Compulsory voting

Mike Ion Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:28:51 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Interesting to hear that compulsory voting at elections was the most popular measure to bring more democracy to Britain, according to a poll held at last week's Fabian Democracy Day.


The term 'compulsory voting' is a bit of a misnomer, it really is about compulsory casting of ballots (pedantic I know but important nonetheless).


I am quite attracted by the idea, mainly because:


1. It can help improve turnout

2. It leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than focusing huge efforts on 'getting out the vote'. It can also reduce the impact of better finance campaigns and reduce the incidents of negative campaigning.

3. It can help create/enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. It is also a means of reducing social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them.


I know that there are many reasons why we shouldn't make voting compulsory but I do think we need to have the debate nationally, indeed can we afford not to?


What do you think?





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Compulsory voting | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: Compulsory voting (#1)

by Radford Mann on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:04:11 PM GMT

Yep, I agree. I think it's absolutely necessary to make attendance at the polling station compulsory. We can see for  the US that as turnout declines, so parties seek to appeal to the decreasing number of folk who bother to turn out. Also, as I emphasise to young people of my acquaintence, why do parties spend so much effort courting the pensioner vote while hitting you lot with top up fees and student loans? Decisions are made by those who show up.


Quite by chance, the latest number of the academic journal, Politics contains an article by Justine Lacroix defending compulsory voting within the liberal paradigm. She argues that compulsory voting doesn't conflict either with the public / private sphere distinction nor does it constrain individual conscience since abstention remains a legitimate option for the voter. In addition it can be defended on the basis of protection of equal liberty, citing evidence that where voting isn't compulsory it is the less educated who don't vote in higher numbers than the educated.


Re: Compulsory voting (#2)

by alexhilton on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:40:16 PM GMT

I wonder what would be the impact of compulsory voting on referenda - particularly given the EU related issues.

Would the body of public that don't care much default on balance towards a Government position, the status quo or perhaps overwhelmingly towards abstention?


[ Parent ]

Re: Compulsory voting (#3)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:10:01 PM GMT

I'm all for it.  It works well in Oz.


Re: Compulsory voting (#4)

by jkitleft on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:48:49 PM GMT

I would be for it, but I'm not entirely sure it's constitutional to force people to vote, they therefore, if they enforce mandatory voting, need to make sure that ballots include write-in options, because some people don't want to vote for any of the candidates


Re: Compulsory voting (#5)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:38:48 PM GMT

No..Its make your mind up time. No copouts.


[ Parent ]

Re: Compulsory voting (#7)

by jkitleft on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:27:13 AM GMT

the mistake we often make is thinking everyone is as interested in politics as us. some people can't be bothered to vote at all, and aren't interested. if a BNP candidate who looked like Brad Pitt showed up on many people's doorsteps who aren't interested, there could be a surge of votes for that candidate, as these people suddenly become interested in politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Compulsory voting (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:27:25 PM GMT

The right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. If people can't be bothered making a choice about how their country is run then I'd rather they didn't go to the polling station than just randomly select any old candidate because he/she doesn't have a clue what any of them stand for.


Re: Compulsory voting (#9)

by alexhilton on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 04:38:36 PM GMT

If voting were mandatory, would it be logical to suggest that any constituency won by "none of the above" should not return a member to parliament?


[ Parent ]

Re: Compulsory voting (#8)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:55:50 PM GMT

I was one of the audience voting in favour of the measure, Fiona McTaggart made her case very well and in detail.

First off, the measure compulsory voting is not completely compulsory. Those who don't turn up are sent a letter asking them to either supply a reason for not voting or to pay a small fine (In Australia I think it's $20). Those who do neither go to court, I think 400 was the number of voters who got to this stage.

Secondly, I have often made the point to friends that not casting a vote can be interpreted in a number of ways. It could mean complete dissatisfaction with the political system, or it could mean dissinterest, not being bothered. Under a compulsory vote system you can still  spoil your ballot paper, but rather than being open to interpretation, it is a clear sign of dissatisfaction with politics.

Thirdly, by making voting a duty rather than a right it forces people to take an interest, to understand what the political parties are about and which one is best suited to looking after their interests.

I think that comulsory voting is a measure that the government should seriously consider implementing.


Re: Compulsory voting (#10)

by TonyH on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 01:47:24 PM GMT

Forcing people to the polls is hardly the hallmark of a free society.

In the hypothetical, you would have to have the 'spoil' or none of the above option (with the exception that I’d put that option at the top - I hear, in Australia, candidates do disproportionately well alphabetically as people just tick the first name they see!).   

I think it papers over a symptom rather than addresses the cause of low voter turnout which is actually the problem. It is true that decisions are made by those who show up but we should do something to get people interested again and as the original post suggests, discuss the options.

I don’t know how to encourage people to be interested enough in politics to make an informed decision about who to vote for. However, I strongly suspect that forcing the issue with compulsory voting or dumbing down the issue with text messaging (or whatever other nonsense is offered to attract the ‘yoof’) is not the way to increase participation - especially when the most important aspects of that engagement are that the vote or decision made was consensual and well informed.


Re: Compulsory voting (#11)

by T Haynes on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:33:15 PM GMT

I agree in principal, but there are a few practical issues that I can think of.

Firstly, what would the punishment be for people who fail to cast their vote?

Secondly, as mentioned above, what would happen if none-of-the-above won?

Thirdly, could forcing people to vote drive more people towards protest votes, for example in favour of the BNP?


Re: Compulsory voting (#12)

by wgm on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:19:43 PM GMT

I agree - Australia is a good example. There are two petitions currently running on the No 10 website - please sign up to them:



Compulsory voting | 12 comments (12 topical)