Proper credit should be given to Jerry Springer's radio show for the inspiration this morning. I have to admit, the idea intrigues me. So naturally I thought I'd see what AD folks think. I'll add a few conditions in the hopes of avoiding some obvious tangents:

1. The enforcement provision would likely be in the form of a fine, not jail time.
2. "None of the above" will be an option for any Federal position.
3. Not voting is an option (ie. submitting a blank ballot)


Questions for Debate:

1) Should we make voter registration and participation mandatory? Why or why not?

2) If this originated at the Federal level, would mandatory voting be constitutional? Why or why not?

3) Opinion: If voting were mandatory, do you think the political makeup of Congress and/or the Presidency would have changed?

1) Should we make voter registration and participation mandatory? Why or why not?

Why should I want my vote diluted by people who can't motivate themselves to go to the polls? The health of a democracy is not determined by whether a majority of voters are present at the polls. It's determined by whether a majority of the voter is present at the polls. In other words, has he really put some serious thought into how he's voting, or is he just going through the motions? Apathetic or ignorant voters defeat the efforts of concerned and thoughtful voters. They bring nothing of value to a democracy.

2) If this originated at the Federal level, would mandatory voting be constitutional? Why or why not?

There's nothing in the Constitution that would give Congress this kind of power. That's about the most elaborate answer I can give at this point, since I'd be asked to prove a negative. Someone would have to point to a specific section which he or she claims gives Congress the power.

3) Opinion: If voting were mandatory, do you think the political makeup of Congress and/or the Presidency would have changed?

As for how it would affect the balance of Democrats versus Republicans, I won't try to comment on. One thing I do know, however, is that it will make pork-barrel spending (i.e., vote-buying) that much harder to eradicate.

Interesting questions...

1) Should we make voter registration and participation mandatory? Why or why not?

The question needs to be asked: will taking such a measure give us a better system or a worse system than we currently have?

Who votes now? For the most part, it is two groups: those that are interested and those that have something to gain (or lose). Who doesn't vote? Those who don't care or feel like the process has nothing for them personally.

We we have a better system if these latter groups: the apathetic, the disinterested, and the ignorant actually were forced to cast a vote?

Perhaps it is these group who see politics for what it really often is: something that does not have a great effect on our everyday lives. Perhaps they are the smart ones.

Some people complained when Bush was re-elected that voters were ignorant. Who would re-elect this yahoo? He got us into a quagmire in Iraq, cut taxes for his wealthy cronies, ruins the environment etc. etc. What would happen if uninformed, disinterested voters in the millions were forced to cast votes? Would elections become more or less of a popularity contest? If we forced everyone to vote, Britney Spears could well be our next President (if the timing were right). Political contests would be pure popularity contests.

2) If this originated at the Federal level, would mandatory voting be constitutional? Why or why not?

I believe we have a right not to vote. Participation in a democracy, while the ideal, is not mandatory. The government has no compelling state interest to force people to vote.

3) Opinion: If voting were mandatory, do you think the political makeup of Congress and/or the Presidency would have changed?

I think it would change: unpredictably and probably at random.

I have to go with Blackstone and Amlord on this. The last thing we need are people who show up to vote, and subsequently negate our votes, simply because they will mark "x"s down randomly in order to avoid a fine. to me, voting is like religion. It's something deeply personal and can only come from the heart. Legislating civic activity only cheapens it and will drive even more people away from it.

1. I don't support mandatory voting, mostly because I don't think that activities which are not absolutely necessary to the functioning of society should be made mandatory. However, I do not seem to be quite as adamantly opposed as some here, so I suppose I should play the devil's advocate and point out at least one advantage of such a system.

Personally, I would love to see how many voters would choose "None of the Above." It's no secret that many elections, particularly for local and state offices, are unopposed or so lopsided that the opposing candidate is strictly a sacrificial lamb. It might open some eyes if your local newspaper replaced the headline of "Smith re-elected with 80% majority" with "None of the Above captures 60%."

