Compulsory voting

Athenian democracy held that it was every Athenian citizen's duty to participate in decision-making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating, particularly if they were engaging in other public activity at the time of the assembly. For example, Aristophanes's comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (Pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.^[2] This usually happens if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue.^[3]

In the Roman Republic, the legitimacy of the form of government known as res publica, which entrusted the powers of sovereignty to an elected aristocracy, was most evident in the Roman right to suffragium.^[4]Cicero argues that the right to vote provided Roman citizens with a certain degree of political participation, thereby guaranteeing their de facto ownership of their property, which they could administer as they wished. In practice, voting was conducted only in Rome, either in the Campus Martius or in the Forum, and not many citizens would have been able to afford the journey or take time off to vote.^[5] In addition, contrary to Greek custom, there was no economic compensation for voting; however, Cicero mentions an election that could not continue because of particularly low voter turnout, requiring a temporary draft to be implemented, though it is unclear if this was an exceptional case.^[4]

From the 19th century onward, a relatively small number of democracies have introduced compulsory voting at one time or another. From 1862 to 1998, compulsory voting was enacted in 20 democracies, most of which were in Western Europe or Latin America.^[6]Belgium has the oldest extant compulsory voting system which was introduced in 1893 for men,^[7] and in 1948 for women.^[8]

Compulsory voting for national elections was introduced in Australia in 1924, with states and territories passing their own compulsory voting laws at various times.^[9] Voluntary voting in Australia before 1924 accounted between 47% and 78% turnout of eligible voters. Following the introduction of compulsory federal voting in 1924, this figure increased to between 91% and 96%,^[10] with only 5% of eligible voters accounted as not enrolled.^[11] The Netherlands and Venezuela are among several countries that have moved from compulsory to voluntary voting, in 1967 and 1993 respectively.^[12] Venezuela saw turnout drop from 82% to 61% in 1993 once compulsion was removed.^[13]

A system with higher turnout helps make the electorate more representative and voter suppression more difficult. This major step towards the universal democratic principle of "one person, one vote" strengthens democracies and aligns the choices of its politicians with the preferences of its citizens. Since lower-turnout races are not randomized samples of an electorate (unlike a citizens' assembly), they distort the wishes and power of the electorate.

Supporters argue the democratic election of governing representatives is a citizen's responsibility as opposed to a right.^[14] Equating in kind to similar civil responsibilities such as taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service, voting in these democracies is regarded as one of the "duties to community" mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[15] This view asserts that, by introducing an obligation to vote, all citizens governed by a democracy partake in the responsibility for the government appointed by democratic election.

Monash University political scientist Waleed Aly argues that whether compulsory voting favors the right or the left is beside the point, because the most beneficial aspect of compulsory voting is that it will improve the caliber of individuals who run for office and the quality of the decisions that they make. In his words, "In a compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters. Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in the center... That is one reason Australia's version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts. Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn't had any truly extreme ones and it isn't nearly as vulnerable to demagogues."^[16]

Penalties only need to be modest to boost turnout and achieve the goal of attaining a much more representative electorate, especially since the public and the courts usually insist on a seamless voting process for places with mandatory voting laws.^[17]

Supporters of compulsory voting also argue that voting addresses the paradox of voting, which is that for a rational, self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. The paradox disproportionately affects the socially disadvantaged, for whom the costs of voting tend to be greater. Australian academic and supporter of compulsory voting, Lisa Hill, has argued that a prisoner's dilemma situation arises under voluntary systems for marginalized citizens: it seems rational for them to abstain from voting, under the assumption that others in their situation are also doing so, to conserve their limited resources. However, since these are people who have a pronounced need for representation, this decision is irrational. Hill argues that the introduction of compulsory voting removes this dilemma.^[18]

The idea that compulsory voting results in a higher degree of political legitimacy is based on higher voter turnout and the more representative electorate that brings.^[19]

High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.^[20]

A 2005 Inter-American Development Bank working paper purported to show that there was a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.^[21] A 2011 Conference Board of Canada study on world income inequality – also relying on the Gini index – shows that income inequality is lowest in the Scandinavian countries, where compulsory voting has never existed, while Australia, and to a lesser extent Belgium, which strictly enforce their compulsory voting legislation, have a higher income inequality level than a number of other Western countries, such as Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, where compulsory voting does not exist.^[22]

Supporters of compulsory voting also argue that just as the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election removes interference with accessing a polling place, reducing the impact that external factors such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers might have. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are identified and steps are taken to remove them. This notion is especially reinforced when both men and women are required to vote and further sustained by diligent enforcement of laws requiring registration of all eligible voters (deemed adult and without exclusion of any significant community within the population). A growing voter preference towards pre-polling such as vote by mail can make participation easier, where the voter can fulfil their obligation more at their own convenience prior to polling day, rather than trying to arrange release from their responsibilities on the nominated date of polling.^[23]

Other perceived advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population.^[17] For example, since far fewer campaign funds are needed to convince people to vote, they can be directed towards discussing proposed policies with a wider range of voters.^[17] Australian senator Herbert Payne, whose 1924 private member's bill introduced compulsory voting in Australia, believed compulsory voting was necessary to counteract "apathy and indolence" among voters and would bring "a wonderful improvement in the political knowledge of the people".^[24][25]

Concerns about fines landing harder on the poorest citizens can lead to reforms to ensure penalties are mild for the poorest citizens and that voting is accessible and seamless for all to help assure concerned voters that mandatory voting will not become a regressive tax.^[17] The impact of these fines can be mitigated by making sure they do not compound over time, are weighted based on income, and by providing an option to perform community service in lieu of payment.^[17]

Another concern expressed about compulsory voting is that it would compel speech, which violates freedom of speech which includes the freedom not to speak.^[26] Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.^[27] At the 2013 federal election, considering the threat of a non-voting fine of up to A$20,^[28] there was a turnout of 92%,^[29] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.^[30] Systems in democratic countries, which have a secret ballot, allow for blank ballots, but voting systems could also add a 'none of the above' option to each race so as to provide multiple clear ways for voters to refrain from speaking/voting if, for some reason, a voter does not want to submit a partially or fully blank ballot.^[17]

Religious objection is one that many Christadelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, cite as for why they should not participate in political events. As a result, many countries allow religious beliefs as a valid excuse for not going to the polls.^[17][31]

American libertarians in particular debate to what extent voting is a civic duty and not just a civic right. Even in the case of the US where most Americans see voting as a civic duty, most Americans in a 2020 poll did not like the idea of imposing a US$20 fine on those who did not cite an excuse for not voting including a conscientious objection.^[17]

One perceived downside to compulsory voting is that by coercing politically apathetic people to vote in elections, they are vulnerable to manipulation through vote buying.^[32][33]

Countries where voting is no longer compulsory: