# Compulsory voting



## mista200 (4 May 2006)

Seeing as the Liberal vs Labor thread was going a bit off the rails I've decided to start a new thread.

For starters I couldnt care less about politics and neither do most people I associate with. To me there is hardly any difference between the 2 main parties....althoughIi guess if I did vote I would vote Liberal...based on economic management. 

I wont enrol to vote! (I have been eligable to for nearly 7 years now) I have never got any fine or anything like that.

But why should i be forced to line up (waste my time) and then vote for someone who I hate. I am yet to see a single politician that I like...really

I know some people have to vote in order to keep the democracy going but why force people who dont give a s*#t, to line up and randomly tick boxes or  do a donkey vote?


----------



## rederob (4 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> But why should i be forced to line up (waste my time) and then vote for someone who I hate. I am yet to see a single politician that I like...really



I have to agree Mista.
People who do not vote should be clearly identified.
As a voter, I believe you have the right to opt out of the "system" and therefore opt out of the benefits that exist because we have governments that make decisions about public services that are paid for by taxes.
By opting out of the system I would allow you to keep all your income as taxes should not be paid as you should not need to access any public services.
I'm not sure how you will cope without water, electricity, communications or access to roads - all of which are controlled by governments although not necessarily owned by them.  There are lots of other services that you might not have access to, butyou shouldn't be too concerned as you won't be paying for them.
If you want to get a petition going please put my name down.
Ooops.
You would have to send it to a politician so they could present it in parliament.
So we have a problem, don't we!


----------



## bullmarket (4 May 2006)

hi mista200

as you are probably aware, I posted my reasons supporting compulsory voting in the Liberal v Labor thread   

but imo a more accurate question for your poll could be *'should we be forced to go to vote in elections' * because even with 'compulsory voting' you still have the option to vote informal if you choose to and so essentially not vote.....but maybe I'm just being picky...  ....joe or wayne could edit the question for you if you like.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Bobby (4 May 2006)

My opinion,

Only people that have paid income tax can vote.
All bludgers can't vote.

 Bob.


----------



## tarnor (4 May 2006)

I was out of town when we had a local election here.. a bi election or something... it was just for our little area and I had no idea about it.. Consequently i copped a small fine I thought 'FO!! i aint paying that'.. Hence that fine became a 120 dollar fine which i ignored untill they came looking for me.. they then left a letter to my mum trying to track me down... so i payed.. I'm still really annoyed about it, that fines way to much specially since i had NFI i had to vote, if some people can not go on the roll why can't they take me off


----------



## Julia (4 May 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> I was out of town when we had a local election here.. a bi election or something... it was just for our little area and I had no idea about it.. Consequently i copped a small fine I thought 'FO!! i aint paying that'.. Hence that fine became a 120 dollar fine which i ignored untill they came looking for me.. they then left a letter to my mum trying to track me down... so i payed.. I'm still really annoyed about it, that fines way to much specially since i had NFI i had to vote, if some people can not go on the roll why can't they take me off




Fining you was a bit over the top.  We had a by-election here a few months ago.  I knew it was on but simply forgot.  So did about 80% of the population. No one was fined.  I don't blame you for being annoyed about it.

Julia


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> I have to agree Mista.
> People who do not vote should be clearly identified.
> As a voter, I believe you have the right to opt out of the "system" and therefore opt out of the benefits that exist because we have governments that make decisions about public services that are paid for by taxes.
> By opting out of the system I would allow you to keep all your income as taxes should not be paid as you should not need to access any public services.
> ...




I don't think I have ever seen such a divisive, tenuous and illogically emotive argument in my entire life. By logical extension, you are suggesting that children, foreigners, and the incompetant (as in intellectually handicapped etc) should be excluded from participating in society, because they don't vote either.

Listen, it's OK to have an opinion that people should be compulsed to vote. That is your right of free speech. Likewise, those who don't believe in compulsory voting have that right to express that belief.

But to draw such a long bow as you have is totally ludicrous. A politicians job is represent ALL of his constituents, not just those who have voted for him.

Lets say our piece, but ferchrissake, respect others even if you disagree!!!

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky


----------



## bullmarket (4 May 2006)

*hi wayne * 

I thought rederob's post was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek although it's clear he also supports compulsory voting   

is there an emoticon for tongue in cheek?  

.....and btw....I think you'll find compelled = compulsed 

*hi tarnor*

I forgot to vote in a byelection many years ago and copped a penalty notice and fine of about $50 about 6 months later.

But I wrote back with an excuse saying that on my way to the voting booth at about 5:45pm (voting closed at 6pm) the fan belt in my car snapped and by the time I put on the spare fan belt I had in the boot it was past 6pm.

A few weeks later I received a letter back saying I was excused from paying the fine   

good night and sweet dreams everyone.............

bullmarket


----------



## visual (4 May 2006)

these days whenever I think about not voting ,i remember what happened in iran,the young people thought that those morons were all the same ,so they did`nt vote ,unfortunately by doing that it meant that the biggest moron 
 of them all got in.maybe had they voted ,who knows ,better to have the guy who tries knowing hes going to be shut down than have a guy like the moron who got in.  

but yes my vote will go to the liberals,even though they will totally ignore us as we are a safe labour sit,which means neither party really has to do anything for us.


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *hi wayne *
> 
> I thought rederob's post was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek although it's clear he also supports compulsory voting
> 
> ...




Yes "compelled" is better. Sheesh!


----------



## rederob (4 May 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I don't think I have ever seen such a divisive, tenuous and illogically emotive argument in my entire life. By logical extension, you are suggesting that children, foreigners, and the incompetant (as in intellectually handicapped etc) should be excluded from participating in society, because they don't vote either.



Would you like me to try again.
I was clearly not working hard enough to please you.

By the way, it can only be a logical extension if the logic was logical.
The logic underpinning the sense is contextual and it is that a person entitled to vote, chooses not to.
To extend this argument beyond that parameter is not useful.  So why would one bring into it persons that did not have the entitlement?

It is also not useful to assume a sense that was neither stated nor implied: I cannot see anywhere that I discussed the matter of politician's job being about representing of his/her constituents (particularly as I would never assume the politician was always male).

And another assumption: “Listen, it's OK to have an opinion that people should be compulsed to vote.”

It does appear that you, Julia, have read into my post things that are not there.

