Is Compulsory Voting Justified (original) (raw)

compulsory voting: a critical perspective

British Journal of Political Science 40.4 (2010) 897-915

Should voting be compulsory? This question has recently gained the attention of political scientists, politicians and philosophers, many of whom believe that countries, like Britain, which have never had compulsion, ought to adopt it. The arguments are a mixture of principle and political calculation, reflecting the idea that compulsory voting is morally right and that it is will prove beneficial. This article casts a sceptical eye on the claims, by emphasizing how complex political morality and strategy can be. Hence, I show, while there are good reasons to worry about voter turnout in established democracies, and to worry about inequalities of turnout as well, the case for compulsory voting is unpersuasive.

On the Justifiability of Compulsory Voting: Reply to Lever

British Journal of Political Science, 2010

Annabelle Lever's thought-provoking article rests on three broad claims that I dispute, partly on conceptual and partly on empirical grounds. Her first claim is that low and declining turnout is not especially worrying. This encompasses the implication that socioeconomic disparities in turnout are not significant and the claims that high turnout does not confer greater legitimacy on the outcome of elections and that abstention connotes consent and even participation. Her second claim is that there is nothing special about voting as a means for self-government. This encompasses the suggestion that 'the consequences of voting are too uncertain for voting to be a necessary implication of our duties'. Her third claim is that 'voluntary political participation' is a defining value of democracy that is 'undercut' by requiring people to vote. This encompasses the claim that the harms of failure to vote do not justify compelling people to vote and the assumption that there exists a 'right' not to vote. 1 I address each of these arguments in turn.

VOTING: A CITIZEN’S RIGHT OR DUTY? THE CASE OF COMPULSORY VOTING

Compulsory voting is a law, enacted against low turnout rates in elections in modern democracies and political inequality in society. However, the fact that voting is closely related to nature of sovereignty has brought questions about whether it is a right or a duty to vote at this point. It is expressed that it is not democratic to force an individual to use something that his or her right, and therefore it is an interference with the freedom and will of the individual and compulsory voting is being opposed. On the other hand, it is argued that voting is a duty and responsibility, such as payin taxes, and that compulsory voting is justifiable in democracies when considering its role in educating individuals, democracy and legitimacy. This study deals with compulsory voting which has not been examined in Turkey itself, as far as known. In this context, the definition and historical development of compulsory voting, and the arguments for and against it will be analyzed comparatively. It will also be discussed compulsory voting in the world, how it is enforced and what sanctions are foreseen, what alternative practices are envisaged instead of compulsory voting. In addition, the development of the electoral system and compulsory 1 This study was produced from a section of master's thesis titled " Voting: A Citizen's Right, or Duty? Legitimizing Compulsory Voting " written by Murat Kaçer under the supervision of Prof. Adem Çaylak

Democratic Choice, Legitimacy and the Case Against Compulsory Voting

Public Policy Review responses, Sept. 2009

In the last issue of Public Policy Review Sarah Birch argued that Britain should make voting compulsory, and that the law should actively enforce legal duties to turnout at elections. She argues that ‘governments need to have democratic legitimacy to pull countries through difficult times’, and that low turnout threatens that legitimacy. Moreover, she claims, ‘economic stress exacerbates perceptions of social inequality’, and suggests that if alienated groups do not see Parliament as a means to improve their lot, they will turn to extra-parliamentary ways of doing so. These arguments rest an enormous weight on high levels of voting at elections, and overlook the fact that if enough people vote for the opposition, high turnout may undermine, rather than enhance, the legitimacy of a government. Fortunately, the crux of Birch’s argument is that commitments to political fairness, social fairness and procedural fairness require Britain to adopt mandatory voting, and these look more plausible. Nonetheless, as we will see, they fail to justify compulsory voting or turnout.

