Voting is compulsory in Australia. $170 fine of you fail to do so. They seem to deal with it without any dummy spitting.

You can not "engage" as you put it by spoiling your ballot paper. I fail to see any downsides to compulsory voting nor any reasons to object to it. Put a box on there for "I do not wish to vote in this election" would also solve the problem of those who don't want to vote.

It is certainly true all the main parties pander to a small sector of those who do vote in order to win these particular peoples vote. The result is in effect the views of a small section of the voting public determine the politics of the country.

Getting all the voting population into the polling booth (or voting by more modern methods) by making it compulsory to vote is clearly the best way to get the government to reflect the view of the majority whatever that may be. The idea we would then be governed by a government without a mandate goes out of the window.

I can't fathom why anyone can seriously object to the idea.

I don't see any parallels with the say UK communist party and UKIP in terms of then being something sensible to choose to support. The communist party offers a coherent philosophy which you may or may not disagree with. Anyone can see what they stand for and decide to vote for them or not based on that. UKIP are a IMO a bunch of fascists who aren't offering anything remotely coherent or workable.

Why should the right to vote become a duty? It's our right to exercise our rights, not be forced to exercise them under threat of financial penalty.

Presumably non payment of this $170 fine will eventually lead to arrest and eventually incarceration - outrageous!

We supposedly live in a democracy, which in my mind means people should be free to do what they like as long as they don't inflict harm, loss or injury on anybody else.

So you don't believe what any of them were saying in their manifestos.

That means they are all the same, so how could you eliminate any of them?

If you have reasons not to vote Tory, Lib Dem or Labour it would be far easier to spot reasons not to vote UKIP.

If you are trying to suggest that UKIP didn't give you reasons to avoid them because you don't believe they will implement their dire and quite frankly bonkers domestic polices you have not been paying attention to how they behave in the EU parliament. Check out how they vote in there (yes they do vote despite wanting to leave the EU).

They have for example consistently voted against measures to close corporate tax avoidance loopholes.

So I am afraid giving them the benefit of the doubt that they won't be stupid was a bit short sighted.

Quote ="TrinityIHC"That's a horrible idea, you can't force people to engage with politics if they don't want to. '" So you can force people to wear a seatbelt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorbike but you can't compel people to engage in the single most important decisions we make about the country we live in? Look at the voting pattern on page 10, it's pretty straighforward, the older you are the more likely you are to vote and the more well off you are the more likely to vote. The turnout amongst 18-24 year olds is truly pathetic, when I first got the vote I was proud to cast it. If I can find this out in 30 seconds and political strategists paid huge salaries are employed by all the main parties it's no surprise that policies that benefit or attract the votes of people who actually get of their bums and vote are prioritised. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf

Quote ="TrinityIHC"That's a horrible idea, you can't force people to engage with politics if they don't want to. '" So you can force people to wear a seatbelt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorbike but you can't compel people to engage in the single most important decisions we make about the country we live in? Look at the voting pattern on page 10, it's pretty straighforward, the older you are the more likely you are to vote and the more well off you are the more likely to vote. The turnout amongst 18-24 year olds is truly pathetic, when I first got the vote I was proud to cast it. If I can find this out in 30 seconds and political strategists paid huge salaries are employed by all the main parties it's no surprise that policies that benefit or attract the votes of people who actually get of their bums and vote are prioritised. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf

Maybe so, but the others have proved themselves incompetent/ineffective. UKIP will no doubt turn out the same but I feel that someone else deserves a crack of the whip and if not them.. who?

Out of that list of parties that compete in my area, there are basically Labour, Tories and 2 small time national front type organisations, none of whom I will vote for. This leaves me with a straightforward choice between Ukip + Greens and I plumped for Ukip as the more likely to succeed out of those two.

Or alternatively count all the no-shows as spoiled votes in a "none of the above" style and include them in the results.

Quote ="DHM"So you can force people to wear a seatbelt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorbike but you can't compel people to engage in the single most important decisions we make about the country we live in? Look at the voting pattern on page 10, it's pretty straighforward, the older you are the more likely you are to vote and the more well off you are the more likely to vote. The turnout amongst 18-24 year olds is truly pathetic, when I first got the vote I was proud to cast it. If I can find this out in 30 seconds and political strategists paid huge salaries are employed by all the main parties it's no surprise that policies that benefit or attract the votes of people who actually get of their bums and vote are prioritised. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf'" t wouldn't be the most important decision that we make as a country if 40% are only doing it to avoid a fine. It would be an important decision for the 60%, only for that decision to be undermined by the 40% voting for the latest incarnation of Screaming Lord Such

Quote ="DHM"So you can force people to wear a seatbelt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorbike but you can't compel people to engage in the single most important decisions we make about the country we live in? Look at the voting pattern on page 10, it's pretty straighforward, the older you are the more likely you are to vote and the more well off you are the more likely to vote. The turnout amongst 18-24 year olds is truly pathetic, when I first got the vote I was proud to cast it. If I can find this out in 30 seconds and political strategists paid huge salaries are employed by all the main parties it's no surprise that policies that benefit or attract the votes of people who actually get of their bums and vote are prioritised. www.electoral-reform.org.uk/imag ... 93b87a.pdf'" t wouldn't be the most important decision that we make as a country if 40% are only doing it to avoid a fine. It would be an important decision for the 60%, only for that decision to be undermined by the 40% voting for the latest incarnation of Screaming Lord Such

enforced voting?

no thanks

Aren't UKIP a small time National Front - type organisation though??.....

