compulsory voting

West Coast Publishing2012 NFL LD-Compulsory Voting in a Democracy

TOPIC.......................................................................................................................................................2

PART I: TOPIC OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................................3

PART II: BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................6

PART III: DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................................................10

PART IV: AFFIRMATIVE..........................................................................................................................12

Compulsory Voting Solves Voter Turnout..........................................................................................16



Compulsory Voting Solves Democracy...............................................................................................19

Compulsory Voting Solves Democracy...............................................................................................20

Compulsory Voting Solves For The Role Of Money In Elections........................................................21

Compulsory Voting Upholds Autonomy............................................................................................22

Voter Turnout Is Key To Democratic Legitimacy................................................................................23

PART V: NEGATIVE................................................................................................................................24

Compulsory Voting Leads To Invalid Ballots......................................................................................27

Compulsory Voting Does Not Solve Partisanship...............................................................................28

Compulsory Voting Hurts Policymaking.............................................................................................29

Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Democratic Legitimacy...........................................................30

Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Democratic Legitimacy...........................................................31

Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Fairness Or Reciprocity...........................................................32

Compulsory Voting Does Not Increase Political Engagement............................................................33

Compulsory Voting Does Not Increase Civic Engagement.................................................................34

Removing The Secret Ballot Solves Voter Turnout............................................................................35

1


TOPIC

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

2


PART I: TOPIC OVERVIEW A. Introduction:

Since the United States initiated the use of the secret ballot in elections voter turnout has declined. Turnout rates have decreased to the point where 50% is considered positive. This trend is replicated throughout the world in other democracies that have voluntary voting systems. In these nations, increasingly smaller segments of the population are doing a majority of the voting, which shapes the results of the elections and the future of their nations to benefit those segments that vote. This impedes equal representation principles inherent in democracy, and possibly threatens the democratic legitimacy of these nations. Meanwhile, thirty-one nations around the globe have chosen a different route and have mandated that voting is compulsory. In these nations, voter turnout often remains in the 90’s. However, these laws beg the question; is it legitimate for democracies to require political participation when the right to participate or not participate is a core principle of democracy? This topic analysis will seek to illuminate this question and some of the others that surround the resolution, resolved: in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. The first part of the analysis will provide an overview the resolution and some of its core questions, which is followed up by affirmative and negative strategies open to debaters under this topic.

B. Overview:The resolution asks us to consider whether or not, in a democracy, voting ought to be

compulsory. A quick internet search immediate reveals that a large portion of the literature surrounding the topic area centers on the term of art, “compulsory voting.” Compulsory voting (CV), as discussed in the literature, refers to voting laws used in about thirty-one nations around the world that attempt to compel some level of mandatory voting in national elections. I say some level because most authors are quick to point out that CV does not typically refer to voting laws that require citizens to cast a vote. Instead, most laws that are referred to as CV in the literature are actually compulsory turnout laws that mandate citizens appear at the voting station. Once they are there, they can abstain from voting. This is in addition to a number of exemptions that a number of nations allow for that cover everything from illness to religious objections. In essence, most literature that affirmatives will be relying upon that refers to compulsory voting are not necessarily consistent with the resolution. A compelling argument can be made that evidence touting the success of current compulsory voting systems are actually negative ground.

If the resolutional framers had intended the affirmative to be able to defend current systems that enforce compulsory turnout as opposed to actual compulsory voting, the framers would have used the term of art CV. Instead, the framers chose to state that voting ought to be compulsory. This cuts through the semantic grey area and clearly delineates that compulsory voting is affirmative ground and all other options that stop short, such as compulsory turnout, are negative ground. However, affirmatives wanting to avoid negative links to tyranny and autonomy arguments can try to win that using the term of art to divide ground is best because this will allow them to say that citizens are not forced to vote, which means their liberty or free choice is never compromised.

The central tension in the resolution will be between democratic performance/legitimacy and the individual’s right to autonomy/free choice. Democratic legitimacy is a core value because the resolution is limited by the phrase, “in democracy.” This means that any policies, rights, or obligations that contradict democratic principles and legitimacy are anti-resolutional. This discussion is framed by the low voter turnout that is pervasive amongst nations with voluntary voting regimes, particularly in

3


the United States. Some political scientists and pundits contend that low voter turnout is a threat to democratic functioning and legitimacy because democracies rely upon the input of the people to ensure that the will of the people is being represented and legislated. Currently, a number of age and class factors are increasingly determining which segments of the population are turning up at elections and selecting the leaders. In turn, the voice of these narrow segments and their interests are embodied in the elected representatives, who in turn pander to their interests in an effort to seek reelection, further distancing nonvoters from the political process. Some contend that compulsory voting regimes are necessary to combat low voter turnout and increase political participation.

Proponents of compulsory voting believe that it is necessary to improve voter turnout and ensure democratic legitimacy for a number of reasons. First, proponents believe that CV increases political participation because it codifies the norm that voting is important. Second, CV is supposed de-radicalize the political process by forcing politicians to gain the acceptance of apathetic or disinterested citizens. In addition, it is argued that CV will reduce the role of big money in elections because it will render get out the vote drives obsolete, in addition to providing a deterrent to negative ads, since a majority of individuals are turned off by their use. Finally, CV is the only way to ensure that the currently marginalized segments of the population that are currently not voting in large numbers will have their voice in heard in elections and by their representatives, which can help combat the social and economic exclusion they encounter in the first place.

The problem with forcing citizens to vote is that although it might resolve the voter turnout issue, which might harm democratic legitimacy, forcing someone to provide an opinion is arguably antithetical to the core democratic principle of autonomy. In this sense, the right to silence/free choice conflicts with a democracy’s obligation to act legitimately. Some contend that both are burdens upon the government. They must act legitimately and preserve autonomy, which means that liberty cannot be abrogated; even it is in an attempt to preserve democracy.

The tension between individual rights and legitimacy also demonstrates that the resolution concerns deontological questions, about individual rights, which are goods in and of themselves, and utilitarian concerns about the instrumental value of compulsory voting regimes. Both sides of the resolution will have access to both types of decision calculi, providing a variety of stock/traditional case structures for debaters.

The utilitarian questions inherent in the resolution along with the nuances between the different types of compulsory voting laws in place around the world and proposed in literature will provide affirmatives and negative to approach the topic from a policy standpoint. Different laws and exemptions will serve as a number of different plans or counterplans, depending on the definitions and observations used to divide ground on either side. Affirmatives can use compulsory attendance cases to avoid links to autonomy disadvantages, while solving some of the core legitimacy issues. Likewise, these cases can be used on the negative to achieve the same strategic goals. It just depends on how you want to divide resolutional ground. Either way, the variety of systems in place and proposed means that debaters should learn the nuances between each of the systems to prepare themselves for all of the types of plans/counterplans pertinent to the topic.

Finally, the resolution opens itself up to a variety of critical positions on both the affirmative and negative that, either question the inequality of current voting practices and its resultant representation or that question the government’s ability to compel choice or speech in the form of voting.

C. Affirmative StrategiesAffirmatives will first have to choose whether or not they want to defend a resolutional

interpretation that forces them to defend compulsory voting or just compulsory attendance. The benefits of compulsory attendance cases has already been discussed, so in this section I will focus on cases that mandate compulsory voting by all citizens in a democracy.

4


There are a variety of value structures that affirmatives can choose for this resolution. As mentioned above, one of the core strategies will be to select cases that center around democracy, democratic legitimacy, or rule of law as values in and of themselves. These cases are generally utilitarian and argue that compulsory voting is best for democratic legitimacy, etc. because it solves for low voter turnout and a number of other harms typical of voluntary voting systems (this will be discussed in contention level analysis below).

Social contract and contractarianism cases are all possible under the affirmative side of the topic. Social contract value structures contend that citizens give up some rights in exchange for the benefits offered by government, including protection and representation. Although it can be argued that compulsory voting violates individual autonomy by forcing individuals to vote, social contract cases would argue that this is a necessary breach of a specific right in order to ensure the government functions and is able to protect the citizenry. Contractariansim cases would argue that relationships are defined by contracts between citizens and that one of these contracts in a democracy is that each individual ought to vote. At this point, compulsory voting would be the fulfillment of the obligation. It is possible to argue this as a negative, indicating that the onus to vote is on the individual and not necessarily on making voting compulsory. Citizens have to vote. It is not obligatory to make citizens vote.

Cases will also be able to utilize justice, equality, and fairness value structures. These cases argue that the low turnout indicative of voluntary voting nations disrupts equality and fairness by forcing the government to only be responsive to the small segments that make it to the polls. Compulsory voting upholds these values by ensuring that everyone participates in the process.

