vociferous,KH

I understand your reasoning, What I still don't understand is what are the mechanisms/logic.

How you are able to say that the quality of the outcome will improve via your idea. Research and history simply doesn't agree.

The over arching objectives are clear: the facilitation of Society's purpose protection/benefit to ALL. How are you going to ensure the "all" without as near as possible that every one has a say?
Who is to say what is meaningful? I'm sorry you can't vote because *I/we* have determined you didn't take it serious enough. (is Big Bro)

It is only is only through aggregation that the flaws in results become apparent... even then conclusions need be significantly caveated.

historically informal voting is 5-8% ...how can you say which are due to mistakes and which are protests?. If the latter...what against?

The figures indicate the following lack of interest, knowledge, prejudice, plain stupidity tell me please how do you determine that all this will go away with non mandated voting? Those countries with optional voting still report high informal and donkey voting. Look at the US returns stats.

As stated govt can only reward or punish the (watering) horses. In this instance it's easier to punish non compliance they assume the benefits of voting are obvious. Sadly many don't look or are not able to understand what is there.

To me the key is motivating the people to have some knowledge of the issues at stake.

Both you seem to be missing the point that without everyone participating (mean) compensating/balance out for the ignorant. Society runs best when there is maximum (democracy) participation and falls apart when it the level drops it becomes something else (dictatorship Be it right or left).

Your ultimate view would result in potentially the wishes of 30% (minority) of the population determining for the majority that isn't democracy. (that allows for historic 3-8% swings in winning margins. Clearly disenfranchisement would be larger

It is all about a balance between the competing powers. Sadly feral capitalism has swayed the balance to favour a minority.

Not really examinator:

I'm not suggesting 'preventing' anyone- if someone can be arsed enough to vote, then go for it, I don't care who they are.

-Un-reckognizing that some people might want to ABSTAIN is false. To simply drag them to the polls just so they can drop in a blank sheet is illogical.

Almost every country in Western Europe (with exception of Belgium) allows voluntary voting- including Switzerland- all of these countries are much more politically stable, better-run (And run with more seriousness), and have better candidates than Australia OR America.

I've found that what REALLY gets people motivated to vote and participate in democratic processes (not to mention get informed) is if the system actually is structured more democratically. For example, forcing governments to merge into coalitions until a percentage of all voters are represented is done in most of Europe- and strangely, MORE voters are represented than in Australia because highly popular candidates aren't disqualified because another one was *slightly* more popular. Not to mention CIR. Example- again Switzerland. To keep pretending America is the only voluntary democracy is getting thin.

Also, you picked a really bad country (Australia) to defend against minority voting; Our politicians control all factors (about 0.000,002% of the population), each elected ONLY by a minority of local constituents (30% each usually), and pushed to government because 30%-40% of electorates overall voted for one party's candidate. The remaining 60%-70% simply miss out.

In short, constitutional and democratic reform inspires wisdom- fear of fines does not- if someone is reluctant to vote, they are often reluctant to inform themselves about the people they are voting for.

examiner.

Without disregarding the points King Hazza has elaborated on I would ask you and other proponents of compulsory voting to take a step back and view the issue from a broader perspective...

I think we agree that it's desirable for any society to be well ordered and have a high percentage of the populace become well informed, well educated, politically aware, while not restricting constitutional rights and freedoms or even basic human rights. Couple this with more representative government and few would argue that you are heading closer to a true democracy.

There'd probably be little argument that most (if not all) western democracies still have much room for improvement in this regard.

If the ultimate goal is to decrease the level of political ignorance and have a government that reflects the will of a conscious people; then it follows that people need to be better educated and to a certain degree reprogrammed.

Where Australia is concerned it's unlikely that maintaining the status quo will lead to rapid or any
improvement; we've had compulsory voting and a compulsory preference system in Australian Federal Elections since 1924. The legislative changes since then have done nothing to improve the way governments are selected in Australia or improve Electoral law (with the possible exception of giving Aboriginals the right to vote so that all races have equal voting rights).

But imagine if a successful campaign was mounted to declare compulsory voting unconstitutional. Then the logical follow on of removing compulsory preferences from the ballot (making preferences optional) could be achieved. If this occured we may actually go a long way to initiating the more sweeping electoral reforms most thinking people agree are long overdue in Australia.

Allowing the overall number of voters to fall may be a necessary part of the evolution to a better informed populace, better regulated and structured electoral law and a more representative government.

(to be contimued)

(Part II)
Since analogies are pouler here let's use the analogy of the owners of an old house with a leaky roof and outdated amenities and some structural problems and lets suppose it's a large house and large family resides in the house. They could choose to fix the problems and renovate while all living in the house and carrying on business as usual. But lets suppose that experts inspect the house and advise that while the foundations are solid much of the structure is compromised and the floor plan is not an efficient use of the space. They could choose to ignore the experts opinions and do the renovations while moving family members from one wing of the house to another. With a little luck they may still end up with a newer looking more robust version of their old home after a period of uncomfortable living.

On the other hand they could take the expert advice to heart... keep the foundation and any external cosmetic features they are fond of; find some interim accommodation and give the home a complete make-over and rebuild without too much compromise.

If we view the current Australian political system and electoral law as the big old house then it follows that the constitution is the foundation.

Assuming we wish to keep the foundation (or in other words keep constitutional federalism as the form of government) but renovate and improve the rest of the house. It makes sense to strip the system back to as close as practically possible to the way it was at the outset, the way it was intended by the farmers of the constitution.

Voluntary voting then becomes fundamental!

If there's a slow learning curve and long period of transition before a majority of the population starts to understand the true value of their "right to vote" it would still be well worth it for the long term future of the nation. Even if any short term benefit is debatable, negligible or even non existent

(part III)
finally... I don't see that there's any inherent threat to the “protection/benefit of all" by charting this course for Australia's future... I see only the potential for massive improvement.

Voluntary voting is far from a fix all but... "the move back to voluntary voting on constitutional grounds" would be a huge win for society, even if it is only a small step toward fairer more representative government and a more independent judiciary overseeing future constitutional interpretation of legislation...

I do maimtain however that it's a necessary step.

The are many electoral law reforms that I (and many others of course) would like to see implemented.

Some might be unpopular or seem odd on first view.

For example I would whole heartedly support the lowering the legal voting age to 16 9or perhaps even lower). We encourage our teenagers to become consumers, enter the banking system take the responsibility of using communication devices that give them access a world of commercialism and information, yet we don't trust them to vote.... but I digress as this is another argument.

Vociferous
In my view anyone of the average Australian can do this if they have the desire for this. Some people go to football, others cricket, the pub or whatever and I just enjoy constitutional matters and by this legal battles. Since 1982 I have been conducting a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and knows first hand how people are totally devastated and contemplating suicide due to have lost a case in court not because they were in the wrong but because the opponent lawyers and/or the judges were so to say crooks. Ample of people have accepted defeat if they knew it was a fair and honest case but not when their rights are robbed from them.
I seek all Australians to take an example from me and if I can do it in English where English is not my native language and I neither had formal education in the English language and defeat the most prominent lawyers of the government then surely others can do so also!
I proved one cannot be compelled to vote and the Government lost both cases against me. I proved that the Government cannot use AVERTMENT as the court held it had to file and serve evidence it sought to rely upon.
While this was a case about FAILING TO VOTE the material that relates to it is comprehensive, including unconstitutional elections, etc.
If people in droves would not vote because constitutionally they cannot be compelled to do so then just do it once and the major political parties might just get the message.
Or just vote INDEPENDENT wherever one votes.
(I am not standing as a candidate in any election now and so not bias in that regard.)