Why shouldn't voting be mandatory in the good ol' US of A

Great Debates
21

Rubbish. Your assertion is not born out by the evidence in Australia.

Duckster, your Franklin quote is cute but entirely out of place. It refers to “temporary safety”; the integrity of the democratic process is NOT a fleeting gain.

**Gaspode:

**More rubbish. Nations with some form of compulsory voting include Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy (where it’s a constitutional “civic duty”) and Luxembourg, plus certain Latin American countries.

Perhaps you should make inquiry as to the definition of “totalitarian”.

–

I have mixed feelings as to the worth of mandatory voting. A solid argument can be made in both directions.

I will point out, however, one benefit of mandatory voting that is often overlooked in these discussions: it has the effect of preventing vocal and organised interest groups from gaining a disproportionate influence at the ballot box.

Incidentally, could we please cease with the useless assertions which flow from the statement, “if people were FORCED to vote” – because that’s not what we’re talking about. People aren’t forced to vote; they’re compelled to rock up at a polling station and get their name ticked off.

After this point, one is free to do whatever one choses with the ballot paper, including NOT voting.

22

Rubbish, Jervoise? Possibly. However in the thread referenced in the OP the Australian members of the board mention that once they have shown up at the polling place, they are not required to actually vote (no one watches them once they enter the booth).

And, you say:

What value is that? You have made the people get to the polls, but you don’t care whether they actually vote or not.

Bob

23

Do you mean - are Australians more aware of domestic political affairs. I dont know. I have nothing to compare with, which is why I prefaced with a ‘perhaps’.

24

Dopers with long memories may recall that I weighed in on the side of mandatory voting at one time. I hereby recant that position. I was wrong. The right to vote is no more a mandate than the freedom of religion is an order to believe. I do think people who live in democratic countries have a duty to inform themselves and to vote. However, I don’t think any government has the right to force them to do so.

I may be mistaken (and please feel free to educate me if I am), but wasn’t it mandatory for Iraqi citizens to vote in the last presidential election in which Saddam Hussein had a part? Doesn’t the fact that the vote was 100% for one candidate (the only candidate IIRC) tend to demonstrate that where voting can be mandated, so can the votes?

The only thing I wish could be mandatory is that those who choose not to participate in the process keep their opinions to themselves if they don’t like the choices made by others who did.

I read years ago about an election in the Phillipines. Someone paraded a goose down the main street of a town with a sign hung around its neck saying, “I don’t vote…I just squawk!” Squawking is just fine for geese, but really irritating from those who prefer to snipe at those in office when they couldn’t stir themselves to help with the choice.

25

I used to think this was a good idea. But when you think about it a democracy is for everyone (by the people), not a select few.

Someone else might think only the strong should vote. Someone else might think only the motivated should vote. Skewing the population sample is not democracy.

If we want more intelligent, less ignorant people to vote, then we are better off educating than removing them from society.

I know that there is not a direct correlation between non-lazy voters and intelligence (hey, a near majority of voters elected GWB), but it is in the interests of the country to involve everyone in the political process to prevent such skewing.

26

This was your assertion:

**It is factually incorrect. How does the fact that we are not strictly required to cast a vote in any way validate it?

(i) Let me reiterate that I don’t have a strong position in support of mandatory voting. I’m aware of both the pros and cons.

However,

(ii) I would suggest that substantial value lies in that this encourages people to follow the democratic process (“hey, I have to vote anyway”) and to inform themselves as to the options presented at the ballot.

A non-vote (“informal voting”) is still an expression of intention. The difference lies in that people are compelled to at least consider their position before casting an informal ballot since non-voting is not the default position.

**DesertGeezer:

**No, it does not follow. Compulsory attendance at the ballot box can be mandated in Australia. Vote intention cannot. I’m glad to be able to clear this up for you.

Frankly, positions such as this and “It can lead to a totalitarian regime” (above, by Gaspode) do absolutely nothing to further the debate. Mandatory voting continues to exist in democracies as vibrant and healthy as yours. The “slippery slope” argument is NOT borne out by the evidence. So try another tack – there’s plenty of ammunition available.

27

Perhaps some education into American history is in order for you, Jervoise. Franklin is refering to those who would take away liberties in order gain something else. Yeah, right. One does not horse trade liberties. Except, of course, the current US administration.

Perhaps though Jervoise, you could enlighten us into the history of mandatory voting in Australia. Was it done to increase citizen involvement in the government? (Not sure on that since selected non-citizens enrolled prior to 1984 can vote in Australia.) Prevent political parties from choking the country? Why did labor implement mandatory voting nation-wide in 1924? Did they have an altruistic attitude or were their motives more elf-serving? The current AEC web site does not appear to provide a history of mandatory voting. Or have they moved it to someplace else in their site redesign?

