[dejb]

You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.

[laut]

And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

[dejb]

> And expensive, capped, government controlled internet.

Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.

Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?

> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.

Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.

> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.

> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as opposed to the US system of democracy.

[parenthesis]

I think that voting should be compulsory, but with a 'none of the above' option.

[netcan]

In Australia it is.

[tjmc]

My mother once wrote to them "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" Clever, but they still fined her.

[lutorm]

As they should have. ;-)

Democracy is not the right to do as one pleases, it's a way of running society. As such it's perfectly reasonable for a democratic society to decide that the privilege of citizenship comes with responsibilities, one of which being the requirement to vote. It's no different from deciding that stealing is illegal, if the populace disagrees they can make it an election issue and push the "non-compulsory voting" issue.

[Brushfire]

Thats all fine and good -- but what if you dislike all of the choices? In other words, you are saying I should be forced by the government to spend time out of my day to go somewhere to complete a write-in vote for people who likely wont win? Alternatively, if you read reports -- some district ALWAYS go a certain direction (liberal/conservative/etc). So if you are a liberal in a district that has gone conservative for 80+ years... whats the point

I think this is counterproductive. If people don't want to have their voice heard, then they should not be forced. Those who are willing/able/eager to vote, shall, and those who arent, have no excuse to bitch about the results.

My point is not that the above are always sound arguments for an individual to not vote, but that we should never be forced to do anything by our government. If I want to sit at home and not be part of the system, well thats my fucking right. And that right is paramount, in my opinion, to any 'right' society claims that I should be involved in it. What can I say, I'm a libertarian.

[potatolicious]

I agree people should not be forced to vote - if anything that will simply make MORE ill-informed votes. That being said, if you're a liberal in a conservative district, vote, make your voice heard. My district in the last Canadian election was conservative by a slim 80 votes, and you can be sure the new guy won't be doing anything overly conservative - his hold on the majority is tenuous at best and he knows it.

A failure to vote in this circumstance will simply hand the candidate a landslide, and a de facto approval to do whatever the hell he wants.

[lief79]

That didn't seem to bother Bush.

[jwilliams]

Indeed... I've had a few arguments about whether it should be compulsory or not... If this is some kind of infringement on personal liberties and such.

Whichever side I've argued on (and I've tried either) - generally everyone agrees that having the vast majority of the population vote is a good idea, and "works" on whatever level you want to define that.