Ssshhhh don't burst his bubble...

As I said earlier: fascists who shop at M&S and Waitrose

Not in my opinion

You wasn't joking when you said you hadn't read their manifesto, was you??....

Sigh, there is a massive difference between a right wing populist party and a fascist neo-nazi party. By your logic, the Labour party are communists.

I think you'll find there a lot closer to the party that you decided to cast your vote for.

Cute.

Would have been more credible if they could have resisted putting the legalising rape in marriage on there.

EDIT:

I'm not some kind of self appointed ukip defender, like I say I don't like any politicians or their parties but I feel Ukip are being hailed as the antichrist by the mainstream parties and left wing, when in reality they're all as bad as each other.

Don't judge the rest of the population by your own standards.

If people know they are going to vote then they will more than likely take an interest in what they are voting for.

All taken from their policy documents.

Some of it is taken from their policy documents... out of context.

For example - Yes they do want to cancel house building... on green belt land and switch to brown belt.
Yes they do want to raise the income tax level.... but raise the minimum tax threshold.

The legalising of rape within marriage claim is absurd, if you can find any policy or literature of any sort that says that is their intent, then not only will I eat my hat. I'll happily eat every piece of clothing that I own and also the wardrobes and drawers that contain them.

They have mentioned giving people the option to opt out of the NHS if they wish to pay private medical insurance and not pay the NHS element of their national insurance. Hardly privatising it, which both Labour and the Tories have made great inroads in to doing anyway (PFI's etc)

The only points on their that are actually true are the cancelling climate change and the fact they don't like multiculturalism. I disagree with them on both these issues, but they are well down my list of priorities to be fair.

In any event, they have only won the European elections and are a million miles away from gaining the ability to be able to implement ANY of their policies, so the point is rather moot imo.

Its back-of-a-beer-mat policies like that that make most party manifesto's a joke.

Its a great soundbite, give the population a choice, buy some private health insurance with the tax you pay for the NHS, never have to wait in a queue again, always have the very latest and best treatments from the elite staff employed in private healthcare, sounds good doesn't it ?

(BTW, those claims were made in a leaflet I received from Aviva Healthcare this very morning)

But it won't work.

It won't work because you can't buy a private healthcare policy that offers you unlimited care and treatment for any and all incidences that are ever likely to affect or infect a human being, for the same price that you will be paying towards the NHS in tax - I'll give you a starter for ten, which private hospital will send out a paramedic and a separate ambulance with two medics on board when you get hit by a bus ?

It won't work because you can't buy a private health insurance policy that doesn't get more expensive the older you get, private health insurance is not there to offer you healthcare from cradle to grave, its there to make a profit for its shareholders and the more risk you are the more they will charge you, which isn't an issue if you are 25, employed, single, fit and healthy, but try and get a quote when you're 40, married with dependants, overweight (according to their charts) and in a risk group for diabetes - you may be surprised at how their advertising blurb doesn't quite match their attitude towards you as a high risk client.

It won't work because you can't just ignore the vast majority of the population that remains when the private health insurers have cherry picked all of the low risk high earners, who will provide healthcare for the retired, the under 18's, the unemployed, the disabled, etc, etc, etc - the answer is of course the NHS who will be faced with lower income streams because of the diversion of tax away from them and a higher percentage of clients needing their valuable treatment.



See, that only took five minutes of thinking the manifesto policy through to its obvious conclusion so you do wonder who the hell writes this stuff for the political party's and whether or not in UKIP's case they all got too p1ssed with Farage in the chair that night to actually put any thought into their published web site promises.

Winston Churchill once said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”...and how right he is been proven to be. UKIP running the UK ? You democrats sure are a bunch of idiots.

Why should it not become a duty? We are compelled to do many things. It's illegal not to educate you kids. I will face a far bigger fine if I don't file my tax return by the due date than the equivalent of AUD $170.

Is it my democratic right to refuse to do either? No.



We all have numerous obligations despite living in a democracy. Having to vote is far less onerous than many other obligations. Look at the regime anyone unemployed has to endure currently.

I think you are so blinkered here it is untrue.

Not really, there is a massive difference between the examples you give and being forced to vote in my opinion.

Taxes are necessary in order to provide the public services that the majority of the country require to live a reasonable standard of life, you can't opt out or the whole country would grind to a shuddering halt.

Similarly if we don't educate our children, we would become a nation of illiterates and the country would grind to a shuddering halt.

Voting on the other hand is not essential, a non vote speaks as many volumes as a vote and not voting cause no loss harm or injury to the country or other citizens. Whether or not it is an onerous task or not is irrelevant.

Your final comment about the unemployed is absurd. They are not forced to take part in that regime, if however they would like government assistance during their unemployment, then they have to meet certain conditions in order to receive it.