited to facilitate S&D without which they have no meaning anyway.
In short we forget that voting isn't just a right to be ignored at our convenience but has a flip side a responsibility to exercise it. No free lunch. Unfortunately this means mandatory voting..societies can lead the electorate to water but can't force them to drink.

K H CIR are code for I want MY way and a poor fix of the real issue.
What we need it a complete re aligning of electoral power. (another topic)

Examinator,

thanks for elaborating and I totally agree with your final conclusion

“What we need it a complete re aligning of electoral power”.

My personal reason for not voting is I object to a compulsory voting and especially compulsory preference system. It essential means that in order to have my vote count or be counted I am forced to fill out a ballot paper that will cause the vote to filter down to one of two major parties whether I like it or not.

(NSW & Queensland have introduced optional preferences in their state elections to address this issue but that does nothing to change the situation in Federal elections).

I don't believe it's my duty to cast a vote in a system that forces me to vote (at least in part) for a candidate or party I don't wish to vote for. Nor do I feel I'm somehow failing society by taking that stance.

Voluntary voting (including voluntary preferences) is by no means a silver bullet but in my case at least, it certainly would make me more of a participant in the process... I can't help wondering just how many Australians feel the same way.

P.S I don't want to move on to the next topic yet but if you do so be it.

My point is simple examinator- actually two simple points. People don't vote for only two reasons:

1- They don't support the candidates/parties in general, and forcing them into a position to vote for any of them has as much principle as forcing someone to vote for a single party- even without preferencing.
In short, they wanted to vote for "none of the above"- and as this would be essentially the same answer they would give if they did not show up, so simply stepping on their rights just for cosmetic sake is moronic and wrong.

2-they're simply ignorant and don't care. Either they will not bother showing up, or if forced, will donkey-vote, or vote on a whim- usually to parties who put on false appearances. If these people stayed at home, the ratio of voters who actually KNOW what's going on, or at least care enough to research their candidates, would increase. The whole 'oh but the crazy fringe people have more power' is rubbish. Apparently the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, France etc are just special that they, among other countries, don't experience such problems.
You can force a person to the booth, but you can't force him to think.

In short, I see neither justness, nor even common sense in forcing either to the polls, for their own reasons each. And I have yet to hear a single practical argument why they SHOULD- even without all the evidence to the contrary to such claims often boil down to.

Hello people

I suppose the old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him drink goes with this palce as well.

The person who deafeted the commonwealth and states regarding compulsary voting had his say.
You lot didnt bother.
I myself even listed his site
I believe you didnt even look at the link i posted.

How about you just run along and act as gullible idiots.

The info is there if you are too lazy that is your problem but stop this complaining.

If you dont stand and fight well you have nothing to say.
And if you do not like how i have said it stiff.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent for Charlton.

Hey TAPP/Stuart

No need to get worked up... if you are referring to the link to Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, who claims to have won a lengthy legal battle afetr 6 years in the courts; I did follow the links and check out his site a couple of days ago.

If the claim is accurate I'm very interested because it does set a precedent.

However the only references to the said court decision on July 19 2006 I've been able to find are his own site or posts made by Mr
Schorel-Hlavka himself...

I assume this would have been a high court matter (correct me if I'm wrong) but a basic search of The National Archive of High Court cases
for 2006 turned up nothing in the name of "Schorel-Hlavka"

The record should be a public record so is their something I'm missing?

TAPP/Stuart

OK on further investigation I did establish that the decision Mr Schorel-Hlavka refers to was actually in the Melbourne County Court.

This was not so clear however because his web site is a very scattered and confusing collection of rants and quotes...

Unfortunatly a search of Melbourne County Court cases archives also turns up no records in the name Schorel-Hlavka

is there anything you can add to clarify this?

You can try:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34650214/070118mw-Appeal-Upheld-p1
.
You can also try the National Library of Australia at Canberra for the book:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.
This contains all relevant details of the case, see also
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673459/060719gh-Address-Part-1-v7
.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673520/060719gh-Address-Part-2-v7
.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24673609/060719gh-Address-Part-3-v7
.
That should give you a start albeit there was a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, etc.
.
The book was published before the hearing as to avoid prohibition because of the sensitive issues involved. The court refused to permit me to have a copy of the transcript and copy of the video recording etc..
As such the book publishing all relevant material and the orders also will show what the case was about.

