Any reason we can't have compulsory voting in the UK?

Great Debates
1

In the aftermath of Brexit, I’ve seen lots of haughty posts on my Facebook feed proclaiming that “THE OLD HAVE BETRAYED THE YOUNG!!!”. This fatuous, judgemental nonsense is typically followed by some pious jeremiad arguing that the 80% of over 60s who voted Leave should be ashamed of themselves for “selling out” the 75% of young people who voted Remain. Apparently, since the old folks are going to be dead soon anyway, it wasn’t fair that their votes had as much weight as those cast by bright-eyed, forward looking millennial types. So fuck 'em.

I swear, I’ve seen variations of this lament from about eight different people. Thing is, not only is it morally wrong, it’s factually wrong as well. 75% of 18-25 year olds didn’t vote to Remain. 75% of 18-25 year olds who bothered to vote, voted Remain. Big difference. The actual percentage of 18-25 year olds who voted was something like 35%. The actual percentage of over 60s who bothered to get out and vote was something like 80%. In short, the old didn’t betray the young; the young betrayed themselves because the vast majority of them didn’t bother to vote in the first place.

Ever since these numbers came to light I’ve been wondering "Why don’t we just make people vote?" I honestly can’t think of a good reason not to. It seems to me that, for every objection, there’s a simple work-around.

Objection 1

Free Speech necessarily entails the right to refrain from speaking. It’s morally wrong to force people to vote in an election/referendum when they may not support any of the choices.

This ignores the fact that mandatory voting doesn’t necessarily mean mandatory choosing. If you think all the candidates suck, spoil your ballot. You might ask “What’s the point?” but it makes more of a statement than staying at home doing nothing.

Objection 2

Some people can’t afford to vote. A single mum holding two jobs might, through no fault of her own, be unable to make it to a polling station, and she may not be able to afford to take the time off to vote.

This is a very sensible objection, but it has a very simple solution: Make election day a paid public holiday. We had one for the Royal wedding, why can’t we have one for a general election or a referendum?

Objection 3

Some people may not believe in democracy. They might believe in theocracy, or absolute monarchy. They shouldn’t be compelled to take part in a system they don’t support.

Boo-hoo. Tough. You’re in a democracy. Either emigrate to a country which has a system of government more to your liking, or suck it up and vote. Again, you can spoil your ballot so it’s not like you’re furthering the agenda of a particular candidate. If you like, we can put a little box at the bottom of the form which says “I don’t believe in democracy” and you can vote for that and make your head explode.

Objection 4

Some people may not be physically able to vote.

Fair enough. If you have a legitimate medical reason for not being able to leave the house to vote, or leave the house to send a postal vote, or ask a neighbour to post a postal vote on your behalf, you ought to get an exemption. I’m not sure how such exemptions would work, but I’m also pretty confident that this would only affect a very small number of people.

Objection 5

I don’t want idiots messing things up by voting for things they don’t understand.

Nor do I. However, I also don’t want idiots undermining every electoral mandate by sitting on their arses instead of doing their civic duty and making their voices heard. To me, it’s simply the lesser of two evils. Besides, intelligence is less important than motivation. There are plenty of smart people who don’t bother voting either, and plenty of stupid people who would brave a hurricane to voice their stupid opinion.

So those are the main objections I can think of and they all seem to be either (a) baseless or (b) easily overcome. I hereby propose that Parliament should pass a law mandating that those who don’t vote, and who don’t have a valid exemption as per point 4, should be fined £100.00

Thoughts?

P.S. - I voted Remain, so this isn’t sour grapes.

2

I still don’t think you’ve answered the fundamental question of why we should make people vote, it seems like solution in search of a problem. You say people should make political statements, but why should we force them to?

3

Because if the total number of voters in an election or referendum drops below a certain amount, the mandate of the winner becomes so unstable that the entire election becomes little more than an exercise in futility.

4

People who are too lazy or stupid to weigh up the issues and come to a choice shouldn’t be encouraged to participate in democracy. We don’t want a repeat of the Australian ‘donkey vote’ phenomenon.

5

Wouldn’t apply. The UK doesn’t have Preference voting.

6

I think the negatives outweigh the positives. I mean, sure, for me, who doesn’t vote by choice, a spoilt ballot is the same as just not voting (except I have to go through some bullshit to cast it first). On the other hand, to some low information, low intellect voter ; mandatory voting is a “choose between A and B, YOU HAVE TO” law that they won’t ever question.
I’d rather that guy simply didn’t vote, because he’s going to vote for the stupidest of reasons and probably be swayed by the Daily Mail. Even if I don’t vote, I’d rather the least terrible guys* got in.

Besides, “I don’t give a token shit about this” (i.e. abstention) is as valid a response as “I deliberately refuse to participate in your bullshit theatrics” or “none of these people represent me, I’d like to be represented you guys” (i.e. a blank vote). The two oughta be differentiated and tallied, even though they aren’t in my country.

  • this is an avowedly highly utopic thought
7

The assumption here is that those who didn’t vote would have voted Remain in more or less the same proportion. I’m not sure that assumption is valid.

As an aside, has anyone scaled up the numbers to give the result if 100% of the population had voted?

8

Anyone who wanted to ‘fix’ the problem of people not voting would no doubt ‘fix’ FPTP voting as well.

9

As I said you’ve got a solution in search of a problem, as that is not widely seen as a problem in British politics, despite declining turnout in general elections no government has suffered from a reduced mandate.