Contention level debate will focus on the harms of collapsing democracies or what happens when democracies become illegitimate or they will focus on the harms of low turnout and unequal representation. Negatives will also have access to these contentions based on whether or not they offer alternate obligations or policies, such as compulsory turnout. Critical contentions are possible with these harms, since a lot of the unequal representation skews against marginalized populations.

D. Negative StrategiesThis particular resolution will provide negatives with a variety of case structures and strategies

to pursue. The first strategy is to attempt a counterplan or counterplan-esque 1NC that attempts to solve many of the same contentions and framework of the 1AC while avoiding additional harms or rights violations. One example that was already discussed are compulsory turnout cases and counterplans.

Negatives can also pursue rights based or deontological cases to value rights, such as autonomy. These cases contend that forcing citizens to vote is in direct violation of their autonomy. It will be important for these cases to link back into the consequentialist framework of the 1AC by arguing that autonomy is a key component to agency, which is a prerequisite for legitimate political action.

Many options are available that will utilize some sort of ‘state bad’ strategy. Negative’s can claim that individuals have obligations to vote, but that government imposition of compulsory mandates is illegitimate. This part of the debate is ripe for critical argumentation. Criticisms of democracy, sovereignty, state action or political involvement have resolutional links through the phrases “in a democracy” and “voting.” Coercion type arguments are also apropos as “compulsory” denotes forced action. All of these can operate as individual contentions or as separate criticism depending on the preference of the debater and the best choice for the round.

Counterplans will of course be an available strategy, but that has already been discussed at length earlier in this topic analysis.

5


PART II: BIBLIOGRAPHY Bevege, Lydia, Development Coordinator at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, “Should voting be compulsory?” Sun Herald, June 10, 2012, http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-liberty/news/2681/should-voting-be-compulsory-.

This article contends that popular praise of the Australian system of compulsory voting is not warranted. The author argues that, contrary to popular opinion, Australians are forced to vote under their system and not merely show up at the voting station. Furthermore, she argues that this system does not increase civic engagement or democracy because individuals are being forced to participate against their will, resulting in disillusionment.

Birch, Sarah, “The case for compulsory voting,,” Public Policy Research, Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 21–27, March-May 2009.

This article looks at the consequences of low voter turnout and concludes that the status quo is skewed in terms of class and age. The author contends that compulsory voting would remedy misrepresentation at the ballot box and would help lead to a more fair political and social system.

Engelen, Bart, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy,” Acta Politica, 2007, 42, (23–39).

This article contends that compulsory voting is necessary to enhance democracy and preserve governmental legitimacy. The author argues that low voter turnout leads to unequal representation, which hurts accountability and equality.

Engelen, Bart, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), “Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009.

This article suggests that compulsory voting is an inaccurate term and that these laws actually mandate compulsory attendance at polling stations. The author contends that the secret ballot structure, in addition to the presence of exemptions will guarantee that the rights of citizens are not violated by compulsory voting and that it is a democratically legitimate practice.

Galston, William, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, “Telling Americans to Vote, Or Else,” The New York Times, November 5, 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/11/05-voting-galston, accessed 6/20/2012.

This article argues that the United States should adopt a system of compulsory voting in order to solve low turnout rates. The author concludes that compulsory voting systems force less ideological individuals to participate in elections, which results in partisanship.

Goldberg , Jonah, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “Voter Apathy Isn’t a Crime,” National Review Online, June 27, 2012, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg.

This article looks at recent literature written by proponents of compulsory voting and analyzes the arguments they forward. The author concludes that proponents of compulsory voting are

6

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/11/05-voting-galston


http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-liberty/news/2681/should-voting-be-compulsory-


merely advocating the policy in order to gain political control in Washington for the Democrats at that compulsory voting is antithetical to democracy.

Hill, Lisa, Professor at Australian National University, “On the Reasonableness of Compelling Citizens to ‘Vote’: the Australian Case,” Political Studies, Volume 50, Issue 1, pages 80–101, March 2002.

This article looks at the Australian system of compulsory voting as a case study to determine whether or not an obligation to vote exists, which in turn would mean that compulsory voting is legitimate. The author concludes that compulsory voting is legitimate because it provides a number of public goods. The author also concludes that an obligation does exist to vote; however, the obligation is owed to other citizens and not the state.

Issenberg, Sasha, “Abolish the Secret Ballot,” The Atlantic, July/August, 2012., http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/9038/.

This article argues that voter apathy is rampant in the United States and must be addressed. The author argues that removing the secret ballot is the best method for increasing turnout because citizens would have to justify their votes.

Jackman, Simon, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, “Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2001. http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012.

This article is written by an Assistant Professor at Stanford and provides excellent background on the history of compulsory voting, the types of systems in place, and the consequences of compulsory voting. This article, written for the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences takes a look at compulsory voting systems throughout the world, which provides an overview of all its applications, and a variety of case studies to look at the viability of such a political system.

Lachat and Selb, Romain and Peter, “The more, the better? Counterfactual evidence on the effect of compulsory voting on the consistency of party choice,” European Journal of Political Research, Volume 48, Issue 5, pages 573–597, August 2009.

This article examines the role of compulsory voting in party affiliation. The authors conclude that compulsory voting disrupts the consistency of party choices because less informed and interested voters are forced to participate, which refutes the claim that compulsory voting will lead to more representation.

Lacroix, Justine, “A Liberal Defence of Compulsory Voting,” Politics, Volume 27, Issue 3, pages 190–195, October 2007.

This article contends that it is possible to make liberal justifications for compulsory voting laws. The author says that while most critics argue that compulsory voting harms individual choice, the system is actually justified using non-utilitarian reasoning. The author’s conceptions of autonomy and equal liberty justify compulsory voting since it is consistent with such bedrock principles of political liberalism.

Lever, Annabelle, Professor at Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School, “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective,” B.J.Pol.S. 40, 897–915 Copyright r Cambridge University Press, 2010.

This article looks at two of the main arguments used to justify compulsory voting laws; compulsory voting solves for unequal participating and that non-voters are free-riders. The

7

http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/9038/


author contends that, while individuals might have a moral obligation vote, they do not have a legal or democratic obligation to vote.

Lever, Annabelle, Professor at Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School “‘A Liberal Defence of Compulsory Voting’: Some Reasons for Scepticism,” Politics, Volume 28, Issue 1, pages 61–64, February 2008

This article looks at liberal defenses of compulsory voting that have been advanced using the work of Rawls or Dwarkin, that argue such laws are just because democracy is a good end to promote in and of itself. The author goes on to conclude that such reasoning is flawed because the compulsory nature of the laws is antithetical to the democratic notion of choice.

Lever, Annabelle, Professor at Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School “Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting,” Politics,Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223–227, October 2009.

This article examines arguments in favor of compulsory voting laws, the ethical obligations for citizens to vote and the necessity to preserve democratic legitimacy. The author argues that compulsory systems are not ethically justified because they do not allow citizens to abstain from the election.

Loewenal, Peter John, et al., “Does Compulsory Voting Lead to More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2008, 41 : pp 655-672.

This paper conveys the results of an experiment conducted by the authors the intended to measure whether or not compulsory voting resulted in secondary effects amongst the voters. The study was conducted during the 2007 Quebec provincial election using students from students at Montreal CEGEP. The authors concluded that compulsory voting did not improve the knowledge and engagement level of the voters.

Mackerras, McAllister, “Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia,” Electoral Studies, Volume 18, Issue 2, June 1999, Pages 217–233

This article looks at Australia as a case study to determine the consequences of compulsory voting, since it is the oldest system of compulsory voting in place. The author concludes that compulsory voting has led to a rise in invalid ballots, while privileging left-wing and minority parties at the expense of right-wing parties.

Panagopoulos, Costas, “The Calculus of Voting in Compulsory Voting Systems,” Political Behavior, Volume 30, Number 4 (2008), 455-467

This article uses the Rational Choice Model to analyze the reasoning behind voter choice in nations that use compulsory voting systems. The author concludes that the high turnout rates are not necessarily due to the compulsory nature of the system, but is more dependent upon the penalties imposed for noncompliance and the effectiveness of the enforcement regime.

Power and Roberts, Timothy J. and J. Timmons, “Compulsory Voting, Abstention in Ballots, and Abstention in Brazil,” Political Research Quarterly, December 1995 vol. 48 no. 4 795-826.

This article looks at the high incidents of invalid ballots and abstention in Brazil, which uses a system of compulsory voting. The authors conclude that these problems are due to institutional failures rather than the system of compulsory voting.

