I was speaking the week before last at the Dukeries College in Nottinghamshire and one pupil asked about compulsory voting. I asked the opinion of the audience. There was a majority, but only a small one, against making voting compulsory. When I asked the same question last week to pupils at Bradfield College, Near Reading, there was a large majority against.
Some years ago, one of my students did his dissertation on the subject of compulsory voting and showed there were some good arguments on both sides. I continue to lean against requiring people to go to the polling booths. (The requirement would be to turn out to vote but not to have to vote for a candidate – there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ option.) Various people offer it as an answer to perceived alienation or apathy on the part of electors. I am not persuaded that forcing people who don’t like the political system to go to vote (or enforcing sanctions if they fail to do so) is the best way of enhancing support for the system.
I would be interested to have readers’ views.
You’re asking the wrong question.
Why should you force anyone to do anything against their will?
Why vote for any of the parties? They don’t do what they have promised, they do many things they don’t.
We’ve even had B. Murphey saying that she is powerless, and the government decides all, even in the Lords. If you can’t control the government, the electorate can’t.
That’s why the referenda by proxy works. A government can’t get anything passed unless the majority wants it.
Instead we have a situation where the small minority force their legistlation on the majority.
So much for democracy.
wolfgang: Contrary to popular percetpions, parties in office generally implement most of their manifesto promises; it’s the exceptions that tend to get noticed. Government doesn’t decide all in terms of legislative outputs. I have yet to find anyone other than yourself advocating referendums by proxy. As I gather you are based in Switzerland, you might try persuading the Swiss to vary their practice.
Broadly, I’m against the idea as I would be concerned the type of people who don’t want to vote may also be uninterested in making an educated voting choice.
That said, I do acknowledge that these has to be a point where voter turnout gets so low that compulsory voting becomes a necessity to ensure a government with a legitimate electoral mandate.
http://www.governing-principles.com
governing principles: The problem then arises as to what is the point at which one determines that it should be introduced.
Um, just go though the argument again as to how a coerced choice (invalid and void in every area of English law) constitutes a legitimate mandate!
Twm Or’ Nant: Well there have been suggestions for a sort of raffle/lottery with all people voting entered. It might seem a gimmick but on balance the state actually giving a carrot might be a pleasant change.
I just don’t understand why people don’t vote. I couldn’t wait until I was 18 and my first election. It was a general election too so I was doubly excited. There may not always be someone they think there is worth voting for, but at the last Euro election the ballot paper was almost as tall as me, there was that many candidates.
My mother instilled in me from an early age what women went through to get the vote, so I make sure I always do as a nod to them and to thank them.
A few years ago, my friend (who is of Chinese origin) who lives in North London complained that the BNP won the District Council seat where she lived.
“Who did you vote for?” I asked.
“I didn’t vote” she said.
Concerned Home Edder. I agree. People who have had to fight for the vote recognise its importance. Nowadays too many people take it for granted and don’t appreciate its significance.
I also agree with the sentiment expressed by Concerned Home Edder that if more people understood the vast battle behind people getting the vote (the Reform Acts, Catholic Emancipation, the Suffragette Movement) then they might be more driven towards voting. I found at school that a great deal of British history was glossed over – we seemed to jump from Elizabeth 1 to World War One missing the Empire – and as a result we missed out all the important reforms that make people understand the importance of a person’s vote.
http://www.governing-principles.com
“asked about compulsory voting”
I saw one suggestion that was in favor of making a payment for going to vote. Even a nominal sum would induce vast numbers to go to the polling station which they would not otherwise do.
That was not the method suggested; it may have been a worthwhile tax break with proof of having done so.
“The Reform Acts and the Sufragette movement”
My gggf deeply involved in the former as an activist and my mother one of the first to vote in 1931, with the name of Christabelle,
named after you know who.
“the vast battle” as GP so wisely says, but
also a vast battle to make voting of any value at all, with a decadent FPTP voting system.
I used to be for compulsory voting but now I`m not so sure and am probably on the other side. Certainly to HAVE to go and vote for “none” would upset quite a few people and the fact remains that a lot of people I know do NOT adhere to current legislation regarding the electoral roll by simply not adding themselves. Rarely are sanctions taken in those cases infact I haven`t heard of any. You simply cannot make people vote if they do not wish.
