Originally Posted by diuretic

Of course it's a citizen's duty to vote, the various electoral acts here make it so. Putting a duty on a citizen doesn't affect their freedom deleteriously. Citizens are required to perform jury duty - does that harm their freedom? No, it doesn't. Similarly with voting. All citizens in any democracy have duties and responsibilities as well as rights and freedoms. This is just a duty we have in our society.

Originally Posted by hot dragon

thanks to everyone posting and reading.

thanks diuretic for providing further information.

for clarification, it is only required that you are given a ballot paper, and a space to fill it out confidentially. there is NO checking of how you have voted, nobody else is allowed to see your ballot paper, but you must be given one and must put it in the ballot box.

about 5-10% of people do not vote. they get given a ballot paper and submit it blank or with abuse scrawled over it.

the benefit of the system (and from my understanding the reason it was introduced)is that by making it compulsory for everyone the government also has to make it possible. it removes the option of the government providing a limited number of voting places at election time. this was especially important early on when the population was small and very thinly spread over a vast area.

most australians support the current compulsory system. there have been attempts to remove it, but they have all failed.

there are a few people who raise the same kind of objections raised on this forum. personally, my opinion is that the benefits of getting universal attendance far outweigh the tiny restrictions on liberty one day every 3 years.

the benefit is that it is always very easy to vote, there is always information available at the voting places. also, there is a sense of interest in the community as everyone must, at some level, become involved. i think this advantage is accidental but very good.

thank you all again.

Originally Posted by hot dragon

thanks to everyone posting and reading.

thanks diuretic for providing further information.

for clarification, it is only required that you are given a ballot paper, and a space to fill it out confidentially. there is NO checking of how you have voted, nobody else is allowed to see your ballot paper, but you must be given one and must put it in the ballot box.

about 5-10% of people do not vote. they get given a ballot paper and submit it blank or with abuse scrawled over it.

the benefit of the system (and from my understanding the reason it was introduced)is that by making it compulsory for everyone the government also has to make it possible. it removes the option of the government providing a limited number of voting places at election time. this was especially important early on when the population was small and very thinly spread over a vast area.

most australians support the current compulsory system. there have been attempts to remove it, but they have all failed.

there are a few people who raise the same kind of objections raised on this forum. personally, my opinion is that the benefits of getting universal attendance far outweigh the tiny restrictions on liberty one day every 3 years.

the benefit is that it is always very easy to vote, there is always information available at the voting places. also, there is a sense of interest in the community as everyone must, at some level, become involved. i think this advantage is accidental but very good.

thank you all again.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

That is different, that is needed. Not only is this not need but it is detrimental. As I said before the right to vote is a freedom.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Ok, here is my question:
How is having this law good?

Originally Posted by nerv14

yeah I know, I would never not vote to express my ditaste for politicians, because than they would win, but I am just trying to say that people deserve a right to not vote if they want, for whatever reason it might be.

Most of my reasons against required voting aren't about any specific reason, but the government truely doesn't have the right to force anyone to vote. My philosophy is that the gov shouldn't make people do anything, if not doing it doesn't specifically hurt anyone.

Originally Posted by leviathon435

The more people that vote the better, as you've said it's easy to become informed and if it was a citizen's duty to vote most would take the small amount of time to become informed. Anyway, it is best if more people vote because that makes the government more representative, like in Britain, in the last election Blair got the support of a little over 20% of the electorate, if everyone had voted that figure would've been substantially increased. And now to government not having the right to force you, why does it even matter, what's 15 minutes?

Originally Posted by diuretic

On a more practical basis, we find that our political parties don't worry about focussing on getting people to the polling place because they don't need to. That allows us to more closely focus on what their policies are, we make them tell us.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Many that vote here are not informed. They just do not care. As I said before the more ignorant voters the worse it is. If they are going to vote by choice I would say they have a better chance of being informed then someone that is just voting because they are made to. Giving them to choice to vote or not makes it more representative. That way the people that care to vote do. Getting rid of the don't care vote. Having a random don't care vote forced in it just makes it more random. It is in principal. There is no need to force this on people. I see big problems that occur from forcing people. In most circumstances I am against forcing people to do things against there will.