I trust you will be more careful with your liberal interpretation of writings in future in case you buy a gift horse.


----------



## Bobby (4 May 2006)

Becarful Red,

Don't F*** with Wayne mate ! not recommended.  

Bob.


----------



## wayneL (4 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Would you like me to try again.
> I was clearly not working hard enough to please you.
> 
> By the way, it can only be a logical extension if the logic was logical.
> ...




It is interesting that you define voting as an entitlement and a choice. This is exactly so in a free and fair society. However in this country it has become an obligation under penalty of law. Hardly free or fair. Could it be that, by your language, you reveal a single facet of what we all intrisically know to be true freedom, rather than the couterfeit facsimile we now live with? 



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> It is also not useful to assume a sense that was neither stated nor implied: I cannot see anywhere that I discussed the matter of politician's job being about representing of his/her constituents (particularly as I would never assume the politician was always male).




Ladies, pardon my unforgivable faux pas. Red, I misinterpreted this part of your post.. I retract.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> And another assumption: “Listen, it's OK to have an opinion that people should be compulsed to vote.”
> 
> It does appear that you, Julia, have read into my post things that are not there.
> 
> I trust you will be more careful with your liberal interpretation of writings in future in case you buy a gift horse.




This was not an assumption at all, the merest impication in the context in which it was written perhaps, but not assumption. It was more directed at those who believe rights should be removed because of a particular view.... common these days... divisiveness reigns.

BTW You can't buy a gift horse. A gift horse is...... a gift!

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 May 2006)

THe problem with people not voting is that it dramatically increases the influence of organised minority groups. This can very easily go to the point of them gaining effective control of government.

So if you want to see those proposing 90% income taxes, shutting down anything with even the remotest impact on the environment, compulsory religious beliefs and other such radical views gain a greater foothold in government then non-compulsory voting is exactly what you want.

If, however, you prefer freedom then compulsory voting is a necessary evil to assist the majority view to prevail. A necessary evil in much the same way as brakes on a car are necessary despite being absolutely at odds with the obvective of making the car move.

If you don't wish to express an opinion then that's fine. Just draw a line through the form. But it's important to capture all opinions, even if they are to vote informally, rather than skew the vote with voluntary attendance. Most people, when required to vote, do in fact express their opinion thus diluting the power of minority groups compared to that which would exist with voluntary voting.

IMO those who would gain the most from voluntary voting are fundamentally socialist in nature since they are the ones with the motivated and active supporters most likely to vote.


----------



## rederob (4 May 2006)

Apologies to Julia who I confused with Wayne in earlier post.
So sorry Julia - was thinking about something else at the time!


----------



## rederob (5 May 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> BTW You can't buy a gift horse. A gift horse is...... a gift!



Exactly what I meant!


----------



## Mumbank (5 May 2006)

Great post Smurf!!   

FWIW it seems to me that the people who complain the most about the government of the day and generally think they know how to fix everything then go on to say they didn't vote anyway (i.e. Kate Langbroek or whatever her name is on The Panel). 

Anyway I am for compulsory voting much for the reasons set out in Smurf's post, heaven help us if we ended up with a country or state, or even Local Council, run by Pauline and her mates or similar!


----------



## websman (5 May 2006)

Whoa!  Hang on here a minute Dudes!

You mean to tell me that the Australian government actually requires one to vote?  And if you don't vote you get fined???  

I'm sorry guys, but that sounds crazy to me.  Voting is a privilege that I take advantage in the U.S., but I am not required to vote.  The way I look at it is that I feel it is my duty to vote, but it is also my right to not vote if I so chose.


----------



## mit (5 May 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> My opinion,
> 
> Only people that have paid income tax can vote.
> All bludgers can't vote.
> ...




Does this include 45 year men who have been retrenched from their job and who have been actively looking for work? Does it include abandoned mothers without external support who cannot afford child care or a flexible job etc etc etc.


----------



## bullmarket (5 May 2006)

hi websman

no-one has to vote as we all have the option to vote informal...ie...submit a blank ballot sheet....but everyone is required by law to at least turn up to the voting booth on election day and have their attendance recorded on the register.....and that is the way it should be imo as I described in the liberal v labor thread.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (5 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Apologies to Julia who I confused with Wayne in earlier post.
> So sorry Julia - was thinking about something else at the time!




Oh, I'm relieved I haven't said anything offensive after all!  I was puzzling over this.  No problems, Rederob - thanks for the correction.

Julia


----------



## Julia (5 May 2006)

websman said:
			
		

> Whoa!  Hang on here a minute Dudes!
> 
> You mean to tell me that the Australian government actually requires one to vote?  And if you don't vote you get fined???
> 
> I'm sorry guys, but that sounds crazy to me.  Voting is a privilege that I take advantage in the U.S., but I am not required to vote.  The way I look at it is that I feel it is my duty to vote, but it is also my right to not vote if I so chose.




Hello Websman

Obviously you have a responsible attitude towards voting, but isn't the usual turnout of the general population very low in US elections?

Julia


----------



## Julia (5 May 2006)

Thanks to Smurf for balanced and sensible comments, as usual.

I really value the right to vote and took out Australian Citizenship for just that purpose.

Julia


----------



## rederob (5 May 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I really value the right to vote and took out Australian Citizenship for just that purpose.
> Julia



Wouldn't you prefer to take out the Minister for Foreign Affairs?


----------



## bullmarket (5 May 2006)

Hi rederob



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you prefer to take out the Minister for Foreign Affairs?




 are you suggesting julia goes after married men after her bypothetical scenario of being stuck down a mine shaft with me the other day  

cheers

bullmarket 

(just joshing julia)


----------



## visual (5 May 2006)

gosh Julia,looks like you are getting a reputation,better stop going down those mine shafts with married man,


----------



## websman (5 May 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Hello Websman
> 
> Obviously you have a responsible attitude towards voting, but isn't the usual turnout of the general population very low in US elections?
> 
> Julia




Yes it is low, but my point is that we have a choice.  We can either show up and vote or we can stay at home.   I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here or make it sound like I live in a better country, but I feel that it is important to retain my freedom to decide if I want to show up or not.  

The U.S. does have it's share of problems, but most Americans are very independent and don't like of the thought of being required to do anything.  If I was told that we had to show up to vote, I would probably get ticked off and tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.  But because I am given a choice...I chose to vote.  

