Some arguments against (compulsory) voting
August 14th 2006 09:20
(1) It takes effort to form rational opinions on complex questions -- to give due consideration to all choices. So compulsory voting forces one of two things -- either an irrational opinion, or a political life.
(2) Unless there's a candidate with whose platform you perfectly agree, you're making a moral compromise (Thoreau). In fact, if you're persuaded by part of a platform to accept the rest of it, haven't you in effect been bribed? Aren't you simply an employee, or a tool?
(3) Relatedly, shouldn't you be free to stand apart from a group and the beliefs of that group? Isn't compulsory voting an infringement of freedom of association?
(4) If you let me act for you, or if you simply empower me, then you're responsible for what I do, including for what I badly do -- you've made yourself morally vulnerable.
(5) Even if I do no wrong, haven't you immorally given up moral agency?
(6) The commentator's/moderator's argument: Judges and MPs must declare property and other interests. The mere appearance of bias can disqualify. But doesn't voting implicate you in political bias? Isn't it the end of impartiality?
(7) Shouldn't you be free, regardless of who you are, to choose neutrality, independence -- to stand apart from a conflict? Must you ally yourself with Israel or Hezbollah, Serb or Croat?
(8) If you disbelieve in a system -- perhaps representative democracy in general, perhaps a type of voting procedure in particular -- then how with integrity can you engage in that system, sanction it, support it?
Notes
-- Friday 9 November 2007: Simon Longstaff offers some thoughts on compulsory voting. He ultimately seems to be in favour of it, but he mentions arguments against it: "Of those who object to compulsory voting, the vast majority is likely to regard compulsion as the violation of their liberty to choose when, how and if to participate in the political processes of society. There will be others that would offer other objections. For example, that compulsory voting undermines the quality of political decision-making, at the most fundamental level, by requiring that those ignorant of and uninterested in politics cast their vote." Or, if compulsory voting, at least in the Australia context, is seen as an obligation to turn up rather than to vote: "The requirement to turn up is, quite clearly, a restriction on the liberty of citizens. The option of choosing to go to the beach for the whole of the day has been removed."
Longstaff offers an additional thought in the course of a discussion of informal voting (casting an invalid vote). The authority of government comes from the consent of the governed, so "there may be at least one situation when an informal vote could be preferable. In circumstances where the field of candidates is, in your opinion, uniformly feeble, then anything other than an informal vote may be misleading. A valid vote will simply confer legitimacy on a candidate that, in your considered opinion, deserves nothing of the sort."
(2) Unless there's a candidate with whose platform you perfectly agree, you're making a moral compromise (Thoreau). In fact, if you're persuaded by part of a platform to accept the rest of it, haven't you in effect been bribed? Aren't you simply an employee, or a tool?
(3) Relatedly, shouldn't you be free to stand apart from a group and the beliefs of that group? Isn't compulsory voting an infringement of freedom of association?
(4) If you let me act for you, or if you simply empower me, then you're responsible for what I do, including for what I badly do -- you've made yourself morally vulnerable.
(5) Even if I do no wrong, haven't you immorally given up moral agency?
(6) The commentator's/moderator's argument: Judges and MPs must declare property and other interests. The mere appearance of bias can disqualify. But doesn't voting implicate you in political bias? Isn't it the end of impartiality?
(7) Shouldn't you be free, regardless of who you are, to choose neutrality, independence -- to stand apart from a conflict? Must you ally yourself with Israel or Hezbollah, Serb or Croat?
(8) If you disbelieve in a system -- perhaps representative democracy in general, perhaps a type of voting procedure in particular -- then how with integrity can you engage in that system, sanction it, support it?
***
Notes
-- Friday 9 November 2007: Simon Longstaff offers some thoughts on compulsory voting. He ultimately seems to be in favour of it, but he mentions arguments against it: "Of those who object to compulsory voting, the vast majority is likely to regard compulsion as the violation of their liberty to choose when, how and if to participate in the political processes of society. There will be others that would offer other objections. For example, that compulsory voting undermines the quality of political decision-making, at the most fundamental level, by requiring that those ignorant of and uninterested in politics cast their vote." Or, if compulsory voting, at least in the Australia context, is seen as an obligation to turn up rather than to vote: "The requirement to turn up is, quite clearly, a restriction on the liberty of citizens. The option of choosing to go to the beach for the whole of the day has been removed."
Longstaff offers an additional thought in the course of a discussion of informal voting (casting an invalid vote). The authority of government comes from the consent of the governed, so "there may be at least one situation when an informal vote could be preferable. In circumstances where the field of candidates is, in your opinion, uniformly feeble, then anything other than an informal vote may be misleading. A valid vote will simply confer legitimacy on a candidate that, in your considered opinion, deserves nothing of the sort."
| 64 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
There’s no compelling argument for compulsory voting
by Michael Duffy
...
Most democracies don’t have compulsory voting, Of those that do, most treat it in a token manner and don’t enforce the law. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Australia is the only Western nation of any size to enforce compulsion seriously.
Curiously, there’s a widespread belief that voting is actually not compulsory, and that all you have to do is turn up on polling day and have your name marked off. This is wrong.
In a speech last year, Tim Evans, the Australian Electoral Commission’s director of elections systems and policy, noted that a number of legal decisions had indicated the voter must do more than this.
A look at the relevant federal and state electoral laws shows that voters must vote, and voting entails marking the ballot paper to indicate whom you wish to elect. Of course, no one checks, but that is quite different from saying that not voting is legal. If you drive down a suburban street at 120kmh and no one sees you, you’re still speeding.
Most of us are fond of forcing people to vote: several polls in the past decade have indicated more than 70 per cent support for the present system. The main argument used in favour of it is that the higher voter turnout produced by compulsion leads to a healthier civic life. People, so the argument runs, are forced to pay attention to politics and the vote reflects the wishes of everyone.
The result is a more unified state.
Some point to Australia’s alleged egalitarianism and success in assimilating immigrants as proofs of the benefits of a political system where everyone feels involved.
The fundamental problem with this line of argument is that no one else can see it. The apparently unique benefits provided to Australia, the claimed superiority of our democracy, are invisible to foreigners.
Of course, Australia is a pretty good place. But if compulsory voting had half the benefits claimed for it, Australia ought to be clearly superior to other democracies in the eyes of the world. Other nations ought to have adopted it, or be seriously considering doing so. But they’re not.
The truth is, our political life is not obviously superior to that of, say, New Zealand or Canada or Germany.
Another argument in favour of compulsory voting is that Labor would do less well without it. That might have been the case years ago, but according to Evans: "... On balance, there is no empirical evidence that a move to voluntary voting would advantage one major party over another." So why do almost all members of the political class (which includes the media) support compulsion? Self-interest might be one reason. If lots of people are forced to pay more attention to politics than they would otherwise, this raises the status of those involved in it. There’s also the money. If more people are forced to follow politics, they’re more likely to buy a newspaper to find out about it. And a high turnout of voters is in the financial interests of politicians and their staff. Evans noted: "If a candidate secures 4 per cent of the formal vote cast in the electorate for which they are a candidate, they are funded $1.95 for each formal vote. At the October 2004 [federal election], the total amount of public funding paid was $41,926,158.91." One of the pleasures of going on the electoral roll has been to discover how this money is used by candidates to lie to voters. Just this week I received a letter from my local Labor member assuring me "the Liberals would bankrupt our state".
...