2. I don't think mandatory voting would be ruled unconstitutional by any modern court.

3. If the fine for not voting were a small one, then someone like me might prefer to pay it rather than to participate in an election in which I have no interest. For someone with a very low income, such a fine might be a real burden. If I am correct in my thinking, this might tend to increase the number of people with low incomes who vote. I suspect this would tend to help candidates who might be described as "populist." (Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.)

There also might be a tendency for voting to be seen as an annoyance, in the way in many people view jury duty, or paying taxes, or mandatory seat belt laws.

The problem with this is that we would have no idea if "None" got votes because the other choices were poor or the voter had no idea about either of them. What purpose would a "None" choice serve other than to express (potentially) the lack of trust in the choices presented? Would a majority "None" require a new race with new candidates?



I'd like to hear your basis for making this statement. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled way back in 1896 in Kansas City v. Whipple : "it is not within the power of any legislative authority, national or state, to compel the citizen to exercise this sovereign right." That was a state court, of course, but the argument seems sound: the citizen is the government's sovereign and thus could not be compelled to act.


You do realize that you've just described George W. Bush as the ideal candidate?

Here is an article that explores how Australia really conducts its mandatory voting: Australia requires citizens to vote. Should the U.S.?


So, party line voting, undue influence to liberals, and spoiled ballots. Not to mention the bureaucracy of tracking down the millions that won't register and the millions more that won't vote. All for what result?

Yep How many people would have loved that option in 2000 and 2004 for President? I realize this prospect is more shrouded in idealism than reality, but I would so love to have that option for a lot of today's politicians. This would be a great way to tell your respective parties, "try again, these guys are horrible".

I'll admit, I'm somewhat on the fence at the moment regarding the idea. I understand people's objections and to some degree I don't disagree with some. But in a nation that actually had to pass a constitutional amendment to allow women to vote, why do we have less than 25% turnout in a national election? Local elections are even worse.

The Australian example is intriguing, and obviously not without issues. But I think it might be a nice experiment for the US to consider. Many people feel powerless in this process, and that is likely where a great deal of the apathy comes from. But its a self-reinforcing cycle. If you don't exercise that power, you eventually lose any influence at all. Right now I think one of our fundamental issues in this country is that the government no longer fears the will of the people. It has become "in spite of" the people, instead of by or for. Please don't mistake this for angst over the ideology of those presently in power. Far from it. It is more reflective of the fact that I believe that few if any of the people in the United States today are actually represented in our government. Business is represented, as are the lobbyists, but not The People.

I realize mandatory voting isn't a silver bullet that will cure the ills of government and our electoral process that is mired in a broken two party system, but it might help. And reminding people that being a citizen of this country carries with it some responsibilities might help too.

The problem comes where we get the notion that a citizen discharges his responsibility by going into a voting booth and pulling a lever. In all the talk about voter turnout and how corrupt our politics are and all that, there's one glaring fact that always gets ignored: No non-voter ever elected a corrupt politician. It takes a voter to do that. So the citizen's real responsibility is not to vote, but to avoid making ill-informed or shallowly-considered votes. That's the message that most sorely needs to get out.

Despite the administrations assurances to the contrary voting and Democracy are not exactly the same thing. Voting is the culmination of a process of learning about the issues and candidates, making a decision based on what you've learned then registering that decision in the voting booth. If you haven't done the first part of that process, then doing the last part is worse than useless. And not voting because you've fully considered the issues and feel you don't have a good choice is legitimate, no-one should be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Blackstone has it right, its not the vote, its the quality of the vote.

The real key to getting people to vote is reform, to make them feel they have a voice and a stake in the outcome rather than just mega-corporations and their lobbyists.

Well, yes. As I said, I don't really support mandatory voting. However, I think offering "none of the above" as a choice would be a great idea. If no candidate can win at least a plurality over "none of the above," then there is something wrong with the way in which candidates are offered to the voting public. Heck, even if Smith wins with 55%, I would be very interested to know if Jones got 40% or only 10%.