It would be like President Bush ordering that all Americans must turn their guns.  It wouldn't work, because most Americans feel that it's their right to own a gun and nobody is going to take them away.

But...Like I said, I don't consider the U.S. to be any better than Australia, just different.  As a matter of fact, I think Australia is a very cool country.  I guess it all depends on how you were raised and what you are used to.  I have Australian friends and I'm sure we wouldn't agree on this issue, but we are still friends.  Hey...if we were all the same and agreed on everything the world wouldn't be very interesting would it?

Take care!


----------



## rederob (5 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> ...are you suggesting julia goes after married men after her bypothetical scenario of being stuck down a mine shaft with me the other day



No.
I think the Minister should be "taken out".
Our use of language hides a lot!


----------



## bullmarket (5 May 2006)

websman said:
			
		

> .............Hey...if we were all the same and agreed on everything the world wouldn't be very interesting would it?
> 
> Take care!




yep agree  but it sure would be much safer with  no-one trying to blow someone else up   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (5 May 2006)

websman,
to treasure the freedom that you obviously enjoy is great,but by not voting arent you letting your fellow Americans defend those freedoms for you.What happens if one day they let you down and vote for someone who will drastically change your way of life.E.g in our last election a person who in the end turned out to be mentally unstable was presented by his collegues and sections of the media as an acceptable alternative to  lead Australia,althought people had the usual whinche about voting he didnt get in,sometimes if you have a choice it becomes very easy to become despondent and say ,well whats the point my vote isnt really going to make a difference,when in fact it does.
Just a thought,
By the way Mark Latham hasnt been cerified yet ,but lets see how long it takes him to write the next book where he discusses how he overcame ,this and that blah blah blah


----------



## Julia (5 May 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> gosh Julia,looks like you are getting a reputation,better stop going down those mine shafts with married man,




Visual and Bullmarket,

As soon as I'd posted that hypothetical scenario the other day I knew I'd be in trouble!

Only thing I'm still nervous about is the possibility of Mrs Bullmarket getting mad at me if she thinks I'm trying to make off down a mine shaft with her dearly beloved!  

Julia


----------



## bullmarket (5 May 2006)

Hi Julia 

and believe me - she's not the person you want to get on the wrong side of     ......I've got the lumps and bruises to prove it..        :twak: 

bullmarket


----------



## visual (5 May 2006)

Julia,Bullmarket
thanks for the laugh,  really needed that


----------



## clowboy (24 May 2006)

For those who have posted/read this post,

There was a by-election in my "area" despite it being several suburbs away that in all honest truth I did not know I had to vote in.  Now both myself and my wife have coped a fine - unless we can provide a valid reason.

I don't think they are going to accept a "we didn't know" and while I am hesitant to lie I aint going to pay a fine for something so ridiculous.

Also I am not sure what time the booths would have closed.


Any thoughts appreciated.


----------



## Julia (24 May 2006)

clowboy said:
			
		

> For those who have posted/read this post,
> 
> There was a by-election in my "area" despite it being several suburbs away that in all honest truth I did not know I had to vote in.  Now both myself and my wife have coped a fine - unless we can provide a valid reason.
> 
> ...




Clowboy,

You say  ".....in all honest truth I did not know I had to vote in."

So if your defence is that you didn't know, how is that a lie?

I would definitely say you simply didn't know you were required to vote.
A fine is petty and stupid.  Stick up for yourselves.

Julia


----------



## clowboy (24 May 2006)

Julia,  the truth is that i did not know, but I feel they will not deem that as a valid reason and am therefore contemplating a more elaborate tale.

I agree it is petty and stupid but I feel it will be a case of sticking up for oneself, as you put it will simply find me in court.  While I despise the Idea of paying the fine (mostly on principle) I would rather pay $40 now than end up in court with $100's plus fees.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2006)

clowboy said:
			
		

> Julia,  the truth is that i did not know, but I feel they will not deem that as a valid reason and am therefore contemplating a more elaborate tale.
> 
> I agree it is petty and stupid but I feel it will be a case of sticking up for oneself, as you put it will simply find me in court.  While I despise the Idea of paying the fine (mostly on principle) I would rather pay $40 now than end up in court with $100's plus fees.




I once (when I was inclined to vote) was a few minutes late arriving at the polling station and they wouldn't let me vote. The reason was that I went to the place where the previous election was held. It wasn't there,  so drove around til I found it, but it was past the closing time.

I detailed that to the electoral commision when they sent out their petty and ridiculous fine and they decided to wave the fine.

Give it a go.


----------



## TheAnalyst (24 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> Seeing as the Liberal vs Labor thread was going a bit off the rails I've decided to start a new thread.
> 
> For starters I couldnt care less about politics and neither do most people I associate with. To me there is hardly any difference between the 2 main parties....althoughIi guess if I did vote I would vote Liberal...based on economic management.
> 
> ...




I did my best until my ex wife got a job with the electoral office and just kept hounding me other than that i got away with it since i was 19


----------



## clowboy (24 May 2006)

Wayne,

I was thinking of a similar reply, flat tyre or engine trouble though.  Does it matter that I do not know what time the poll's shut?


----------



## regatwests (25 May 2006)

You weren't available. You were called away on a family emergency.
You were on holiday in another state or `roughing` it in the bush.

I've been pinged twice. They won't investigate over a 50 dollar fine.
They're just after the people who don't respond to the letter...
easy money.


----------



## macca (25 May 2006)

I am with Smurf, by getting everyone to vote we moderate the effect of the radicals.

Even though most of the population are not interested in politics, because we have to vote (well, get marked off the roll) it encourages people to actually think about it before casting their vote.

Those with fervent convictions would quite happily vote a number of times, they will even vote your vote if you let them.

We have a wonderful country here, let's not allow narrow minded zealots to destroy it.


----------



## FXST01 (28 May 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> My opinion,
> 
> Only people that have paid income tax can vote.
> All bludgers can't vote.
> ...





I have never thought of it that way Bobby, but i agree with you on that


----------



## prawn_86 (26 September 2007)

I just posted some infor in the worst droungt ever thread and it got me thinking about one of my pet hates, compulsary voting.

As far as im aware (and i havnt done much research), Austrlaia is one of the few Western countries to still maintain compulsory voting in elections.

This is done in order to ensure that either Liberal or Labour stay in power, and that no minority ever has a chance.