8


Rudin, Ken, Political commentator at NPR and Editorial Coordinator at StateImpact, “Is 'Compulsory Voting' The Answer?” June 1, 2010. http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/06/01/127348895/is-compulsory-voting-the-answer, accessed 7/2/2012.

This article quotes an interview with William Galston, who is a Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Galston concludes that compulsory voting would be the best way to redress the poor voter turnout in the United States and to improve the democratic process by forcing the involvement of non-voters, who are usually less ideological than those that vote. Galston argues that less ideological voters will elect less ideological leaders, resulting in a more efficient government.

Wattenberg, Martin. 2006. Is Voting for Young People? 1st ed., Longman; 2006. This book examines the reasons for low voter turnout amongst the youth and the political consequences of the low turnout. Wattenberg concludes that political participation increases with age, which indicates that low turnout is natural. Wattenberg goes on to argue that low voter turnout in the youth does skew representation and then looks at the pros and cons for using compulsory voting to address low voter turnout amongst the youth.

9

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/06/01/127348895/is-compulsory-voting-the-answer


PART III: DEFINITIONS DemocracyDefinition:1. noun (pl. democracies) a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.2. a state governed in such a way.3. control of a group by the majority of its members.Source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press, http://www.wordreference.com/definition/democracyDefinition:1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.Source:Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy?s=tDefinition:1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government3: capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>Source:Merriam Webster’s Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

OughtDefinition: “used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like”Source: Dictionary.comDefinition: “That which should be done, the obligatory; a statement using ‘ought’, expressing a moral imperative”Source: Oxford English DictionaryDefinition: “used to express obligation”Source: Merriam-Webster

Compulsory10

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the


Definition: 1. “required by law or a rule; obligatory”2. “involving or exercising compulsion; coercive”Source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press, http://www.wordreference.com/definition/compulsoryDefinition:1. required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education.2. using compulsion; compelling; constraining: compulsory measures to control rioting.Source:Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compulsoryDefinition:1: mandatory, enforced <compulsory retirement>2: coercive, compelling <compulsory measures>Source:Merriam Webster’s Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory

Compulsory VotingCompulsory Voting – Term Of Art – Do Not Have To VoteDefinition: Compulsory voting is a system of laws, mandating that enfranchised citizens turn out to vote and impose penalties for noncomplianceSource: Simon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)Compulsory voting (CV) is a system of laws and/or norms, mandating that enfranchised citizens turn out to vote, and usually specifying penalties for noncompliance. The number of countries using CV in at least some of their elections is greater than commonly recognized. One recent estimate is that twenty four countries constituting roughly 17% of the world’s democracies employ compulsory voting to some extent (Australia 2000, 170).

11



PART IV: AFFIRMATIVE I affirm that, resolved: in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.I offer the following observation:

Observation 1: The Resolution Is Limited By The Phrase “In A Democracy.” This means that preserving democratic principles is paramount. Any policy or obligation that would violate basic democratic principles must be excluded. Competing obligations must always side in favor of the obligation that best preserves democracy.Thus, my value is democratic legitimacy. Legitimacy is the bedrock of any political organization and essential to the survival of all democraciesJorge Aragon, Professor at Saint Louis University, 2008 (“Political Legitimacy and Democracy,” Encyclopedia of Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior, pg 1-3) The stability and functioning of any kind of political regime—including democratic or representative ones—relies on the combination of the capacity of rulers and government officials to use coercion and the development of political legitimacy. Political legitimacy can be described as people’s recognition and acceptance of the validity of the rules of their entire political system and the decisions of their rulers. Accordingly, two things can be expected from political systems that have a considerable level of political legitimacy. First, these political systems will be more resilient to survive periods of crisis, and, second, rulers and authorities will enjoy a fundamental condition needed to formulate and implement policies in an effective manner (i.e., they will be able to make decisions and commit resources without needing to obtain approval from the ruled and without resorting to coercion for every decision). The issue of political legitimacy can therefore be considered to be of utmost importance in politics and political analysis.In addition, the resolution asks us to determine whether or not voting ought to be compulsory, or mandated. In order to answer this question, we should look to the impacts of compulsory voting to determine if the obligation would have more favorable consequences for democratic legitimacy than negative.

Thus, my value-criterion will be consequentialism.Consequentialism is the best means for determining whether or not compulsory voting best upholds democratic legitimacy for several reasons:1) Consequentialism is the most preferable weighing mechanism for informing governmental and political actions. Utilitarian ethics, such as consequentialism, are necessary because the goal of the government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while minimizing risk to the individual. 2) All ethical and policy decisions devolve to consequentialist calculus because rights, policies, and values inevitably conflict and it is necessary to look to the pros and cons to determine which ones take priority. Thus, the burden for the affirmative team in today’s round is to prove that compulsory voting is best for democratic legitimacy, proving that voting ought to be compulsory. The affirmative does not have to prove that all aspects of compulsory voting uphold democratic legitimacy, but only that compulsory voting is better for legitimacy than non-compulsory voting.

12


The burden for the negative is to prove that the harms of mandating citizens in democracies vote is more damaging to democratic legitimacy than non-compulsory voting.

Contention 1: Low Voter Turnout Is A Threat To Democratic LegitimacyThe number one threat to democratic legitimacy around the world is lack of political participation, such as voting – increasing participation and increasing democratic functionality is essential to legitimacyJorge Aragon, Professor at Saint Louis University, 2008 (“Political Legitimacy and Democracy,” Encyclopedia of Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior, pg 1-3) Finally, current empirical research reveals that both established and new democracies are suffering an important decline in some of the key aspects of democratic legitimacy, at least among ordinary citizens. Along with this common trend, there are also some critical differences. In the case of established democracies, the erosion of democratic legitimacy seems to be basically constrained to democratic institutions and authorities. On the contrary, in the case of several new democracies, not only is democratic legitimacy itself a much more volatile phenomenon, but its erosion seems to be affecting some of the main democratic principles and procedures, and sometimes the entire democratic regime. The main reason for this is probably profound citizen dissatisfaction with the economic and political performance of current democratic administrations in recently established democratic regimes. However, what both established and new democracies seem to be sharing is that their citizens are realizing that despite the democratic assertion that the people are the ultimate source of political authority, they are not exercising much of this power. At the same time, and considering that the democratic project has been mostly state-centered, both established and new democracies are suffering from the fact that the capacities of their states have diminished in recent decades and that an important part of what is relevant for politics and societies is occurring outside the realm of the state.

Contention 2: Compulsory Voting Solves For Voter Turnout, Even If There Are ExemptionsEmpirical studies demonstrate that compulsory voter laws are a symbol that voting is important and engenders civic duty even if enforcement is lax and exemptions are availableBart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009)It may seem strange to defend compulsory attendance laws while stressing that their enforcement should not be strict. Nevertheless, empirical research shows that compulsory attendance laws, even when not actively enforced by means of harsh penalties, engender compliance. Turnout in countries with no enforcement is about 6 per cent higher than in countries with no compulsory voting (IDEA, 2002, p. 110). Here, formal laws are mainly a symbolic reminder that going out to vote is desirable. As such, they uphold the social norm and civic sense of duty to vote, which suggests that ‘compulsory voting is a cultural rather than legal phenomenon’ (Hill, 2002, p. 95). In short, ‘compulsory voting can ... be very effective in raising turnout – in spite of low penalties that are imposed for failing to vote (usuallysimilar to a parking violation), in spite of the lax enforcement (usually much less stringent than parking rules are enforced), and in spite of the secret ballot, which means that an actual vote cannot be compelled in the first place’ (Lijphart, 1998, p. 2).

