> How will that stop corruption? Presumably, when someone is being dragged to vote, he'll vote for "the more familiar name", in other words, the name most repeated on TV, in other words, the one who raised the most funds. If anything, voting should be hard (but fair) so that only people that actually know something about the candidates (and political system) should be able to decided which one is better.

You could also (rather than viewing it as an education issue, that "dumb people shouldn't be allowed to vote" [not a quote]) see it as a representation issue. If only the "people who know something" can vote, now you've over-represented a sample of your population.

The only way to be sure that elections have the maximum benefit for everyone is to ensure everyone votes. Allowing people to not vote is not a benefit -- even if you argue that they're votes are not helpful.

And ultimately, in Australia you are allowed (through a legal loophole) to submit invalid votes -- a vote that doesn't count toward any party. The only thing that is mandatory is that you show up. Everyone knows about invalid (donkey) votes, so if someone really wanted to abstain they have an avenue for it.