Anyone that does a simple quantitative marketing course will know that bigger brands have more people that purchase more often than smaller brands, and therefore more awareness. Apply this directly accross to governments, and Liberal and Labour are the 2 biggest 'brands'.

this means that for the vast majority of people who have no interest in voting/politics, Liberal and Labour are the only two partys/brands they have ever heard of, and therefore they will vote for one of them. Ensuring that a minority cannot win as they do not have enough salience (awareness).

If compulsory voting were stopped, then i think that only those interested would vote, and that smaller parties would obtain a lot more seats. It may take some time for the generational shift away from the 2 big brands but i think it would happen.

However, if you didnt vote, you shouldnt be entitled to whinge about the current party (too much). Personally i dont vote as i am against compulsory voting (my little stand against the world lol) and am happy under either government as there is only 2 possible results as far as im concerned and they both have very similar policies in a lot of areas.

We are still lucky to live in Aus, but there are many things which need improving.

Enjoy!

Comments welcome.


----------



## moneymajix (26 September 2007)

How do you explain what happens in the US where voting in not compulsory?

Power concentrated in the hands of the Democrats or Republicans. 

Do small parties or independents get much of a look in?


----------



## prawn_86 (26 September 2007)

As i said i havnt done a lot of research, but what majority of seats do the small parties hold over there?

I also think the US is a more 'patriotic' nation. In a sense that they follow their leaders a lot more and do not question things as much as Australians.

Im not saying a small party here would ever win an election, but it would make it more possible.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 September 2007)

People who have t vote may not care who they vote for therefore infuencing the result which may not benefit them. In a real democracy I should have the choice whether to vote or not.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2007)

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been used in the last few weeks. It is interesting reading. I have no opinion one way or another.  ( I'll bet some of you think that's strange.)


----------



## stockGURU (30 April 2012)

I have been giving some thought to compulsory voting recently as I have changed my mind on the issue and thought it might be an interesting topic to revist given the cyncism of the electorate in recent times.

I used to believe that voting was a duty; that it was something that we had an obligation to do to keep our democracy healthy and that it was reasonable to expect that all adult citizens make a choice about who was to govern us. Now I just see it as coersion, as ugly and unnecessary as most coersion is. 

Things started to change for me recently when I realised that I didn't want to vote for anyone on the ballot paper. It seemed ludicrous that I should be forced to make a decision I didn't want to make. Sure, I could have voted informally but that even seems more ludicrous; to be forced under the threat of a fine to show up at a polling place just so I could deliberately not vote. I could have done that just by not showing up in the first place.

We should have the choice to participate or not to participate in the democratic process. How can it be said that we live in a free society when we don't even have the freedom not to participate?

If we are going to continue to be forced to participate then there should at least be a "None of the above" box that we can check to show our disapproval as a group.

This thread hasn't had a post in more than four years so I'm sure there are many more recent ASF members who would like to have their say on this topic. Given the state of politics in Australia, especially at the federal level it has never been more relevant.


----------



## Logique (1 May 2012)

In principle no. A little surprising to see the poll running at 55% yes.

Politically, optional voting = Labor's worst nightmare.


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2012)

Voting is a right. In a democracy, I choose whether or not to exercise my rights, not the government. Voting should not be compulsory.


----------



## Glen48 (1 May 2012)

Every thing is wrong with our present system,by increasing the informal vote you will make the powers wake up to what the voting public want.

It is not democratic when the parties tell you who to vote for they pick Garrett or some famous face just to get the numbers in Parliament but run the country from some back room with a select few deciding on the direction the country should move.
More than half in power are lawyers or people who have never held a full time job dealing with every day issues, we the voters, have to. 
 We  also need to reduce the amount of  people in power we don't need a state government if a shire need a new dam they should send a delegation to the feds and discuss however this will reduce jobs for the free loaders, I think Bligh had more staffers than Gillard what they all did heaven knows other that work out flexi time sheets.
 What CV a parliamentary applicant should have I am not sure ex business manager  CEO some one we can who has a historyetc???
 We  also need to convince voters the free lunch mess is closed for ever and we  need more conviction's of people/Firms who are not honest and telling all to put their money here or giving out info they know to be false as most voters have no idea about handling money. 

 Until then we have to pay monkeys to give us peanuts


----------



## Klogg (1 May 2012)

> My opinion,
> 
> Only people that have paid income tax can vote.
> All bludgers can't vote.
> ...




That would be brilliant!

This ofcourse would shatter the ALP and the Greens...


----------



## Julia (1 May 2012)

Glen48 said:


> It is not democratic when the parties tell you who to vote for



No one tells you who to vote for.  The "How to Vote" cards are no different from any other form of advertising.  You can (should) ignore them.


----------



## Glen48 (1 May 2012)

Julia.They do if you want to vote for your party and they have put up some  star like Bert Newton as their candidate in your seat.


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> Voting is a right. In a democracy, I choose whether or not to exercise my rights, not the government. Voting should not be compulsory.




I respectfully disagree.
Smurf's post sums it up perfectly.




Smurf1976 said:


> *The problem with people not voting is that it dramatically increases the influence of organised minority groups. This can very easily go to the point of them gaining effective control of government.*
> 
> So if you want to see those proposing 90% income taxes, shutting down anything with even the remotest impact on the environment, compulsory religious beliefs and other such radical views gain a greater foothold in government then non-compulsory voting is exactly what you want.
> 
> ...


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2012)

DB008 said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> Smurf's post sums it up perfectly.




You disagree that it's a right or you disagree that it shouldn't be compulsory? If it's the former then it seems difficult to disagree on the latter, even if there are, perhaps, some negative possibilities.


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2012)

I think that voting should be compulsory. Do a donkey vote on the day, l couldn't care. 

When you have a voluntary system (in regards to anything really), people become lazy and their mindset/attitude changes to a, 'oh, she'll be right, someone else will vote what l'm thinking' and before you know it, there is a party with a few seats in parliament who also have ability to influence laws/acts/codes, because they were organised during a voluntary election and called their troops to vote.


----------



## Logique (1 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> Voting is a right. In a democracy, I choose whether or not to exercise my rights, not the government. Voting should not be compulsory.



McLovin, despite contrary opinion in the thread, I think you are correct on this issue. 

In the US, has optional voting led to minority group domination. And btw, a nation far more 'right wing' conservative than our own. Mind you a Mormon is the Republican candidate. 

