Oh, I love freedom just fine. But making voting a requirement seems to solve a lot of problems according to the article. It costs less in terms of time and money and forces the candidates to listen to everybody's concerns. I especially love the part about candidates not having to have a zillion dollars in their back pocket.
Except when taking it away "solves" what you believe to be a problem.
And I just don't see it as a problem when uninformed, apathetic voters stay the hell home on election day. They'd probably just vote themselves more unearned money from the treasury anyway.
How does it save money? If Madonna and Puffy Colmes (or whatever) want to waste their money encouraging people to vote, where's the loss?
Candidates in Australia don't need as much money to run because Australia is smaller. We cover 6 time zones in this country, reaching 280 million people spread across that distance isn't cheap whether they all have to vote or not. This article isa large collection of poor assumptions.