>> If you intentionally spoil your vote, that's actually a crime in Australia

> Incorrect.

I warned you not to listen to Australians about this. It's some kind of folk rebel legend that they're not required to vote completely. They are. Beware of "corrections" without references.

-----

> The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states: "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

> Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

> It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
Krosch [1974] QdR 107
ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

> Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper.

https://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm

-----

>> Albert Langer

> wasn't convicted of spoiling his vote.

> He advocated everybody spoil their votes, and handed out "how to not vote" flyers

Which is somewhat true, although the conference paper was called "Don't Vote." It was a witty title, because it wasn't about not voting, but marking voting papers in such a way that you could avoid ranking the two biggest parties. I don't know why you think that it would be a crime to advocate for a legal act, but you do you.

But consider that what I said was "You're not even allowed to ask people not to rank certain candidates. It is a jailable offense."

> Never a crime to spoil a vote in Australia.

This is a falsehood. Currently a crime to intentionally spoil your vote in Australia, currently not ranking all choices with spoil your vote.

-----

>> I think there's a reason that Australia requires that you rank all choices.

> Only in the House of Representatives - where you order a small number of choices to choose a candidate to represent your local district.

You got me. I think there's a reason that the House of Representatives requires you to rank all choices, and that the Senate only requires you to rank what is likely to be all vaguely viable choices (as power rules go.)

-----

> You really don't appear to know much about the Australian Electoral system.

You seem to have gotten everything wrong about Australian voting except to point out that the Senate only requires you to rank the top six parties or twelve individuals out of a selection that could be larger. Seems like very little to be gloating about, but, again, you do you.