As a leftie I have a firm belief in the worth of all individuals (and their opinions) and I believe all citizens have an obligation to engage in participatory democracy. By having compulsory voting we are telling people that they (and their opinions) have intrinsic worth and that they are responsible for society.

Normally countries that have non-compulsory voting have governments that are more authorities, more right-wing and have a more defined social class system. This comes about because percentage of electoral participation  goes up with sociometric status. This is because the higher classes have more leisure time to engage in political debate while the lower classes do not and the lowest class are too preoccupied with the task of merely living too engage in the political process (refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). This disproportionate engagement in political system leads to the entrenchment of class systems since those that benefit from them will be ones who dominate the political process.

I have lots more to say about that, but perhaps it would be an idea to hear the other side.

I strongly believe we should have compulsory voting.
It shows everyone that their opinion counts.
And after all, if you REALLY don't want to care, you can put a blank slip in the box.

Benny you make the claim that you would prefer that only people who are politically educated should vote. Political education (and all education) is a social commodity which distributed throughout society unevenly in a manner that is tied to socioeconomic status.
If we don’t require everyone to vote the result will be that only those who are politically educated will vote. ( in my opinion this is an unacceptably arrogant position as it presumes that the “educated” minority know what is best for the majority) this encourages a stratified society.

Yes some countries with non-compulsory voting do have leftist governments. But I was talking in general terms and you have cherry picked a handful of countries out of a much larger group. That aside I would argue that Australia can hold it’s own against New Zealand, Canada and the UK in terms of healthcare and education systems (especially if you exclude the last 10 years of howardism), in the Scandinavian countries (such as Sweden) the leftist policies of the government and the high rates of political participation are due to a cultural emphasis on collectivism (unlike our individualism) rather than the presence or lack of a compulsory voting system. Finally in Switzerland the percapita wealth level drives the services rather than political participation.

It has been documented that generally the political spectrums of countries shift to the right when compulsory voting is abolished and the left visa-versa.

I haven’t mentioned specific countries because I don’t think any one example can a true representation of all countries in which it has occurred. However since you asked for one I can give you… …. … Austria (although I want to point out that what I am talking about is not an instant cause and effect relationship but rather a general trending)

Thanks for making the distinction between politically educated and politically passionate. I would argue that while they are distinct there is a definite link between the two. What do you think?

I am not arguing that compulsory voting is the sole determining factor in determining a country’s political leaning but it is a factor, along with cultural values, economic conditions and all the rest of it.

Just at the end of your post I think you are making the argument that voting is a civil right rather than a civil duty. Is this what you are saying?

As for your final point I think it would be interesting to compare the waste of Australian compulsory voting to the waste of the campaigning that occurs in countries like the U.S.

I don't understand why you keep refering to people who are poltically educated or politically passionate, how do you keep infering different things from the same sentence?. Just because someone cares about or has knowledge on an issue doesn't mean they are either politically educated or passionate, it simply means they care about or have knowledge on an issue. I know many people who are passionate about certain issues, it doesnt automatically make them politcally passionate, most people can't stand politics. I myself prefer science anyday!

Voting is not a duty, how is that consistent with the freedoms associated with being in a democracy? It infringes our right to silence, and to be apolitical. In Australia we don't have a bill of rights, so the constitution gives us the basic freedoms of humans, voting is one of them. Not one country in the world has a bill of civic duties

Wastage you say? How about the fact that campaigning makes politicians reach out to their electorate and actually seek votes by doing/promising things for the electorate? Compulsory voting favors established parties because it obliges loyal voters, no matter how apathetic, to turn up and vote for a party without them having to spend anything on pursuading their voters. It drowns out the minor parties and independants, whose followers are likely to be more enthused anyway.
The money spent on campaigning in the US, as in other democracies where voting is optional, doesn't come from taxpayers. I thought that was obvious, especially in the US. Compulsory voting might keep the cost of campaigning down but its outweighed by having to process almost the whole country on election day. Besides, isnt campaigning what being a politician is about? In relative terms Australia wastes alot more taxpayers money holding compulsory elections. That money could be put to better use by the goverment, as opposed to some oil tycoon in the US who decides to buy himself a learjet instead of contributing to politics. Its more about taxpayers money being wasted, campaign money, whether from taxpayers or not, is seldom wasted. You don't upset a millionaire corporate director by wasting his campaign contribution