Why is Australia the only "core anglosphere" country where voting is mandatory?

Found this online:

According to the Australian Electoral Commission, the decline in voter turnout was the driving force behind the introduction of mandatory voting. It said that voter turnout dropped from 71 per cent in the 1919 election to less than 60 per cent in the 1922 elections.

In order to address the problem, a private member’s bill to amend the Electoral Act was introduced in the Senate in 1924. At the time, it was only the third private member’s bill to be passed into law since 1901.

As a result of the law, the voter turnout at the 1925 election rose to over 91 per cent.

Gradually, states across the country introduced compulsory voting starting from Victoria in 1926, New South Wales and Tasmania in 1928, Western Australia in 1936 and South Australia in 1942.

When enrollment and voting at federal elections was introduced for Australian Aborigines in 1949 it was voluntary, and continued to be so until 1984 when enrollment and voting became compulsory for all eligible electors.

19

Oh wow here in America we have party that banks on reducing turnout

1

In order words, why is voting mandatory in Australia, but not UK, US, Canada or New Zealand?

4

Maybe it should be mandatory in the US. It would make voter suppression harder, if not impossible.

5
- Follow-up question: If voting is mandatory, but you don't want to vote for any of the parties, what are you expected to do?
  
  0
- Another way for conservatives to warehouse people who voted against them in prisons? I'm surprised it's not already law.
  
  -3
The idea gets raised periodically here, especially since the huge drop in turnout starting in 1997.

There's a Research Briefing on it in the Commons Library.

I haven't read it but it's a terrible idea. Just another way for the parties to avoid having to offer anything worth voting for.

-2
- Not really. Plus we have alot more independents/minor parties due to our preferential voting system that people can vote for. What it does is forces people to are more about politics and policy
  
  2
- I haven't read it but it's a terrible idea.
  
  "Yeah sure I don't know what I'm talking about, but here's my strong opinion anyways"
  
  -2

Because FREEDOM!

Eagle screams in the background

4

FYI: eagles don't really scream. That fake scream from movies/tv, etc. is from a red tailed hawk.

6
- I know, but I had to be as stereotypical as possible.
  
  5
- It's easier to get a recording of a hawk that never shuts up. Eagles let out a screech too, but not often. Try stealing a fish from a bald eagle. Bring a tape recorder...and some bandages.
  
  4

Because it's a terrible idea? Elections are already heavily weighted towards name recognition. What are people who can't even be bothered to go out to vote going to offer to the process?

3

That's true, you can require them to vote, but you can't require them to be informed.

12
The alternative is voter suppression, which leads to unequal access. Also, given that more passionate individuals are gonna seek out a ballot vs. others, the result is going to be skewed in favor of those passionate people regardless of their understanding of reality or truthfullness.

5
- I admit it might help the current problem, since people less passionate about the issues might be less inclined to vote for reactionaries, but I don't think the result would be better representation. Most likely the result would be a system that leans even heavier on marketing to get brand recognition for the party to the most people
  
  1
It forces politics to the centre. Parties put a huge amount of effort into 'bringing out the vote', and do things to appeal to the fringe which is how you get characters like Trump finding success. When this isn't a concern, parties can focus on policies that appeal to the majority of people rather than fringe groups that they can use to guarantee voter turnout.

3
I'm pretty sure in Australia you can just turn in a blank ballot. But yeah, compulsory voting is kind of odd.

2
We get the option to vote by mail for free weeks in advance.

You don't even have to get off your fat arse.

2
Motivating people to vote, in the US at least, seems like a process of whipping up fear and anger. I would argue that taking away the need to motivate people in tbis way is a positive for everyone. It also results in a more representative and legitimate government.

2
- The fear and anger is to get people to vote for them. That wouldn't go away under mandatory voting. Unfortunately, unless we can find a way to resolve the culture war that has spread globally now, that will always be an easy exploit
  
  2

All the people saying mandatory voting is bad are misinformed. It is essential for democracy, and should be applied everywhere.

Australia has mandatory voter turnout, but you do not need to submit a vote. You just need to show up on polling day.

Everyone has political interests and needs to be politically represented, but some people are too tired after work to take themselves to the polling centre. Others are incarcerated. If anything, those people are more in need of political representatives.

American conservatives spend billions trying to prevent poor overworked people from reaching polling places or exercising their right to vote. Mandatory voting prevents that.

Make no mistake, Australian democracy is healtheir than whatever clusterfuck in going on in the US.

1