Having read this piece on Wales Home, I thought this was an issue worth flagging up here. Should voting in the UK be compulsory?
Unlike Marcus Warner, the author of the Welsh piece, I’ve always been instinctively against compulsory voting. At heart, I’m a liberal. I think the state should be as small as possible, that it is a necessary evil, and it should only force the public to act in ways which are congruent with Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ – that is to say, we cannot harm others. Other than that, I think we should be left to get on with our lives by ourselves.
But compulsory voting is an interesting idea for me, because it raises another classic liberal idea, that of participation in democracy. Rousseau believed that only in the act of voting were citizens truly free and that subsequently we became prisoners to what those whom we trusted to act in our interests decided. In essence, compulsory voting would be ‘forcing people to be free’. And I’m not convinced we should be forced into this.
There are other reasons to be sceptical too – if forced to vote, you can ‘sell’ it to the highest bidder (less in monetary terms than policy terms, though I wouldn’t rule out the former), a new brand of ‘consensus politics’ to make sure you connect with everyone and the fact that people are abstaining for a reason, a lack of engagement with politics, is not really addressed by forcing participation in elections. Also, if we were to do this, we should be doing it because it is right – and that compulsory voting wins over these arguments – and not simply because we fear ever-decreasing turnouts diminishing the legitimacy of our institutions.
In truth, I don’t know. The latter point is one that hits home in my mind, despite my scepticism. If our political institutions lack legitimacy (and you can see that in the Welsh Assembly, with legitimacy only just recovering from the 7,000 votes separating victory from defeat in the 1997 referendum) then the public engagement with those institutions suffers – and they further lose legitimacy. It’s a vicious circle, and one which deserves some kind of action.
Is compulsory voting the answer? In this round of constitutional reform, the answer appears to be no. But should it be? I don’t know seems like such a cop-out answer. And yet, that’s what I appear to be saying.  I do recognise that a low turnout in elections lends itself to questions about the legitimacy of those elected – and indeed, in the institutions themselves.  But if we are “forced to be free” (and I’m using that in not quite the way Rousseau did, though if his assertion that we are only truly free when electing our representatives is correct, then it follows) then the legitimacy that we are bestowing upon those who represent us appears to be artificial and manufactured at best.
In short, compulsory voting doesn’t solve the problem in re-engaging the public with politics, nor does it re-instil a sense of belief in the political structures, a belief which had been waning even before The Telegraph went to town on those whose expenses were not quite proper. Compulsory voting would serve only to draw back into a political process those who had lost faith in politics, those who remained unconvinced by the system they were forced to be a part of.
That paragraph seems to finally put me on one side of the debate. Compulsory voting would not do what was intended of it, therefore why should we adopt it? I almost feel daft, having raised the concept and now knocked it down. Â Does anyone think it worthwhile discussing the idea?
#1 by James on September 2, 2010 - 6:33 pm
Malc, I’m certainly against. Like you, the freedom of the individual not to vote is crucial to me. Also, there are seats where your only choice is Labour/Lib Dem/Tory, and I reserve the right not to feel the differences between them are significant enough, depending on circumstances.
Additionally, I think caring enough to turn out is an important test. I’d rather we based political decisions on the votes of people who do feel strongly enough, although I’d certainly make it easier to vote, and go for perhaps two polling days each time, say a Friday and Saturday.
#2 by Andrew Combe on September 2, 2010 - 7:40 pm
When a bewildered Malcolm sent an email asking who he should vote for, I sent him this completely flipant and totally useless answer, which I now see fit to recycle:
Is voting a right or a duty? Here’s another one. Is choosing not to vote as legitimate a form of electoral participation as choosing to vote?
Personally, I have tended not to vote or to spoil my ballot sicnce I have been old enough (now 26). I think I have put an X next to a name on one occasion, but would argue that I am no less engaged with politics or the electoral system than anyone else.
#3 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 9:56 pm
I don’t want “compulsory voting” to be viewed as synonymous with “being more engaged with politics” because I’m using it as a remedy for the apathetic malaise with which society has been struck down. On the other hand, I don’t think it IS a solution for that. But your questions are entirely valid so I’ll ask them again:
“Is voting a right or a duty?”
“Is choosing not to vote as legitimate a form of electoral participation as choosing to vote?”
To the second, I’d say yes. To the first, I have no idea. Thoughts?
#4 by Andrew BOD on September 2, 2010 - 8:39 pm
Malc, I believe it should be compulsory. There are so many trivial regulations these days which carry enormous fines for non-compliance, when one of the most basic rights of all is left to one’s discretion. Three main reasons..
1. The right to vote should not be taken for granted – our ancestors and neighbours’ ancestors fought for this right, some giving their lives!
2. Contrary to what you have concluded, I believe it would engage some more people in the political process, not everyone, but certainly more than at present, and it would become a more important event worth thinking about long before the trashy flyers come through letterboxes.
3. At the 2005 GE, Tony Blair’s ‘New’ Labour Party won a substantial mandate to govern the UK with only 22% of the TOTAL electorate’s votes – now some of that is to do with FPTP, but a substantial part of that was to do with only 61% of people turning up to vote.
