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.