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.