I bow to superior knowledge here. My response was only based on my impression that the modern Supreme Court seems to be reluctant to minimize the power of the federal government. It's a moot point, as there is no possibility at all that a bill to make voting mandatory will even be proposed in Congress. (Unlike the other silly resolutions which have come up in the last few days.)




If you are a social conservative and a fiscal liberal, sure. I am an extreme social liberal and a fiscal moderate, so he is hardly my ideal candidate.



I must ask why getting more votes from the poor and disenfranchised is a bad thing. (There are, of course, better ways to do this than to force them to vote.) Is it only because they might be more liberal? Perhaps on fiscal issues, since a more liberal policy on government spending might be of direct value to such persons. However, it seems to me that poorer, less educated Americans tend to be more socially conservative than wealthier, more educated Americans. Although this would tend to favor policies which I oppose, I would certainly not oppose a plan which would make it easier for such people to vote.

Thank you for the response, which has led to an interesting discussion of many more issues than I thought this topic would raise.

Questions for Debate:

1) Should we make voter registration and participation mandatory? Why or why not?
No, for the "involved voter" reasons given by others.

2) If this originated at the Federal level, would mandatory voting be constitutional? Why or why not?
It wouldn't matter what level it originated on, without amending the US Constitution, this would be unconstitutional. Every fundamental right contains within it the option to excercise the right, or not. Removing the option to excercise means its is no longer a right, but rather either a privilege(only some can) or obligation (everybody must), and the right to vote is a fundamental right.

3) Opinion: If voting were mandatory, do you think the political makeup of Congress and/or the Presidency would have changed? Not significantly, although the nature of political campaigns might change somewhat.

Dahl minimalist concept of democracy includes participation and public contestation.

Not to go into the actual degree of public contestation for government, I will focus on the topic to be debated:

1st:
Should we make voter registration and participation mandatory? Why or why not?


Blackstone:

Let me rephrase this: A democracy is legitimized by the degree of participation in any public vote and determined by the majority of the participants.

2nd:
Blackstone:
Uninterested and apathetic voters hurt a democracy by not going to the polls. A voting result has less legitimization if a significant portion of possible voters abstains. These people can be instrumentalized by pretty much every political actor as the "silent majority" and such.
It is the task of the politicians and their campaigners to explain politics and their policies. It is their task to win support for their concepts among the public. Apathy is a result of bad policies or insufficient political alternatives, especially in a democracy that knows only two sides to every story.
Therefore, either the system is broadened to enable more political alternatives, or it's legitimacy is broadened by a mandatory participation in elections. The political demands of these additional voters might also lead to a change of the current system (as asked in question #3). I would even say that in the long run, mandatory participation increases the degree of politicisation in a society.

It seems logical to conclude that:
a) people have to vote
b) if people have to vote, they might even be inclined to think about their vote
c) by thinking about vote-alternatives, people tend to get actively involved in the process
d) a society become more politicized due to more people actively engaged in the political process
e) better alternatives become available

3rd:
Blackstone:
How do you come to this conclusion? How would vote-buying be different if voting were mandatory? I don't see the connection.

Amlord:
In European countries, people that moved have to register at their new administration bureau, at latest two weeks after moving into the new place. Otherwise one risks a fairly high fine. By registering there, you are automatically registered for voting. There is no need to track down millions of voters.

Victoria Silverwolf:
In the time of the French revolution, the absolutist monarchies feared that the most. If the plebs is allowed to vote, they can only make wrong decisions because they are unintelligent and have only selfish interests.
In all seriousness, political education does help even low-income voters. The US-System already discriminates the "working class" (no ideology intended) by making the election day a working day.

At that point I have to add my criticism of the US voting system. The need to be voluntarily registered in order to vote and a low voter turnout (for national elections) poses a serious problem for a democracy.

To exemplify my point: 122,293,548 votes were cast in the 2004 Presidential elections, 217,767,000 people were allowed to vote (though not necessarily registered). Therefore only 56,2% of all possible voters cast their vote. :source:

G.W. Bush - the winning candidate - was able to receive 62,040,610 votes, 28,9% of all people in voting age.
To add: The current German administration received 58,2 % of all possible voters. (77,7% voter turnout)

If decisions are made in the name of the people, which depends on the results of the people's votes, shouldn't that include all people, not only the active ones?

