The idea of voting is founded upon a goal to establish a responsible government and not only a representative government. What this means is that previous relationships between government and people should trigger further interest in people being part of the process. In the event that some people feel excluded over time no matter what they strive to do to be part of the system, the question then arises on why they should be part of electing people: a process which they perceive as a mere window dressing. Of what benefit is it for one to exercise a right to vote when it has no positive effect on his person.

What happens after one has cast his vote is the key factor that gives essence to that right to vote. Besides if more people go to the polls, it is no guarantee that the process would be genuine or devoid of illicit practices. The democratic process is a wheel in motion: all the spokes thereof need to be equally affirmed for that wheel to revolve efficiently. The system of government and institutions

The idea of voting is founded upon a goal to establish a responsible government and not only a representative government. What this means is that previous relationships between government and people should trigger further interest in people being part of the process. In the event that some people feel excluded over time no matter what they strive to do to be part of the system, the question then arises on why they should be part of electing people: a process which they perceive as a mere window dressing. Of what benefit is it for one to exercise a right to vote when it has no positive effect on his person.

What happens after one has cast his vote is the key factor that gives essence to that right to vote. Besides if more people go to the polls, it is no guarantee that the process would be genuine or devoid of illicit practices. The democratic process is a wheel in motion: all the spokes thereof need to be equally affirmed for that wheel to revolve efficiently.

Hi Vivek,

What would be the punishment if one does not vote? Would a fine be imposed? Might one suffer imprisonment? In the early days of the American Republic, those not attending church regularly were subjected to fines and/or imprisonment. That was very effective in terms of getting people to attend church services; however, many churchgoers had the wrong attitude while sitting in the service and so didn't learn anything from the preacher's sermon and actually continued their sinful ways for the rest of the week. Consequently, these coerced attendees all died and went to hell anyway despite their perfect attendance records in houses of worship (usually churches belonging to the Standing Order of New England Congregational Churches).

I think this says something about quality vs. quantity that might be apropos of coerced voters. Nonetheless, Vivek, I like the idea provided there is a requirement that the coerced voters be sober (not under the influence of anything other than peer pressure and the coercieve arm of the government) when they cast their votes.

Gwen

It is difficult to square the idea of democracy with compulsion to participate in it and is perhaps taking the social contract a little to far. What about the idea that it is the governments responsibility to provide candidates for everyone? Every political and belief system in history would have to be represented. What used to be described as Western democracies have now decayed into vacuous apolitical quagmires of cronyism with the exception of the rise of the extreme right within them. We would have to be careful that a compulsory vote did not inevitably mean an increase in votes for this disturbing political trend, that is already filling a political void in many developed countries.

The caveat on compulsion in the electoral process is very well put. The significance of votes casting in the democratic process is not enhanced by compulsion with a view to achieving increased participation. Participation per se is not the key factor but rather the political wisdom upon which a vote is cast is what the electioneering process should strive to pursue. Instead of compulsion, the process should rather incorporate factors which facilitate vote casting and the post election governmental machinery should not only be representative but also responsible. This would encourage people to go to the polls..

While there is a fundamental right to vote, there exist a concomitant right not to vote. Making voting mandatory is not practical especially when you are talking about a system where there is a genuine disinclination towards political systems and process. The solution is awareness and better engagement. Utilising Tech based tools and making the voting process simpler will go a long way in increasing the voting percentage levels.

But if voting is not made compulsory, there could be a situation where the percentage of voting for a particular election may come down. This may result into a wrong or unwanted candidate getting a chance to win the seat as it is only his followers that are going to be in majority of people who come to vote. Our election system has recently added one more option in our Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) called 'NOTA' - None of the Above. What it means that if the voter chooses this button, he means that he rejects all the above mentioned candidate and does not wish to vote for anyone. Now doesn't this amounts to as good as not voting at all? Because their vote will be ultimately considered as negative or null vote. What is your opinion?

