Should the Law Require People to Vote in the General Election?
Imagine being forced to choose a restaurant when you have absolutely no preference; when you’re unfit to decide; or even when your other beliefs contradict with you having to make an opinion- it’s illogical, and quite a nuisance to say the least. Compulsory voting is the same thing: a grey-area infringement on basic rights, an impractical solution, and perhaps to some extent even undermines the legal system; this is the case currently in 14 different countries worldwide, including Australia and Brazil. Why? To increase voter turnout.
Though compulsory voting has indeed tackled the issue of public disinterest and low turnout numbers, it has significant downfalls. It is commonly accepted that the inherent principles of the law are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting rights1. Compulsory voting can be seen to adhere to these functions in that it establishes a standard for voter turnout in elections. However, it can also be seen as a violation of the latter objective through it’s arguable infringement upon freedom of speech.
In most Western nations, citizens have a positive and negative right to freedom of speech: meaning that they have both rights of expression and rights or inexpression. As voting constitutes an expression of opinion, the implementation of compulsory voting would lead to citizens being legally bound to express their opinions - hence violating these rights. Furthermore, another basic right that is afforded by individuals is their freedom to religion. Though the percentage of population by which this is applicable is small, it nevertheless is still a contradiction. Some denominations, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses2 and Christadelphians, have openly committed to maintaining political neutrality, and hence do not allow voting. With the implementation of this law, such individuals must contravene against their religion, consequently violating their freedom to faith.
Of course, citizens could submit blank votes or donkey (randomly selected) ballots. Currently, in the 10 countries where compulsory voting laws are enforced, 9 of them -with the exception of DPRK3 - allow the submitting of declined ballots. However, as these ballots are completely redundant, decreeing for such individuals to vote is a waste of resources. On the other hand, donkey votes perhaps pose even greater detriment. As the purpose of an election is to gain general consensus regarding the preferences of a population, random voting undermines this and leads to a misrepresentation of public interests. However, it must be acknowledged that optional voting too poses risks of such misrepresentation if the voter turnout is too low.
Finally, some individuals (such as the mentally ill) are simply incapable of voting and must be exempt from this law. To have them suffer consequences for a deed they cannot perform would be unfair. But, at the same time, collating a list of individuals and their justification for not voting would be expensive, posing opportunity costs for revenue that could be better spent on merit activities such as education.
In conclusion, this law sacrifices many rights, such as the infringement of rights and impractical implementation, to engender only one true benefit of high voter turnout. Countries should not implement this unless out of desperate necessity to mitigate an extremely low voter turnout, and even if they do so, they must identify easy and low-cost methods for individuals to exempt. Instead, other methods designed to increase voter turnout such as increasing the accessibility of poll stations and simplifying the registration procedure should be implemented as unlike compulsory voting, they pose no alterations to the inherent values of voting.
-
1 - Learning, Lumen. “Introduction to Business [Deprecated].” Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introbusiness/chapter/meaning-and-purposes-of-the-law/.
2 - “English Version: Jehovah's Witnesses Risk Exclusion If Voting in Elections.” Vårt Land, 8 Aug. 2019, www.vl.no/nyhet/jehovah-s-witnesses-risk-exclusion-if-voting-in-elections-1.1564304.
3 - “Compulsory Voting.” International IDEA, www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory-voting.
-
Works Cited
“Australia Votes: Federal Election 2004.” Minor Party Preferences. Antony Green Election Guide. Federal Election 2004. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/minorprefs.htm.
Calvin, John, et al. “Purpose of the Law.” Precept Austin, www.preceptaustin.org/purpose-of-the-law.
Clare. “United Kingdom.” Limits on Freedom of Expression, 1 June 2019, www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/uk.php.
“Compulsory Voting.” International IDEA, www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory-voting.
“Compulsory Voting, Turnout, and Government Spending: Evidence from Austria.” Cato Institute, 26 Jan. 2017, www.cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/compulsory-voting-turnout-government-spending-evidence.
“English Version: Jehovah's Witnesses Risk Exclusion If Voting in Elections.” Vårt Land, 8 Aug. 2019, www.vl.no/nyhet/jehovah-s-witnesses-risk-exclusion-if-voting-in-elections-1.1564304.
Learning, Lumen. “Introduction to Business [Deprecated].” Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introbusiness/chapter/meaning-and-purposes-of-the-law/.
“Locke: ‘Where There Is No Law, There Is No Freedom’ / in Propria Persona.” / In Propria Persona, inpropriapersona.com/articles/locke-where-there-is-no-law-there-is-no-freedom/.
Moyo, Dambisa. “Make Voting Mandatory in the U.S.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/united-states-voting-mandatory.html.