The arguments for compulsory voting seem to be that you get a better representation of the public (and hence presumably policies are more reflective of society), and that it ensures everyone is doing their ‘duty’.
I’m not convinced though for a few reasons:
- First, voting is a right not a duty. People might have died in defence of democracy, but that doesn’t mean you should be forced to participate in it against your will. In a liberal society you should have the freedom to opt out of decision making. Indeed, by not voting it could be interpreted as you implicitly saying you are broadly satisfied with how things are – with your right to vote a future safety valve if and when things get too bad.
- Second, if one is worried about representation there are probably better ways to increase turnout that avoid the costs of compulsory voting. Like postal ballots, e-voting, more conveniently located ballot boxes, lengthened voting periods, targeted campaigns on underrepresented groups, lottery rewards and so on.
- Third, forcing everyone to vote means the median voter will be significantly less well informed than in non-compulsory systems and may skew the sophistication of debate downwards. Imagine you lined up a randomly selected group of 100 people by order of how interested and knowledgeable they were about politics. In a compulsory voting system the median voter, and hence the level at which the terms of debate would likely revolve, would be the 50th in line. I’d imagine by the time you’re getting this far down they would be unlikely to have clue about what the parties actually stand for, the virtues of different policy approaches or perhaps even able to name any political leaders. For example, a few years ago a survey found 42% of British people were unable to name a single member of the Cabinet. Clearly, a lot of people just don’t give a damn. In non-compulsory systems we seem to be converging on around 60% of the electorate voting in a post-cleavage society. So the median voter is then the 30th in line – which is probably getting a bit closer to people who have a reasonable knowledge of what they are actually doing in the ballot box.
- Fourth, compulsory voting increases the likelihood of the ‘donkey vote’. This is where people vote solely on things like the order the candidates are listed in. A good example of this was the Werriwa by-election near Sydney in 2005. In this example, the ‘Australian’s Against Further Immigration’ Party managed to come fourth out of sixteen parties, polling a surprising 4.7% of the vote after they started top on the alphabetically-sorted ballot paper.
4 comments:
David - some comments...
1. Tautology. Voting moves from a right to a duty if legislators pass a law defining it as a duty.
2. Not mutually exclusive. The other methods are still applicable. The purpose of compulsory voting may not be to increase turnout - more to create a different relationship between state and citizen.
3. Yes, perhaps, but more representative. The corollary of this is that you shouldn't do the things mentioned in 2 and seek a lower more elitist turnout in order to secure a better decision. This falls into the Churcillian observation: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government... except all the others . *
4. Same argument as 3. That is what real people are like - the job of politicians is to reach them and persuade them. They are more likely to try to do this, if they think these people have to vote. What are the negative consequences of segmenting campaigning and politics by 'propensity to vote'? You end up with focus, policies and money directed at the likely voters. The UK constituency system has a variation of that: focus on the middle England marginals.
I do think there is an argument for compulsory voting, but you need a thoughtful way of expressing 'none of the above' - or an official way of defecting from the system.
* he also said: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
1. It’s not a tautology. There are moral duties and legal duties. People in non-compulsory voting countries often argue that it is a moral duty to vote. Making it compulsory would – to them – codify the moral duty into a legal duty. I’m arguing voting isn’t a moral duty at all.
2. Yes, not mutually exclusive but both have costs and benefits and one might be a better way of getting to the – in my view – valid end of representation than the other.
3/4. There’s a difference between making it easier for people to vote and making those who don’t want to vote go and vote. Measures in 2 make it easier for people to vote, which in theory would pick up some of the 40% currently absent thereby increasing representation but still only those who actually had interest in voting.
I think Churchill’s right, though the answer is not therefore that we need to maximise 'democracy' in all forms and in all places. I frankly don’t care that much about exactly how my local school is spending taxpayers’ money so I don’t think I need a say in whether the head teacher should be fired if they overspend. In the same way for many people they don’t care much how the nation’s head teacher is performing and so don’t want to be herded in to have to state a view they don’t have or want to form.
Isn’t your end point more like the idea of having to act opt-out (rather than opt-in) to voting rather than compulsion?
I don't know what higher authority you are appealing to in order to arbitrate between a right, a moral duty and a legal duty... but obligations are defined by what is coded in whatever code you accept. This is culturally determined - for example Muslims are obliged to fast during Ramadan because they accept a sharia code. In Australia, a collective decision has been made to turn a 'moral' obligation into an actual obligation. Whether it is a right, a soft duty or a hard obligation is a matter of law. It's a duty because Australian's say it is.
I don't think turnout is necessarily the main objective - it is about encoding an aspect of the social contract and signalling strongly an expectation of civic responsibility. It isn't just about getting bums in booths.
I don't think people should be allowed to let a participatory system decline through apathy - it is good to have some reciprocal obligations between citizen and state.
However, I do think it should be possible to register a 'not interested' or 'none-of-the above' reply if compulsion is used - yes this is an active opt out, and it effectively separates the apathy-effect (can't be bothered going to the polling booth) from the indifference-effect (don't care who gets elected).
Also, there should be room for people who don't wish to dignify the electoral system in use by participating in it. In London, I live in a safe Labour seat (maybe not next time...!) and so my vote makes no difference at all. It is a futile gesture and irrelevant to the result - and a rational voter would not waste the time. I would prefer to be able to register that view somehow rather than acting the same way as those that just can't be bothered.
I don’t want to labour the point but I do think the difference important. I didn’t at any point say that Australia should or shouldn’t have compulsory voting, nor say what they should or shouldn’t consider as duties. I pitched it as the idea of compulsory voting, and clearly from the perspective of going from not having it-to having it (i.e. ‘better ways to increase representation’ not ‘you would lose representation if you got rid of it’). As such whether or not voting should be considered a moral duty is paramount.
In any case the ‘higher authority’ I could call on is my personal opinion, which is what blogs are after all. Would it be invalid for me to be sitting in America and say “it is wrong to execute children” or would I have to say the “the code I believe in and which is accepted by the law in my own country says it is wrong to execute children, although I acknowledge this is not the legal code in the country I currently reside in”.
Post a Comment