Most of the people I know will state at present there`s no point in voting, they`re all the same, I won`t eleborate further but expenses are normally mentioned.
There is also the problem of ignorance and by gosh there`s a lot of that about and I do not disclude myself. There are an awful lot of people really not interested and do not want to know anything. Then there are those with old perceptions ” Labour is for working class, Tory for the upper crust”, I`m afraid that still persists. I vote “X” cos my Dad did and he thought it better.
Democracy obviously doesn`t work when it comes to choice or else there wouldn`t be legislation that upsets so many and let`s not talk of taxes. No one is obviously going to ask the people to vote about levels of taxation.
So what`s on TV another party political broadcast with shallow false promises, turn over to “x-factor” and let`s see who to vote for.
Is forcing people to go to the booths to vote “none” dealing with apathy ? Will counselling be available to the counters for the language written on some forms ? Why should I vote when abstaining and just not turning up is accepted in Westminister ?
Do voters understand everything they are voting for ? Are the promises/manifesto`s solid pledges ? What exactly am I voting for ? A character, a party, a representative of the constituency, a loosely based collection of idea`s of what a party considers will be better than the other ?Manifesto`s have been proved untrue, when you can state unequivocally this is what WILL happen 100% then maybe people will have something to vote for. At present everything is speculation and I`m better of with the lottery or going to the bookies. You simply cannot make people gamble.
I`ve had one Party political leaflet so far and the views on local issues were sound and good but that wouldn`t be what I am voting for would it ? Like most working class, I don`t fall for the spiel anymore, the manifesto`s mean nothing and the knowledge that any government is controlled by industry abundantly clear. So when you make me walk to the school to vote after a hard days graft and I out of malice vote BNP….don`t moan.
I’m in the same boat as CHE was. I cannot wait to vote in this election and I have been involved in campaigning for my preferred candidate.
That said, I can understand why many people do not vote. I think they fall broadly into two categories: those who make the conscious decision not to vote (angry at expenses, the EU increasingly trumping our own Parliament, general perceived ineffectiveness of Parliament…) and those who just take no interest at all. The former I empathise with, even though I fail to see what they hope to achieve by not voting. The latter I’m quite pleased don’t vote!
Is the ballot paper of someone forced to vote worth the same as that of someone who wants to vote?
The only country I know of with compulsory voting is Australia, with fines for those who don’t vote. And because they don’t have FPTP they give these monstrous ballot papers to people who have little interest in voting. Not surprising, then, that the % of spoilt ballots in Australian Federal (general) elections is over 10 times the number in ours. (0.38% here in 2001 compared to 4.82% there). Although their turnout was 95% compared to our 60%.
At least, from what I’ve heard, Australians spoil their ballots in interesting ways. Though I’d advise against volunteering to count them if you’re of the faint of heart!
I believe that you are right; forcing people to participate in the system will not increase support for the system. I do not endorse the political system or recognise its moral legitimacy. To partake in an election is to contribute to every immorality of government. In the current context that amounts to such things as wars, unethically dangerous drugs prohibition, the oppression of the young, plans to persecute home-educators, inhumane detention centres for innocent asylum seekers, etc. That is why I refuse to vote. Mandatory voting (even with a ‘none of the above’ option) would force anyone sharing my perspective to provide moral endorsement for a system they morally decry. That is dishonest.
I think that if we wait long enough, Europe will make it compulsory anyway. It is certainly compulsory in most western european countries.
I think that it might be a good thing, but would need to be coupled with proper electoral reform, such as proportional-representation, which is good enough for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but not for Westminster.
In Western Europe all of
* Liechtenstein
enforces compulsory voting. In
* Belgium
* Greece and
* Italy
the law requires citizens to vote, but they don’t enforce it. Hardly most Western European countries, and certainly not anything like EU policy. I’ve never heard it mention in relation to EU elections.
Nonetheless, I do think that having mandatory elections might well make people think more about who they’re going to vote for, and forcibly establish a greater sense of responsibility. And it’s not like we don’t have other compulsory civic duties, e.g. jury service.
