Compulsory voting is advocated by some politicians as a means of addressing the problem of political disengagement. Young people tend to have a low turnout rate but this has worsened in recent decades. Many people retain an interest in politics but express that interest through pressure group activity rather than through traditional means of joining and voting for political parties. Requiring people to vote, it is argued, will ensure some degree of engagement with the mainstream political process.
Various countries have compulsory voting, including Australia and Belgium. A student of mine did his dissertation on the issue and there are clearly arguments on both sides. However, as an argument for addressing political disengagement it strikes me as notably flawed. If people are put off politics to the extent they don’t vote, then requiring them by law to go to the polling booths (even though there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ option) is not likely to make them feel more positively disposed towards the political process: if anything, the reverse.
Offering compulsory voting as an answer to the problem reflects a tendency to look for simple solutions to difficult problems. One needs to be looking at the root causes of why people do not vote. The means of voting have not changed significantly but behaviour has. Indeed, compulsory voting may mask the nature of the problem. Forcing people to the polling stations may give a false impression of civic engagement and contentment with the political system. Belgium has compulsory voting but notably low levels of trust in political institutions.
There is also the danger that we emphasise voter turnout at the expense of the integrity of elections. This applies not only to compulsory voting but also voting by post. Allowing postal voting on demand may increase turnout but it does so at the expense of the secret ballot. Introducing the secret ballot was a major reform of the 19th Century to combat vote buying. As I pointed out when we debated postal voting, the polling booth ensures secrecy but the living room does not. I would rather have an electoral system in which people vote because they want to – not because they are forced to – and in which they know their vote is secure. I am therefore sympathetic to the argument that we should limit postal voting – certainly until there is greater security in the process – and that ballot papers should not be marked. I know the reasons for marking ballot papers, but they are probably outweighed by the need to reassure electors that how they have voted cannot be known by others.
To the immediate question: of course not. When someone can prove the majority of the electorate can attribute a single unique item to any party manifesto, I may look further into the idea.
The means of voting is not the primary issue here. ‘Sharing the proceeds of growth’ has little meaning to those not already politically engaged and serves to confuse in a similar manner as the Labour manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU constitution.
I’m not overly happy that parliamentary elections are rarely based on the original basis of voting for the best person for the constituency. Having moved from that to party affiliation and now to who is the most telegenic it’s a matter of time before David Beckham puts his package to the public vote.
To answer the question in one word: Yes.
But there has to be a rider, forcing people to vote Yes or No to a question where there are a number of shades of grey is very wrong.
Therefore compulsory voting must (not should) be accompanied with an opt out – i.e. a physical ‘None of the above’ box.
And – logically extended – if ‘None of the above’ is the majority then the election must be declared null and void.
If the objective of the electorate is to return a candidate by majority voting, and if they are unable to meet that objective there must be another election.
To frame this argument in a legal perspective: If a High Court jury of 12 returned a result where:
9 jurors felt unable to return either guilty or not guilty verdicts
1 juror declared guilty
2 jurors declared not guilty
… would the High Court judge be happy that just two out of 12 made the decision on the defendant’s guilt/innocence?
Or would a retrial be ordered (my understanding is that majority decisions are not normally allowed in the instance of such low numbers)?
And yet this is the ludicrous system we have in the UK: if one were to add ‘votes against’ to ‘abstentions’ for the last two general elections the result is clear; that a substantial majority of the British public did not vote for the party that was given power.
A ‘none of the above’ opt-out gives the public a third option. Instead of voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ the voter can say ‘None of these’ – which is a vote against all of them.
That’s what the public need – a meaningful voice, not one spoken through strangulation.
It is a tie so far, then, in the views expressed! Brenning: one can have a ‘none of the above’ response (as is provided for in some systems) without voting being compulsory; if ‘none of the above’ has a majority then there is a fresh election. ladytizzy: your last point relates to something on which I may do a separate post. Researchers at the University of Strathclyde have been investigating whether putting photographs of candidates on election ballots may affect voting behaviour.
I take my responsibility fairly seriously when it comes to voting and
ensure I get out and vote every local, European and general election.
I almost go as far as to admonish people who complain about politics
but haven’t voted, usually encouraging them to spoil their ballot if
they really don’t think any of the offered candidates is up to the
job. It’s imperfect as spoilt ballots can be spoilt for a variety of
reasons and are generally not well reported.
Of course people staying away from the vote is also hard to interpret
as well as straight Yes/No questions (witness the current hand
wringing over the Irish referendum vote). I think if we were to make
voting “compulsory” several things would have to be in place.
It would have to be illegal for employees to not make provision
for their employees to vote on polling day.
There should be fairly wide exemptions for illness, unforeseen
circumstances, family emergencies and the like.
There should be a “None of the Above” option that on gaining a
majority indicates the will of the electorate is for new
candidates
From what I remember, Lord Norton, didn’t they find that the photogenic candidates did best?
Adrian Kidney: There was some benefit in being a young, attractive male candidate. I did raise the question of whether, if photographs were permitted, the Returning Officer would be empowered to refuse the use of photographs that looked nothing like the candidate or, indeed, were of someone else!
Totally agreed that forcing voting would be counter-productive and mask the real problem.
Why not trying alternative forms of representation. For instance, why can’t I vote on everything my MP votes on directly? Why can’t I delegate arbitrary individuals to vote for me on certain issues? Why do I only get the choice of A vs B very similar policy packages every 4 years?