Would democracy work better if voting was compulsory?

[Soph0571]

Politicians are not so stupid that they are unaware that some of us are far more likely to vote than others and therefore ensure that they target policy accordingly. The cynic might say that the vast majority of policy does not appeal to the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, and if that is the case, it is very easy to see how certain sections of the wider community have come to the conclusion that is it not worth voting as politicians do not speak for them.

The argument, from certain sections of the community who do not currently vote in large numbers, is ‘there is no-one to vote for, so that is why I do not vote’. Of course, this inevitably leads to a chicken and egg situation. You have no one to vote for so you do not vote, how then will you ever be able to get politicians to become the kind of policy makers you would vote for? Surely, if we forced under-represented groups to vote, even if they did not want to engage with the system, it would make politicians listen to the needs and concerns of those groups? Would it not make politicians listen and answer to the whole of society rather than middle class, older, white people, which tends to be where current policy is directed?

BUT, and it is a big BUT: Can democracy ever be mandated? Can you force democracy? Surely the concept of a forced democracy is in direct conflict with the very definition of democracy? If we tried to force people into the voting booth would we not critically undermine the fundamental principle of democracy which is choice? Choosing not to vote could be reasonably considered a valid act of civil disobedience, and on a baser level should people not be allowed to choose to be lazy and not turn out to vote?

Compulsory voting is a terrible idea, is it not? But is it the least terrible idea, of all ideas to engage potential voters, if we want our leaders to represent us properly? After all will it not force the politicians to care about the disenfranchised and the disengaged when considering policy? How about voting with an option of none-of-the-above on the ballot paper, which would enable people to send a message that they do not care for their current choices rather than them choosing not to vote at all? Would that, potentially, send a clearer message to our leaders than forcing people to vote?

Thoughts?

[MineralMan]

1. That's almost impossible to determine, without testing.

Fewer than half of people who are eligible to vote actually vote. Typically, we don't even measure the sentiments of those who don't even register to vote. Because of that, we have no idea how that group would vote if forced to participate in some way.

It's an experiment I'm pretty unwilling to try. I'm not sure we want a government elected by people who are not motivated enough even to register to make their opinions known. We already have roughly 40% of those who have registered not coming to the polls to cast a vote. That, in itself, is a shocking thing.

If we measured the sentiments of those who do not even register, we might be horrified at the result.

[Shrek]

2. I don't see the point

There's no qualitative difference between a vote for none-of-the-above and a non-vote. The electoral effect is identical (unless maybe there's a rule that if none-of-the above captures a majority then another election has to be held with different candidates).

[Igel]

3. The right to do something has, historically and legally,

been interpreted as including the right not to do something.

I have the right to speak. To worship. To assemble. To not self-incriminate. To bear arms. To vote. To procreate.

Which entail the right to remain silent, to not worship, to refrain from assembly, to waive my right to self-incrimination, to not bear arms, to not procreate, to not vote.

Those instances where we take a right as an obligation usually end badly as we democrats make it somebody's task to compel people to do what we say is good for them, not just to preserve our rights but because, dammit, it's their duty to satisfy our expectations as to how they'll 'enjoy' their right.


I've always like "none of the above" options on ballots. But I think they're a really stupid idea and shouldn't be used for elected office and doubly so for ballot initiatives or bond measures, because it's unclear that a rerun of the primaries would be a good thing in most cases and because very often if there's a Constitutionally-mandated office that doesn't receive sufficient votes, it's usually the state legislature that stands in the breach.

When there's somebody in office I detest, I just remember that this shall pass.

[sagesnow]

4. At the risk of sounding elitist, No.

No to compulsory voting. IMO, In general, very low information voters don't vote because there is no one that they resonate with, no one who seems to be like them. When low information voters (LIVs) do vote in large numbers, we can get the likes of Jessie Ventura in Minnesota or Donald tRump in DC. These populist politicians are Superhero's to LIV's, but, once in office, they are cartoon like disasters with no ability to serve the citizens they govern.

Educating these voters would be hard unless you could get solid political information into Jerry Springer or Reality Show TV like programs. They would be easily swayed if they could be reached at the subconscious, "gut" level.

[FarCenter]

5. It wouldn't change much, since the outcome of elections is mainly determined by ballot access

The process by which candidates get their name on primary and general election ballots as the candidates of the two major parties are fairly opaque but very important to the outcome.

Trump represents a breakdown in that process at the presidential level, but we've seen others parlay wealth or celebrity name recognition into nominations and electoral success at the lower levels before.

[MarkMakers]

6. Absolutely not

Enough people vote for a name that they recognize now

Trump, Ventura, Schwarzenegger etc and so on

[SWBTATTReg]

7. Yes...

reason being that so many laws/ordinances/etc. being passed by very small minority of voters...important issues should be passed / acted upon w/ at least a minimum % of voters, after all, it's going to impact all of us...we use minimums today to establish whether a vote can proceed in town hall meetings and the like...

[jrthin]

8. Yes. nt

[Guilded Lilly]

9. This is kind of a tough call. Free choice is an amazing right...

and I can’t imagine not voting. I’ve left things blank on ballots, but just being able to have a countable voice is something I cherish. I just don’t know how we can get everyone to feel that way.

Some “requirements” are indeed positive...seat belt laws for one much simpler example. People still don’t wear them and to their own detriment but the law is still for the betterment of all.

We must have forms of law.

My nature is still to come down heavily on the side of free choice. Force has some seriously heavy consequences. (Even if it might...MIGHT benefit your current cause) And it wouldn’t stop the corruption of payoffs. Just shift the focus.

How do you create the genuine passion to vote by free choice if it isn’t obvious already?
We sure could use an answer this year.

[former9thward]

10. If you have a right to vote you have a right not to vote.

It would be a direct violation of the first amendment.

[bluestarone]

11. i say NO it would just

bring out the dumb voters (people who don't give a shit) who would vote JUST TO VOTE

[Phoenix61]

12. There are plenty of countries that have

compulsory voting but it's not enforced in all of them. I think it could be a good thing. Getting registered to vote would cease being a politically motivated activity. Gerrymandering would still be an issue. People might actually pay more attention to what is going on politically.

[moondust]

13. Probably not, but...

I think Internet voting would be an improvement IF AND ONLY IF it could be made completely secure from hackers and corrupt officials. Get that to work and "direct democracy" might be worth a try.

[ProudLib72]

14. An authoritarian response to voters who are marginalized???!!

Half the problem is vote suppression, so you would be punishing voters for the State manipulating them. In other words, you are blaming the victim.

A better solution is civics classes as part of the k-12 curriculum, creating easy access to political information, and having access to polling places (my state uses only mail in ballots).

[Kirk Lover]

15. I think it would work better if we all had off for election day or move it to a weekend for

fucks sake. So that and whole bunch of other things would help make it work better.

[Bradical79]

16. How about auto-registration?

Don't have to vote, but at least you eleminate one political aspect of a fundamental right of citizenship.

Make it a national holiday too.