Sorry, I missed elections for France’s Sénat, which is elected indirectly by grands électeurs–mainly local government councillors.
Long ago England had many exemplary and extraordinary punishments which have been gotten rid of and I must admit that this seems right. However, voting is so vital to human freedom and personal dignity that I think as scheduled system of branding, mutilation and such things backing up a good regime of flogging and stocks should be considered. Only by some means such as that can people be assured to preserve this habit which is so vital to the decorum and individual autonomy on which a complex mixed government society depends. A warning for one missed vote, stocks, flogging and the branding before removal of the ticking digits seems a right escalation.
“as scheduled system of branding, mutilation and such things backing up a good regime of flogging and stocks should be considered.”
And legalization of the KKK in Tennessee?
Actually our constitution does not allow us to admit that an organization like the KKK can be outlawed. Ithas gotten sloppier with racketeering laws accepted now by SCOTUS. However, in the good old days one outlawed cross-lighting, masking, assembling robed men on horse back and certain n on speech acts and then declared that the rights of assembly and speech had been kept sacrosanct. They may seem trivial to you but we take our hypocrisies quite seriously — please respect them
Thinking about this more, I can’t see that making voting compulsory will do anything. What would be the penalty? A slap on the wrist? A fine? It would have to be really harsh (money probably) for it to work. There will always be people who have no money, wouldn’t vote, and end up being martyrs.
What about some people who can’t read? (Resisting the urge to get a dig in at state schooling…) People who were ill on the day of the vote, people who didn’t know about it?
I wonder how this works in other countries….
As Concerned Home Edder notes, there’s at least one more important reason to vote other than civic duty: to vote for anyone other than the BNP. I’m certainly going to find it particularly hard to decide who to vote for at this election, but knowing it’s a vote against the BNP makes it worthwhile even if I’m unimpressed with the three main parties. In a way, I actually envy Lord Norton and his colleagues for not having to share in the responsibility of choosing a government!
Sorry, I realised I didn’t answer the question! At the moment, I too lean on the side of not thinking voting should be compulsory, although I could b easily persuaded otherwise. I do share governing principles’s concerns that people forced to vote may choose fringe or extreme candidates as way of protest.
I agree with you – I don’t think voting should be compulsory.
For me, making voting compulsory is something of an artificial measure that doesn’t address issues which inform decreasing voter turnout – broadly captured by voters being disenfranchised – such as poverty and exclusion, the standing of political parties, low levels of civil participation and political debate.
If we were to pursue altering the practical arrangements of elections, perhaps before we get to the stage of introducing compulsory voting, we could consider other practical arrangements such as introducing weekend voting, making voter registration easier, better canvassing of all voters and making polling stations more accessible?
I`d best make clear the last part of my previous was in no way meant as personal but I do know people who would feel that way.
Yep! INDUCE people to vote!!!
There are no good answers above except mine as usual.
INDUCE by payment or tax break.
I really do think we need compulsory voting – politicians always talk of the ‘rights/responsibility balance’ etc. I see this as a possibly valid expression of that. Open democracy is waning, I believe this may be a way to bolster it – remind people it’s important to vote!
For moral reasons, we’d also need a ‘none of the above’ option – in my opinion while you *can* force people to vote, you can’t force them to vote for any party.
There are no good solutions to voters disinclined to vote, but compulsory voting not only violates the view that people should be free from petty government interference as much as possible, but it also appears to be a device employed by an aloof and disintrested technocracy, the sort of fix that comes from a government unconcerned with the real effects of its policies and simply making it look like everything is ticking over.
Given everything that has come from this government, I’m surprised we don’t already have it.
Except I know that this is not for any grand idea like sticking to principles, its just that whatever party passes it would likely be punished by the voters for doing so, I believe.
I would imagine that MPs favour having compulsory voting, am I right about that?
If we accept, just for a minute, that the bloggers are representative of Parliament and that the posters here are representative of the electorate would you be happy in forcing dear old Wolfie to vote for one of you?
Would you be happy if I stated that the three main parties are Norton, Deech and D`Souza and we all HAD to vote on the little we know for one of these three people to run our lives for the next five years ?
