Compulsory voting or not

[Mattias]

although it should not be enforced...

i think you have a responsibility as someone who enjoys the freedoms of democracy that you help the system work

when everyone votes, the system works

[Tilia]

It shouldn't be compulsory. People would then just vote for a random party, since they don't care.

[Sandwich]

It shouldn't be compulsory. People would then just vote for a random party, since they don't care.

I agree with this, it's pointless forcing apathetic or ill-informed people to vote. If they don't care about their right to democracy, or more importantly if they don't care about any of the political parties, it's silly to make them vote. Being honest, with the present situation in the United Kingdom, I don't think I'm going to vote, either. Firstly because I know my vote genuinely won't make a difference and secondly because there's nobody worth voting for. Provided it's not some mental extremeists, I honestly could care less about who comes into power

Compulsory voting would be a pain to enforce and, ultimately, the people who don't vote are the ones who aren't interested in the outcome anyway.

[veritas :)]

Another Aussie here!

Having moved here from England (non-compulsory voting), into the compulsory Australian system, my parents have participated in both kinds of election. Generally speaking, compulsory voting doesn't cause any problems here... however I personally support the non-compulsory school of thought on the grounds of "If people have a strong particular political inclination they'll vote even if it isn't compulsory".

Though I can see the pros of compulsory voting. You could argue that voting shouldn't be compulsory because the votes from people who don't care/are uninformed about politics still count and thus ruin the system... on the other hand, excluding these people could be undemocratic... and then there's always the fact that George Bush was voted in using a non-compulsory system

I'm sort of going around in circles.... hahahaha I'm probably not making much sense either!!!

[bLub]

non-compulsory!

if people are not interest into politics and don't know anything about it and then had to vote, the'd just vote anybody. So they might "accidentally" vote for a "bad" party which would obviously not be good!

On the other hand...

compulsory:

if people had to vote and would not want to vote for a "bad" party, they might actually research a bit, get involved, and this would be great coz we should all take part in politics, our society, ... decide what happens with our country, our world!

[Tree Hugger]

Compulsory voting works great in an idealistic society. It may work wonders in nations with much smaller populations or countries in which information is vastly accessible and in which there is a highly informed populace which revels in the idea of participating in a free political process. However, in modern society, especially in the United States, I believe the idea of compulsory voting is a horrible one. We do not have a functioning media system, but rather a system of corporate conglomerates that merely further their own interest, so, I think that a compulsory voting system would be counter productive in the United States. Those who do not want to vote should not have to, and it protects citizens from voting against their own interests...

[Austin Glau]

Compulsory voting is hazardous to some parties even now, and would be more so if society moved back to the political machines ect. ect. Then the two-party system would essentially be independent poor against rich and dependent poor, not good for the balance.

[Crazy Canuck]

In my opinion it should not be compulsory, but rather we should have benefits for voting.

[Rory Sparshott]

I think the real issue is not compulsory voting, but with people voting for who they think is going to win, as opposed to who they think will win. It is because of this reasoning that we are stuck in this duopoly in the UK, and I assume it's for similar reasons that the same exists across the pond. When people realise that democracy is for choosing the best, not the most popular, then we will have a great world.

[Amber]

Non-compulsary, because if someone doesn't support the candidates, they shouldn't have to help that person win, and for people who don't take it seriously, and vote for the wrong reasons because they have to, what good is that? I think the person who has the will to go vote, really wants that person to win, for reasons s/he thought about. So have the country run on votes taht actually count, than votes that were just silly.

[Summer Glau]

Yeah, I also think that voting shouldn't be compulsory. What use is it if people who don't want to vote are forced into it, then they just vote for some random party because they couldn't care less. Some people may not even like the principles/standards of the existing parties, so in reality they aren't voting for what they think is right.

[Center Field]

Unless you are in a country where everyone is highly educated, I am not sure if that would be desirable. Even so, with compulsory voting educated persons might not wish to vote for any candidate, and thus be in an awkward condition. Paradoxically, it is is conceivable that some would be forced to vote for someone they do not wish to see have office.

Even more paradoxically, compulsory voting contradicts itself...voting implies choice. By making it compulsory, choice is taken away.

