Democracy: Does mandatory voting enhance democracy?
[ ]
[Edit]
Pro
 Voting is not only a right, but
a responsibility. The whole point
of freedom is that everyone has a
say and has a responsibility to voice
their opinion, otherwise the system
doesn't work. non-compulsory
voting encourages entire classes of
people to not bother with voting,
since it is demanding, having to
stand in long queues all day. People
should exercise their right and
responsibility to vote.
 50% turnout not
democracy; mandatory voting
necessary. Keith Olbermann.
"Make voting mandatory voting
necessary." Salon. November 5,
2002: "two modest proposals to get
head and hair flying. First:
Mandatory voting. You heard me. A
democracy where half of the citizens
sit back and say, 'no, thanks,' isn't a
democracy at all -- just a really large
oligarchy. If we have not already
reached it, we are nearing,
inevitably, the point at which
everyone who votes has a personal
stake in the outcome. As the
percentage of lever-pullers
continues to decline, it's going to
eventually be just the candidates'
friends, families and people from
their secret second lives who even
bother to show up. You know -- like
park league softball."
[ ]
[Edit]
Con
 Mandatory voting does not enhance
legitimacy of govt. Even if compulsory
voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not
improved. It merely allows the government to
say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this
government is 100% legitimate', which is
clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random
votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest
votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to
improved legitimacy of the government.
There is a reason why some people are less
politically active. They neither know nor care
about politics. How can their forced input add
legitimacy to the mix?
 Mandatory voting pushes ignorant to
vote Some individuals resent the idea of
compulsory voting, particularly if they have no
interest in politics or no knowledge of the
candidates. Others may be well-informed, but
have no preference for any particular
candidate, and have no wish to give support to
the incumbent political system. Such people
may vote at random simply to fulfill legal
requirements: the so called donkey-vote may
account for 1-2% of votes in these systems,
which may affect the electoral process.
Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete
absence of knowledge of any of the
candidates, or deliberately skew their ballot to
slow the polling process or disrupt the
election.
 Not voting is often a form of political
expression. Supporters of voluntary voting
assert that low voter participation in a

 Mandatory voting broadens
representation and
legitimacy. Such a system
guarantees that the government
represents a majority of the
population, not only a minority of
individuals who vote. This helps
ensure that governments do not
neglect sections of society that are
less active politically, and victorious
political leaders of compulsory
systems may potentially claim
greater political legitimacy than
those of non-compulsory systems
with lower voter turnout.
 Mandatory voting would
reduce polarization. William
Galston, senior fellow in governance
studies at the Brookings Institution.
"Mandatory voting would loosen
partisan gridlock." US News and
World Report. July 8th, 2010: "My
prediction, based on the difference
between voters and nonvoters in the
United States today, is that it would
reduce political polarization."
 Mandatory voting decreases
need for big dollars in
campaigns. Because mandatory
voting means that no large
campaign funds are needed to goad
voters to the polls, the role of money
in politics will decrease.
 Mandatory voting would
compel broader campaign
messaging. William Galston, senior
fellow in governance studies at the
Brookings Institution. "Mandatory
voting would loosen partisan
voluntary election is not necessarily an
expression of voter dissatisfaction or general
political apathy. It may be simply an
expression of the citizenry's political will,
indicating satisfaction with the political
establishment in an electorate. Mark Latham
urged Australians to hand in blank votes for
the 2010 election. He stated the government
should not force citizens to vote or threaten
them with a fine.
 Mandatory voting may increase hold
of established parties "The case against
compulsory voting in democracies." Helium:
"the political system in America is
concentrated in two parties, with only minor
successes of alternate parties. These two
parties, as opposed to eight competitive
parties in Australia, spend millions of dollars
annually encouraging their members to vote
in elections. With the implementation of
compulsive voting, the political parties would
instead spend those millions trying to
convince non-party members of the
superiority of their respective positions.
Instead of saving money, the two parties
would only increase in power as more
members join their folds, reducing the power
of smaller parties to democratically compete."
 Compulsory voting expands
government, limits freedom. "The Case
against Compulsory Voting." Musings.
January 16th, 2010: "compulsory voting will
require processes and man power to ensure
adherence. Its a massive expansion of
government and hence a colossal waste of tax
payers money."
 Forcing a vote is as bad for
democracy as poor turnout. Debra
Saunders. "The trouble with compulsory
voting." Real Clear Politics. July 13th, 2010: "I
 gridlock." US News and World
Report. July 8th, 2010: "Campaigns
wouldn't have to spend nearly as
much time on voter mobilization, nor
would they be able to target their
message simply to the most
passionate partisan members of the
electorate. They'd have to craft
broader and more inclusive
messages. That would be all to the
good."
do recognise that a low turnout in elections
lends itself to questions about the legitimacy
of those elected – and indeed, in the
institutions themselves. But if we are 'forced
to be free' (and I’m using that in not quite the
way Rousseau did, though if his assertion that
we are only truly free when electing our
representatives is correct, then it follows)
then the legitimacy that we are bestowing
upon those who represent us appears to be
artificial and manufactured at best."

 Compulsory voting reduces

power of lobbying groups. A
benefit of compulsory voting is that
it makes it more difficult for special
interest groups to vote themselves
into power. Under a non-compulsory
voting system, if fewer people vote
then it is easier for smaller sectional
interests and lobby groups to control
the outcome of the political process.
The outcome of the election reflects
less the will of the people (Who do I
want to lead the country?) but
instead reflects who was logistically
more organized and more able to
convince people to take time out of
their day to cast a vote (Do I even
want to vote today?).

 Compulsory voting
decreases risk of political
instability. High levels of
participation decreases the risk of
political instability created by crises
or dangerous but charismatic
leaders.

 Mandatory voting more

impactful than making voting
easier