Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Voting, compulsory
Section B. Constitutional/governance

Voting is compulsory in a number of jurisdictions including Australia, Belgium, Brazil and Bolivia. In Australia, failure to vote is punishable by fines or even by imprisonment, whereas in other countries the sanction can be a withholding of benefits or services. A definition may wish to consider which type of sanction the Proposition team wish to endorse and what level of elections this applies to. It is also possible to include a ’no vote’ box on the ballot paper to allow for a rejection of all candidates.

Pros

[1] The electoral turnout in many established democracies is distressingly low. We should adopt compulsory voting to secure greater democratic involvement of the population. Proxy voting and postal voting will be available for those who cannot physically get to the polling station — voting by the Internet should also be investigated to improve ease and access.

[2] Low participation rates are doubly dangerous. They mean that our politicians are not representative of the population as a whole. Since the poor and disadvantaged are far less likely to vote than any other socio-economic group, they can safely be ignored by mainstream politicians. In turn, this leads to greater disillusionment with politics and a sense of disenfranchisement. The only way to break this cycle is mandatory voting as politicians then have to target policies to all sections of society. This would also end biases like that towards pensioners. At present, they are the group most likely to vote and so politicians must pander to them. In the austerity drive in the UK after 2010, pensioners have been largely immune from the cuts suffered by other groups.

[3] Liberal democracy relies upon a balance of rights. The above argument shows that our democracy is endangered through a lack of participation in elections. The resolution of such a crisis may in a small way restrict some personal liberties, but it is in the interests of society as a whole. We compel people to take part in other civic duties such as serving on juries and paying taxes and we should not be afraid to do the same in the case of voting. Besides, anyone wishing to register an abstention can do so by spoiling the ballot paper, leaving it unmarked or crossing the ’no vote’ box, if available.

[4] Especially after the suffering of and sacrifices made by women and minority campaigners in the pursuit of universal suffrage, we owe it to our ancestors and to history to exercise our democratic right to vote. If people are so apathetic that they will not do this freely, we must make it compulsory. Such apathy also affects the moral authority of the West which is seen to preach democracy and sometimes impose it, while its own democracies are sick.

Cons

[1] There are many reasons why people do not vote. Up to 10 per cent of the population is not on the electoral register at any one time. Many people cannot get away from work, or find someone to look after their children. Some cannot physically get to a polling booth; others are simply not interested in politics. None of these motivations can be affected by forcing people to vote — those who cannot, will continue not to. Increasing turnout by making access to voting easier is a good idea, but it does not need to be linked to compulsion.

[2] Forcing people to vote is not the same as forcing them to make an informed choice based on a detailed understanding of manifestos. Those who were apathetic before will continue to be so. They will vote randomly or may be seduced by image, prejudice or by fringe or extreme parties. In turn, this means that there is not much extra motivation for mainstream parties to turn their attention away from pensioners and the professional classes who are more likely to vote based on political record and promises.

[3] Abstention from voting is a democratic right. To deny the right to abstain in a vote is as dictatorial as to deny the right to support or oppose it. Just as the right to free speech is complemented by the right to silence, so the right to vote is balanced by the right of abstention. Refraining from the democratic process is a democratic statement of disenchantment. Forcing those who are disenchanted with politics in general to go and spoil a paper is a pointless waste of resources. Their right to register dissatisfaction should not be taken away by politicians who want to hide the fact of their unpopularity and irrelevance in society. The analogy with jury service does not hold since we do not need people to vote in order for an important social institution to function (in the way that we do need a jury to turn up for the justice system to function). Elections do not need a 100 per cent, or even an 80 per cent, turnout in order to fulfil their function. Nobody is harmed if an individual chooses not to vote, and so their freedom should not be curtailed.

[4] Suffragettes and other suffrage campaigners sought to make voting a right rather than a privilege, but they did not seek to make it a duty. In the same way, campaigners for equality for blacks, homosexuals or women have ensured that they have access to higher education, political power and the professions, but members of these groups are not now forced to attend university, stand for parliament or become soldiers. It is the freedom and lack of state compulsion in democracies that countries are espousing abroad.

Possible motions

This House would make voting compulsory.

This House believes it is a crime not to vote.

This House believes that voting is a duty.

Related topics

Democracy

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

Democracy, imposition of