On Mandatory Voting

by Tom Wise

Australia has about 96% voting attendance. Why? In that country, you must vote [other countries, such as Brazil, also have this provision for the citizenry]. Failure to show at the polls results in a small fine (perhaps the equivalent of $20). It's a small incentive but it works. For those who find this objectionable, a note explaining one's absence is usually acceptable. But since that takes about as much energy and time as actually getting up and voting, this small motivator generally produces more voting. Nevertheless, even at the booth there is an out - you can vote for no one or "none of the above." Just show up.

In America, you are not obligated to cast a ballot. You may vote, as you please. The outcome for this passivity is that the big turnout, for the Presidential election, is only about 45-50% of registered voters. Mid-term elections are lucky to bring 30%. Primaries are worse. Why? Simply, people are jaded. They don't believe in the power of one vote. They don't trust the men or women on the ticket. They believe... they know.... that power corrupts, and they don't want to participate in the destruction of their own nation. So, they stay away from politics, civic pride and duty, and economics.

It wasn't always this way in the United States. Men fought hard to break free from England, where the king was nearly a god. After the Civil War, others fought just as hard for a 15th Amendment to the US Constitution (1870) to allow non-white men and former male slaves the vote. And women battled from 1869 to 1920 for suffrage, ending in the 19th Amendment (1920). Finally, in 1971, the 26th Amendment dropped the age limit to 18. So it's interesting and odd (at least from an historian's point of view) that the result of all this blood, sweat and tears is American voter apathy and ignorance.

But so what? Let people be free to choose!

Right?

Actually, that slogan is only useful for two types: elitist voters and slimy politicians. I'm not saying that there aren't principled dissenters against voting per se, only that such conscientious objectors play right into the hands of the corrupt.

For example, the main argument I've encountered in America against compulsory voting is that "We shouldn't encourage ignorant people to vote." Well... where do we start? Does that mean we ought to discourage them? Don't people remain ignorant by not becoming informed, a consequence not helped by such dissuasion? Some have reworded the argument, "We shouldn't allow ignorant people to vote." What does this even mean? Ignorant people already have the right to vote! It is the worst form of self-flattery to believe that if the "ignorant" were blocked from casting a ballot you or I would still be permitted to vote. Anyway, who gets to decide what is ignorant? Is there a test? Who creates this test? Who grades this test? This is the elitism of which I spoke, whether the word "ignorant" is aimed at young men and women, minorities, or any other group who already have the right to vote.

It gets worse. Those who want to prevent "the great unwashed" from voting are seeking to profit from the small turnout and the results therefrom. These slimy politicians cannot win on broad merit so they chase down a pocket of constituents who will be excited by a few push-button issues. This is their "base." It takes less money and effort to appeal to a smaller sliver of the population, especially when they think like you. It's also easier to corrupt a tinier percentile of the constituency, either by bribery or intimidation. Furthermore, it makes the job of lobbyists and special interests a breeze, as they can with copious contributions and promises grease further the pig.

High turnout, on the other hand, results in a more involved and (theoretically) informed populace. It brings forward new ideas which can build into strong parties. When hedonists, for example, are expected to vote, candidates emerge to entice them and some may have ideas not usually discussed in partisan politics. Not coincidentally, the political debate and discourse also tends to be more polite, since alienating uncommitted voters does not help. In American politics, on the other hand, alienation seems to be the name of the game, leading to extremism and the aforementioned special interests getting footholds on the system.

The advantages of high turnout are not the only reasons to like mandatory voting. In Australia, the government is actually an aid to the system, fining any business which does not provide time off for civic duty. The socially disadvantaged (the poor) thus do not become the further disenfranchised and therefore easier still to manipulate by foolish and evil candidates. Another plus is that compulsory voting leads more young people to get involved in politics.

The arguments against compulsory voting are few and weak. First, it is not coercion because there are three escape hatches: (1) accepting the very reasonable fine, (2) making an excuse, or (3) showing up but not voting. This is to my mind opposite communistic-type tyranny. Even the conscientious objector must agree that attendance at the polls can change minds, leading to more community involvement. Second, any "random" votes are still votes. The ignorant are still able to be educated and their involvement in their own growth is imperative. Concerning "protest" votes, if the aim of such is to prevent mandatory voting, that is a poor excuse to ruin it for the rest. In any event, such random votes are a small percentage of the public.

Philosophically, I would argue that the freedom to not vote is more advantageous to those who would enslave others. These would-be monarchs are certainly happier when not held to account, the visible evidence to this looseness being a jaded population absent from the voting booth. The less we demand, the less they deliver. Therefore, in a way, dissent against mandatory voting actually makes the ruling class stronger, the opposite effect desired!