By your standard, Cuba and the former Soviet Union were more "legitimate" democracies than any Western European country, with near 100% voter participation rates.

As a result, I must disagree. A democracy is legitimized by two elements: the extent of the franchise, and by the openness of the process. An open process, by definition, allows for non-participation.

So much for freedom. Why not force everybody to run for political office at least once as well? After all, why limit meaningful participation to simply voting?
Given the number of people who vote but don't give much consideration to it currently, I am skeptical that forcing the vote would change that dynamic.
Only if they care. Do you read every User Agreement that comes with software? After all, you're "forced" to do so in order to use the product. Or do you just check "I agree" and continue on your merry way? Pro-forma voting is about as meaningful as the "thank you" a toll booth collector offers while reading the paper when you pay your toll.
So? Why is a "politicized" society any better? I mean, sure, I suppose it would be better for professionals within the political process (not necessarily politicians themselves, but electioneers), but on what basis do you claim that a more "politicized" society is necessarily better?
See above.

Low voter participation can indicate deficiencies within the democracy, but it is not necessarily so. If I'm okay with either of the options offered, why expend the effort to vote? In short, "it doesn't make a difference to me" does not equal "I don't make a difference".

That's not how the term "silent majority" is understood in American politics. It doesn't refer to people who don't vote. It refers to those who do vote, but don't jam the streets yelling their heads off, holding up traffic, and making general nuisances of themselves. No politician would ever be idiotic enough to try to claim legitimacy from people who don't vote. He'd be laughed off the stage in two seconds.


I'll break it down using your format:
a ) Mandatory voting brings apathetic voters to the polls (i.e., the ones who wouldn't vote otherwise)
b ) Being apathetic, they won't be inclined to think all that hard about how they vote
c ) This makes them susceptible to appeals for instant gratification
d ) That most commonly takes the form of pork-barrel spending, a form of vote-buying
e ) Pork (which we're currently just finally beginning to tackle) then becomes that much more entrenched in our politics

In the sentence before I said:

In Cuba and the SU there was no public contestation, therefore it was no democracy. I thought I made myself clear by emphasizing in my first lines that I would not focus on public contestation.


I don't buy the thesis that freedom includes the freedom to abstain from making difficult choices which determine your countries path.
A lot of people don't make that choice on the voting booths and claim afterwards that "those up there never listen to what we want". Politics is about compromises and the best politicians are usually the ones than forge majorities over hot topics. That however is not as sexy as the "idealistic politician" that has his principles and does not accept anything less. However, "politics is the art of the possible" as Bismarck stated. Insofar the voting results usually throw most of the election programm of the parties overboard. Furthermore, the will of the voters does not exist. There is only the votes of the voters, and a statistical result. Politicians as well as "the media" often claim the will of the voters is soandso. It doesn't exist, and a statistical agglomeration is never a single preference or a will. Therefore, politics may be frustrating to some extend, but without a realistic picture in the elections from all the voters, people may be more frustrated with political results than they should be.

to b:
Some people will not be happy to be forced to make a decision by voting. Nevertheless, a certain degree might say: If I have to do it, I may also do it "right". If your kids demand a bike, you may disagree, but if you have to buy it, you might even want to buy one that is safe, flexible and looks good so that you feel comforted and don't need to worry so much.

c: --> again, it is not a causal link for all people, but I would claim that more people would be politically engaged once they have voted. If a person never votes, it is very unlikely that the person will ever be politically interested. Forcing the issue might not work on many people, but who is to say that it won't work on at least some apathetic voters?

+e:

From the top of my head I would claim that a politicized (politically informed) society understands the whole checks and balances thing a lot better than an apathetic society. Seriously, at what point would you disagree that more people interested in politics result in a higher quality of politics and political debate and therefore in better political alternatives? The usual "populistic" approach of politicians is based mostly on ignorance and the search for easy answers to complex problems. Not only I would claim that a politically informed society is less approachable for this strategy, but rather capable of solving complex problems.

