Why Voting should not be Mandatory

Introduction

The act of casting a vote is symbolic of the power vested in citizens in a democratic society. Elections hinge upon participation, but many agree that the absence of a vote confers a significant impression. Since not everyone is willing or able to cast a vote, the case is strong for reform to encourage increased voter turnout. This position contradicts a fundamental point: that casting a vote is the responsibility of all. On the contrary, voting is a fundamental right and ought not to be cast as an obligation.

Forcing citizens undermines the major tenet of democracy—liberty. Yet, the rationale persists in today's political climate.

The debate around compulsory or mandatory voting actively occurs in both political and public spheres. Mandatory voting enforcement can be found in a series of nations. This essay shall illustrate a number of angles of this issue. First, I will articulate why mandatory voting is a self-defeating proposal. Then, the essay will articulate a discourse on the irony of forcing a vote, just to remove the one form of meaningful "speech" in a democratic regime. Mention will be made of a model to describe how such a consideration—voting health—has historically and currently been understood. Ultimately, mandatory voting infringes on the rights of citizens, and Americans may be compelled to advocate against it.

Freedom of Choice in Voting

Freedom of choice has long been recognized as an integral aspect of a meaningful democratic society. Indeed, the essence of a citizen is that he should be able to choose his governors. There is a consensus among utilitarians, libertarians, and philosophers of all stripes that individuals must have the freedom to express themselves in order to be autonomous. For the same reason that speech and migration should be voluntary rather than coerced, so should the right to vote. This is because individuals are more likely to be informed and engaged when they cast a voluntary ballot. Forcibly compelling people to go to the polls — regardless of whether they know or care about the candidates or the issues — is not the making of a true democracy.

Voting’s history has been a long crusade to make it more voluntary rather than coercive. It is easy to forget that the right to vote was once exclusive to most property-owning white men. This system privilege was intentionally discriminatory and designed to prevent those without a “stake” in the country from voting. The suffrage movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a push toward voluntary voting, allowing more people to have a say in their government. Coercive voting is a blight on this hard-won progress. Our right to vote is called the cornerstone of a free democracy. But, contrary to the arguments of mandatory voting, this does not mean the right of others to force us to vote. Rather, it means we must protect a person’s right to vote only when they choose to. In a free, democratic, and voluntary society, the number of eligible voters who vote is not the measure of the health of the democracy. Instead, the quality of those votes reflects the nation. A truly great democracy is one where voters choose to cast their votes, rather than need to be compelled to do so.

Potential Negative Consequences

One of the main criticisms of new legislation is concerned with what the potential unintended consequences are. There are worries that mandatory voting would lead to feelings of grievance in the population, feelings which would contribute to political disaffection and loss of respect for institutions. Moreover, when it comes to voter information and voter rationality, there are still some doubts. People would go and vote just to avoid being fined; in the context of voters who choose not to vote as a way of sending a message, forcing them to go to the voting station would be an infringement of their liberties. Compulsory voting would increase administration costs and demands, and it would imply more bureaucratic measures. Together with difficulties of verification and control, particularly in countries where the infrastructure of political systems is underdeveloped, these administrative costs may be considered higher in developing countries. Another danger is that citizens may begin to view a ballot as something that is part of civic duty rather than a badge of citizenship. Compulsory voting could have significant equity implications. Just as some groups are less likely to vote than others, some groups will find it less easy to comply with a requirement to vote. In circumstances where women are reluctant to appear in public, where ethnic, cultural, and gender divisions run deep, and where personal security is at risk, it is doubtful that mandatory voting is practical. From a more general point of view, there are more substantial costs. Given that voters need both the incentives to vote and some level of interest in political issues and candidates so that the decision-making system can work, persons who are uninterested or disengaged could cast votes without any information. Secondly, it is a question of principle to determine whether it should be obligatory for citizens, regardless of their attitudes towards the democratic process, to vote. A requirement to vote implies a deliberate policy choice to require citizens to take part in the political process. Careful thought should be given to the possible consequences of such a move.

Alternative Solutions

Although a compulsory voting system would certainly increase voter turnout, there are other, more humane ways to get voters to the polls. One initiative designed to do so, that I support, is voter education. Yes, we should devote time and resources to providing our fellow citizens with a deep and meaningful understanding of their democracy, including the voting process. The goal is for each citizen to be more like a philosopher-king, which, contrary to what some misguided utopians think, would not pollute the democracy with widespread elitism. In fact, history shows that informed citizens, when given the choice, will generally select leaders who act in the democratic interest and are representative of the philosophy. This outcome can only occur if we raise the political literacy of our population. Another alternative to compulsory voting is to improve the accessibility of casting a ballot. We can accomplish this by allowing same-day registration and enabling absentee voting with no excuse in every state. Potential voters who have experience with same-day registration are significantly more likely to turn out to vote than are potential voters in states that do not offer it, as are potential voters who can cast absentee ballots without an excuse. Although voting via the internet is a nice idea, countries that do it have seen no increase in turnout. A difficult nut to crack in this country is the age gap in voter turnout. The answer is in state youth councils that offer many young people their first best experience in public service, which cultivates lifelong involvement in the community. An increase in youth civic engagement can amount to voter mobilization.

Conclusion

To say that voting should be a responsible act is not to argue that it should be handled solely by educated elites. Different proposals have their strengths and weaknesses; but undoubtedly, responsibility requires free and informed choice, with neither side subject to state compulsion. It is here that the case of mandatory voting turns from a pragmatic look at options to a principled one about the nature of voting. Guaranteed familiarity, high turnouts, and a larger electorate are not ends in themselves. If the costs for these voluntarily made actions are high, small benefits cannot justify such policy. At the very least, if mandatory voting proposals illustrate anything, it is that proposals for change should be advocated on grounds that are more firmly based than ease, convenience, and tradition. Whilst we may wish to see higher turnouts, we should be tepid in welcoming it at any cost; such high turnouts will be of low value if they stem not from informed choice but from duress or economic pressure. We ought, then, to be circumspect in favoring 'more' participation as it must arise from an 'improved quality of participation.' Building on the project's final report, the way towards a democratic renewal in Britain lies less safely in compulsion or dilution than in a reinvigoration of those mechanisms that have increasing voter turnout as a by-product, rather than an ulterior incentive. Democracy is more than a numbers game premised on the maximum turnouts of the least affected citizen. In the recent almost unanimous support for an all-male board of a university, for instance, it is not the abstainers who should be castigated, but the 'lowest common denominator' message such a high turnout conveys. A principled case against mandatory voting is a case for having and respecting informed and unfettered individual choices and actions. The democratic response to low turnouts, in short, must be a more deep-seated and educational one.

Did you like this example?

244

10