Sure mandatory voting raises “citizen” participation in government. But does it make for better government? Is government more responsive to the electorate?

Also, you comment, “Incidentally, could we please cease with the useless assertions which flow from the statement, ‘if people were FORCED to vote’ – because that’s not what we’re talking about. People aren’t forced to vote; they’re compelled to rock up at a polling station and get their name ticked off,” is your opinion of what the OP meant.

Besides, isn’t that splitting hairs? Whether one is required just to show up at the polls or actually be required to cast a ballot really isn’t the issue. It is the mere requirement that the electorate be forced to participate that is the issue. How does it make sense in a free country where people are free to express an opinion, or not, yet be required to take that opinion to the polls, let alone possibly be required to vote for it, or not?

28

Some people have expressed the opinion that voluntary voting allows those with extreme positions and/or motivated special interest groups to influence election results to a degree disproportionate to their share of the population. I agree. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I think an ideal system of government should weigh intensity of belief as well as popularity of belief in determining what policy is carried out. If those who hold a minority belief on some issue care enough that they vote in excessively large numbers and get the result they want, then they deserve to prevail over a disinterested majority, even if that majority is mildly opposed to them.

If someone doesn’t care enough to express their opinion by voting, then why should a nation take his or her preference into account? As someone who votes regularly, I would prefer not to have my opinions diluted by the input of those who couldn’t care less about the outcome.

29

Evidence for this?

People are required to have a driver’s license to drive. It in no way ensures that they are good drivers.

30

**You don’t trade liberties for something else? Riiight.

In the US, where is your liberty to build a bomb in your cellar? Where is your liberty to walk naked down the street? Where is your liberty to marry your sister? Where is your liberty to make defamatory statements about other people?

Answer: these liberties have been traded for other considerations or gains.

I think it’s perfectly clear Franklin was referring to trading liberty for “temporary” or illusory gains. Let’s not pretend you don’t trade liberties at all; you suffer constraints on your liberty every day in order that society achieves certain securities.

The real question – which you correctly allude to – is whether the gains are worth the loss of liberty. I earlier asserted that the “loss” of being compelled to attend a voting station on one day every election period is traded for a worthwhile “gain” that is neither fleeting nor temporary – in response to your Franklin quote, nothing more!

Stronger proponents of compulsory voting would further argue as to the value of the gain in order to answer your question:
**

**Myself, being not entirely swayed either way I cannot address the question with much conviction.

**Federal voting was made compulsory in 1924. It was not Labor alone; a bipartisan agreement was reached, with the stated aim of increasing turnout (duh) and decreasing campaign expenditure by political parties. I think the latter rationale is worth consideration by both sides in this debate.

I’m afraid I don’t follow your last sentence, but I’ll tackle the second with two points:

(i) Yes, it is a requirement to participate in the vote; but
(ii) Proponents of compulsory voting would argue that this is properly a duty which falls to citizens of a democracy; and
(iii) The “cost” or “loss of liberty” is minor – just turn up on the day, collect your ballot papers and deposit something (anything!) in the ballot box.

… or pay the $20 fine.

Again, my comments were confined in response to comments that people “forced” to vote would somehow lead to a totalitarian regime.

31

It took a while but I found this “version” of Australian compulsory voting history:

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/21/1037697804794.html

The articles goes on to state when federal parliament voted for compulsory voting there was practically no debate and the vote was a voice vote. No records were kept of the vote tally.

It also says that in years prior to compulsory voting, the police showed up at your door and registered people.

Somehow, I do not get the impression the compulsory voting had anything to do with the electorate taking an active role in government as much as being coerced into voting to maintain the political status quo. At any time in American history I do not believe Americans would ever have supported police knocking on their doors and registering voters.

32

Is education compulsory in the USA? (I am talking about some basic level of schooling, not beyond 16 years old). I presume it is.

Why? Because education is considered fundamentaly important to society.

For those who consider democracy to be fundamentaly important to society, then why not expect voting to be compulsory?

JasonFin democracy is one person one vote. Perhaps you would like a voting system like this:



Tarquin Findinwindimblindimblumdim - Silly Party
[  ] Strongly disagree
[  ] Disagree
[  ] Undecided/Neutral
[  ] Agree
[  ] Strongly Agree

You are right that voluntary voting is easily biased by special interest groups. Some people might like this, but it is not democracy.

The point of true democracy is to try and get an unbiased, unweighted measure of the desire of the whole population. By skewing your sampling methods with some of the ridiculous arrangements noted by other posters* is not democracy.
*eg no votes for dummies, no votes for unmotivated, no votes for disinterested, no votes for fatties, no votes for shorties

33

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duckster *
**

In most European states, people are automatically registered on the electoral roll, based on census data. By comparison, Australia places an onus on citizens to enrol to vote.