I say it is a half baked idea at best, and a horrid idea at worst.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Center Field

[Tilia]

Even though high voting rate is desirable, compulsory voting would just make people pick whatever party just because they have to, not because they really believe that is the best one. Democracy is about liberty, also the liberty not to vote.

[Center Field]

Agreed.

Also, it should be noted that enforcing a compulsory voting law would be difficult and costly. Highly unfeasable!

[C.James]

I'm amazed no one mentioned spoiling their ballot.

Thats what I plan to do when I'm of voting age and if (only if) there is no party I like.

At least I can still be involved.

Both sides of this argument have points:

Pro: People get out and cast votes, ideally it means they will bother becoming informed.

Con: Possibly against one's rights, hard to enforce, leads to voting randomly hurting democracy more than aiding.

[Tilia]

Pro: People get out and cast votes, ideally it means they will bother becoming informed.

If they don't bother to vote when voluntary, they'll hardly come more informed just because it's compulsory.

[C.James]

Pro: People get out and cast votes, ideally it means they will bother becoming informed.

If they don't bother to vote when voluntary, they'll hardly come more informed just because it's compulsory.

Hence the "ideally". If it was mandatory it might mean people will do a tiny bit of research before voting.

In my opinion better to let the uninformed stay home and not vote at all.

[kingdomx]

Non compulsory voting = Freedom of rights

[Center Field]

This question has been on my mind as of late. I do not know why. It would seem that compulsory voting would be a very bad thing just because it would possibly make people desire to be less informed...as it has been mentioned, spoiling the ballot would be a great risk. Imagine, a bunch of imbeciles all marking the first choice presented to them! We could have Josef as our president, Hilary as vp, Deng as secretary of state, and Adolf as our secretary of homeland security or foreign affairs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[larry]

First, people, please read the posts: as as C.James said, even in coutnries where it is compulsory, like Australia (yeah, probs not in Zimbabwe), you are not FORCED to vote for a party. You ARE forced to actually make a decision by casting a ballot, but this can be blank.

... with the present situation in the United Kingdom, I don't think I'm going to vote, either. Firstly because I know my vote genuinely won't make a difference

I'd like someone to explain why this is the case: I was under the impression that this was the main aim of democratic voting: everyone gets a say. Of course your one vote is not going to change the course of an election, but it is thousands of people like you who DO cause governments to change. Sure, you may be in a safe Labour/Liberal/Democrat seat, but even so your vote still gets counted, the incumbent could still see a swing against them, which still sends a message.

and secondly because there's nobody worth voting for...

in which case you can still voice THIS opinion by spoiling your ballot. you could even argue that in a country where voting is compulsory, this is actually more of a statement: spoiling your ballot means you did it deliberately because there's no-one worth voting for, instead of just being too apathetic.

Compulsory voting is hazardous to some parties even now, and would be more so if society moved back to the political machines ect. ect. Then the two-party system would essentially be independent poor against rich and dependent poor, not good for the balance.

I fail to see why compulsory voting would polarize society. If anything, non-compulsory voting usually favours the rich, because they're the ones who are more educated, know more about politics, feel they have more of a stake in society, and are thus more likely to vote.

There's also an interesting idea that people who don't vote shouldn't because they don't know enough to "vote properly". On one level, this is incredibly elitist, paternalistic, and contrary to the spirit of democracy: the whole point is that everyone has the right to have a say in how their country is being run, instead of a ruling elite making all the decisions, paternalistically "keping everyone else's best interests at heart". Do you think people should have to pass an intelligence or political literacy test before being allowed to vote? On another level... I sympathise with this point of view. A lot of people don't know much about politics, they vote for politicians because they've always voted for that party, because they seem friendly, because they've taken a popular stance on illegal immigrants... (quick rant: I don't f***ing care what a politician does in his/her private life, if they are horrible people, if they seem like they can relate to me. All I care about is how they plan on running the country, what their policies are). However I'd say the percentage of voters who just go for the first person on the list is fairly small. I hope. I have to admit though, part of the reason why I don't like it is because these uneducated types don't share my opinions, which I must grudgingly admit they are entitled to do. Even if they're wrong.

So in summary, IMO compulsory voting come down to 2 points:

Do we want everyone making a decision about how the country should be run?

Should voters be allowed to be lazy? (you could argue it's a right, you could argue it's a civic responsibility to at least make some kind of decision)