BTW, if you want to spoil your ballot paper (abstain) then that would be your right, but I believe turning up to vote should be compulsory.
#5 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 10:02 pm
One thing I would caution in your original statement: “There are so many trivial regulations these days which carry enormous fines for non-compliance” – two wrongs don’t make a right. So just because we have so many other regulations doesn’t mean we need one more.
On the other 3.
1) I agree. But that doesn’t mean you should force people to vote.
2) My conclusion is that it wouldn’t re-engage people in a meaningful way. Sure, they’d have to vote. But would they really find meaning in it? I’m not so sure.
3) I agree there’s a problem – a democratic deficit for sure, a lack of legitimacy, mandate, call it what you like. But is it MORE democratic to force people to engage in the political process? I’m not sure.
#6 by Shave on September 2, 2010 - 9:18 pm
I’d prefer not to have compulsory voting, and definately not if there is no ‘none of the above’ option.
#7 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 10:03 pm
I think the only way you could have compulsory voting is with a “re-open nominations” box. But even then, I’m not sold on it – as you can see from the above.
#8 by cynicalHighlander on September 2, 2010 - 9:26 pm
Only if there is an extra box ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ or similar giving people the ability to show their distrust of the political system we are stuck with. A complete revamp of postal voting as it is open to abuse and some parties are more adept in exploiting its loopholes than others.
More importantly a grown up PR system other than FPTP or AV.
#9 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 10:04 pm
I agree on the need for ‘proper PR’. But that’s a whole other post!
#10 by Caron on September 2, 2010 - 9:45 pm
Every single instinct I have says no to this.
I don’t think people should have the right to exclude themselves from the political process- eg I don’t think political tele-canvassing calls should come under the same laws as selling double glazing – but I don’t think you get engagement by compelling them to vote. You get engagement by solving problems and improving the quality of people’s lives and listening to them and trying to help them.
Our political system works at the moment on the basis that those most excluded aren’t actually needed. In most parliamentary seats, some of which at Westminster haven’t changed hands in 40 years one party is way ahead and only needs to engage with a small proportion of the electorate to get their MP elected or re-elected.
I think a move to a proportional system like STV would do more both to engage people and ensure that a more diverse range of people were elected to Parliaments. As you probably know, I’m not the biggest fan of AV you’ll ever find, but it would be a start that would give people more options.
If you want to encourage people to cherish their right to vote, I think bottom up engagement beats top down command any time – but then I think that you get the best out of people in any situation by treating them as grown ups.
#11 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 10:41 pm
Caron,
There’s not much of this I disagree with. Except for the fact that you “don’t think people should have the right to exclude themselves from the political process”. I’m not convinced that is a liberal concept – forcing people to engage. But its funny that we’re almost arguing that compulsory voting is wrong but both because I think it forces people to engage with the political process and because you don’t think people should be able to exclude themselves from the process. That’s interesting for me.
I will point out as an aside – and I’m sure you’re aware – that the longest running single party-held seat is actually a Lib Dem one, Orkney and Shetland, which has been orange since 1945.
#12 by Jeff on September 2, 2010 - 10:33 pm
I’m with the naysayers (which seems to be everyone here except Andrew BOD). Although I take Andrew’s point – is it right that we should be forced to pay for a TV license but not forced to vote?
Malc suggests that 100% voting opens the possibility of fraud but as long as voting remains secret then surely this risk is moot. And the potential for fraud is no more than currently exists. Indeed, there is more scope for fraudulent voting with lower turnouts as I can go to a polling booth and claim to be someone I am not, knowing full well that they won’t be voting that day and won’t be scored off the list.
How would you punish people who didn’t vote? I read something a while back that would impose fines and then, ultimately, revoke the right to vote from the person for repeat offences. I guess I don’t need to point out the ludicrousness of th situation!
And hey, on a very selfish level, other people not voting means my own vote carries more weight. What’s not to like there…?
But yes, I’m with Caron, carrots are better than sticks when it comes to inducing people to vote.
#13 by Malc on September 2, 2010 - 10:49 pm
In fairness, my point about potentially bribery in voting was an aside – but even with secret ballots, there is potential there to exploit it. There are only x number of voters in each ballot box, x number of serial numbers… and if you’re going to bribe a voter, what’s to stop you bribing a returning officer to make sure? Anyway, that’s not really relevant.
Punishment in places like Australia (and, I think, Switzerland) range from minor fines to community service to prison time and increased fines for repeat offenders I think. But I don’t know about revoking the right to vote… as you say, that’d be ludicrous.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Is it time for compulsory voting here? « Better Nation -- Topsy.com
#14 by Andrew BOD on September 3, 2010 - 12:16 am
Malc. Looks like I’m on my own on this one then!
Ideally, people would feel duty-bound to vote, and CH’s point about having a ‘none of the above’ box on the ballot paper really appeals. I agree with others that this is not the most important part of improving democracy. And within the UK, full PR, a written constitution, a devolved English parliament, fiscal autonomy for the devolved nations, reform of the Lords, etc.. , would all come before compulsory voting for me.