“Police knocking on their doors” sounds ominous, but note that the police were NOT requiring people to vote; they were merely involved in registering voters.

Not also that we’re talking about pre-1911 Australia – just ten years after Federation. Would you like me to make a dig about infringement of civil liberties in pre-1911 America?

I’m sure you’d agree that that would be far too easy, but it still wouldn’t prove a darn thing.

**

**The original introduction of the compulsory vote in Queensland did not ensure the “political status quo”; in fact, the incumbant government was cast out. Does it ensure the status quo nowadays? Perhaps. I’d be interested in seeing a compelling argument that the system entrenches the two-party system at the expense of minor parties, but I haven’t come across one yet.

**Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. OTOH, I can’t say I place too much credence in an author who believes there was a 1915 Liberal Govt in Qld (it was the Ministerialist Party).

In any event – whether or not there was loud debate or no debate surrounding the introduction of compulsory voting – it is clearly the case that most Australians (70 per cent, from a 1996 Federal survey) are happy with our compulsory voting laws.

FWIW, here’s another interesting article on compulsory voting in Australia:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/91raven.html

This author – IMO – takes a more balanced view. He quite willingly allows that compulsory voting was introduced not out of principle but party politics, but nonetheless doesn’t jump to a conclusion that this is a terrible loss of liberty which warrants the rending of garments and tearing of hair.

34

Personally, I like the idea that only those who care enough about public policy to vote actually do vote.

35

And thank goodness it’s not. I’d be eliminated with all the shorties and fatties, even though I am interested! :smiley:

36

I really like this point.

People are generally uneducated about who is going up for office and the policies that are being passed. If you know that you are going to have to go down and cast a ballot you will be more interested in whats going on in your government, and you will be more likely to at least find out who the candidates are and what their stance on the issues that effect you are.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

This is a really, really, really bad point.

If you weren’t born into this society, you would have been born into another one.

I hadn’t thought of that =) All of your points are really good, actually.

This is a total contridiction. “It is your DUTY to vote! (But were not gonna make ya’ do it!)”. If it is their DUTY to vote then what is wrong with a little forced action for the lazy ass couch potatoes?

I would say yes. Raising citizen participation in the government would also increase the efficiency of the government.

Because the government exists for its people and it should care that its citizens don’t give a shit and it should do something about it. I think you would find that the people that do not care have a relatively low level of education. (That would not be 100%, but the majority i believe)

I still argue that it is not only the right of a citizen to take part in his government, it is his responsibility.

Everyone seems to think that it would be catastrophic to make it everyones duty to vote, that people are going to just ‘guess’ and fill in whatever block they want. Well, if this is the case, and everyone that is now forced to vote does this it won’t skew the results at all because they will all be voting randomly and all options will be skewed equally.

I believe that voting as a duty will cause us to have a society of informed voters that participate in their local governments.

To reiterate my OP, on the basis that our government would not work if nobody voted, I think everyone should be required to vote.

37

Being snide, are we?
The only thing I said was that it seems to be more common among totalitarian countries and developing coúntries. The fact is, among ‘western’ (for lack of better word) democracies and republics, mandatory voting is a minority, whereas we all know that in countries ruled by a dictator in certain parts of the world, often sporting names like “Democratic Republic” in the name, the turn out at the ballots are often given as 99,9%, with the beloved leader getting 98% of those votes. It’s typical behaviour of the Idi Amins and Pol Pots of the world, to force people to vote and to thereby justify their own existence.

That mandatory voting exists in some countries that are not totalitarian, doesn’t mean I have to agree with the notion.

38

Because “mandatory voting” would last exactly one vote?

39

But the longstanding evidence is that the Australians who attend the polls do cast valid votes. Given that it’s a secret ballot with no compunction to lodge the ballot paper, the level of informal voting has rarely exceeded 5% and the magority of that being procedural irregularities, rarely do the “plague on all houses” defaced or blank ballots exceed 1%.

So I’d categorise that as roughly 99% participatory democracy. It’s a badge that I, and I’d believe most Australians would wear with pride.

Of course, it might not work in the US context, which 'tis a pity. FWLIW like many furriners on this 'ere message board I have substantial faith in the decency and good sense of the average American and I’d have more faith in the US government if the average American voted.

40

Which is all fine, except that this opinion on what is “true democracy” is not “the point” of the American Constitutional system.

The American cultural character would be your biggest obstacle to establishing mandatory voting in the USA. That, apart from how in the USA fining people for choosing not to show up at the polls could be interpreted as a “reverse poll tax” – since constitutionally we may not charge people to vote, we may be also forbidden from charging them to not vote.