Hello Vivek,

voting is a right and as right can`t be imposed. But at the same time, the State must create the conditions for all citizens to exercise this right (for poor people as well) without factual obstacles

Citizenship in a democracy is not a privilege (for enjoying 'rights'); it is a responsibility. While compelling a person to vote neither agrees with the concept of rights nor goes with the basis of democracy, as Laura mentions above, creating conditions that would encourage 'informed participation' is necessary. We would automatically expect that if something has to be done then it is the government who should do it. This notion is incorrect because it is equally a responsibility of citizens to take the initiative to spread education and awareness.

In the process of ongoing elections in India, an interesting phenomenon has developed. The Election Commission of India, which has thus far limited itself only to the actual process and conduct of elections, this time has extended its work in promoting awareness among citizens about their right to vote as well as the responsibility to vote 'responsibly'. A number of citizen volunteer groups and NGOs also have taken up the call towards this education/awareness campaigns. In Burkina Faso and other African countries, similar initiatives have been taken both by government and NGO actors.

Education and awareness programs are also a means to help citizens make informed choices. In any country where the bulk of the electorate is illiterate and struggling for livelihood, issues like 'wrong or corrupt' candidates will surface. We need strong citizen movements to spread awareness of developmental issues that identity/ideology issues to help citizens make better choices. Though political parties in developing countries flaunt 'issue based' approach as their mantra, they flout these principles with impunity when citizens are ignorant about actual issues that plague their lives.

The average voter turnout in India this time (till now) is more than the 60% average of yester years. It is an indication that citizenry is waking up to its responsibility. The media, academia and well-minded citizen groups must help increase this awareness so that the future of democracy will be strong and good!

have a great day!

I congratulate and thank all the above contributors for a meaningful online debate on my above question which of course still continues.

Best Regards!

In Australia, voting is mandatory and considered a civic duty. Persons living abroad must send in their vote. My understanding is that no one is required to vote for a candidate, but they must show up.

I doubt very much that making voting mandatory in the US is feasible.

The Australian system is philosophically flawed in that a duty that is compelled is no duty.  Compulsory voting does not make any difference to the quality of the 'democracy' it purportedly serves as the Australian electorate have so graphical demonstrated.

The democratic process in the UK is no better than the one that operated in the GDR.  The SED was the 'establishment' and guaranteed a majority of seats in the redundant Volkskammer.  In the UK the establishment operates behind the facade of party politics and it matters little which of the main parties are elected.  The same is true in the US.  Whoever you vote for the 'government' is elected.  Or as Brecht suggested, it would perhaps be easier to dissolve the people and elect another one.

The 'democratic countries of the European Union do not of course have a vast secret police network in the form of the Ministry for State Security but if Erich Mielke had had access to the technology GCHQ and the NSA have he would not have need so many staff either.  

Dear christiane mam I appreciate your answer. Thank you very much. But by imposing voting as a duty, I mean to say that every citizen of a nation should exercise their voting right and be part of the formation of the Government. Thank you once again.

In Fiji under the 1997 Constitution voting was compulsory (modelled on Australia).  I understand that this was resented by the voters, which may have contributed to a rather unexpected result in the 1999 elections. It also proved very hard for a developing country to prosecute those who did not vote. 

If my legislature made it compulsory for me to vote I would vote for anyone, absolutely anyone who pledged to rescind such an absurd obligation.

I would rather vote for a piece of driftwood than any politician I have seen in many years living in a 'democracy'.  It would have more ideas, more intelligence and certainly more integrity than any of them. 

The biggest problem with voting is that it always results in the government getting in.

If the goal is to increase the participation of the voters (and therefore the representativity of the elected body) I would prefer to focus on removing obstacles to exercising one's voting rights. This could mean allowing for on-line voting in coutries with high internet penetration. Or allowing people to vote wherever they happen to be (due to their studies, business or other reasons) without much administrative hassle. 

I would not opt for an obligation to vote as that could result in quite some resentment among the voters as mentioned by others.

It's so interesting that I am honoured to be part of the which resulting into a very interesting debate. Thanks to all of you.

