Much of the poor voting turnout and apparent electoral apathy results from the inability to discern any meaningful difference between the policies of contending parties.

So it is far from clear what John Parry (Argus, April 6) means by suggesting voting should be compulsory.

Am I supposed to vote for one of the number of political parties whose policies are, from the point of view of my interests, identical and to which I am opposed? Surely not.

I hold firm political views and it is precisely for this reason and because, like John Parry, I value my right to vote, that I will not be wasting it by voting at this election - not through apathy.

Unlike the late multimillionaire Sir James Goldsmith, who democratically chose to use his millions to launch and to fund the Referendum Party to publicise his political opinions, those of us who reject both the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of modern politics are compelled to use the limited resources available to us to build a clearly-seen alternative to the political status quo.

That can never happen if we are forced to submerge and compromise a separate political identity by having to vote for those we oppose.

Incidentally, if a maniac rushed at John Parry with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other, offering a democratic choice of deaths, would he feel compelled to accept one or the other as a matter of principle?

-Name and address supplied