Contention 3: Compulsory Voting Is Necessary To Ensure A Functioning DemocracyDemocracy as it is practiced in voluntary voting nations is broken. In order to ensure a functioning democracy, governments must adopt compulsory voting for three reasons: 1) it increases the civic responsibility of citizens, 2) it guarantees that the voices of all citizens is included, which is not

13


happening currently due to social inequality, 3) overcome the polarization and partisanship of today’s political landscape – compulsory voting is the only way to overcome gridlock and allow the government to perform its obligated functionsWilliam Galston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, 2011 (“Telling Americans to Vote, Or Else,” The New York Times, 11/5,2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/11/05-voting-galston, accessed 6/20/2012)Proponents offer three reasons in favor of mandatory voting. The first is straightforwardly civic. A democracy can’t be strong if its citizenship is weak. And right now American citizenship is attenuated — strong on rights, weak on responsibilities. There is less and less that being a citizen requires of us, especially after the abolition of the draft. Requiring people to vote in national elections once every two years would reinforce the principle of reciprocity at the heart of citizenship. ¶ The second argument for mandatory voting is democratic. Ideally, a democracy will take into account the interests and views of all citizens. But if some regularly vote while others don’t, officials are likely to give greater weight to participants. This might not matter much if nonparticipants were evenly distributed through the population. But political scientists have long known that they aren’t. People with lower levels of income and education are less likely to vote, as are young adults and recent first-generation immigrants.¶

Changes in our political system have magnified these disparities. During the 1950s and ’60s, when turnout rates were much higher, political parties reached out to citizens year-round. At the local level these parties, which reformers often criticized as “machines,” connected even citizens of modest means and limited education with neighborhood institutions and gave them a sense of participation in national politics as well. (In its heyday, organized labor reinforced these effects.) But in the absence of these more organic forms of political mobilization, the second-best option is a top-down mechanism of universal mobilization.¶ Mandatory voting would tend to even out disparities stemming from income, education and age, enhancing our system’s inclusiveness. It is true, as some object, that an enforcement mechanism would impose greater burdens on those with fewer resources. But this makes it all the more likely that these citizens would respond by going to the polls, and they would stand to gain far more than the cost of a traffic ticket.¶ The third argument for mandatory voting goes to the heart of our current ills. Our low turnout rate pushes American politics toward increased polarization. The reason is that hard-core partisans are more likely to dominate lower-turnout elections, while those who are less fervent about specific issues and less attached to political organizations tend not to participate at levels proportional to their share of the electorate. ¶ A distinctive feature of our constitutional system — elections that are quadrennial for president but biennial for the House of Representatives — magnifies these effects. It’s bad enough that only three-fifths of the electorate turns out to determine the next president, but much worse that only two-fifths of our citizens vote in House elections two years later. If events combine to energize one part of the political spectrum and dishearten the other, a relatively small portion of the electorate can shift the system out of all proportion to its numbers.¶ Some observers are comfortable with this asymmetry. But if you think that today’s intensely polarized politics impedes governance and exacerbates mistrust — and that is what most Americans firmly (and in my view rightly) believe — then you should be willing to consider reforms that would strengthen the forces of conciliation. ¶ Imagine our politics with laws and civic norms that yield near-universal voting. Campaigns could devote far less money to costly, labor-intensive get-out-the-vote efforts. Media gurus wouldn’t have the same incentive to drive down turnout with negative advertising. Candidates would know that they must do more than mobilize their bases with red-meat rhetoric on hot-button issues. Such a system would improve not only electoral politics but also the legislative process. Rather than focusing on symbolic gestures whose major purpose is to agitate partisans, Congress might actually roll up its sleeves and tackle the serious, complex issues it ignores.

14




Contention 4: Negative Contentions Are Empirically WrongSome argue that compulsory voting will never work in individualistic and libertarian nations, such as the United States, and that forcing citizens to vote is a form of statist control. However, this has not been a problem. Thirty-one nations from all over the globe have compulsory voting, and even in countries with individualist tendencies on part with the united states, voter turnout has increased and none of the horror stories have ever materialized. Compulsory voting laws change civic norms in spite of existing attitudesWilliam Galston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, 2011 (“Telling Americans to Vote, Or Else,” The New York Times, 11/5/2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/11/05-voting-galston, accessed 6/20/2012)Thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory voting, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The list includes nine members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and two-thirds of the Latin American nations. More than half back up the legal requirement with an enforcement mechanism, while the rest are content to rely on the moral force of the law¶ Despite the prevalence of mandatory voting in so many democracies, it’s easy to dismiss the practice as a form of statism that couldn’t work in America’s individualistic and libertarian political culture. But consider Australia, whose political culture is closer to that of the United States than that of any other English-speaking country. Alarmed by a decline in voter turnout to less than 60 percent in 1922, Australia adopted mandatory voting in 1924, backed by small fines (roughly the size of traffic tickets) for nonvoting, rising with repeated acts of nonparticipation. The law established permissible reasons for not voting, like illness and foreign travel, and allows citizens who faced fines for not voting to defend themselves.¶ The results were remarkable. In the 1925 election, the first held under the new law, turnout soared to 91 percent. In recent elections, it has hovered around 95 percent. The law also changed civic norms. Australians are more likely than before to see voting as an obligation. The negative side effects many feared did not materialize. For example, the percentage of ballots intentionally spoiled or completed randomly as acts of resistance remained on the order of 2 to 3 percent.

15




Compulsory Voting Solves Voter Turnout

Within-country studies proves that compulsory voting increases voter turnout in countries that switch – it is not just a matter of countries with high turnout codifying their normsSimon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)Hirczy (1994, 65) makes a compelling argument that cross-national analyses provide ‘‘no causal proof that mandatory voting actually produces high turnout’’, 4 and indeed, the causal arrow may be reversed; i.e., a country that adheres to a norm of high turnout simply ‘‘enshrines its civic norm in law’’. A research design that overcomes this threat is to compare turnout within countries, before and after the implementation or repeal of CV, or across sub-national units with and without CV. An additional strength of this design is that within countries many of the factors affecting turnout remain constant even while CV comes or goes. Studies of this type find CV to have large effects on aggregate turnout. Prior to the implementation of CV in 1924, turnout in the nine elections for Australia’s House of Representatives averaged 64.2%; in the nine elections following the introduction of CV turnout averaged 94.6%, an increase of 30.4 percentage points (t = 8.7; author’s calculations, using data in Hughes and Graham (1968)). In the Netherlands, the abolition of CV in 1970 was followed by a drop of roughly 10 percentage points to roughly 84% (Irwin 1974; Hirczy 1994). In addition, the removal of fines for non-voting in Venezuela in 1993 saw turnout fall by roughly 30 percentage points (Lijphart 1997, 9). In Austria, cross-provincial and longitudinal variation in the use of CV permits a powerful assessment of the impact of CV. Turnout in eleven federal parliamentary elections between 1953 and 1987 averaged 92.7% in provinces without CV; among provinces with CV turnout averaged 95.7%, to yield a treatment effect of 3.0 percentage points (t=3.4), this smaller but statistically significant effect reflecting a ‘‘ceiling effect’’ (turnout rates are bounded at 100%).

Compulsory voting solves voter turnout by imposing penalties on non-votersSimon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)CV has a direct impact on voter turnout, evident in both aggregate and individual level analyses. The underlying logic is extremely simple. CV’s non-compliance penalties offset the costs of electoral participation, effectively attaching a cost to not turning out and thereby overcoming the fact that turnout is a low benefit activity for many citizens (Lijphart 1997, 9). A number of indirect consequences of CV are also discussed.

16





Compulsory voting solves turnout – there is no incentive to vote without itPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)¶

For economists, the puzzle is not why voting participation rates are so low in voluntary systems, but why they’re so high. The so-called paradox of voting, highlighted in a 1957 book by the political scientist Anthony Downs, occurs because the probability that any individual voter can alter the outcome of an election is effectively zero. So if voting imposes any cost, in terms of time or hassle, a perfectly rational person would conclude it’s not worth doing. The problem is that if each person were to reach such a rational conclusion no one would vote, and the system would collapse. ¶ Mandatory voting solves that collective action problem by requiring people to vote and punishing nonvoters with a fine. In Australia, the penalty starts small and rises significantly for those who repeatedly fail to vote.

Compulsory voting solves voter turnout – cross-national evidence proves that turnout increases in spite of nati0nal differencesSimon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)Even a casual inspection of compendiums of aggregate turnout statistics reveals higher turnout among countries with CV. For instance, a recent collection of data on voter turnout in 171 countries finds turnout about six or seven percentage points higher in 24 countries with some form of CV than in countries without CV (IDEA 1997, 32). Multivariate statistical analyses typically find CV to have larger impacts on turnout, controlling for other institutional and political variables that affect turnout. Lijphart’s (1997) review finds CV associated with a boost in turnout rates of seven to sixteen percentage points; for examples of the studies reviewed, see Powell (1981), Jackman (1987), Jackman and Miller (1995), and Franklin (1999), the latter study being distinctive for including an individual-level analysis, exploiting survey data from European Union countries. Among Latin American countries, the estimated turnout boost associated with CV is roughly eleven to seventeen percentage points (Fornos 1996). These results are striking considering (a) large cross-national differences in institutional and political characteristics of these countries that impact turnout (e.g., Jackman’s 1987 study considered competitiveness of elections, electoral disproportionality, number of political parties, unicameralism vs bicameralism, but found CV to have the largest impact on turnout of all these institutional features) and (b) considerable variability in the enforcement of CV among those countries that ostensibly have CV.