I still believe everyone is duty-bound to vote, and I don’t believe anyone would disagree with wanting the highest turnout possible. Jeff perhaps!! And I’m open to ideas on how to achieve that. Prison, community service, even fines, seem a bit totalitarian I know. So perhaps there should be a carrot instead of a stick. How about a tax rebate or a voting benefit payment. I’m sure that would engage people dramatically!
#15 by Malc on September 3, 2010 - 8:58 am
Andrew,
I don’t have time to reply to your comment at length, but your idea of a “tax rebate or a voting benefit payment†sounds very much like bribing people to vote. Not for anyone in particular, admittedly, but I don’t like the principle. If you have to pay people just to get them to use their democratic right, then you’ve lost the bigger argument – that democracy is worth much more than anything monetary.
#16 by Caron on September 3, 2010 - 10:56 am
Malc,
All I’m saying is that I don’t think that people (or one person for a whole household) should be able to opt out of all contact from political parties by mailing/telephone preferences. That doesn’t force them to engage, or even to read what’s put before them. It doesn’t stop them from telling the person who’s doing the phone canvassing to do whichever combination of go forth and multiply appeals to them most. The law should presume that this kind of contact is on a different level from selling double glazing and bank loans and is a part of the democratic process. I don’t think that’s illiberal.
#17 by Malc on September 3, 2010 - 4:39 pm
Okay, well that’s a little clearer.
But I’m not sure how you get from actively including someone within something which they have made a preference not to be a part (and for political phone canvassing you can substitute DNA databases) to that NOT being illiberal. I think it takes a very loose definition of ‘liberal’ to regard over-riding someone’s express wishes (when those wishes do not constitute harm to others) and not being ‘illiberal”.
But I think there is merit in your point – the distinction between including people in the process and forcing engagement upon them. I’m not sure those who expressly wished not to be included would be inclined to notice that distinction!
#18 by BJ on September 3, 2010 - 3:15 pm
I grew up with compulsory voting. It engaged me, moving me from a feckless (but mindful of the law) 18yo into the entirely cynical and jaundiced adult I am now. But I would never NOT vote. I would be all for compulsory voting if it would mean the life chances of swathes of people who the tacticians can comfortably forget about might change for the better. Because when the backroom boffins are counting their numbers and working the figures, they know there are folk they don’t really need to bother about. So it’s not the freedom of choice of individuals I think about it is the complacency of the political players, what a tiny rump of the population they are trying to swing this or that. If voting were compulsory then we might see who truly are the master tacticians.
The very act of voting and reason to do it lies enshrouded in mystery for so many people – and they are not dumb people, either. Yet nobody feels enervated enough to light their interest. I would like to see connection made in any way possible. There are many ways to express your dissatisfaction with the voting system, but living in ignorance and even fear of the system is not one of them.
#19 by Malc on September 3, 2010 - 4:47 pm
For me, your comment comes particularly close to saying (without actually saying it directly) that choosing not to vote is not a legitimate a form of electoral participation. Or have I read that wrongly?
I would argue that there are many people (like Andrew C, above) who are entirely engaged with the political system (and, indeed, in his case, STUDIED politics) and actively participate in the political process by shunning the politicians and not voting for any of them. I don’t think in these cases this dissatisfaction with politicians is born out of ignorance or fear of the system (Andrew, you can correct me if I’m wrong) but out of a desire to indicate that apathy with politics in an active way. And I’m not necessarily sure that is not a political act in itself.
Nevertheless, your first point is interesting. It would encourage all politicians, and strategists, to look beyond swing-voters and try to engage the whole populace. But wouldn’t the outcome be a much more centrist, dull, compromise-based politics – something that the public are likely to engage with even less?
#20 by BJ on September 4, 2010 - 10:42 am
You’re probably right in your assessment. I would imagine that a man, who is politically engaged and indeed studied politics, need never vote at all and still be pretty assured that the world in which he finds himself still respects and values him. He probably has many other ways in which he makes himself heard, and has the great fortune to hold a lot of the qualifying cards to be listened to. I am not particularly interested in why educated people don’t vote. I am interested in wanting to know why politically engaged educated people don’t give a damn if half the population never vote.
Not sure why compromise-based politics need be dull…
#21 by Malc on September 4, 2010 - 11:13 am
Compromise based politics doesn’t NEED to be dull. But the point I make is that it would drive it all to the centre – we’d have little competition, no one would be saying anything that would make them stand out as specifically for one thing – they’d be trying to appeal to the common denominators. And that probably would be dull.
On your other comment, specifically:
“I am not particularly interested in why educated people don’t vote. I am interested in wanting to know why politically engaged educated people don’t give a damn if half the population never vote.”
I don’t think that is particularly fair if you are referring to me as the politically engage educated people”. I do give a damn that half the population don’t vote – I just don’t necessarily believe that compulsory voting is a good means of changing that. And even if you don’t mean me, and do mean politicians, I’d argue that they are interested in trying to engage people in politics (you only have to look at election campaigns for evidence of that) its just that people are so apathetic they are not interested in being engaged.