This house would make voting compulsory

In many countries around the world individuals are free to choose to vote or not to vote, while in
other countries (Australia, a couple cantons in Switzerland, Belgium and Singapore , for
example) it is compulsory for citizens to vote. Punishment for non-voting can vary from a $15
fine to the possible deprivation of government services or the freezing of one's bank account. Is
this a violation of an individuals freedom of choice? With the citizens of many countries
fighting for their right to vote, is it right that US voting turnout hovers around 50 60%of
registered voters
1
? Should voting be seen as a duty or a right? This debate explores whether
compulsory voting improves voter participation, increases voter awareness on key political
issues, and reduces the powers of special interest groups.
1. US Census Bureau.

Read more
Discuss this

Points For
Points Against
Voting is a civic duty
Point
Other civic duties also exist which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more
cohesive, stable society
1
like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some
countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more
time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much
smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities.
The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last
century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and
died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting.
1.Liberal Democrat Voice, 2006
Improve this

Counterpoint
A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This
principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to
choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy
have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a
person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose.
Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should
not be compulsory.
The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by
voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the
freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic
society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that.

Improve this

Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups
Point
Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute
for Public Policy Research highlight, the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the
educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote. Since
they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a
vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major
political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation
1
.
An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue
middle England. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies
will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society
are proportionally considered in governmental policy.
1
William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World
Report, July 8th 2010
Improve this

Counterpoint
This idea is nonsense. Political parties do try and capture the disadvantaged groups vote,
specifically in order to convince them that voting is in their best interest. As opposed to
compulsory voting, a voluntary system in fact encourages political parties to target policies at the
disadvantaged in order to convince them to get out and vote , rather than accept that the
disadvantaged will simply vote for the opposition. The Labour Party shifted to the right in the
UK specifically because no-one was voting for it; the majority of the population, from across the
social spectrum, no longer believed in its socialist agenda and it altered its policies to be more in
line with the majority of the population. Low turnout is best cured by more education, for
example, civics classes could be introduced at school. In addition, the inclusion of these less-
interested voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation becomes more important. It
will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Another alternative could
be reforming the voting system of the individual countries to better accommodate its population.


Improve this

It will cause more people to become interested in politics
Point
Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote
1
. People who know they
will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role.
Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political
positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about
their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform
themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-
informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary
budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not
contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.
1
Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice
presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in
Budapest, September 10, 2005.
Improve this

Counterpoint
Forcing the population to vote will not stop people expressing their wish not to vote. Tucker
notes that in Australia 5% of eligible voters did not caste a valid vote. Most countries that use
compulsory voting give voters a legal opportunity to abstain. For example, in Australia valid
explanations might include being overseas, trying to vote but failing for some reason, or
belonging to a religious order which prohibits voting (Electoral Commission). Moreover people
who vehemently refuse to vote find a way to do so such as paying the fine straight away (for
those who can afford to) or attending the polling station but submitting a blank ballot. McAllister
et al (1992)
1
conclude that compulsory voting has led to a higher level of non-votes because the
only legal method of political protest is to spoil the ballot paper or leave it blank deliberately
2
.
However, in non-compulsory jurisdictions voters so motivated would boycott the ballot.
Furthermore, forcing people to vote will lead to more meaningless votes. People who are forced
to vote against their will wont make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote
randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. Compared to countries that have no
compulsory voting laws, in countries where such laws exist there is an increase in donkey votes
(where voters simply chose the candidate at the top of the ballot), random votes, "just for the fun
of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions. This does not contribute to improved legitimacy of the
government. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this
government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. There is a reason why some
people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their
forced input add legitimacy to the mix?
Although it might be worth adding that there has been some controversy about the aged in
nursing homes being 'asissted' with their votes.
1. Mackerrassa and McAllister. "Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in
Australia."
2. Laverdea 1991
Improve this

Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.
Point
Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be
implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924
1
.
Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a valid and sufficient
reason for failing to vote which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is
sufficient
2
. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and
if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court
3
. There is little reason to believe that
this would be more difficult to implement in any other country.
1
Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January
2006), (accessed 4/8/11)
2
Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11)
3
Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901, Australian Electoral Commission, 2010
Improve this

Counterpoint
That it has been implemented successfully in Australia does not mean that compulsory voting
will work everywhere. Australia has a small population so the system does not have to be as
bureaucratic as it would be in a much bigger nation. Moreover Australia has a law abiding
culture and fast and efficient courts so most people will vote even if they object to it being
compulsory. In a country with either a slower court system or a population that is less inclined to
follow the law the number of cases of failing to vote facing the court could be overwhelming.
Improve this

It will reduce the power of special interest groups
Point
A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to
vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it
is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political
process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy
making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of
subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population.
1 2

The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead
the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince
people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).
1
Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the
American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors.
NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006.
2
: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review
(Accessed 10/06/2011)
Improve this

Counterpoint
The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues
that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly,
they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over
public policy and recommending necessary changes. To reduce their power in favour of less-
interested voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes
more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype.
Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory
voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to
be more inherently motivated.