17


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html




Compulsory voting solves turnout – there is no incentive to vote without itPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)¶

For economists, the puzzle is not why voting participation rates are so low in voluntary systems, but why they’re so high. The so-called paradox of voting, highlighted in a 1957 book by the political scientist Anthony Downs, occurs because the probability that any individual voter can alter the outcome of an election is effectively zero. So if voting imposes any cost, in terms of time or hassle, a perfectly rational person would conclude it’s not worth doing. The problem is that if each person were to reach such a rational conclusion no one would vote, and the system would collapse.¶ Mandatory voting solves that collective action problem by requiring people to vote and punishing nonvoters with a fine. In Australia, the penalty starts small and rises significantly for those who repeatedly fail to vote.

Emprically, compulsory voting increases voter turnout and even if Americans oppose it, attitudes change, as proven by DADTKen Rudin, Political commentator at NPR and Editorial Coordinator at StateImpact, 2010 (“Is 'Compulsory Voting' The Answer?”, http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/06/01/127348895/is-compulsory-voting-the-answer, accessed 7/2/2012)Australia had voting participation at around 60 percent before it instituted mandatory voting, and now it's up to 95 percent. ¶ But, as Robert pointed out, an ABC News poll indicated that 72 percent of Americans are opposed to compulsory voting. Isn't this a non-starter?¶ Galston conceded that it could be tough but added that perceptions change. Just look at the public's turnaround on "don't ask, don't tell," he said.

Compulsory voting solves turnout – Australia empirically provesPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults. ¶ It’s our own fault -- because voter participation rates are running below 60 percent, a candidate would have to win 85 percent or more of the vote to be elected by a majority. ¶ Compulsory voting, as exists in Australia and more than two dozen other countries, would fix that problem. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting?”¶ Mandating voting has a clear effect: It raises participation rates. Before Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924, for example, it had turnout rates similar to those of the U.S. After voting became mandatory, participation immediately jumped from 59 percent in the election of 1922 to 91 percent in the election of 1925. ¶ The political scientists Lisa Hill and Jonathon Louth of the University of Adelaide note that “turnout rates among the voting age population in Australia have remained consistently high and against the trend of steadily declining voting participation in advanced democracies worldwide.”

18







Compulsory Voting Solves Democracy

Compulsory voting increases election regimes, which leads to greater professionalization, better results, and more incentives for participationSimon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)¶ CV does place an onus on citizens, but states with CV typically reciprocate with institutional mechanisms reducing compliance costs (e.g., weekend voting, ease of registration, widespread use of absentee and postal ballots). According to Gosnell (1930, 209) ‘‘fines and penalties under a system of compulsory voting are a minor matter. The important feature of the system is that voting is regarded as a civic duty and the government does everything to impress upon voters this point of view.’’ And as a practical matter, the more serious the commitment to CV, the more bureaucratic resources are required to maintain registration records and ensure compliance. For instance, in Australia, these two sides of CV -- the ‘‘carrot and stick’’ -- are administered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), a large and highly professional bureaucracy responsible for all aspects of Australian federal elections. Ensuring compliance with CV is just one of many AEC functions, and the bulk of its activities are to do with other aspects of election administration (e.g., redistricting, voter registration, public financing of campaigns, ballot design, location and staffing of polling stations, vote tallying). Thus one (perhaps unintended) consequence of CV is the centralization and professionalization of election administration. In turn this may mitigate the dangers that accompany decentralized and non-professional election administration, clearly evident in the aftermath of the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

19



Compulsory Voting Solves Democracy

Compulsory voting increases representation, which improves democracyPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)This brings us to the paradox of compulsory voting: It’s a sensible idea that could be enacted only when it would have almost no effect. In that case, some might wonder, why do it? The answer is that increased participation would make our democracy work better, in the sense of being more reflective of the population at large. And it could allow the first president in history to be elected by a majority of American adults.

Compulsory voting improves democracy by including the non-ideological middle in the election, which solves government gridlock because non-ideological leaders are elected Ken Rudin, Political commentator at NPR and Editorial Coordinator at StateImpact, 2010 (“Is 'Compulsory Voting' The Answer?”, http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/06/01/127348895/is-compulsory-voting-the-answer, accessed 7/2/2012)¶ William Galston thinks the key to less polarization in the electorate is compulsory voting. It's the disaffected, the angry, who vote. The Howard Beales of the world. If everyone — including those in the less intense middle — voted, you would get fewer ideologues in office. ¶ The Brookings Institution scholar is among those who are dismayed at the turnout in this country. Those in the wide middle of the spectrum are the ones who abstain from voting, and Galston thinks that's not good. Get more people in the process by making it easier to vote through things like liberalized absentee voting. ¶ It's good for democracy , he says.¶ But there's a catch to compulsory voting. You don't vote, you pay a fine.¶ He is encouraged by the Australian system that that imposes a penalty — anywhere from $20 to $70 — on those who don't vote.¶ Galston wrote about these ideas in a Brookings policy brief that was released today, and he talked about them with NPR's Robert Siegel, an interview that will air tonight on "All Things Considered."¶ Galston believes that the "participation of less ideologically committed voters" would lead to depolarization. He concedes that while "passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy," the U.S. electorate is as polarized as it was back in the 1890s, which "erects roadblocks to problem-solving." And while many "committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise," gridlock is "no formula for effective governance."

20





Compulsory Voting Solves For The Role Of Money In Elections

Compulsory voting decreases the influence of big money in elections by reducing the role of negative advertisements and voter registration drivesPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)Beyond simply raising participation, compulsory voting could alter the role of money in elections. Turn-out-the-vote efforts, often bankrolled by big-money groups, would become largely irrelevant. Negative advertising could be less effective, because a central aim of such ads is to discourage participation in the opponent’s camp.

21




Compulsory Voting Upholds Autonomy

Compulsory voting allow citizens to abstain from voting, they only have to show up at the polls – this means that the affirmative does not link to negative contentions that assert compulsory voting violates liberty or autonomy Bart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009)A number of simple institutional measures can ensure that no citizen is ever obliged by the state to express his or her political views, even in countries with compulsory voting laws. In my view, these are required conditions that have to be fulfilled before a country can legitimately implement such laws. They guarantee that each and every citizen is allowed to think for him/herself, to speak for him/herself and, if he or she wishes, to remain silent.¶ First, there is the secrecy of the ballot. As a matter of fact, ‘compulsory voting’ is a misnomer. What is made compulsory is not voting, but attendance at the polling station. All a citizen has to do to comply is register his or her presence. The state has no control whatsoever over his or her choice inside the voting booth. As long as the ballot is secret, voting simply cannot be made compulsory. In this sense, it would be more accurate to speak of ‘compulsory attendance’ or ‘compulsory turnout’. As Arendt Lijphart (1998, p. 10) – perhaps the best-known proponent of compulsory attendance – rightly argues, ‘the secret ballot guarantees that the right not to vote remains intact’. If a state not only obliges its citizens to show up at elections but also to publicly express their vote, totalitarianism is lurking. However, in each of the countries that implement such laws,1 the ballot's secrecy is guaranteed.¶ Second, a blank option can and should be provided on the ballot. This way, voters can refrain from choosing from any of the available parties and candidates. As Lacroix (2007, p. 193) argues, people's freedom of thought cannot be violated if they have the option of casting such a blank vote. In my view, an additional ‘none of the above’ option should be added, since this allows one to distinguish between purely apathetic and apolitical voters on the one hand (blank) and anti-political protest voters on the other hand (none of the above).¶ Third, one should refrain from sanctioning abstainers too heavily. In fact, most countries only impose small sanctions. In Australia and Belgium, for example, which are known for their ‘strict’ enforcement, there is no systematic prosecution of abstainers. What happens is that some of the abstainers receive a so-called ‘please explain’ letter in which they are asked to fill in the reason for their abstention. Those who fail to give a legitimate reason – like a stay abroad, illness or a more principled objection – risk a fine of €25–50. While Lever (2008, p. 64) wants to associate compulsory attendance with a totalitarian regime in which ‘otherwise law-abiding citizens may be sent to prison for the failure to pay fines for not voting’, it is safe to say that this is a vast exaggeration.2¶ It is interesting to see that people who object on principle to participating in elections are exempted from fines. These so-called ‘conscientious objectors’ fundamentally disagree with the system or regime as a whole. They refuse to vote not because it is inconvenient or boring but because of politically principled reasons. I certainly support the practice of exempting from fines citizens who provide plausible reasons why voting is against their conscience. In fact, I agree with Lever (2008, p. 64) that both religious and secular reasons can be valid. In my view, counting them as legitimate excuses in the ‘please explain’ letter is an effective way of respecting people's freedom of thought and speech.