I personalyy do not agree on mandatory voting with eventuall  sanctions on non voting.No such proposals are  on  agenda. But, more transparency on  voting rights  and voters maybe disclosed  in number per region or similar might be a  interesting

I heard a funny (ha ha) story on a news magazine show last night about Brazil where voting is mandatory.  I gather it has been since 1959 and from the beginning, as people are fond of doing, the Brazilians have spoofed their own electoral system.  This year among the 200 candidates, there is Jesus Christ, the Devil, 69 Barach Obama's and at least one of those looks absolutely nothing like the real one, a rhinoceros (previously elected to the City Council), several kinds of monkey's, and at least one man whose advertisement (all candidates are given free advertising) where the last 20-30 seconds of the ad are him flying through the Cosmos until at the very end his face turns beet red.  I walked in on the story not hearing who was involved and just assumed with our own Congressional elections arriving shortly that it was just the latest rendition of Republicans and their ever more ludicrous ideas.  Lord only knows you have to laugh...no sane person can take them seriously.  Too bad so few here are from the US.  I love my country but sometimes I just have to shake my head at its leaders.

Alexandra

If there was a way of measuring what a country was the United States would be the best country in the world.  E Pluribus Unum is probably why.  It's a terrible shame that those who run it today do not believe in that great founding principle.

The biggest problem facing 21st century democracy is however you vote the politicians always win! 

True, Barry, I think of the US as a Republic though not a Democracy.  It is less daunting and you don't have to explain the deficits nearly as much.

Everybody seems to have really interesting opinions about making choices and the "compulsory" thing. I'll just comment on one other thing: it's not feasible to turn a "civic duty" into a legal obligation.

It has been compulsory to vote in Turkey for years, and there was an administrative fine for not voting last time I checked. There was even a time I didn't go to the polling station, and I wasn't fined. The regulation is "abolished in practice", because it would probably cost more to the people to follow up on thousands/millions of non-voters and there would be a crippling amount of paper work on the system. There might be a fine that would be ensured to cover the financial costs, but the loss of labour would never be covered by a reasonable amount.

Personally, I don't agree with making "civic duties" mandatory, because they wouldn't be "civic" anymore.

I am not sure one answers questions of this kind effectively by labels. Just to say "it is a right" does not really answer the question whether it should also be a duty. And to say it is a "civic" duty and cannot be made a legal duty without robbing it of its civic character similarly does not respond to the question of whether it ought to be a legal duty. 

Some people have found it odd that one can say there is a right to free and compulsory education. Of course here the  duty (the compulsory bit) is really that of the parent/guardian.

Of course any system ought to allow for conscientious objection (though this itself is not easy because  how does one distingish between the genuine conscience and the lazy inclination?).

I have never lived in a system where voting was compulsory. I am not sure any responder to this question has either. It would be good to hear from someone who has.  

hi

non-voting is itself a strong and significant way of voting , at times even more effective .

This is interesting.  This could be discussed from the perspective of rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen.  That a citizen has rights but also has duties, one of which is to be responsible and refrain from activities that are of no good to the governance of the country.  So therefore legislation puts forward laws which make such activities criminal and prosecutable. That is fine and so all citizens in their right frame of mind need to participate in the governance activities of their beloved country. Right.

 However, the process of choosing people to govern requires careful consideration in choice making.   If one is therefore compelled to vote and votes just because of such compulsion, there cannot be assurance that such choice making is of free will and that a careful thought in choice making is what pertains in the end.

Those finally elected should be those who form the collective choice of the electorate and not those who happen to be elected because some were forced to choose them.

There needs to be the element of free will and not compulsion.

What rather is of the essence is that if careful, educated and informed choice should be made in the electoral process, then a key element is that of political education by which voters would be well informed and get to understand the electoral process and party manifestos and make enquiries in relation to what candidates and their parties put on the table. Upon this, a voter would be in a better position to elect wisely and continue to be vigil to promote accountable and responsible government.

The significance of voting should not be perceived only at the voting stage.  The essence of voting goes further than electing people in representative government.  It is encompassing and goes further into the post-election stage where the electorate need to be the watchmen and the watchdogs of what the elected do.  Political education can contribute far more to this than making voting mandatory.

Should I just go in there, close my eyes, make a tick or a cross on one or two candidates and walk out and then I have played a meaningful role in democracy?

It takes something more than making voting mandatory.

What if each candidate is equally incompetent ?

لا أتفق مع ذلك