Thanks Gerrit,

I am reading the documents you point to with great interest.

My immediate impression is that anyone with an interest in this matter should read your materials with an open mind, (putting aside any question of your level of experience and expertise that may arise from reading your, as you put it "Crummy English").

From my limited exposure to your work it seems obvious you are very thorough and have a high level of knowledge, experince and passion for matters of justice.

vociferous,KH

I understand your reasoning, What I still don't understand is what are the mechanisms/logic.

How you are able to say that the quality of the outcome will improve via your idea. Research and history simply doesn't agree.

The over arching objectives are clear: the facilitation of Society's purpose protection/benefit to ALL. How are you going to ensure the "all" without as near as possible that every one has a say?
Who is to say what is meaningful? I'm sorry you can't vote because *I/we* have determined you didn't take it serious enough. (is Big Bro)

It is only is only through aggregation that the flaws in results become apparent... even then conclusions need be significantly caveated.

historically informal voting is 5-8% ...how can you say which are due to mistakes and which are protests?. If the latter...what against?

The figures indicate the following lack of interest, knowledge, prejudice, plain stupidity tell me please how do you determine that all this will go away with non mandated voting? Those countries with optional voting still report high informal and donkey voting. Look at the US returns stats.

As stated govt can only reward or punish the (watering) horses. In this instance it's easier to punish non compliance they assume the benefits of voting are obvious. Sadly many don't look or are not able to understand what is there.

To me the key is motivating the people to have some knowledge of the issues at stake.

Both you seem to be missing the point that without everyone participating (mean) compensating/balance out for the ignorant. Society runs best when there is maximum (democracy) participation and falls apart when it the level drops it becomes something else (dictatorship Be it right or left).

Your ultimate view would result in potentially the wishes of 30% (minority) of the population determining for the majority that isn't democracy. (that allows for historic 3-8% swings in winning margins. Clearly disenfranchisement would be larger

It is all about a balance between the competing powers. Sadly feral capitalism has swayed the balance to favour a minority.

Not really examinator:

I'm not suggesting 'preventing' anyone- if someone can be arsed enough to vote, then go for it, I don't care who they are.

-Un-reckognizing that some people might want to ABSTAIN is false. To simply drag them to the polls just so they can drop in a blank sheet is illogical.

Almost every country in Western Europe (with exception of Belgium) allows voluntary voting- including Switzerland- all of these countries are much more politically stable, better-run (And run with more seriousness), and have better candidates than Australia OR America.

I've found that what REALLY gets people motivated to vote and participate in democratic processes (not to mention get informed) is if the system actually is structured more democratically. For example, forcing governments to merge into coalitions until a percentage of all voters are represented is done in most of Europe- and strangely, MORE voters are represented than in Australia because highly popular candidates aren't disqualified because another one was *slightly* more popular. Not to mention CIR. Example- again Switzerland. To keep pretending America is the only voluntary democracy is getting thin.

Also, you picked a really bad country (Australia) to defend against minority voting; Our politicians control all factors (about 0.000,002% of the population), each elected ONLY by a minority of local constituents (30% each usually), and pushed to government because 30%-40% of electorates overall voted for one party's candidate. The remaining 60%-70% simply miss out.

In short, constitutional and democratic reform inspires wisdom- fear of fines does not- if someone is reluctant to vote, they are often reluctant to inform themselves about the people they are voting for.

examiner.

Without disregarding the points King Hazza has elaborated on I would ask you and other proponents of compulsory voting to take a step back and view the issue from a broader perspective...

I think we agree that it's desirable for any society to be well ordered and have a high percentage of the populace become well informed, well educated, politically aware, while not restricting constitutional rights and freedoms or even basic human rights. Couple this with more representative government and few would argue that you are heading closer to a true democracy.

There'd probably be little argument that most (if not all) western democracies still have much room for improvement in this regard.

If the ultimate goal is to decrease the level of political ignorance and have a government that reflects the will of a conscious people; then it follows that people need to be better educated and to a certain degree reprogrammed.

