Ok let’s define some terms then.

Politically educated – Someone who has the knowledge needed to understand the political process and engage meaningfully in political debate.

Politically passionate – Cares enough to engage in the political process. (Doesn’t mean they care about politics, but they care enough about something to make them turn up and vote)

I hope you can see what I mean when I use these two different terms. Some people are politically educated but lack passion, others visa versa.

*************
I might put a rule utilitarian argument against your supposition that democracy guarantees us the right not to vote. (don’t assume that I am a rule utilitarian though, I am not but I think their perspective might be valid in this case)

What would happen if everyone in a democracy exercised this supposed right not to vote? 

You’ve misinterpreted my meaning of politically passionate. But I don’t want that to distract from what I am trying to say.

In terms of the single mother that resolves to a necessity to provide adequate wages and income support for those who need it so that they have time to be informed. Perhaps the reason that Howard has been returned so many times is that the working (and to a degree the middle) classes have been too busy working and haven’t had time to devote to political thought. To imply that these people are merely wage “serfs” with inconsequential political opinions is wrong and goes against everything I stand for as an educator. However I don’t also don’t want that to distract from what I want to place emphasis on.


The main point.
I know that it unlikely that no one would vote but using by using this hypothetical we can derive the reason why we must vote (at least according to the rule utilitarians ).

Rule utilitarianism dictates that the right thing to do is that which when applied consistently would lead to the greatest good (and of course the reverse applies). So the rule utilitarian doesn’t kill people they don’t like because if everyone could kill as they saw fit the world would be a pretty empty place.

So to apply that to our argument.
If no one was to vote then democracies would not exist (I know you agree with this however unlikely it might be). As long as we assume that democracy is the system which brings about the greatest good, this substantiates the need to vote.


This might be a bit off track but do you realise that there exists a logical inconsistency with all citizens having the right to vote and not vote concurrently. Consider, that a clear majority of citizens exercised the “right” not to vote, this would result in the denial of the right to vote to the minority since the elected government would be ineffective and lack the popular support to govern. The result would be that either that society would splinter or that the government would maintain order through the use of force rather than the populace’s consent (tacit or otherwise).

 I believe that we actually can see this occurring in America with subgroups disengaging from the political process and forming communities that do not recognise the central administration (these groups are small but there are plenty of them). The central administration only keeps these groups from growing through the use of physical force and of course media coercion.

I did not in any of my post refer to anyone as wage 'surfs' or state that anyone's opinion is inconsequential. Once again your putting words in my mouth. You are proving my point, if those people who had been working and dont have enough time for political support are forced to vote, they vote for the govt, as you stated. Is that a true reflection of what voters want? Thats a direct result of compulsory voting. What you seem to think im implying is utter crap, I dont imply things mate, Im very straight forward

You obviously believe in the right to silence, how is being forced to vote respecting that right? Have a look at the AEC website or think about what SA gave women the right to do in 1895. Voting is a right, not a duty, and as such it has entailed in every democracy on earth that for every right, people have the right to abstain. Thats what the definition of a right is; straight from wiki, "a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society". Pretty clear cut and logical, isnt it?

If we have the right to vote, we have the right not to vote. How is there any logic in what you have stated?
 
"Consider, that a clear majority of citizens exercised the “right” not to vote, this would result in the denial of the right to vote to the minority since the elected government would be ineffective and lack the popular support to govern"

How does exercising the right not to vote deny votes to the minority, but also make the elected government ineffective because it lacks popular support? The fact that you can acknowledge the right not to vote and believe people have rights, but also apply rule utilitarianism, is just plain contradictory.
If a government lacks popular support, it has no right to govern. Thats the whole idea behind campaigning; to do things for your electorate to gain support and become elected. Politicians in Australia should have to do more for our votes, not just spring issues on us towards an election, as Howard has done every time. And its worked, children overboard, Tampa, Iraq; he has given them all to us before an election and in all the confusion the majority of people believe the government, and give them their vote

Rule utilitarians killing people? You are taking everything to the extreme. Look at the aforementioned countries that are not compulsory voters? They all have successful democracies and they dont feel that its the greater good to make people vote. Why is that? Because they clearly recognise voting is a right

Neither of you can give an example of any society which demonstrates this.

Big buisness participation in politics is a whole other issue, do you really want yet another thread to slide way off topic?

I haven't bothered breaking new ground because I cant get a decent rebuttle on the main point ive made; voting is a right, and the definition of a right is that one can abstain from exercising said right. Instead, Dave hase gone off on a tangent about ideoligies and implying that I think people who don't vote at non-compulsory elections are worthless.

Compulsory voting favors the government in power, thus increasing the number of safe seat electorates and giving no incentive for politicians to do more for their constituents to keep/win votes, as is the case in marginal electorates. Compulsory voting also increases the risk of the true political preference of an electorate by forcing those who are uninformed or don't care for politics to the polls. Im trying to argue with facts here and not draw people into a discussion about ideoligies and principals, or a reiteration of something ive read and feel the urge to express

compulsory .... people who truly dont care still can do their democratic duty and have the right to intentionally fudge their ballot