Yes but Grim, how much more of an informed opinion would you get with optional voting?

With optional voting, people would be inclined to vote if they felt strongly about something and to not bother if they felt that the opposition wasn’t any better, or if they felt that it wasn’t worth their while going to the polling booth.

Most people would still vote based on one or two policies, or an overall general feeling of discontent with the incumbent party, without really understanding what the opposition is offering, let along having any faith in what they are offering. That’s not a very well-informed basis for casting judgement on which party should be our next government.

I can’t see that optional voting would give us a significantly better quality of governance. So it is better that we all be required to vote rather than for us to have the option of not even turning up to the polling booth.

However, having said that, there should be an option on our ballot paper to vote for no candidate. And failing that, we should lodge a blank ballot paper if we feel that no candidate deserves our vote…especially with the disgusting compulsory preferential vote-stealing rort of a system in place at the federal level!!

A null vote is an entirely legitimate vote, if it is a well-informed or well-considered choice, IMHO.

But there is something inherently wrong with not voting, or not being required to vote at all in the first instance!

The US is a good add for compulsory voting. The optional voting in the US means that the extremists always vote while the saner parts of the population don't take the effort or use the "all politicians are bad" excuse not to vote. Optional voting makes it easier for bullies to pressure people not to vote. It also makes it easier for people to get talked out of voting because others in the family want to go to a picnic etc. instead of voting.

I think the US is a great ad., for monarchy. Not only is their electoral system bizarre to say the least, but these days gaining the Presidency is not so much about policy as it is about charisma and ability to raise campaign funds.
And Australia as usual is following obediently behind. It saddens me that our current PM is being discriminated against even by people on her own side of the political divide for reasons of:
her sex
her appearance
her voice
and general lack of charisma. Yes, I know little Johnny had about as much charisma as a month old turnip, but it's a fact of life in our male dominated society that we hold women's appearances up to a higher standard that men's. And particularly so, it seems, for the first female PM.
Agreed, for such a PM to raise an additional tax was 'courageous' to say the least (to use Sir Humphrey's sense of the word).
It seems to me, if we wish to claim to be a truly non discriminatory society, then we should apply the same standards to native born Australians as we do to immigrant Australians.
At age 18 (or any time after) any Australian who wishes to vote should sit for a citizenship test.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that before being able to vote, people should demonstrate some basic interest in and understanding of what it is they are voting about, and why.
Of course, a state of citizenship should confer no other rights or obligations than simply the right to vote...

Grim: The US has used dictation tests and similar ploys to block Afro Americans from voting. Now you want to use a "citizen test" to block Australian citizens from voting. Don't like it because the people most in need of the power that comes from the vote are those at the bottom of the pile that cant pass some citizen test.
People should be automatically added to the electoral role as soon as they turn 18 and kept on the roll even if they move and forget to tell the commission.
Howard introduced some cunning tricks to keep peole that were more likely to vote against him from voting.

So you think immigrants shouldn't do a citizen test, John D? I tried our test before I wrote my last post. I'd say it took about a minute maybe a minute and a half to answer 20 questions, of which I was only required to get 15 right. This test could be administered in verbal or written form at any local courthouse. Think of it as a simple right of passage into adulthood.
Anyone who would be 'blocked' by such a simple test, probably should be.
I would say the vast majority of natural born Australians would find it considerably less challenging than most bureaucratic forms we are required to fill out as part of being Australian citizens.
I have a few mates who came to Aus. From the UK and NZ, who have never bothered to become naturalised for just this reason.
As far as they were concerned, voting and being eligible for jury duty were just hassles they didn't need.
I'm quite sure these blokes would hand in blank papers, or donkey vote if compelled to do so.
Compelling people to vote always reminds me of a mother I once heard talking to her young child at a rural show:
“I paid good money for this, now you're bloody well going to enjoy it, or I'll bloody well kill yer!”

Grim: I am sure that you could pass the citizen test Grimm. But, if I had to choose I would think it more important that someone near the bottom of the pile gets a vote than some elitist who wants to block the people near the bottom of the pile getting a vote.
Have a look at the citizenship test. Is there anything in it that someone really needs to know to vote on something that is important to them.
I see voting as a duty that protects us from crazy extremists. Compulsory makes it hard to pressure people not to vote.