Compulsory vote, Obama or Romney?  Rather pay the fine.


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2012)

Logique said:


> Compulsory vote, Obama or Romney?  Rather pay the fine.




==Or, do a donkey vote==


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2012)

DB008 said:


> ==Or, do a donkey vote==




A donkey vote is still a vote. That's my issue. I shouldn't have to express an opinion if I don't want to. 

In regards to minority parties dominating the parliament, that hasn't been the experience in any other Westminster system, all of which, I believe, do not have compulsory voting.

I think the comparison to the US is not the same because their presidential system vests significant power in the executive and the electoral college system makes it difficult for an independant to gain nationwide traction.


----------



## wayneL (1 May 2012)

DB008 said:


> McLovin said:
> 
> 
> > Voting is a right. In a democracy, I choose whether or not to exercise my rights, not the government. Voting should not be compulsory.
> ...




RUBBISH!

I've lived in the UK and now NZ, both have non compulsory voting. Canada and USA also have non-compulsory voting. It could be argued that the Oz system produces more off with the Pixies loonies than any of the others.

Compulsion is the antithesis of liberty.


----------



## Bill M (1 May 2012)

I am totally against compulsory voting and it should be thrown out immediately.

We are dumb clucks that's for sure. Why is it that out of 196 countries in the world we are only 1 in 10 that enforce it? Unbelievable.


----------



## IFocus (1 May 2012)

DB008 said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> Smurf's post sums it up perfectly.





+1 Helps to engage all people in the process


----------



## Julia (1 May 2012)

DB008 said:


> I think that voting should be compulsory. Do a donkey vote on the day, l couldn't care.
> 
> When you have a voluntary system (in regards to anything really), people become lazy and their mindset/attitude changes to a, 'oh, she'll be right, someone else will vote what l'm thinking' and before you know it, there is a party with a few seats in parliament who also have ability to influence laws/acts/codes, because they were organised during a voluntary election and called their troops to vote.



You are making some pretty unproven assumptions here.
It is equally likely that with non-compulsory voting only those who are genuinely politically engaged in the process will bother to vote.  Therefore the result will be a more genuine representation of the 'will of the people'.

There is a large proportion of the electorate who haven't a clue and couldn't care less. With compulsory voting they just want to turn up and get back home to their Saturday beer.  So they tick the top name on the ballot paper.  Hence results which are not actually reflective of the electorate overall.



McLovin said:


> A donkey vote is still a vote. That's my issue. I shouldn't have to express an opinion if I don't want to.



Agree.



> In regards to minority parties dominating the parliament, that hasn't been the experience in any other Westminster system, all of which, I believe, do not have compulsory voting.



Quite so.



IFocus said:


> +1 Helps to engage all people in the process



Nonsense.  See above remarks.  People are either politically engaged or they are not.  Obliging them to turn up to accept a "how to vote" card, tick any box, and walk away is not properly representative.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 May 2012)

Voting should be compulsory, that doesn't mean you have to vote for someone etc, i find it quite satisfying to write something appropriate on my incomplete ballot paper...on the occasions that i have chosen to do so.

I think its crazy that US presidents are elected by less than a quarter of the voting age population....just as crazy as 2 party preferred voting.


----------



## Eager (1 May 2012)

Voting should be compulsory for the reason already mentioned - it dilutes the ratbag element.

Don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread so far (cbf reading it all) but in my humble opinion, how-to-vote cards should be banned. Those voters who are not politically engaged should not be stooged into getting someone elected who otherwise wouldn't if it were not for the party-designed order of preferences. Common sense dictates that the candidates should earn their votes based on the informed decisions of the electorate and not on the instructions of the parties. Maybe people will become more politically engaged if they are made to make up their own minds instead of following an idiot sheet! I see nothing wrong with placing Labor and the Greens apart by a wide margin on the ballot paper, for example, regardless which major party I give my #1 vote to.


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I think its crazy that US presidents are elected by less than a quarter of the voting age population...




It's more like 50-60%.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> It's more like 50-60%.




I thought it was more like 50 > 60% actually voted so a majority would be about half of that 25 > 30%

Anyway wiki is our friend.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/index.html

Your right, seems to average between 50 and 60% of the voting age population...so a little over half of them would actually vote for the president, as in vote for Obama, say 25 > 30% of the total people of voting age.

And somehow that just doesn't seem right...not a good look anyway.


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I thought it was more like 50 > 60% actually voted so a majority would be about half of that 25 > 30%
> 
> Anyway wiki is our friend.
> 
> ...




Sure, but let's face it, elections are fought in the middle not the extremes. Swing seats/states are where it counts and they are also usually where the proverbial carrot is dangled. I'd say the outcome of any election is decided by far, far fewer than 25-30% of voters. Most voters don't have an informed opinion (I can only surmise this is true by the fact that apparently 27% of voters would still vote for the ALP) they vote for A or B because that's the way they vote. In many ways it's probably detrimental forcing these people to vote just for the sake of voting.

I live in Wentworth, it's as blue ribbon as it gets for the Libs, my vote doesn't count anywhere near as much as someone who lives in Eden-Monaro, or some other swing seat. My life doesn't really change whoever is in government. There's no real incentive for me to vote. If voting was non-compulsory, I'd probably still vote.


----------



## JasonPK (2 May 2012)

Compulsory voting is only enforced in 9 other countries in the world and none of them are great bastions of democratic freedom - far from it.

Our voter turnouts (81%) are lower than many countries where voting is voluntary including Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Malta.

New Zealand has high voter turnouts with voluntary voting and there 100% of the people who vote do so because they want to vote and are informed. Many people vote in Australia merely to avoid a fine. Our real voter participation is probably a lot lower than in New Zealand with our high levels of donkey votes, informal votes and blind guesses. 10% of Australian eligible voters aren't even registered to vote.

Under compulsory voting leaders don't need to work as hard to earn votes. Under voluntary voting, leaders who can not inform, educate, empower and inspire the electorate will be replaced by leaders who can. Real democratic leaders.

It is better to encourage people to vote using peaceful democratic means such as good ideas rather than fines enforceable with violence. That causes political apathy and blind conformity. It diminishes people's power when it should empower people.

Our decision to vote should be democratic.


----------



## Bill M (2 May 2012)

JasonPK said:


> Our decision to vote should be democratic.




