First let’s consider Warwick’s maths. The funding relies on the proportion of the vote won, not the absolute number of votes. So the funding equation and the gross total of funding would not change if voting was voluntary in Australia.

History. Compulsory voting pre-dates public funding of political parties by over 60 years (1918 vs 1984), whereas Warwick’s comments would seem to have us believe that our major political parties were established as some sort of rort to jump into the public coin.

Historical and global perspective. The franchisement which arises from the right to vote is most meaningful when communities are heard and the opposite is also true. The franchisement which arises from creating a culture of voting is vital for everyone - and that’s all the act does (getting fined for not voting is in reality harder than avoiding being fined for the same - it’s only those who make a political act of not getting their name ticked off the roll who are ever likely to suffer this fate).

Legal. Voting is not compulsory. Getting your name struck off the roll is all you need to do - an act which takes roughly 2 minutes per 20 months for most Australians. Excuses for not having done this are largely accepted. Non-voters can make a public display of stuffing their ballot papers into the box un-marked if they choose, with absolutely no penalty. My brother has been known to do just this when hungover.

Warwick, the real rort is going on everywhere else except Belgium. The effort involved with ‘getting the vote out’ favours the powerful interests far more than the little guy. Or is that exactly what you want?