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).