22


Voter Turnout Is Key To Democratic Legitimacy

High voter turnout is a prerequisite to democratic legitimacy – it is key to ensure equal representation and political accountabilityBart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009.)Political participation is also crucial for guaranteeing the legitimacy of a¶ democratic regime. The more citizens abstain, the more the elected bodies lose¶ their accountability. To illustrate the problem one can refer to elections where¶ only a minority of the electorate determines the electoral result. In elections to¶ the European Parliament, for example, average turnout has declined systematically¶ from 63% of all registered voters in 1979 to a record low of 45.6% in¶ 2004 (EP, 2004). As more than half of the electorate abstains in 18 of the 25¶ member states, one can hardly speak of popular or majority will (Watson and¶ Tami, 2001). As democracy cannot imply that laws are enacted by legislators¶ representing a minority of eligible voters, one has to conclude that high turnout¶ levels are necessary for any democracy claiming legitimacy.

Voter turnout is the miner’s canary for democracy – without high voter turnout democracies will collapseBart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2007, (“Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy,” Acta Politica, 2007, 42, (23–39).)I admit that this analysis of democracy is a purely procedural one and¶ neglects fundamental aspects like the need for a publicly agreed on constitution¶ which protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. It is only¶ within such an institutional framework that democratic politics can function¶ properly. With respect to elections, however, I think it is best to trust each¶ citizen to vote according to his opinions or preferences. This forms a pragmatic¶ way to guarantee that politics reflects the concerns of the population.3 My¶ defense of the democratic need for high turnout is thus purely instrumental: in¶ general, the more citizens actually express their needs, the better the regime will¶ be able to take them into account.¶ As a result of its link with crucial democratic values, I consider voter turnout¶ to be an adequate measure of the condition of electoral democracies.4 As low¶ turnout levels show that modern-day democracies are facing serious problems,¶ I now want to focus on what seems to be the most straightforward solution:¶ compulsory voting. If citizens are obliged to show up at polling stations, they¶ are more likely to do so, since abstainers will be sanctioned. It must be made¶ clear that the term ‘compulsory voting’ is actually a misnomer, since ‘the secret¶ ballot guarantees that the right not to vote remains intact’ (Lijphart, 1998, 10).¶ As citizens are obliged only to register their attendance at the polling station,¶ ‘compulsory turnout’ (Keaney and Rogers, 2006, 26) is more accurate.5

23


PART V: NEGATIVE I negate the resolution that resolved: in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Observation 1: Voting ought to be compulsory is distinct from compulsory voting.The resolution says that “voting ought to be compulsory,” not that the government ought to have a system of “compulsory voting”. This is an important distinction because compulsory voting systems do not require citizens to vote, they only require compulsory attendance or turnout.Bart Engelen, Professor at Catholic University in Belgium, 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009)First, there is the secrecy of the ballot. As a matter of fact, ‘compulsory voting’ is a misnomer. What is made compulsory is not voting, but attendance at the polling station. All a citizen has to do to comply is register his or her presence. The state has no control whatsoever over his or her choice inside the voting booth. As long as the ballot is secret, voting simply cannot be made compulsory. In this sense, it would be more accurate to speak of ‘compulsory attendance’ or ‘compulsory turnout’. As Arendt Lijphart (1998, p. 10) – perhaps the best-known proponent of compulsory attendance – rightly argues, ‘the secret ballot guarantees that the right not to vote remains intact’. If a state not only obliges its citizens to show up at elections but also to publicly express their vote, totalitarianism is lurking. However, in each of the countries that implement such laws,1 the ballot's secrecy is guaranteed.Affirmatives should have to defend that citizens ought to actually vote, not just turnout at the voting station. This means that cases that stop short of saying thought voting ought to be compulsory, such as contemporary systems that only mandate attendance, are negative ground. This creates the best ground for debate because allowing affirmatives to run mandatory turnout cases and mandatory voting cases usurps negative and increases the number of potential cases available to the affirmative, which skews predictability and increases the negative’s research burden.

Observation 2: The Resolution Is Limited By The Phrase “In A Democracy.” This means that preserving democratic principles is paramount. Any policy or obligation that would violate basic democratic principles must be excluded. Competing obligations must always side in favor of the obligation that best preserves democracy.Thus, my value is democratic legitimacy. Legitimacy is the bedrock of any political organization and essential to the survival of all democraciesJorge Aragon, Professor at Saint Louis University, 2008 (“Political Legitimacy and Democracy,” Encyclopedia of Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior, pg 1-3) The stability and functioning of any kind of political regime—including democratic or representative ones—relies on the combination of the capacity of rulers and government officials to use coercion and the development of political legitimacy. Political legitimacy can be described as people’s recognition and acceptance of the validity of the rules of their entire political system and the decisions of their rulers. Accordingly, two things can be expected from political systems that have a considerable level of political legitimacy. First, these political systems will be more resilient to survive periods of crisis, and, second, rulers and authorities will enjoy a fundamental condition needed to formulate and implement policies in an effective manner (i.e., they will be able to make decisions and commit resources without needing to obtain approval from the ruled and without resorting to coercion for every decision). The issue of political legitimacy can therefore be considered to be of utmost importance in politics and political analysis.

24


In addition, the resolution asks us to determine whether or not voting ought to be compulsory, or mandated. In order to answer this question, we should look to the impacts of compulsory voting to determine if the obligation would have more favorable or harmful consequences for democratic legitimacy.Thus, my value-criterion will be consequentialism.Consequentialism is the best means for determining whether or not compulsory voting best upholds democratic legitimacy for several reasons:1) Consequentialism is the most preferable weighing mechanism for informing governmental and political actions. Utilitarian ethics, such as consequentialism, are necessary because the goal of the government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while minimizing risk to the individual. 2) All ethical and policy decisions devolve to consequentialist calculus because rights, policies, and values inevitably conflict and it is necessary to look to the pros and cons to determine which ones take priority. In order to win this round I must prove that a system of compulsory attendance, which is resolutionally distinct from compulsory voting, does more to guarantee democratic legitimacy than compulsory voting.

Contention 1: Compulsory Attendance Policies Uphold AutonomyCompulsory attendance does not violate freedom of choice and improves political participation, which is essential to the democratic process and protecting autonomyBart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009)To conclude, I believe that Lever's ‘liberal’ criticism of ‘compulsory voting’ is misguided in two ways. First, if understood correctly, ‘compulsory voting’– or better, compulsory attendance – does not violate anyone's privacy, freedom of thought or freedom of speech. Second, the underlying ‘liberal’ idea that every citizen should be guaranteed an absolute freedom of choice – including the choice not to choose – is problematic, because it thinks of any government intervention as an illegitimate demand on its citizens. Lever's own juxtaposition of liberalism and democracy (Lever, 2008, p. 63) is paradigmatic in this respect. It inhibits her from seeing that both the liberties of the moderns, such as freedom of thought and speech, and the liberties of the ancients, such as political participation, are essentially interwoven (Habermas, 1995, pp. 127–129). Both liberalism and democracy are ultimately grounded on and co-originate from the fundamental principle of mutual respect for each person as a free and equal human being. Without individual rights and liberties, democracies continuously face the threat of totalitarianism. However, without popular sovereignty – guaranteed by a democracy in which people participate in the decisions that will bind them – individual rights and liberties remain purely formal and empty. The basic insight that both elements are based on the same principle of moral and political autonomy is shared by Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Rawls and Habermas. Lacroix (2007, p. 193) rightly stresses that political participation is crucial for any sensible liberal project that aims to strive for liberty as autonomy, which ‘does not mean the absence of law but rather the respect of the laws that men have made and accepted for themselves’. Instead of exclusively focusing on the liberties of the moderns, like Lever does, I thus want to join Lacroix in stressing the liberties of the ancients and the importance of effective political participation in any liberal democracy that values self-determination. In this respect, I believe compulsory attendance should be conceived of as enhancing rather than violating the basic liberal value of autonomy.

25


Contention 2: Compulsory Attendance Improves Voter TurnoutEmpirical studies demonstrate that compulsory attendance laws are a symbol that voting is important and engenders civic duty even if enforcement is lax and exemptions are availableBart Engelen, Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium), Centre for Economics and Ethics – Institute of Philosophy (K.U.Leuven), 2009 (“Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 218–222, October 2009)It may seem strange to defend compulsory attendance laws while stressing that their enforcement should not be strict. Nevertheless, empirical research shows that compulsory attendance laws, even when not actively enforced by means of harsh penalties, engender compliance. Turnout in countries with no enforcement is about 6 per cent higher than in countries with no compulsory voting (IDEA, 2002, p. 110). Here, formal laws are mainly a symbolic reminder that going out to vote is desirable. As such, they uphold the social norm and civic sense of duty to vote, which suggests that ‘compulsory voting is a cultural rather than legal phenomenon’ (Hill, 2002, p. 95). In short, ‘compulsory voting can ... be very effective in raising turnout – in spite of low penalties that are imposed for failing to vote (usuallysimilar to a parking violation), in spite of the lax enforcement (usually much less stringent than parking rules are enforced), and in spite of the secret ballot, which means that an actual vote cannot be compelled in the first place’ (Lijphart, 1998, p. 2).Thus, you vote negative because compulsory attendance policies solve the same contention level benefits of the affirmative, such as democratic efficiency and voter turnout, while preserving autonomy, which the affirmative violates by forcing citizens to vote against their wills.

