Agreeing With Statists For The Wrong Reasons: Compulsory Voting

Compulsory voting is a policy that requires eligible citizens to register and vote in elections. The practice has roots in the democracy of ancient Athens, where the social norm was that every citizen had a civic duty to participate in political decisions. Attendance at the assembly was mostly voluntary, though there were cases in which citizens were herded from the agora (public space) to the Pnyx (assembly meeting place) with a stained rope and fined if the stain was found on their clothing. This was done if there were too few people in the assembly for its decisions to be considered valid.[1]

The oldest compulsory voting law that is still in effect dates to 1893. In Belgium, all men are required to present themselves at their polling station on election Sunday.[2] The policy was extended to women in 1948 when they were granted suffrage.[3] Belgian law does not require one to cast a ballot, but those who fail to attend their polling station without justification or appointment of a proxy can face fines. Repeat violators can lose their vote for 10 years and face difficulties in getting a government job.[4] At the time of this writing, 21 countries have compulsory voting laws and 11 countries enforce them.[5]

Supporters argue that compulsory voting promotes political stability and legitimacy[6] while reducing the influence of extremist demagogues[7] and improving representation of marginalized people.[8] They tend to view voting as a civic duty more than a right that one may choose to exercise or not. Opponents contend that mandating participation in democratic elections violates other rights, such as religious freedom[9], freedom to refrain from speech[10], and freedom of conscience. But there is a third position to consider. Let us examine compulsory voting as a tool for undermining the political establishment, and therein find cause to agree with statists for the wrong reasons.

First, simply expanding the electorate to include all adults is no guarantee of quality. In fact, it is precisely the opposite because it eliminates the choice of undecided, uninformed, and/or apathetic voters to stay home on Election Day. When everyone has to vote, regardless of interest or intelligence, there will be a larger vote share cast at random. Compelling such people to the polls is also useful for disrupting the system through satirical candidates, who may gain significant support or even be elected as a protest by those who prefer not to vote. Actually seating a personified NOTA or other joke candidate in a legislature lessens the credibility and efficacy of government, and already has a long tradition in several countries.

Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

References

1. Malkopoulou, Anthoula (2014). The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe: Democracy's Duty?. Routledge. p. 49–52.
2. Nerincx, A. (2018, Mar. 28). “Compulsory Voting in Belgium”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 18 (2): 87–90.
3. Rubio-Marin, R. (2014, Jan. 1). “The achievement of female suffrage in Europe: on women's citizenship”. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 12 (1): 4–34.
4. Frankal, Elliot (2005, Jul. 4). “Compulsory voting around the world”. The Guardian.
5. The World Factbook. CIA.gov.
6. Levine, Jonathan (2012, Nov. 2). “The Case for Compulsory Voting”. The National Interest.
7. Lijphart, Arend (1997). “Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma”. The American Political Science Review. 91 (1): 8–11.
8. Hill, Lisa (2002). “On the reasonableness of compelling citizens to vote: The Australian case”. Political Studies. 50 (1): 88–9.
9. “The Watchtower”. 1 Nov. 1999. p. 28–9.
10. Note, The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States, 121 Harvard Law Review 591, 601–3 (2007, Dec. 1).
11. Moldbug, Mencius (2010, Mar. 19). “The True Election: A Practical Option for Real Political Change”. Unqualified Reservations.