No Government going into power knows exactly what it will have to deal with, they think they understand but until they are there are not privvy to all relevent information. It`s a gamble, one you may hope may make you better off.
Could I even tell you where the major parties stand on all issues that concern me ? No !
I can state, I like the Lib-dems for “X”, the tories for “Y” and Labour for “O” but will they represent me or the BPI ?
There are many policies I can support across all the parties. While it may be that one party has the edge on supporting all the things I want them to do and none of the things I don’t want them to do it would be very rare. Some elections might have one overriding policy difference that is more important to me than anything else but again it’s not something I see often.
Most of the time I’m voting for the *candidate* that given their political philosophy will on balance will make the right choices in the unknown future more often than the other guy.
Alex may I ask do you then believe that the *candidate* you have chosen should be free to vote as he wished and not be party to the whip ?
“There are many policies I can support across all the parties.”
Really? I think more in terms of, ‘there are many policies I can’t support’.
And its not little things either, its something pretty fundamental to each of them.
No idea what I’ll do in may.
Carl H,
50/50. Certainly I wouldn’t expect an elected MP to be voting against a platform they stood for unless they argued a genuine change of view, say for example a change in the evidence. However manifestos don’t really cover all the eventualities that a government may face in it’s term.
I certainly think having more free votes and cross-party consensus building can be no bad thing.
I wouldn’t expect my local MP to be voting against his/her government if they were a minister though. I understand the reason for ministerial collective responsibility.
“the three main parties are Norton, Deech and D`Souza and we all HAD to vote on the little we know for one of these three people to run our lives for the next five years ?”
So it’s a choice between mandatory cups of tea, opera or scarves
😀
Under the proposal being discussed there is no compulsion to vote for any of the candidates. The compulsion is simply to turn up at the voting booth and drop the voting paper in a box. You could mark a big fat line from the top left to the bottom right, or many little crosses for every candidate. At least that way we’d have a measure of how many people are unhappy with the choices they’re given, whether that has to do with the specific candidates or the feeling of general disenfranchisement.
A 60% turnout surely means 40% are unhappy.
I would fully expect that most people who wouldn`t go, even if compulsory, would be low paid or working class and would view any fine or other punishment as just another tax on the lower class.
We could alway`s bing back the rack…Sign the confession….admit you`re a Lib-Dem….
Carl H: “A 60% turnout surely means 40% are unhappy.”
Not necessarily. One survey of why people didn’t vote in local elections found that the most popular response was ‘didn’t have the time’.
Now one of the busiest people I know of is a certain Lord Norton….I wonder how many times he has stated that ?
My children use it quite alot, no time to clear up their rooms between MSN, Facebook and phone.
I too am cautious about making voting compulsory, certainly without a “None of the Above” option it would seem more of a dictatorial measure than an encouragement towards civic duty. If we were to go down that route I wonder if there should be two non-candidate options?
* None of the Above (counts against candidates)
* I don’t care (doesn’t count against candidates)
At least that way we would know how many people are disengaged from politics because no one is representing their views and how many people are broadly happy with our western democracy they can live with whatever choice other electors make. Perhaps not the most positive of votes but it would provide an interesting data point?
The blog has discussed the problems of referendums in our representative system but I wonder if a little may do us good. As I understand the US system when they elect their representatives they also vote on various balloted propositions. I don’t know if they have legal force and perhaps they shouldn’t but maybe it might be an encouragement to voters who might not be able to decide between parties but can at least make their views known about a single issue at the same time.
I have always been against the idea of compulsory voting (it goes against my belief in the freedom of citizens to choose to engage) but listening to an increasing number of voices who proclaim the ‘all politicians are rubbish’ and then proceed not to engage in politics in any way, has made me re-consider my position. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of compulsory voting but I would welcome incentivised options
I’ll have a punt that the general public would be against it if they knew that c.£30 per 200 votes cast for each opposition party per seat is allocated gratis Short Money.
Of course, this is because of the expenses scandal but the wider question is whether politicians would need to be held in much higher esteem before changing the right to vote into a duty to vote.
This may be the exact right time to demand (rather than enforce) the civically challenged to cast a vote in whichever way they choose since it could negate the protest vote for fringe parties.