26


Compulsory Voting Leads To Invalid Ballots

Compulsory voting does not lead to voter sophistication – those studies are flawed and the electoral process is complicated by invalid ballots and protests to compulsory votingSimon Jackman, Assistant Professor and Victoria Schuck Faculty Scholar, Department of Political Science at Stanford, 2001 (“Compulsory Voting,” to appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf, accessed 7/1/2012)One criticism of CV is that it compels the participation of disinterested and hence poorly informed citizens who would otherwise abstain. A higher rate of invalid ballots (e.g., Tingsten 1937) and ‘‘donkey ballots’’ (where voters simply select the candidate at the top of the ballot) are some of the few consequences attributable to the mobilization of citizens with low levels of political interest or sophistication. Moreover, some instances of these phenomena are protests against CV itself. Lijphart’s (1997, 10) takes a contrary position, suggesting that CV ‘‘may serve as an incentive [for voters] to become better informed.’’ A crossnational study by Gordon and Segura (1997) finds a small though statistically significant increase in political sophistication in countries with CV, but otherwise, the evidence for CV promoting greater civic awareness is scant.

Compulsory voting encourages random votes because people are forced to vote against their willIDEA, 2012 (“Compulsory Voting,” http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm)Another consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Voters who are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random, particularly the top candidate on the ballot. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty. What effect does this immeasureable category of random votes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government?

27

http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfmm



Compulsory Voting Does Not Solve Partisanship

Political scientists agree that compulsory voting would not solve for partisanship in the United StatesPeter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (“Make Voting Mandatory,” June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)Interestingly, political science literature has historically found more modest effects on election outcomes in the U.S. from compulsory voting than one might think. Recent work by John Sides of George Washington University and colleagues is consistent with previous research by Raymond Wolfinger in finding “little evidence that increased turnout would systematically transform partisan competition or policy outcomes.” This parrots the conventional wisdom among political scientists.

Proponents of compulsory voting are motivated by partisan interests – they want to increase control of the DemocratsJonah Goldberg, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, June 27, 2012 (“Voter Apathy Isn’t a Crime,” National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg)This brings us to the cynicism of it all. While many political scientists and economists hold that mandatory voting probably wouldn’t change electoral outcomes, many people still believe that compelling the poor, the uneducated, and the politically unengaged would be a boon to Democrats (what that says about Democrats is for others to judge). I wonder: Would the winner of the ballot lottery have to show a photo ID?¶ It’s hard to see how Orszag is interested in anything other than changing the rules for his side’s benefit. As Reason magazine’s Tim Cavanaugh notes, just last year Orszag argued for taking some policymaking out of the hands of voters and empowering technocrats — like him — to run the country. “We need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions,” Orszag explained, “by making them a bit less democratic.” Ornstein and Mann, whose new book blames Republicans for all that’s wrong in Washington, make a slightly different argument. They claim that coerced voting would revive the political center by reducing the influence of activists and ideologues. ¶ Ultimately, this is a more sophisticated way of making the same argument. They do not like the way conservatives have been winning battles in Washington. Forcing people to vote, they hope, would put an end to that.

28




Compulsory Voting Hurts Policymaking

Turn: Compulsory voting creates a race to the middle situation where politicians are afraid to offend the population, leading to governance through polling and increasing disillusionmentLydia Bevege, Development Coordinator for the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, June 10, 2012 (“Should voting be compulsory?” Sun Herald, http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-liberty/news/2681/should-voting-be-compulsory-)It's also likely that compulsory voting has a negative impact on politicians. Though we're told compulsory voting forces our politicians to appeal to the entire electorate, in reality it encourages them to adopt stances that will offend the least number of people. As a result, politicians embrace the policy-by-focus group approach to governance. ¶ This approach has led to unprecedented disillusionment with the political process by voters. ¶ And with electronic voting potentially around the corner, gone could be the days when you could scribble "none of the above" on your ballot paper, or even just fold it up blank and pop it into the ballot box. Voters could be forced to submit a valid vote by numbering all the boxes before a computer will accept their vote.

29


Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Democratic Legitimacy

Compulsory voting cannot be justified using liberal philosophy – the role of national elections in preserving democracy is negligibleAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School, 2009 (“Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223–227, October 2009)But rather than clarifying my critique of Lacroix, it may be more helpful to clarify my reasons for thinking that compulsory voting is generally at odds with democratic government. My views are the result of prior research on the secret ballot, which first made me realise how complicated the ethics of voting are – far more complex, in fact, than I had assumed (Lever, 2007a). My research on judicial review, on feminism and on privacy and democracy suggests that we often exaggerate the importance of national elections to democratic theory and practice (Lever, 2005, 2006, 2007b, 2009a, 2009b and 2010). Consequently, I believe that efforts to justify compulsory voting – whether in liberal egalitarian terms, as with Lacroix, or more social democratic ones, as with Arend Lijphart (1997) or Emily Keaney and Ben Rogers (2006) – overstate the importance of electoral participation to democratic conceptions of politics, and understate the complexity of democratic morality.

Voter turnout does not solve for democratic legitimacyAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School, 2009 (“Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223–227, October 2009)Democracy means that we are entitled to participate in politics freely and as equals. However, this does not mean that we must exercise our political rights, however important it is that we should have them; nor does it require us to consider electoral politics more important than other endeavours. In established democracies, our political rights help to protect our interests in political participation whether or not we actually exercise them. Likewise, we need not refuse, accept or offer to marry someone in order for our right to marry to be valuable and valued.¶ Rights can protect our interests, then, even if we do not use them. For example, they make certain practical possibilities unthinkable. Most of the time we never consider killing others in order to get our way; nor do they consider killing us. So, while it is true that democracy requires people to be willing and able to vote, the empirics of legitimacy, as well as its theory, make turnout a poor proxy for legitimacy or for faith in democratic government (Lever 2009a and 2010).

30


Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Democratic Legitimacy

Compulsory voting does not uphold democratic legitimacy – just because voting or democracy is a public good, it does not mean that participation is obligatoryAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School, 2009 (“Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223–227, October 2009)We can put the point more sharply. The idea that non-voters are free-riders assumes that voting is a collective good – whether because high levels of turnout are necessary to democratic legitimacy or for some other reason. But this begs the question of whether high levels of turnout are a collective good. Turnout has partisan effects. So even if some level of turnout is a public good, voting is not a pure public good as long as it has some bearing on who wins or loses an election. To suppose that people are morally wrong to abstain therefore requires us to assume that the co-operative aspect of voting is more important than the competitive. This is not a conceptual truth about elections, and may be false normatively and empirically (Lever, 2009a and 2010).¶ We cannot evade the complexity of democratic politics and morality, then, by insisting that democratic elections are a public good. Indeed they are. But this no more requires us to vote than it requires us to join a political party or to stand for election ourselves. A sufficient range and quality of parties and leaders is a prerequisite for democratic legitimacy and, offhand, seems at least as important as ensuring a sufficient quantity and quality of voter participation.2 Moreover, morality sometimes requires people to assume positions of leadership and responsibility that they would otherwise choose to forgo. Nonetheless, it is incredibly difficult to get from the idea that we may sometimes have such duties to the conclusion that we actually do have such duties.

Compulsory voting laws are used by political parties to gain power- they don’t improve the health of a democracyBonnie Meguid, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester, “Is Mandatory Voting a Good Idea?”, New York Times, November 13, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1. William A. Galston correctly notes that compulsory voting laws increase voter turnout rates. But he leaves largely unexamined another significant and not politically neutral effect of these laws: compulsory voting increases the vote share of parties whose voters would otherwise tend to abstain. ¶

Indeed, most of the democratic countries that adopted compulsory voting laws — including Australia in 1924 — did so less for the idealistic reasons of increasing turnout, as Mr. Galston suggests, and more to shore up the vote share of their particular governing parties. ¶ That the vote boost from compulsory voting helps some parties — and hurts others — may explain why it is unlikely to be supported by American parties across the political spectrum.