Excellent post Jason, welcome to the forum.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2012)

Compulsory voting does not apply to prisoners serving a sentence of five years or more. Obviously to avoid being branded a criminal for not voting, you need to commit a serious crime.


----------



## lurker123 (5 May 2012)

I donkey vote, as the way I see it, the influence of my vote is miniscule. 
Secondly even if I did vote, the party I vote for would not reflect my views. 
Thirdly i don't see a point in voting when the system is broken. 
Fourthly I am a selfish individual and only care about myself. I couldn't care less what happens to other people or the world when I'm dead. Being the egotist I am, I see myself as apart from humanity, and the sheep/humanity can do whatever they like. The only thing I can do is make sure I am in a position where, no matter who is in power, I am still well off and that the sheep/rest of humanity/psychopaths can't **** me up.

Voting should be a right earned by getting a pass in science (physics/chemistry) of 80% or more. Provided education remains free and compulsory. Obviously you would be allowed to retry until you receive 80%+. Science has created the modern world, if you don't understand basic science, how electricity works, how science principles are concluded through experimental evidence e.t.c then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Science is the best tool which humans can use to understand existence. If you don't even try to understand existence through the only rational tool available, "science" then one can conclude you are weak minded and would be easily influenced by those who would manipulate. Therefore if you are too lazy to get 80%+ you would have a negative contribution to a voting system and shouldn't be allowed the right.
Obviously this is only a personal opinion from a egotist so would be disregarded and ridiculed by the majority. Consequently politicians would also need to get a 80%+ pass in science.


----------



## Eager (5 May 2012)

lurker123 said:


> I donkey vote, as the way I see it, the influence of my vote is miniscule.
> Secondly even if I did vote, the party I vote for would not reflect my views.



You are confusing the separate issues of donkey votes and informal votes.

A donkey vote is one regarded as having the ballot paper being filled out in numerical order. It is still a valid vote, because (a) it fulfils the requirements of validity, and (b) there is a chance that the voter actually prefers the candidates to be elected in that order. Technically speaking I often cast donkey votes because I normally vote for the Greens last, but Labor closer to the top of my preferences - in other words, contrary to how-to-vote cards.

An informal vote is one where the ballot paper is not filled out correctly, i.e. blank, missing numbers, scribble etc.



lurker123 said:


> Voting should be a right earned by getting a pass in science (physics/chemistry) of 80% or more.



You cannot be serious. The last thing we need is a high proportion of educated idiots deciding our political futures.  A science degree does not = political nous!!!!


----------



## DB008 (5 May 2012)

Dr. Flannery.....???


----------



## Julia (5 May 2012)

Eager said:


> A science degree does not = political nous!!!!



Neither does any other degree.

Lurker, your rant about only those with a science degree being allowed to vote would eliminate much of the population, something I'm sure you realise.  It seems you believe people with views, intelligence or education at variance from your own are a waste of space.
As you suggest, I doubt you'll find much agreement with your egocentric attitude.


----------



## lurker123 (5 May 2012)

Eager said:


> You are confusing the separate issues of donkey votes and informal votes.
> 
> A donkey vote is one regarded as having the ballot paper being filled out in numerical order. It is still a valid vote, because (a) it fulfils the requirements of validity, and (b) there is a chance that the voter actually prefers the candidates to be elected in that order. Technically speaking I often cast donkey votes because I normally vote for the Greens last, but Labor closer to the top of my preferences - in other words, contrary to how-to-vote cards.
> 
> An informal vote is one where the ballot paper is not filled out correctly, i.e. blank, missing numbers, scribble etc.




Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I informal vote then since I don't fill out anything and just put in a blank ballot paper. 



Eager said:


> You cannot be serious. The last thing we need is a high proportion of educated idiots deciding our political futures.  A science degree does not = political nous!!!!




I didn't say degree. A degree requires going to university which requires decent UAI, time, money e.t.c. 
Note that I said "provided education is still free and compulsory"
High school physics already teaches the fundamentals of how electricity works.

Assuming the majority of the population want to vote. Under a system where 80% pass of science is required, then the majority of the population would be better educated. As I said the test can be retaken at any time. Those who failed to achieve 80% pass in high school would be able to study in their spare time and retake the test at any time. This is similar structure as a drivers license. Almost anybody can get a drivers license. Of course this means those who don't want to vote don't have to achieve the 80% pass. On the other hand those who want to vote must be educated in science enough to pass. 

As Julia points out, my bigoted view is that if you are too lazy to educate yourself in science, then you shouldn't be voting. Very true Julia, taken to the extreme I do think those who don't understand science are a waste of space. However that was not what I said. I said those who do not take the time to try and understand science (the most rational tool for understanding things) are not fit to vote. Since as a extrapolation they also won't take the time to understand properly what they are voting for. Or in my bigoted view, not educated enough to understand what they are voting for, even if they take the time to do some research, and are sheep who are easily manipulated.


----------



## Eager (6 May 2012)

lurker123 said:


> As Julia points out, my bigoted view is that if you are too lazy to educate yourself in science, then you shouldn't be voting. Very true Julia, taken to the extreme I do think those who don't understand science are a waste of space. However that was not what I said. I said those who do not take the time to try and understand science (the most rational tool for understanding things) are not fit to vote. Since as a extrapolation they also won't take the time to understand properly what they are voting for. Or in my bigoted view, not educated enough to understand what they are voting for, even if they take the time to do some research, and are sheep who are easily manipulated.



You have just shot yourself.

I assume that you count yourself as someone who has, at some stage, achieved an 80% grade in a science subject....but by your own admission you didn't even know the difference between a donkey vote and an informal vote.

just goes to show how dumb a person who gets good science grades can be.


----------



## Glen48 (6 May 2012)

A donkey vote is when some one votes for any candidate when an informal vote should be cast.
Until voter's make a stand and demand better ethics from the parties every voter will be a donkey. 
 How can voters worry about science when they are being dumbed down by the trash the media pump out.


----------



## lurker123 (7 May 2012)

Eager said:


> You have just shot yourself.
> 
> I assume that you count yourself as someone who has, at some stage, achieved an 80% grade in a science subject....but by your own admission you didn't even know the difference between a donkey vote and an informal vote.
> 
> just goes to show how dumb a person who gets good science grades can be.




