Compulsory voting is not a new concept, either theoretically or in practice. Currently, 22 countries have laws for compulsory voting, but they are not enforced in 11. The practice creates a legal obligation for a citizen to vote in elections. If one fails to vote, he or she may be subject to punitive measures, such as fines or community service.
Recently, US president Barrack Obama brought public attention to "mandatory" voting by advocating the practice. He has defended his advocacy with an argument based upon expanding the electorate in the interest of greater democratic legitimacy.
Voter turnout in the US is quite low compared with turnout in other mature democracies. Chronic nonvoters in the US are disproportionately poor, members of minorities, and in general, socially disadvantaged. It is argued by Obama and others, that compulsory voting would increase both the size and diversity of the active electorate.
On the other hand, if voting is a right, then to simultaneously make it a legal duty, creates a moral contradiction. Hannah Arendt, influenced by Socrates' position in Apology, argues that the right to participate politically entails a person's right not to participate in any way whatsoever.
The comments above suggest but a few of the important issues in democratic theory and political participation raised by the debate over compulsory voting.
(Please see my article, "The Moral Problem of Nonvoting". The pdf is attached below.)
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Risser:
You ask:
Do you agree or disagree with compulsory voting in a representative democracy? How does your answer reflect your view of democratic participation?
---end quotation
Initially, at least, I have no strong inclination regarding this question, though I do think it interesting that the President should have advocated it. Personally, I always vote, at least when I am at home in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I am wary of the idea that everyone is obligated to participate in political activities. That we distinguish between voting and political activities (or activism) shows in the public institution of the secret ballot.
Two lines of thought suggest themselves here. One concerns the obligation (or lack thereof) of academics to play the role of political activist or "public intellectual." Historically, the role of public intellectual has taken political forms that certainly recommend themselves to some people. Most academics do not take up any such role, and for fairly good reasons, I believe. Would an obligation to vote plausibly extend to an obligation to political activism or the role of the public intellectual? I doubt that this argument would have much hold against an obligation to vote, since we may vote in secret.
Secondly, what is the likely effect of compulsory voting on the general public? Certainly, the proposal would be resisted or resented by some --those indifferent to politics. For that reason alone, I doubt that compulsory voting will be instituted in the U.S. or in PA. What comes to mind is that such indifference to politics, though we regret it in general, has different sources and effects in different societies. That's a theme that might be explored. Would it generally encourage political participation in the public? What are the sources of resistance to political participation?
People will be more inclined toward voting and political participation when they see that they have some personal stake in the outcomes. But this seems a matter of public education and awareness. Might compulsory voting merely hide the symptoms of political disaffection and disinterest --or indeed the symptoms of political disillusionment? My impression is that many, however distant from political participation or activism and however disillusioned, are content to occasionally vote out the "ins" and vote in the "outs." The effectiveness of this may be doubted, of course, but people may generally see their personal interests in personal and social activity, business, etc. What real effect would compulsory voting have on this?
H.G. Callaway
Compulsory voting has strategic political dimensions, as well as moral and legal implications. If, due to compulsory voting, there is a sizable increase in turnout among chronic nonvoters, the effect will not be to reinforce all parties and/or candidates equally.
In the US, given the racial/ethnic and socio-economic features of the new voters who would be brought into the active electorate, their tendency would be to vote Democratic. It is not surprising then, that Republicans are more likely to oppose compulsory voting laws and to support voter ID laws, which there is evidence would decrease voting turnout, especially among potential voters who share the same demographic features of those who compulsory voting would bring to the polls.
It is interesting to speculate upon the strategic effect compulsory voting laws would (or already do) have upon the politics of other representative democracies.
Personally I do not vote and in my country, it is mandatory to register because that is where the statistics office also get data on number of citizens above the age of 18.
My reason for not voting are my disillusionment with the politicians and the political system.
But I believe in the same breath that if it is right a citizen has a right to forfeit it if they so feel.
Non-voting can be some sort of protest by citizens...
Dear Teboho,
Good point. Although much research indicates that nonvoting is associated with apathy and political illiteracy, I agree that in some cases, such as your own, nonvoting is a form of protest. I believe that many nonvoters feel politically powerless, and although these same citizens may understand public affairs quite well, they choose not to vote. Voting is a form of symbolic support for a political system, and if one does not support that system's legitimacy, then nonvoting is consistent with that position.
El voto obligatorio acompañado por una financiación estatal (100%) de las campañas electorales puede contribuir a disminuir la compra de votos (en países en que este fenómeno es recurrente).
No obstante, utilizar la figura del voto obligatorio para legitimar los procesos electorales puede conducir a una falacia democrática, toda vez que como quedó demostrado en Chile, una vez se eliminó el voto obligatorio, los porcentajes de participación cayeron notoriamente. Es decir, el voto obligatorio conduce a que se realicen propagandas por parte de los actores políticos (gobierno y partidos politicos) destinadas a legitimarlos y a construir un falso discurso de estabilidad democrática.
Dear Professor Van Haute,
Thank you sincerely for the suggested reading. I have had a chance to look at some of this material and what I have read so far has been first rate research and will be very useful.
Sincerely,
David Risser
Let me share this interpretation of Hanna Pitkin on political action in Hannah Arendt work: Political action "Implies a realistic perception and acknowledgment of Both self and world, of one's power and one's situation. Its genuinely means, competently taking responsibility for one's conduct, its consequences, and the norms and standards that govern it "(Pitikin, The Attack of the blob, 1998, p. 182). I have an interest in studying the vote as means of political action. Your article helps a lot. Thank you for sharing your interesting article.
I do not believe in making voting mandatory. On the other hand, you should ask the question, "What is the low turnout trying to tell us?" You answered the question above, "...Chronic nonvoters in the US are disproportionately poor, members of minorities, and in general, socially disadvantaged." We've got a lot of work to do.
This is interesting because in my country, it is the rural poor who vote while we the technocrats have barbecue and beer on the voting day. I suppose your rural poor are also ingenuous and feel disenfranchised not only by your system but to some degree your greed (you have taken all their land).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science