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.