Sorry, missed this before. I think Australians are more politically aware simply because it is a smaller country and they are generally more interested. They possibly feel a closer connection with the government.
My two cents worth:
Non-compulsory voting doesn’t lead to a system where only the educated and informed have a say.
It leads to a system where only extremists have a say. And that doesn’t mean just a left/right extremist battle. I’ve seen student council elections where the battle was between the ultra left, and the ultra-ultra left. I’ve seen school Parent’s & Citizen’s committee elections where the battle was between the ultra right, the ultra-ultra right, the ultra left and the ultra-ultra left.
Most of the eligible voting populations didn’t vote, and I suspect couldn’t even work out what the fuck the candidates were talking about.
It’s just my guess, but if the candidates knew that everyone had to vote, they might target the larger electorate, and not just the extremes.
(Then again, it might simply lead to more campaign lies.)
yeah, the Repub-loving Diebold folks and their “proprietary software” that will be used to count ALL the votes in the next election poses quite a problem. Whether or not any shenanigans are underway at Diebold, the potential is definitely there, and given the theft of the 2000 Presidential election, it would be very foolish to assume that that potential won’t be realized.
I’m really amazed that the Democratic National Committee doesn’t have some people working on this issue – all the fundrasing and get out the vote driving in the world won’t make a bit of difference if the vote counting machines are rigged.
The again, the DNC hasn’t exactly been a shining beacon of intelligence lately.
When the government says “it would be distracting from our goal of defeating the enemy for the forthcoming elections to take place. Elections are postponed until this current crisis is over.”
Since you asked…
I think auliya has a point with compulsory voting.
I think politicians should not be allowed to accept a damn red cent from anyone. There should be government-sponsered mechanisms by which any eligible candidate can reach the public. Perhaps candidates with a higher percentage of support are allowed additional opportunities, so fringe parties don’t get the same exposure that mainstream parties get.
In fact, I might go so far as to say we need a new amendment that makes paid political advertisements illegal.
It’s not that I don’t trust the “beer-swilling slobs” to make decisions, it’s that the public are not even being given the opportunity to make a decision. People shouldn’t have to make a herculean effort in order to figure out who is lying to them. Unfortunatley, that is now the case.
My friend, you don’t understand a damned thing about the US electoral system.
Um, no. Australians don’t need to be aware of the issues, they just need to show up on electon day.
If the governmental forces are smart the populace will never know until it is too late.
When did Germans know that Hitler has gone too far?
Wow…it must be nice to be so enlightened.
Here is what people care about:
They care about how much THEY are taxed.
They care about their loved ones dieing to free a people who may or may not appreciate their sacrifices.
They care if they can fill their gas tank for less than $2 a gallon.
They care about not having airplanes crash into their cities.
They care about having jobs to go to in the morning.
All that other stuff you mentioned is idealistic bullshit.
The only thing we can learn from history is that we have nothing to learn from history.
The only thing you can learn from history is thay you have nothing to learn from history.
Do you learn how to tie your shoes everyday or do you wear slippers? Are you still putting your hand in the fire and getting burned? 
I should rephrase that to say “because they have to vote or pay a small fine, they are more likely to take notice of what this issues are.”
Of course some will just turn up and and not make a legitimate vote, but as they have to make the effort, they are more likely to take notice of what they are making the effort about.
I think each proposition above is a horrible idea.
Fortunately, none are likely to come to pass.
Of course, if you can get the requisite majority to agree with you, it will.
Good luck.
Mmmm…donut…zzap!* DOH!!!
hmmm…zzap!* DOH!!!
zzap!* DOH!!!
zzap!* DOH!!!
Learned behavior is a little diferent from trying to draw parallels from historical events. Historical events can be studdied but it’s foolish to believe that similar actions will produce the same results under similar circumstances.
If you kick a dog it will remember you & growl when you come back near it.
When you kick a person you can sweettalk it into thinking you were doing it a favour. Most people are easily fooled - humans are a cooperative lot but this good trait can be easily manipulated, especially if you pay a team of psychology professors to guide your hand.
IMHO the majority wouldn’t realise until too late. Not because they’re dumb, but because they’re human.