Where Australia is concerned it's unlikely that maintaining the status quo will lead to rapid or any
improvement; we've had compulsory voting and a compulsory preference system in Australian Federal Elections since 1924. The legislative changes since then have done nothing to improve the way governments are selected in Australia or improve Electoral law (with the possible exception of giving Aboriginals the right to vote so that all races have equal voting rights).

But imagine if a successful campaign was mounted to declare compulsory voting unconstitutional. Then the logical follow on of removing compulsory preferences from the ballot (making preferences optional) could be achieved. If this occured we may actually go a long way to initiating the more sweeping electoral reforms most thinking people agree are long overdue in Australia.

Allowing the overall number of voters to fall may be a necessary part of the evolution to a better informed populace, better regulated and structured electoral law and a more representative government.

(to be contimued)

(Part II)
Since analogies are pouler here let's use the analogy of the owners of an old house with a leaky roof and outdated amenities and some structural problems and lets suppose it's a large house and large family resides in the house. They could choose to fix the problems and renovate while all living in the house and carrying on business as usual. But lets suppose that experts inspect the house and advise that while the foundations are solid much of the structure is compromised and the floor plan is not an efficient use of the space. They could choose to ignore the experts opinions and do the renovations while moving family members from one wing of the house to another. With a little luck they may still end up with a newer looking more robust version of their old home after a period of uncomfortable living.

On the other hand they could take the expert advice to heart... keep the foundation and any external cosmetic features they are fond of; find some interim accommodation and give the home a complete make-over and rebuild without too much compromise.

If we view the current Australian political system and electoral law as the big old house then it follows that the constitution is the foundation.

Assuming we wish to keep the foundation (or in other words keep constitutional federalism as the form of government) but renovate and improve the rest of the house. It makes sense to strip the system back to as close as practically possible to the way it was at the outset, the way it was intended by the farmers of the constitution.

Voluntary voting then becomes fundamental!

If there's a slow learning curve and long period of transition before a majority of the population starts to understand the true value of their "right to vote" it would still be well worth it for the long term future of the nation. Even if any short term benefit is debatable, negligible or even non existent

(part III)
finally... I don't see that there's any inherent threat to the “protection/benefit of all" by charting this course for Australia's future... I see only the potential for massive improvement.

Voluntary voting is far from a fix all but... "the move back to voluntary voting on constitutional grounds" would be a huge win for society, even if it is only a small step toward fairer more representative government and a more independent judiciary overseeing future constitutional interpretation of legislation...

I do maimtain however that it's a necessary step.

The are many electoral law reforms that I (and many others of course) would like to see implemented.

Some might be unpopular or seem odd on first view.

For example I would whole heartedly support the lowering the legal voting age to 16 9or perhaps even lower). We encourage our teenagers to become consumers, enter the banking system take the responsibility of using communication devices that give them access a world of commercialism and information, yet we don't trust them to vote.... but I digress as this is another argument.

Vociferous
In my view anyone of the average Australian can do this if they have the desire for this. Some people go to football, others cricket, the pub or whatever and I just enjoy constitutional matters and by this legal battles. Since 1982 I have been conducting a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and knows first hand how people are totally devastated and contemplating suicide due to have lost a case in court not because they were in the wrong but because the opponent lawyers and/or the judges were so to say crooks. Ample of people have accepted defeat if they knew it was a fair and honest case but not when their rights are robbed from them.
I seek all Australians to take an example from me and if I can do it in English where English is not my native language and I neither had formal education in the English language and defeat the most prominent lawyers of the government then surely others can do so also!
I proved one cannot be compelled to vote and the Government lost both cases against me. I proved that the Government cannot use AVERTMENT as the court held it had to file and serve evidence it sought to rely upon.
While this was a case about FAILING TO VOTE the material that relates to it is comprehensive, including unconstitutional elections, etc.
If people in droves would not vote because constitutionally they cannot be compelled to do so then just do it once and the major political parties might just get the message.
Or just vote INDEPENDENT wherever one votes.
(I am not standing as a candidate in any election now and so not bias in that regard.)