Compulsory Voting

Compulsory Voting

Background

            Compulsory voting is the policy that requires citizens to vote, with a punishment of some sort of fine, prison time, or community service if they fail to show up to the polls. Over 20 countries have some form of compulsory voting. In Australia, for example, all citizens over the age of 18 must show up at the poll on election day. Those who do not vote are subject to fines, which increase significantly for repeat offenders. Australia adopted the law in 1924, and has seen voter turnout increase from 59% to 95% since the passing of the law. Proponents of such a system often argue that a government is illegitimate when only 60-70% of a country’s population is voting. Opponents argue that, among other things, compulsory voting is a breach of personal liberty.

            In the United States, 63% of eligible voters (131 million people) cast a vote in the 2008 presidential election. Even fewer voters turn out for Congressional elections (40%) and presidential primaries (about a third). In American history, a president has never been elected by a majority of American adults. America has an incredibly polar political system compared to other Western liberal democracies, many of which have 3 or more established parties. The American political system has also been tainted by things such as corporate financing, negative political advertisements, and gerrymandering. Congress recently (August 2012) had just a 10% approval rating. Clearly, changes of some sort should be made in the U.S.

Possible models:

·         Similar to the Australian system, have fines ($20-$70) for nonvoters, and have election day on a Saturday or Sunday

·         Require voting, but include a lottery in which voters can win money, funded by the fines of nonvoters (from Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute)

Arguments

Pro (in favor of compulsory voting)

1.      Good democracy requires all citizens to participate

a.       The government elected by 60% of the eligible voters is not a legitimate government. Those candidates and policies will not reflect a huge portion of the population, and thus it is inaccurate representation. Not only that, but those who don’t end up voting tend to be poorer, and since their voice is not heard and candidates don’t cater to their needs, we end up with policies that continue to disenfranchise the poorest of our citizens. With compulsory voting, we get candidates that will address the needs of all citizens, because now they have to consider many more people who will be voting.

2.      Compulsory voting is a necessary violation of freedom

a.       There is no doubt that in some ways, a requirement to vote infringes upon personal liberty, but governments do this all the time when it is in the best interest of society. In America, we have mandatory taxation, jury duty, and the requirement to educate our children. All these things violate our freedom, but they are good ideas that benefit the whole country. If we believe jury duty and taxation are necessary for a successful society, then surely we should require citizens to participate in picking the leaders of our country.

3.      This plan could alter the role of money in politics

a.       Quite often, turn-out-the-vote programs are run by big-money groups, which have a desire to get certain people to show up to the polls. Such programs would be irrelevant with compulsory voting. Additionally, the impact of negative political advertisements could be lessened, since one goal of these ads is to discourage participating in the opponent’s camp.

Con (against compulsory voting)

1.      Compulsory voting worsens elections

a.       Voters are influenced by popular media, bloggers, grassroots organizations, and especially special interest groups. It is highly unlikely that American voters are suddenly going to start sufficiently researching candidates and issues. This means that most of their information will come from sound bites, misleading ads, and heavily biased sources.

b.      The average voter is incompetent at politics. We already have people voting who do not understand the implications of their choices. Further increasing participation means we get more people who will not make educated decisions, which leads to candidates who win based on name, face, and celebrity appeal.

                                                              i.      Example: Peter Garrett of Australia, a former lead singer of a rock band, ran for office (and won) in 2004. It was later revealed that he was not even registered to vote for the prior 10 years. He now serves as the Labour Party’s minister for the environment.

2.      Compulsory voting is impractical in America

a.       There are some people who simply cannot find the time to vote because they have to work constantly in order to scrape by a living. This type of policy hurts the poorest of citizens by forcing them to choose between losing pay at work in order to vote, or to be fined if they do not. Additionally, while Australia has 95% voter turnout, that is only 12 million votes to count. America, at 63% turnout in 2008, had about 130 million votes to count. To implement a system of compulsory voting would have be costly as well as a logistics nightmare. If you thought vote counting got complicated in Florida, just imagine 80 million more votes across the country.

3.      This policy violates personal autonomy

a.       America, in terms of voting opportunity, is right up there with the best of democracies. Almost all citizens have no barriers to registering and voting. If voting is so easy, why does it need to become required? Democracy is not about compelling citizens to certain actions, but instead it is about having the choice to participate in whatever way you choose. It is legitimate political expression to not vote, and people should not be punished for it.

4.      There are better ways to improve the system

a.       Open primaries—allow people not registered with either party to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. This forces candidates to appeal to moderates.

b.      End districting by legislatures—don’t let state legislatures choose how their districts are designed; this entrenches polarized politics and reduces competition

c.       Public financing of elections—corporate financing in elections turns people off to voting because they feel their votes cannot compete with the influence of corporations, and it makes it more difficult for challengers to enter the race.