10

We have compulsory voting in Australia. The main problem seems to me to be this. The cohort of voters who, given their druthers, wouldn’t vote at all are those least engaged by political issues and, therefore, those with the least well-developed political views and preferences. They are, for this reason, the most volatile voters, and the easiest to sway.

This has the result that, in Australia, the cohort who aren’t interested don’t just vote; they usually decide the outcome of the election. And most political campaignin is aimed at them. This has the result that political discourse is shallow, superficial, sensationalist and unbelievably trivial and sound-bitey.

I think everybody should vote. I think one of the responsiblities of citizenship is to use the power the ballot gives you to influence public affairs, and to do so in a way that contributes to the common good. But if people don’t want to discharge that responsibility, I think it’s not beneficial, and is probably detrimental, to the common good to force them to go through the motions.

11

Thank goodness we don’t have that problem in the US.

12

Meh, it would be even if we didn’t have mandatory voting. Rather than aimed at the clueless, just aimed at the ones who think they know what’s going on.

I don’t oppose it, but I reckon it doesn’t fix a problem, nor create one.

13

Let’s put that perception out of it’s misery.

Donkey Voting i.e. numbering the candidates on the ballot sequentially (top to bottom or reverse) in Australia has rarely been more than 2% in any electorate. It has always been substantially less than the %informal vote which is around 5%.
That’s in the context of voter turnout around 95%.
Obviously that can be a factor in marginal electorates.

Certainly there is an element of apathy, particularly when the number of candidates on the ballot gets into double figures.

It’s not uncommon that a “considered” donkey vote occurs when the number of candidates is four or less, especially when one of major parties “how-to-vote” cards to be sequential.

I was a scrutineer at a regional booth when there were 3 candidates; in order LIB, GRN, LAB, and almost every vote cast was either 1,2,3 or 3,2,1.

14

My mother, when she comes back to visit from the UK is prone to say how much better the standard of political discourse is in Australia . Take that as you will, but with a foot in each camp she’s as good a judge as any.

I’m fond of compulsory voting, and would hate to see it go. Going to visit a polling place every couple of years is really not a huge imposition - much less than jury duty. Frankly, for the privilege of living in a democracy I think it’s the least you can do.

However, compulsory voting is not a fix for all ills - nothing is. And if you were making a change to the polling system, getting rid of FPTP would have a lot more positive impact

15

Well yes, that’s the soundbite but there is precious little substance to support it.

There is no evidence to date of the Australian electorate being easily swayed and volatile, as in capriciously electing a populist or turfing out a sound government on a protest vote.
Now, yes a 5% swing is often enough to win an election, but a 5% swing isn’t volatile.

Since WWII first term governments usually win a second term while few governments win four terms before running out of steam. The last election with any influence of a fear campaign was prior to the DLP fizzling out in 1974.

It’s a pretty steady as she goes pattern, notwithstanding the heat, light and theatre of moments through the journey.

16

No, you misunderstand me. Or, I didn’t make myself clear. Or, something.

I didn’t say that the Australian electorate was unusually volatile. Nor does my argument imply that we should expect it to be. My point is that, in any election, the outcome of the election is decide by those who have the least settled political preferences, and (b) in Australia, with compulsory voting, this group is represented by people who, in most comparable first-world democracies, wouldn’t be sufficiently interested to vote at all. Hence, the election is decided by people who basically don’t care about the outcome of the election. This is pretty much the opposite of good citizenship at work.

This doesn’t have to be a large group - just large enough to tilt the balance between the two principal parties. And that group is no larger in Australia than it is in other comparable countries. Just less engaged in the issues.

But that’s the group that the major parties’ campaigns seek to influence.

17

You are saying like that as if it’s a bad thing

[excessively broad brush]
Australia elections are determined by those who change their minds.
US elections are determined by those who turn up.
[/excessively broad brush]

I don’t accept the premise.
Australia’s voter turnout is +35% above that of voluntary voting democracies.
If that 35% of voters were disengaged, politically ADHD swinging voters then democracy here would be a wildly vertiginous ride.
The proportion of swinging voters in all but the largest landslides is in the single digits.

18

Again, yes. The Australian electorate is not more volatile than the electorate in comparable democracies.

It is, nevertheless, the most volatile voters who decide the outcome of the election. No, that’s not a bad thing.

And, in Australia, this group is made up entirely of people who are so disengaged that they would rather not vote at all. This is what’s the bad thing. Can we think of any other area of life where we think it’s a good thing to give the decisive voice to people who would rather not make a decision? A voter casting his vote is discharging a public duty, and exercising a power conferred upon him by, and for the benefit of, the community. Do we really want public functions to be discharged by people who don’t care about them?

19

The 35% is not universally disengaged.

It includes those who are highly engaged but don’t have a candidate either far enough right, left or off the scale in some other direction. These people make a conscious decision to vote for their best fit candidate or they face the ballot and go informal.

More significantly it includes those who vote LIB in the blue ribbon LAB seats and vice versa despite knowing before they trudge to the local primary school to vote that their preference isn’t going to make it. Yes, their vote and their engagement doesn’t carry the day, but it does count.

That’s a healthy democracy.

20

I’m not sure that it is. If the democracy were healthy, the 35% wouldn’t have to be threatened with fines to get them to vote; they’d vote out of a sense of engagement or of civic responsibility .

Compulsory voting helps to mask problems of disengagement and disenfranchisement; it doesn’t solve them. Getting a high turnout in “safe seats” where people’s votes don’t effectively count doesn’t solve the problem that their votes are irrelevant, and it may in fact help the establishment to avoid solving that problem by, e.g. electoral reform.