To Blackstone:

I recognize your fear of an increase in "pork-barrel spending". However, it goes two ways: A party that "buys votes" also alienates its former electorate. Maybe a party can win votes by these means, but it usually loses votes as well (not necessarily in the same amount).

There may be a danger of increased populism and pork-barrel spending after mandatory voting is established. However, I see that to be a rather temporary problem. An administration is judged by its performance and the opposition by its alternatives that it offers. Vote-buying won't help a lot when an administration did a lousy job.


If either option is okay, you might as well pick one. Problem with apathetic voters is that they usually are not okay with either of the options offered, but lack an option that they want.
So I say: mandatory voting increases legitimacy, tends to help in establishing a politically informed society and better political alternatives.

:edited to remove unclarity.

I do not understand how democracies work in other countries but I do know we use a electoral system, so your vote goes as high as a count at state level, after that it does not exist anymore. So to make it more obvious the point I am trying to make is how would mandatory voting impact in America going along with an electoral system that is in place. The state of Montana has nearly a million people and a grand total of 2 electoral votes that count towards a president being elected I think, California on the other hand has many many more electoral votes, thus gravity in terms of importance for winning, it also has a much larger and diverse populous.

The only thing that I could say in any political forecasts would definitely have to take it into account simply because no prior data would exist to support assumptions or predictions on how a state would turn out if mandatory voting became a reality. Not to drain away from the topic but I really think not only mandatory voting would be nice, but also the elimination of the evil electoral system, its primitive overall and in the grand scheme of things my vote should have more worth in the election of the federal government then the overall opinion of any state I reside in, popular vote would make a federal president run for America and its citizens. In fact, I think the popular vote should be the only thing that exists, districts and the electoral system in my eyes only provide for greed and corruption of our democratic system.

Bad, bad idea...

We're talking about 80% of freepers and country music fans that thought Saddam was behind 9/11 going out to vote. Currently, it seems a candidate needs to stay somewhere close to the truth because the candidate is talking to voters who probably have at least, a passing interest and probably would actually vote. The message to the masses forced to vote would be much different. The truth wouldn't matter because as the saying goes, "A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put it's pants on". The truth is well beyond most people's attention span.

If we demanded honesty, this would be a great idea. Since lies, deceit, and spin is called "politics" in this country, it would never work.

So, basically your argument is that some people are just too dumb to understand the important issues in politics and would cast their vote for the one that tells them what they want to hear?! No offence, but you are talking about 43,8% of the American population in voting age.
What may be the underlying issue is that Politicians nowadays only talk to the people they know are going to vote for them (or at least hope so). A candidate is therefore only interested in issues his possible voters are interested in. If all Americans were to vote, the importance of many issues might shift (from foreign affairs and oil interests to domestic issues like health care and social security).
Maybe some people are too dumb to vote, because they don't know how the system works or what alternatives there are, but wouldn't the task be to teach them about politics rather than ignoring them and leaving them ignorant of their choices?

No. Because forcing people to vote violates a fundamental freedom. I mean I think as an issue of peoples fundamental freedom, they have the right not to. I'd say this is a constitutional issue because it's about the freedom of speech in a sense. Even though voting is anonymous, it's still an act of speech. It's being forced to give an opinion. Not voting can also be a personal statement that you should have the right to make.

We say voting is a right. I mean the whole issue of the "right to vote" has a long history, and what does that mean if voting is compulsory? Is it still a right if it's compulsory? I don't think so. I think it violates freedom of choice at it's very root. It's no longer a right or an expression of freedom if you no longer have the right not to do it. Who ever heard of the right to be forced to vote? If voting is a right then you must have as a much a right not to vote. It's the same issue of freedom. When it's compulsory, then wer're not talking about rights anymore.

There's a long history of people fighting for their right to vote. That fight was for freedom. I think forcing people to vote would just be turning that on it's head.