Education and knowledge are related but not the same as intelligence. Something that the majority get confused with. Intelligence / how smart you are can be said to be how fast you can gain knowledge or come up with solutions to problems.  
You can have below average IQ, such as 60 and it still would be possible to pass science at 100% given you put enough time and effort.
You can be the smartest guy in the world with a IQ of 200, however if you can't be bothered to expose yourself to what is being taught and would much rather do something else, you would undoubtedly fail to gain even a 10% mark.

Firstly I never claim to be smarter than anyone else. I merely said, my ego is such that I think I'm right, and those with views that are different from mine are wrong, as Julia so kindly points out. In fact if I was to rate myself in intelligence I would class myself as average. Obviously my giant ego prevents me from classifying myself as below average. 

Secondly no one can have knowledge of everything. Take note that I singled out science, I didn't say get 80%+ pass in everything, I said science. Obviously my ego is such that I see science as the most important subject and that every other subject as unimportant. Obviously I saw it as unimportant to educate myself on what a donkey vote is until you so kindly educated me. 

Thirdly as I said, I think it would be fairly easy for almost anyone to achieve the required education level in science to pass. Like I said before, anyone can get a drivers license. I am not talking about understanding science to the level that you have a degree as a rocket scientist. I am only advocating that those who vote have a basic understanding of science, which is sadly lacking in the majority of the population. I am only putting forth 80%, which seems to be a fairly high mark because I feel that someone getting 50% would not have understood properly what is being taught and would not understand science properly. As I have said in another thread, I disagree with the current university system where they allow people getting 50% to pass a course. However i will reiterate, this is nothing to do with getting a university degree. This is to ensure the voting population has a basic understanding of science.

Fourthly if you haven't realized. The road block of 80% pass in science doesn't actually only allow people with my views to vote. You can be a religious fundamentalist who believes God literally created the world in 7 days and you could still get a 80% pass in science. Obviously this would involve willfully ignoring things you learned that don't fit with your worldview. I didn't point this out in my previous posts because I thought it was fairly obvious.

So you ask the question of what is the point of having this road block in the first place. The point is that at least this will make sure that the voting population will have a basic understanding of science. You ask why science? It is my egocentric view that science is the most important subject because science has created the modern world. 2ndly every theory in science to be accepted as scientific fact needs to be confirmed with experimental evidence. Science is the only rational tool for understanding things. So when the voting population all have a proper working knowledge of science hopefully they can use this tool in every decision they make. Hopefully they will question everything that is put forth by those who seek to manipulate. As a example, we need to invade Iraq because they are developing weapons of mass destruction, how do I know what our leaders are saying is true, is there evidence to back up this claim. Science also gives you a better understanding of your place in the world. Why are we the way we are? We are the way we are because of our genes and our environment. Everything we see influences us. Every advertisement or TV show influences us to a certain degree. Hopefully, when the voting population are better educated in science they will understand this and realize they need to question everything that is shown and as such are better able to shield themselves from this influence. 

As I have said before, I don't care that my suggestion will never be implemented. The chances of my suggestion being implemented is probably less than 0.0001%. I am just putting it out there. The way I see it the current system allows us to head in the direction of the US, which given my views is a bad thing. In my view the US, a once great first world country has been successful turned into a third world country by those who seek to manipulate. This has happened because the elites have successfully manipulated the population to vote against their best interests. 
Democracy can only work when the voting population is better educated. In my view the US is not a democracy it is a plutocracy. Given how Australia likes to follow the US in almost everything, Australia will probably head in the same direction.


----------



## Glen48 (7 May 2012)

Lurker 123 
You are being unfair about USA the dept of home land security has ordered 450Million bullets enough to kill every one 1.5 times, bullet proof booths,FEMA has ordered a large supply of canned and dried food and in the process of setting up Re Education camps to house 28 million Blacks and  any other American citizen who has a sticker on the  car or anti USA or any sort of activist  type paraphernalia so they can send in the CIA, FBI or any dept they chose to check out your house. 

They have over ridden the constitution to take control of any thing they like. 
 The media is not running any thing about Ron Paul in case he gets elected and 28% think Gold is the safest bet for the future.
 So the voters will one day wake up to whats going on maybe too late and as you say be another 3 rd world country just like OZ will be in another  8 yrs or so.

 Mechanical engineers build weapons civil engineers build targets.

As  long as voters are being spoon fed there is no need for them to think.


----------



## Eager (7 May 2012)

Lurker123,

I appreciate the effort you have given to your reply, and the size of your ego!  It is a shame that you didn't nominate mathematics as the example, since you are preaching to an audience whose members normally involve themselves in numbers!


----------



## Julia (7 May 2012)

Lurker 123, if you continue with interesting and valid comments such as your latest post I shall even have to consider agreeing with you.
Thanks for a logical and articulate argument which - when expanded on as you have above - makes considerable sense.


----------



## DB008 (17 May 2012)

Found this, interesting.


----------



## Logique (17 May 2012)

Great find Dannyboy, and confirms my initial thoughts on compulsory voting.


----------



## McLovin (10 September 2012)

> ONLY 50 per cent of eligible voters turned out for the Sydney City Council election on Saturday, among the lowest in NSW.
> 
> And many of those that did wasted their vote by doodling or nominating US President Barack Obama.
> 
> ...




Looks like the big loser on the day was compulsory voting. There's probably more merit in compulsory voting at the state and federal level (although personally I disagree with all forms of compulsory voting) but do we really need to be forced to chose who will decide what night garbage night is?

I see in my area, Woollahra, turnout was 57%. 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ack-obama-a-tick/story-fndo317g-1226468491881


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 January 2013)

I am in favour of compulsory voting, I believe it lends credence to the decision of a poll, and stops small interest groups and nutters from skewing a result.

The paper from the Queensland LNP is just that a discussion paper. It does no harm to revisit these issues. Many Liberals and National Party members believe in compulsory voting.

The only problem at the moment is that Ma Gillard will use this discussion paper to scare voters. 

More negativity from Labor.

I don't go on twitter but I'd bet London to a brick that twits like Craig Emerson are milking it for all it's worth with the other luvvies on Twitter. 

It's a non issue.

A scare campaign, more negative stuff from the ALP with no policies and a bad history of managing Australia's money and borders.

