Compulsory voting addresses the symptoms of the crisis of democracy, not its root causes
In response to the crisis of decreasing turnout rates in Western democracies, some argue making voting compulsory would be the solution. To aim for higher turnout is necessary, but forcing people to vote under penalty of a fine is not the right way to get it. For higher turnout doesn’t entail better representation.
Western democracies designed voting as a right, not a duty. Whenever people, Afro-Americans or women, fought for the right to vote, they were likewise claiming a right, not a duty. A right means one is free to do as one pleases. The right to vote is also, therefore, the right not to vote. It is the right to ignore the state and live peacefully, to tune out and disengage, without the state pursuing you. To make a right compulsory is absurd, the same way turning any duty into a right is nonsensical.
However, maybe this statement stems from being close-minded. In Belgium and Australia, voting has been considered as a civic duty for about a century. Yet they are both strong democracies, granting their citizens fundamental rights and freedoms.
So what is the problem with mandatory voting?
Not everyone cares about politics. Some people lack information, and don’t know which candidate is best to answer their demands. They have neither preferences, nor opinions. Those who endorse compulsory voting state that it would foster these people’s political education. But studies (here and there) show that the relationship between mandatory and ‘civic learning’ remains to be proven.
If compelling people to vote doesn’t make them more interested, they will instead vote at random, to avoid paying a fine. Or worse, in reaction to the latest political furor. They will be more sensitive to communication campaigns than to political programs. And in the end, they will fulfill their duty without any ideological or political preferences.
Then, will those elected be more legitimate?
Some would answer that in Belgium, compulsory voting doesn’t force citizens to choose a candidate, but at least to turn up at a polling station. They can then abstain, or cast a blank vote. But both solutions are a political statement in itself. Many people don’t want to make any political statements, and just want to stay home, either because they don’t want to participate in a system they don’t feel involved in, or because they are simply lazy. This is their right, and the state shouldn’t twist their arm. After all, we fulfill our part of the deal by paying taxes, not by voting.
Some others have lost faith in democracy, or are skeptical about it. Forcing these people to vote would show democracy’s worst face, and would exacerbate their negative orientations towards it. This would lead to a surge of blank votes at best, but to a growing support to extremist or « anti-system » parties at worse, these very parties that are working against democracy.
Shane Singh, associate teacher at the School of Public and International Affairs of the University of Georgia, investigated the political impact of compulsory voting for the Political Studies Association. He found that in most cases, the far-right parties benefit more from mandatory voting than the far-left. If the purpose is to increase a country’s democratic life, compulsory voting might therefore not only be useless but also counterproductive.
Indeed, compulsory voting is a way for elected officials to reassure themselves, by blaming the voters for democracy’s current crisis of representation. On paper, the higher the turnout, the more legitimate the winner of the election. But higher turnout doesn’t necessarily lead to better governments.
If candidates seek legitimacy, they must learn to address everyone, so everyone feels concerned. They must design programs that tackle the issues of both the disadvantaged and the well off. Only then will people vote based on a choice, and not by default. It must always remain a challenge for candidates to convince the widest range of voters, for it is the only way to better people’s representation. In other words, candidates must address the root causes of democracy’s illness rather than the symptoms.
However, voting can be facilitated. There are many ways to create incentives for people to vote. We should increase opportunities for remote voting through absentee ballots, vote-by-mail or online voting. We can also make voting day a more exciting moment, rather than a few hours wasted queuing to cast a ballot and head back home.
In Australia, mandatory voting at least provided the advantage of creating a culture of voting, where voting days are a pretext to gather with friends and neighbors around a good barbecue. We can learn from that example and make voting day a weekend or a national holiday. For the more people vote the better for our representation, as long as they went to the polling station because they wanted to.