31

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1


Compulsory Voting Does Not Uphold Fairness Or Reciprocity

Non-voters are not free-riders – compulsory voting laws do not uphold fairness or reciprocityAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester Law School, 2009 (“Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting,” Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223–227, October 2009)These, in brief, are my reasons for doubting that democratic norms support compulsory voting. But what about norms of fairness or reciprocity? We have duties of fairness and reciprocity whether or not we are citizens. If these imply that people who are entitled to vote should vote, we would have a remarkably robust justification for compulsory voting; one largely independent of our assumptions about political morality. ¶ But is non-voting the equivalent of free-riding, or of unfairly seeking to benefit from the efforts and sacrifices of others? Political realism suggests that it is not. Whatever is wrong with not voting, it cannot be that non-voters are selfishly exploiting the idealism, energy and public-spirited efforts of the BNP and their ilk. This is not because the latter are evidently more self-interested than other voters. Whether they are or not is an empirical question. The problem, rather, is that we are entitled to refuse, and actively to oppose, the benefits that the BNP seeks to promote.¶

Non-voters, then, are not exploiting the BNP. Nor are they exploiting self-interested voters, however respectable and democratic the parties for which they voted. It is not obvious, either, that they are exploiting altruistic voters simply because they are not helping them. So, reflection on how and why people vote casts doubt on the idea that non-voters are selfishly preying on the public-spirited efforts of voters (Lever 2009a and 2010). When abstention is morally wrong, therefore, this seems to be because of its consequences for those who are incapable of voting– whether because they are too old, too young, because they are foreign, not yet born and so on – rather than because it is unfair to compatriots who voted.

Increasing voter turnout does not solve the root cause – it would increase voter disillusionment because it would remind voters how little their vote counts.Eric Rosenbloom, science editor and writer Kirby Mountain (k-12 Textbook publisher), “Is Mandatory Voting a Good Idea?”, New York Times, November 13, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1. William A. Galston (“Telling Americans to Vote, or Else,” Sunday Review, Nov. 6) might have it backward regarding the cause and effect between low voter turnout and political polarization. ¶ Many countries have fiercely polarized politics along with high voter turnout. The difference that Mr. Galston missed is that the American system inevitably ensures both polarization and low participation. ¶ Without a parliamentary system, our winner-take-all politics means that most votes are indeed meaningless. For most people, voting does not lead to a greater sense of participation in government, but rather reminds them — over and over — that their voices are not represented. ¶ The problem is not voter turnout. It is a system of government that can never be responsive to the majority of its citizens.

32

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1


Compulsory Voting Does Not Increase Political Engagement

Empirically, compulsory voting does not increase political engagement – some people just do not care about politics and their inclusion does not improve democracyLydia Bevege, Development Coordinator for the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, June 10, 2012 (“Should voting be compulsory?” Sun Herald, http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-liberty/news/2681/should-voting-be-compulsory-)The biggest myth in this debate is that Australia's system of compulsory voting is normal. Forcing our citizens to vote in every state and federal election is not normal. Virtually no other democracies in the world do it.¶ Australia's compulsory voting laws are coercive and paternalistic, and they are out of step with the majority of developed countries, including the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. ¶ People who support our current system claim that we have to force citizens to vote otherwise they might lose interest in the political process. The reality is that, compulsory voting or not, some people just don't care much about politics. ¶ Australian democracy is not enhanced by forcing these people to express an opinion on parties and candidates they dislike.

Turn: Making voting more difficult increases its value and leads to a better quality of electionsJonah Goldberg, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, June 27, 2012 (“Voter Apathy Isn’t a Crime,” National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg)It’s an unfashionable thing to say, but if anything, voting should be harder, not easier. Scarcity creates value. Sand is cheap because there’s so much of it. Gold is valuable because it is rare. If you want people to value their vote, we should make it more valuable. ¶ Personally, I wouldn’t mind tying eligibility to vote to passing the same citizenship test we require of immigrants. We might get fewer voters, but the voters would be far more likely to appreciate the solemnity of their ballots.¶ But such proposals just elicit rage from people who love democracy — albeit only when they’re winning.

33


Compulsory Voting Does Not Increase Civic Engagement

Recent proponents of compulsory voting are cynical – the core of civic participation is voluntarism, which is destroyed by forcing people to vote against their willJonah Goldberg, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, June 27, 2012 (“Voter Apathy Isn’t a Crime,” National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304018/voter-apathy-isn-t-crime-jonah-goldberg)That might explain the renewed interest in forcing people to vote against their will. Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former budget director and now a vice chairman at Citigroup, recently wrote a column for Bloomberg View arguing for making voting mandatory.¶ He’s not alone. Icons of the Beltway establishment Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann also favor the idea. As does William Galston, a former advisor to President Clinton. (Mann and Galston are scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution; Ornstein is a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute.)¶ While I have great respect for Ornstein, Mann, and Galston — I’m undecided about Orszag — I find the idea absurd, cynical, and repugnant. ¶ Let’s start with the repugnant part. ¶ One of the chief benefits of coerced voting, according to Orszag, is that it increases participation. Well, yes, and kidnapping drunks in pubs increased the ranks of the British navy, but it didn’t turn the conscripted sailors into patriots. ¶ I think everyone can agree that civic virtue depends on civic participation. Well, any reasonable understanding of civic participation has to include the idea of voluntarism. If I force you to do the right thing against your will, you don’t get credit for doing the right thing.

The claim that Australians are not forced to vote under their system of compulsory voting is false – Everyone is forced to vote, which turns people off of wanting to participate in politicsLydia Bevege, Development Coordinator for the Australian Institute of Public Affairs, June 10, 2012 (“Should voting be compulsory?” Sun Herald, http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/ideas-liberty/news/2681/should-voting-be-compulsory-)Rejecting all candidates on the ballot paper and staying at home on election day is a legitimate democratic expression that Australians do not have the right to exercise. We are all forced to vote because other people have decided that we ought to be involved in the political process. ¶ Lots of people claim that Australians are not actually compelled to vote. They say all we are required to do is show up at a polling place and have our names marked off. They are wrong. The Commonwealth Electoral Act says it is our duty to vote, not just to show up. ¶ People who support compulsory voting argue that we should be compelled to vote to stop us from becoming politically disengaged. But on the other hand, they defend their stance by saying that Australians aren't technically forced to vote. They're telling us we don't have to vote while frog-marching us into the polling booth.

34


Removing The Secret Ballot Solves Voter Turnout

Removing the secret ballot or at least posting who votes will shame citizens into citizens and appeal to their civic dutySasha Issenberg, July/August 2012 (“Abolish the Secret Ballot,” The Atlantic, July/August, 2012., http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/9038/)For the United States’ first century, Americans elected their leaders in full view of their neighbors, gathering on courthouse steps to announce their votes orally or hand a distinctive preprinted ballot or unfolded marked paper to a clerk. Such a public process made elections ripe for bribes and threats, although the scene around American polling places never matched Australia’s, where a population of criminals and goldbugs made electoral intimidation something of a democratic pastime. To end such shenanigans, each of Australia’s colonies began shifting to a secret ballot during the 1850s, and in 1872 England followed suit.¶ A decade and a half later, the reform crossed the Atlantic. Louisville, Kentucky, enacted a so-called Australian ballot in 1888, and 32 states did the same by 1892—over the objections of machine politicians. By the turn of the century, most of the country had changed the public spectacle of Election Day into a solemn occasion for curtained isolation. This shift coincided with a dramatic drop in turnout rates, from nearly 80 percent of the eligible population in 1896—which had been typical for the era—to 65 percent eight years later. ¶ They have never recovered, falling to around 50 percent in 1996. ¶ As modern civic activists have tried to increase turnout, their focus has been on reducing the hassle of participation. The most-successful reforms of the past decade, however—early in-person voting, “no excuse” absentee ballots, elections entirely by mail—appear not to have lured new people to the polls so much as merely made it more convenient for regular voters to cast their ballots.¶

What actually works is mimicking some part of the 19th century’s surveillance culture. The most effective tool for turning nonvoters into voters—10 times better than the typical piece of preelection mail, according to a 2006 Michigan experiment—is a threat to send neighbors evidence of one’s apathy. Other experiments have found gentler approaches that serve a similar function: merely reminding citizens that whether they cast a ballot is a matter of public record, or promising to print the names of those who do in a postelection newspaper ad, can boost turnout too. By introducing shame into the calculus of citizenship, the researchers behind these tests increased the psychological cost of not voting. In so doing, they restored the sense—sadly lost for a century—that voting ought to be not a personal act but a social one.

35

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/9038/

compulsory voting

Documents