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