IPS 1A Why Voting Should Not Be Compulsory

Voting has been an integral part of democratic societies for centuries.

Compulsory voting, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept and the
necessity of this compulsion has yet to be conclusively established.
Perhaps the most important element of this debate is that of civic and
political engagement. Proponents of compulsory voting would argue that
this compulsion increases political engagement and thus ensures fair
democratic process by ensuring that government is for and by all people.
This essay will argue that compulsory voting does not effectively increase
political engagement. Instead, it creates a faade of such which can be
detrimental to both democratic process and outcome. Voting is but one
method of political engagement yet it is the only one in Australia with this
degree of compulsion. There is not enough basis for this and compulsory
voting is holding society back, politically.
The first element of this argument, government by all people, looks at
marginalisation and equality. Perhaps the most compelling argument for
compulsory voting is that it forces groups of politically disengaged people
to become engaged and thus prevents parties from marginalising them in
favour of more politically engaged groups. In the 2004 British General
Election, 75% of people over 65 voted while only 37% of people aged 18
to 25 voted (Birch 2009, p 22). Statistics such as this can be misleading as
they fail to represent factors such as size of age groups and the capacity
of these groups to vote in the first place. Regardless, it provides evidence
that there are distinct age groups which are less politically engaged than
others. If the elderly are significantly more likely to vote than the youth,
then political parties have incentive to invest more into gaining the
support of the elderly. This may mean tailoring or implementing certain
policies to benefit them. Lever notes that socio-economic status is another
increasingly prevalent factor in voting and it is argued that this creates a
circle in which these people are further marginalised. Poorer people vote
less which means they are less likely to attract sympathetic attention from
parties and they thus become marginalised which in turn reduces their
turnout and causes them to become even more marginalised (Lever 2009,
p 59).
This is a very valid argument and is difficult to dispel as there is no
evidence that marginalisation will cease if voting is made optional. The
best rebuttal to this is that regardless of compulsion, political parties will
still marginalise certain groups of people. Compulsory voting only masks
the differing levels of political engagement. One of the main priorities of
political parties, and this is perhaps a downfall of democracy, is to win
elections. Even with compulsory voting, there will be different levels of
political engagement. People of a higher socio-economic groups are still
much more likely to be engaged than those of a lower socio-economic
group. It has been found that compulsory voting actually has no real effect
in increasing political engagement (Lever 2009, p 64). It only creates a
faade of total engagement. Parties will still invest time into ensuring that
their funds are allocated in ways that will ensure the best return as it
makes strategic sense. It thus does not increase equality as regardless of

Joshua Wilson 17 May 16

IPS 1A Why Voting Should Not Be Compulsory

compulsory voting, parties do not actually compete for the votes of lower
socio-economic groups (Lever 2009, p 64). Compulsory voting does not
guarantee inclusiveness, nor does it guarantee political equality
(Ballinger 2006, cited in Lever 2009, p 64). In fact, it has been argued that
this faade which compulsory voting creates will make the electoral
turnout clear and thus make it easier for parties to target swing seats and
identify key voter groups within marginal seats (Ballinger 2006, cited in
Lever 2009, p 65). Therefore, it can be said that compulsory voting will not
address the problems of political powerlessness and inefficacy and may in
turn fuel them.
The second element of this argument, government for all people, looks at
the legitimacy of government. Compulsory voting is excellent at
drastically increasing the quantity of a base level of engagement. This
engagement is limited, of course, to marking a sheet and placing a vote.
Unfortunately, this increase in low-level engagement is likely to represent
an overall decrease in quality of engagement. This decrease in quality will,
in turn, lead to a decrease in legitimacy. Proponents of compulsory voting
such as Sarah Birch and Bart Engelen argue that turnout is political
engagement and that this turnout is essential to a legitimate government.
Engelen stated that high turnout levels are necessary for any legitimate
democracy (Engelen 2007, p 45) while Birch argued that the number of
voters is what creates a reflection of the public and that having full voter
turnout means having a fully accurate reflection of peoples views (Birch
2009, p 23). The fundamental problem with this argument is the
assumption that all voters are entirely rational. The argument is fixated on
quantity and fails to take into account quality. This is problematic as
politics is high stakes. (Brennan 2014, p 85) It has great impact on society
and having good decisions made is of utmost national importance. Despite
this, a country may find themselves with voters who are ignorant,
irrational or morally unreasonable (Brennan 2014, p 85) To force these
people to vote would be of deep injustice. It would not afford any more
legitimacy to the winning party. Many of the extra votes received are likely
to have been made it ways that undermine the presence of the vote itself.
For example, when citizens who have no opinion, or a lack of desire to
express their opinion are forced to vote, there is an increase in protest
votes (Keaney and Rogers 2006, cited in Engelen 2007, p 42).
There are arguments in response to this. Engelen cited evidence which
found that the number of invalid votes only decreased by 2% when
compulsory voting was abolished (Engelen 2007, p 28). This is, in effect,
negligible. It is not, however, the invalid votes but the valid votes which
are worrying. Votes which are random or support a completely unsuitable
party in protest. Invalid votes, on the other hand, will have no effect on
the outcome of the election. It is argued, however, that to discount certain
votes puts one on a slippery slope to totalitarianism (Engelen 2007, p 28).
This is true, to state that some peoples votes are more valid than others
because they are more politically engaged and aware is undemocratic. I
would argue that not to do so poses far worse problems than this. It is

