So the idea of compulsory voting has reared its head again. Like identity cards this one does the rounds from time to time.
Britons should be forced to vote in elections, a think-tank has said.
Think-tank The Institute for Public Policy Research’s report suggests those who do not vote should be fined to combat low turnout at the polls.
Other countries have it; Belgium and Australia for instance, so why not here? After all, people died for our vote, is it not a duty to repay that debt by walking a few yards to the polling station and putting a cross in the relevant box? It’s hardly an arduous task after all.
There is, however, something in my libertarian soul that recoils at the idea. The opposite side of the coin here is that those people who fought and died for our right to vote, surely also fought and died for our right, should we wish to exercise it; not to vote.
However, as has been noticed:
A study warns that unless voting is made compulsory – like jury service – turnout will continue to tumble and undermine democracy.
The Institute for Public Policy Research said voting must be made a public duty to boost turnout. Its study comes as the three main parties are braced for a dismal turnout in Thursday’s local elections.
Except that, the fall in turnout is in itself a message – and a powerful one at that – that politicians are letting down the electorate. If the ballot paper had an option for “none of the above” there may well be a higher turnout. After all, for some, not voting is not apathy, but a statement – a statement that the ballot paper could make allowance for.
Two ministers have come out in favour:
Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said he backed “a voting system that regards participation as a civic duty”.
Commons Leader Geoff Hoon said: “This report provides evidence that more and more young people and members of deprived communities – the very people who have most to gain from political decisions – are falling out of the habit of voting.”
Now here is in interesting conundrum. Do these two seriously think that people who are forced to vote on pain of a fine will vote for the people who forced them to do it in the first place? Here will be an opportunity for perfectly legal (and easy) civil disobedience on a grand scale. ZANU Labour would get the kicking of a lifetime.
Ah, now, ain’t that the rub? Maybe there’s something in this compulsory voting lark after all… :devil:
Yours and my views are so similar at times it’s uncanny. I can see the pros and cons to this argument. The libertarian side of my personality also recoils at the idea but if it improves turnout and perhaps makes a difference in the electoral process then I’m all for it.
I posted this yesterday, over on ASI, though on an old thread from February, and thought it worth repeating here (and have posted here before in similar vein). I hope you don’t mind too much a second-hand comment.
There is currently no solution (ie satisfaction in voting) for those who desire democracy but feel no candidate (or as likely, no party) deserves their vote.
With an official box for abstention (or “none of these”), there might be more satisfaction, and so more voting. Even better would be a rerun with new candidates if and when the largest vote went to “N.O.T.”.
A further improvement would be the use of the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Not only would this allow a decent chance to independent candidates, it would also allow parties to field more than one candidate without dilution of their chance of having the winning candidate. This latter point raises interesting possibilities.
Best regards
Oh! And on compulsory voting, I’m with you all the way, with a big NO.
A big fat ‘no way’ to compulsory voting from me also.
Compulsory voting is tempting, isn’t it? But there are pitfalls, some of which you’ve outlined.
For one thing, how do you enforce it? We have a much larger population than either Belgium or Australia. If just 1% of Britain’s 50-odd million voters don’t turn out to vote (and no country with compulsory voting ever reaches 100% turnout), that’s half a million people who will have to be tracked down and fined. How will they know who should have voted, when the electoral register is constantly changing in a country where the population is increasingly mobile? How many people will have to be put in prison for non-payment of the fines before they realise the whole scheme was a ghastly mistake?
Anyway, even if people did all go and vote, it would still lead to problems. If you can’t bear to vote for anyone on the list, you have two options: vote for one of them anyway or spoil your vote. If you vote for someone, you’ll end up with a party winning an election and claiming a mandate when the victory may be based on votes which were cast with lukewarm enthusiasm at best (bit like now, really). If you spoil your vote, it’s lost. It doesn’t get counted except as a footnote to the official results. No one’s going to say, “ooh, look, 51% of the votes in my constituency were spoilt, so I guess no one really wants me as his MP, I’m going to stand down”.
Increasing turnout needs to come about by people feeling they have something worth voting for and that their vote means something. Compulsory voting will only increase resentment.
I think there is an element of apathy at work as well as disillusionment with politics. We seem to be a pretty lazy and selfish society these days.
But the politicians are also involved in the apathy. I think if they’re going to bring in compulsory voting they should bring in compulsory campaigning. Only one of the parties has bothered to knock on doors in the area I live in. Some of them didn’t even bother with leaflets.
Labour are the only people who actively campaign in our ward. Indeed, our Labour councillors are pretty good. Wrong party unfortunately. 🙁