I can’t imagine that the main parties would go out of their way to publish controversial manifestos thus begetting even more insipid politicians.
I’m very much in favour of voting, as long as there’s a ‘none of the above’ box. Taxes and jury service are (pretty much) compulsory and part of the thing you do as a citizen in a enlightened democracy. Voting should be the same.
Taxes
Well pretty much any self employed person will tell you the same, we hate having, being forced, to report on a particular day. Ask Inland Revenue how rushed they are come the last day.
Jury service, from experience anyone I know who has been called has tried their level best to get out of it.
I like the jury duty comment. We’re compelled to contribute to the judiciary, I suppose there is nothing wrong with being compelled to contribute to the legislature. I doubt it would make us respect parliament/British democracy more though.
http://www.governing-principles.com
I have a feeling that if people thought their lives would change radically by voting they would vote. Current generations have mostly lived through peaceful times when it wasn’t obvious what difference a vote would make. And it gets more difficult by the day to distinguish three very centrist parties; the nuances of difference are too subtle. And I like it that way. So I wouldn’t make it compulsory to vote. I have every confidence the population will wake up when necessary. The big issue at the moment is about the differing approaches to tackling the national deficit; it’s not exactly headline catching stuff is it? Taxes now or taxes later…
I disagree with the idea that the reason people do not vote is because the political establishment has solved all the serious problems; so that the majority can live in contented apathy while professionals deal with all the tricky issues like economic disaster. And I strongly disagree with the contention that this is a likable situation. Between the flawed electoral system, undemocratic influences and much of the electorates’ nonparticipation the representativeness of the British government (the supposed source of its democratic legitimacy) is questionable—I also oppose compulsory voting, but because I want this legitimacy to be known to be questionable.
The political establishment offers, as you say, only ‘nuanced’ choices—none of which are at all satisfying for many people. That does not suggest that the system has reached some desirable point, but that the system has failed. When elections occur, radical issues are not even discussed; so, for example, the appallingly inept and draconian war on drugs, epidemic school bullying (a euphemism for child abuse), etc. are not even perceived as big issues. And democracy becomes simply a tool for the status quo; moderating against dangerous extremes.
Many thanks for all the comments so far. The weight of feeling is against compulsion. I take the point that voting is a civic duty and hence analogous to jury service. However, there is a problem if we introduce a statutory requirement for electors to go to the polling booth. Law has to be enforecable if it is to be meaningful. Some countries do impose a legal requirement but, as Nico points out, not all enforce it. Failure to enforce the law brings it into disrepute. But if it is to be enforced, that means there have to be penalties imposed on those who fail to vote. Will that really enhance a positive attitude towards the political system on the part of those who are fined for not voting?
I’m divided on compulsory voting. There are, to my mind, two primary questions with compulsory voting that need to be answered: democratic outcome and participation.
Firstly, what will be the result with regard to a democratic outcome? It’s well established that certain demographics are less likely to turn out to vote, and thus are more poorly represented. Compulsory voting would help here. However, donkey voting is scarcely beneficial to a democratic outcome. If forcing people to vote means they close their eyes and drop a cross over a random box, then it’s not really beneficial to a democratic outcome.
Secondly, does compulsory voting increase or decrease engagement and participation? I don’t really count voting as significant participation, it’s more of an indicator. Does compulsory voting encourage people to engage or participate with the political system because there’s no longer an opt out? We’re into ‘nudge’ politics here, which I’m always skeptical of (preferring concrete government action), but given that we can’t actually force people to think about politics or be a member of political organisations in a liberal-democracy, it may be the only option. However, does compulsory voting actually encourage parties not to engage with the electorate? In which case participation is lessened.
What’s key is that these are both empirical questions (although it may be difficult to test them). I have no ideological objection to, or preference for compulsory voting. If there’s a NOTA option (although on aesthetics I would prefer a None Of The Below option) and spoilt ballots are counted then there’s clear options for objecting to the political parties and the political system (respectively). Those who argue it’s an infringement of their freedom are objecting for objection’s sake; it’s an infringement of your freedom to sit on the sofa and watch Britain’s Got Talent for an extra thirty minutes every five years – your freedom to object to politics is kept intact, in many ways strengthened.