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> .
> The only problem at the moment is that Ma Gillard will use this discussion paper to scare voters.
> 
> More negativity from Labor.gg




I don't see why it should scare voters.  It would be the best thing since sliced bread. Anything that the evil dwarf Wayne Swan sees as a threat to democracy must be a good thing. It would be a threat to Labor though as the electors who vote, only because they have to, probably vote Labor. Any electoral system that forces people to vote is not democratic.

It won't happen though.





> A QUEENSLAND Government proposal to investigate non-compulsory voting has angered Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan, who says it is a threat to democracy.
> 
> Mr Swan, who is on holiday on the Sunshine Coast, said it was a step back to the Bjelke-Petersen days.



http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/vote-wayne-swan-compulsory-voting-election/1705880/


----------



## sails (4 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I don't see why it should scare voters.  It would be the best thing since sliced bread. Anything that the evil dwarf Wayne Swan sees as a threat to democracy must be a good thing. It would be a threat to Labor though as the electors who vote, only because they have to, probably vote Labor. Any electoral system that forces people to vote is not democratic.
> 
> It won't happen though.
> 
> ...





On the basis of Swan saying that, I have polled for non-compulsory voting...lol


----------



## sydboy007 (4 January 2013)

If they remove compulsory voting then we will move straight to a US style extreme left and right kind of political system.  You have to go extreme to get people to make the effort to vote as the center tend to be less inclined to get out of the house and into a voting booth.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> If they remove compulsory voting then we will move straight to a US style extreme left and right kind of political system.  You have to go extreme to get people to make the effort to vote as the center tend to be less inclined to get out of the house and into a voting booth.



On what do you base this generalisation?
New Zealand has never had compulsory voting and always has a turnout of between 75% and 80%.  In all my years there I never saw the political system aligned to the extreme right or left.
Effectively, what voluntary voting offers is the opportunity for those who are informed and interested to make an educated vote, rather than the compulsory system where people who couldn't give a stuff will just follow whatever How to Vote form is thrust into their hands on the way into the voting chamber.


----------



## Bill M (4 January 2013)

Julia said:


> On what do you base this generalisation?
> New Zealand has never had compulsory voting and always has a turnout of between 75% and 80%.  In all my years there I never saw the political system aligned to the extreme right or left.
> Effectively, what voluntary voting offers is the opportunity for those who are informed and interested to make an educated vote, rather than the compulsory system where people who couldn't give a stuff will just follow whatever How to Vote form is thrust into their hands on the way into the voting chamber.




I agree with this too.

On another issue, why can't we vote online yet in this country? That would solve a lot problems with voters not voting. The biggest hassle is turning up at you local school hall, finding parking, dodging all the pamplet pushers and then queuing up for half an hour to get your name ruled off and the paperwork? *What are the bureaucrats afraid of?* Oh before anyone says fraud please don't, if we have secure internet banking I can't see why we can't have secure online voting.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> I don't see why it should scare voters.  It would be the best thing since sliced bread. Anything that the evil dwarf Wayne Swan sees as a threat to democracy must be a good thing. It would be a threat to Labor though as the electors who vote, only because they have to, probably vote Labor. Any electoral system that forces people to vote is not democratic.
> 
> It won't happen though.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't be too sure.

ALP is now in spin mode, Craig Emerson on Twitter, Wayne Swan in the Courier Mail.

Ma Gillard has a pom called McTernan, heading her Office, who used work for Tony Blair and kept that piece of crap in power long past his use by date.

McTernan can manipulate the press and the agenda par excellence, and may actually get the ALP back in to government this year.

He thought up the misogyny debate, although my contacts in Sussex St., (who hate his guts), tell me he now regrets it, as it will play against the ALP. 

Ever read 1984?

This guy is a 2013. 

gg


----------



## Logique (5 January 2013)

Weren't there problems with electronic voting in the US a few elections back, might have been in G.Bush time. I have a long way to go before I'd trust an electronic system for polling. Hacked into by foreign nationals, just imagine it.

This will seem partisan, but it's no surprise to me that leading ALP figures are speaking against voluntary voting. It speaks to their present style of politics. In 2013 expect (ad nauseam) 'Abbott is a misogynist',  and 'climate change' (the CSIRO scientists said so, or they're sacked).


----------



## Knobby22 (7 January 2013)

We don't have compulsory voting. We have compulsory getting your name signed off the register.
And I can't believe that that anyone would want to use the USA as an example of a successful voting system. It has been corrupted so badly that the middle class has been destroyed by corporate interests.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> We don't have compulsory voting. We have compulsory getting your name signed off the register.
> And I can't believe that that anyone would want to use the USA as an example of a successful voting system. It has been corrupted so badly that the middle class has been destroyed by corporate interests.




Don't worry. It's not going to happen. It was just an idea thrown into the pot on electoral reform. We will still be compelled to front up to the polling booth whether we want to or not.


----------



## pixel (7 January 2013)




----------



## DB008 (7 January 2013)

Bill M said:


> On another issue, why can't we vote online yet in this country? That would solve a lot problems with voters not voting. The biggest hassle is turning up at you local school hall, finding parking, dodging all the pamplet pushers and then queuing up for half an hour to get your name ruled off and the paperwork? *What are the bureaucrats afraid of?* Oh before anyone says fraud please don't, if we have secure internet banking I can't see why we can't have secure online voting.




LOL

If Anonymous/LulzSec can hack into the Pentagon, CIA, and DOD (etc etc....), then tampering with the AEC would be a cake walk.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> LOL
> 
> If Anonymous/LulzSec can hack into the Pentagon, CIA, and DOD (etc etc....), then tampering with the AEC would be a cake walk.




I think a serious government would figure out a way around it, although i agree the hackers would probably be able to crash it if so desired.

I think we should be able to vote online and use our tax file number or passport or medicare number, or even some other sort of government card just for elections in order to reduce fraud


----------



## DocK (7 January 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> I think a serious government would figure out a way around it, although i agree the hackers would probably be able to crash it if so desired.
> 
> I think we should be able to vote online and use our tax file number or passport or medicare number, or even some other sort of government card just for elections in order to reduce fraud




Maybe that's an idea to put to the Green rep in your area  Imagine the saving of paper, fuel, carbon emissions etc  Will have to happen one day you'd expect.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 January 2013)

i got milk up me nose tis morning upon reading Barnaby is against removing compulsory voting.

It must be the first time he's made any sense.

I put it down to working 3 night shifts and the lack of sleep.  Maybe I can speak agraian socialist too


----------