Democracy's duty: The history of political debates on compulsory voting

PhD Dissertation, 2011

My doctoral dissertation examines the political and conceptual arguments on compulsory voting in French, Belgian and Greek parliamentary debates from 1848 onwards. The constitutional, legislative and scholarly discussions under consideration feature a mélange of ideological views and party interests, which bridge the gap between formal political thought and everyday political practice. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (1870-1926), growing electoral abstention, caused partly by the extension of franchise, led to the search of an effective tool of political inclusion. More specifically, compulsory voting was meant to integrate mainly the demotivated conservatives, but also to prevent forced abstention of workers, organized election boycotts and other problems specific to the historical context. Proponents of the reform in the three countries drew on ideas such as the organic principle of voting function, the ideal of 'mirror' representativeness (Belgium), the educative aspects of electoral participation, civic responsibility, political solidarity and the need for parliamentary stability (France), as well as the ancient ideal of participatory self-government (Greece). Opponents, on the other hand, emphasized the involuntary nature of such a binding obligation, their contempt for disinterested citizens and the manipulative potential of such a measure. Moving forward to the late 1990s, contemporary debates have underlined the tension between, on one hand, the individual freedom to abstain and, on the other, the need for democratic inclusiveness and effective equality of voting chances, especially with respect to disadvantaged groups in society. The question of compulsory voting remains a matter of endless political and ideological dispute: from a theoretical point of view it is linked with the inherent liberty-versus-equality paradox of democratic representation, while in practical terms it relates to electoral-system design and partisan interests, which are embedded in their specific political and social contexts.

Democracy and Compulsory Voting

Political Research Quarterly, 2019

In this article I aim to show that compulsory voting cannot be defended on democratic grounds. In pursuing this task, I first offer a generic account of the democratic argument in favour of compulsory voting, drawing on some of the most salient recent defences of a moral duty to vote. I then offer an overarching objection which defeats both the generic form of the democratic argument for compulsory voting and its various operationalizations. The crux of the objection is that the democratic justification of a moral duty to vote is parasitical upon the existence of a moral duty to vote well. This decisively undermines the democratic argument for compulsory voting, since the latter can only be deployed as an enforcement mechanism for a duty to vote, regardless of the substantive content of that vote.

'Should Voting Be Compulsory? Democracy and the Ethics of Voting'

The ethics of voting have received relatively little attention from philosophers and political scientists, though they are far more complicated than one might have supposed. It is hard to draw a sharp line between the principles that might justify adopting or rejecting compulsory voting, and the evaluation of individual and collective behaviour within those rules. Resolving disputes about compulsory voting, therefore, requires us to decide when, if ever, people are morally entitled to vote on sectarian identities and interests, rather than for the ‘common good’ of their fellow citizens; when, if ever, they are morally entitled to vote on altruistic, rather than self-interested, concerns; and when, if ever, they may vote strategically, rather than sincerely. We do not yet have good answers to these questions. Above all, it is difficult to resolve disputes over the ethics of voting in general, and compulsory voting in particular, without relating the conceptions of rights, duty, freedom and equality involved to those in other areas of moral and political philosophy, and to more empirical work on voting, on comparative public policy and political economy. This chapter explains why this is the case.

Compulsory Voting: Elections, Not Referendums

Intractable debate about compulsory voting is waged on an axis between the egalitarian-instrumental (it increases turnout) and the libertarian-deontological (there's a right not to vote). Scant attention has been paid to the underlying nature of the voting choice itself.I argue that it is right to compel turnout at elections, but wrong to compel it at referendums. Electoral issues are multifarious, and government is for all: it is right that everyone's voice should be heard equally at election time. Referendums however are typically discrete topics, often of a legal form. It is wrong to demand that all citizens have an opinion on them.

Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy

Even though more than half of all citizens in the world are currently able to exercise the right to elect their leaders, many of them choose not to vote. This article considers the role of compulsory voting in order to enhance the democratic values of political participation and equality. Raising turnout considerably, it is an effective instrument to motivate citizens to express their voice in public life, thereby ensuring that their concerns will be heeded. Opponents of compulsory voting, however, argue that it is undesirable because it violates the value of personal liberty and drags uninterested citizens to the polls. This article tries to rebut these arguments and challenge their underlying concept of democracy. As compulsory voting sends the message that every vote matters, it is able to restore rather than harm democracy and its values.