Compulsory Voting - Arguments For

Arguments For

Writing for the The National Interest, Jonathan Levine claimed that victorious political leaders of compulsory systems may claim a higher degree of political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout. The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion and do not underrepresent sections of society that are less active politically.

Compulsory voting prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway, they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for, rather than simply opting out. This means candidates need to appeal to a more general audience, rather than a small section of the community.

A result of this setup is that it is therefore more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to vote themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and thereby control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Political scientist Arend Lijphart writes that compulsory voting has been found to increase voting by 7–16% in national elections, even more in local and provincial elections and elections to the European Parliament. The large increases in turnout are found even where the penalties for not voting are extremely low. He notes that other civic duties also exist, like paying taxes, attending school and, in some democracies, conscription, and jury duty. All of these obligations require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than many other activities.

Apart from the increased turnout as a value in itself, Lijphart lists other advantages to compulsory voting. Firstly, the increase in voting participation may stimulate stronger participation and interest in other political activities. Secondly, as smaller campaign funds are needed to goad votes to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. Thirdly, compulsory voting acts as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Fourthly, high levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or dangerous but charismatic leaders.