Joshua Wilson 17 May 16

IPS 1A Why Voting Should Not Be Compulsory

important to note here that even if, hypothetically, every person who
voted made a rational decision that accurately reflected their own views,
the outcome would not necessarily be fair. Case in point is the 1990
election in Richmond where Neville Newell claimed the seat despite
winning only 27% of first preference votes. Currently even, close to half
the Australian population is governed by a party they did not vote for.
Compulsory voting will never change the fairness of elections. It may well,
however, reduce the quality of government. It is time to look past total
and unwavering dictionary democracy. The ability of a political party to
properly govern is far more important and to ignore will be detrimental to
society.
The final element to this argument is small but important, an alternative
solution. One of the fundamental factors that influences political
engagement is education (Engelen 2007, p 30). Key to voting is
understanding the political system and parties. A lack of understanding
around this can result in people submitting invalid votes or votes that do
not accurately reflect their views. They may vote for a certain party
arbitrarily, not because it has the policies that are best suited to them.
The government, however, has not increased political education. Instead,
it has used compulsory voting to mask the issue rather than target the
core of the problem. If we cannot expect the illiterate to write, how can we
expect the uneducated to vote.
In conclusion, proponents of compulsory voting argue that compulsion
increases political engagement and thus ensures that government is for
all people and by all people. They argue that turnout itself is political
engagement and that it forces political parties not to marginalise certain
groups of people. They also argue that it increases legitimacy as it
prevents parties from being elected by only small groups in society. These
are real problems. Marginalisation does occur and the result of some
elections can hardly be considered completely fair or unequivocally
legitimate. Despite this, compulsory voting is not the answer. Not only
does compulsory voting fail to solve the issues, it can worsen them.
Compulsion only masks politically disengaged groups and makes it easier
for parties to identify swing seats or target specific groups within marginal
seats. Compulsion increases the quantity of voting but decreases the
quality. It increases the number of protest, invalid or simply irrational
votes. This cannot be accepted as politics is high stakes. It is high time
that the government starts to look into ways of truly solving these
problems, rather than just creating a convenient faade.

Joshua Wilson 17 May 16

IPS 1A Why Voting Should Not Be Compulsory

References
Birch, S 2009, The Case for Compulsory Voting, Public Policy Research,
March-May, pp. 21-27.
Brennan, J 2014, 'Should We Force the Drunk to Drive?', in J Brennan and L
Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against, Cambridge University Press, New
York, pp. 83-107.
Engelen, B 2007, Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy, Acta
Politica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 23-39.
Lever, A 2009, Is Compulsory Voting Justified?, Public Reason, vol. 1, no.
1, pp. 57-74.

Joshua Wilson 17 May 16