Reading your article – and despite the grinding my teeth start to do when the word ‘compulsory’ appears – I can’t help be feel inclined to agree…and at the same time wonder how a party can suggest it without losing popularity.(Though that’s a whole other debate, one about ‘right’ over ‘popular’.)

Most importantly, reading the feedback on your article it’s clear that some people thing ‘Caring about who is elected’ is a binary issue. You’re either bothered, or you’re not.

Which is obviously nonsense.

I can turn up and vote and base my entire decision on the hair colour of the candidates. That’s still a valid and counted vote. ‘Non-compulsory’ doesn’t mean ‘considered’ any more than ‘compulsory’ will always mean ‘well-considered’.

Which is to say, if my televsion was always switched on, I’d find a preferable channel.

Not every non-voter is skipping the process as part of some conscientious objection, to make a point. The amount of people who forget on the day, or who get caught up at work, or who are too tired, or who don’t believe they can make a difference (my favourite: ‘I feel like the only young, single liberal voting so why bother?’) must surely outnumber those making a point.

Or maybe they don’t. But how else do we find out? If what’s wanted, genuinely, is fundamental change to the available options – something all parties would have to listen to – how do we know?

And isn’t find out what the people want the whole point?