It's a bad idea, and I think it is along the lines of just a compulsory society, and that's authoritarian. People don't need to be forced to vote. They need a compelling reason to care enough to do it. If they don't care, then that is a sign of something wrong that needs fixed. The answer isn't to sweep it under the rug by forcing them to vote.

If people are apathetic about voting, then they need to be reached. It means someone has a real job to do. To try and avoid that by making voting mandatory is as much a lazy simpleminded fix as the lazyiness such a move purports to address.

No one's leaving them out. They leave themsevles out. Certainly it would be great to bring more people up to speed on what's going on around them, but that doesn't mean they should be encouraged to vote if they haven't yet been brought up to speed.

Your earlier point about how requiring them to vote might make them more likely to learn about what's going on is not entirely without merit, but experimental evidence from Australia, as provided by Amlord above (#6), doesn't seem to bear that out. If we want to encourage more meaningful citizen participation in the process, a far more productive thing to push for would be decreasing the size, and increasing the number, of congressional districts.

I think assuming that the people that don't vote are "lazy, dumb, uninformed, apathetic" is a bad assumption.

To be honest, I'm on the verge of refusing to vote because the system is broken. We have a tyranny, a two party tyranny. We have two party's that really DO NOT WANT any voter registration movements, although they will do their best to get THEIR propaganda out.

Why wouldn't I vote? Because most of the TWO candidates suck. None of them seem to care what I think, just try mailing them, calling them on the phone, whatever. If you don't have cash, they don't care. BUT WORST OF ALL, is that voters, i.e. people that vote, SUPPORT THIS HORRENDOUS SITUATION.

These brilliant, caring people you are all bragging about, vote like idiots!! Are you telling me that the people that voted for Bush are smarter than those that did NOT VOTE?? SERIOUSLY? And what about idiot Kerry? Gee, that was a wonderful alternative. Uh, where was my voting power again? Idiot Kerry or Idiot Bush? Gee, what a decision....

No, those people that don't vote most likely WORK ON ELECTION DAY. And probably don't think it matters enough to go get an absentee ballot.

So you say, VOTE 3rd PARTY....but isn't that throwing away your votes?? SO WHY VOTE?

I think our election system sucks big time and it's almost like a bad addiction where the American voter can't break free. So democrat or republican candidates go for the money, because that's all that matters.

Other problems like difficult access to voting should be addressed, but do you expect the people in power that WANT LOW VOTER TURN OUT are going to push for internet voting? For giving days off on election day, or making it a national holiday? Or allowing the whole week 24 hrs/day for people to vote??

Of course not. Dems or Reps, they want LOW TURNOUT. I've even heard politicians make legal arguments with "defend the two party system" as if it's a part of the equal branches.

I'm not sure if mandatory voting will help, but it can not hurt, IMHO. Do you really think the quality of voting could GET ANY WORSE? And it would force the gov't to address all the inequity and problems in our election system. You can't force people to vote, then give them 8 hours on one day DURING THE WEEK to get it in.

A lot of people are disinfranchised from our political system now. You act as if it's a choice, maybe you just have more opportunity than them?


Initially I thought it was a bad idea, now I think it's a very good idea. Although, again, with party chiefs at the helm it will NEVER go through.

These two statements don't square with each other. More importantly, the bottom one doesn't square with recent history. It was the two major parties (or actually, one of them) that passed the Motor Voter bill, which made it quite a bit easier to register to vote. They want ignorant (yes, I said it) people voting, because ignorant people are easier to manipulate and distract. They don't want people voting who'll actually pay attention to what they do and hold them accountable for it.

Incidentally, I think that's also a big part of the reason why both parties are fixated on a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

Actually they do square. Most of the voters vote along party lines, i.e. they support party rule, the two party system. Voters rarely stray to 3rd party candidates and hence they support the current tyranny of two parties.

I know the democrats tried to get more votes out, but they did that mainly with what they believed would be their future supporters.

But both parties enjoy low turnout, as do incumbents. Each party has a lot of power, why would they want to change the status quo?

So the goal should be to change the habits of the people who currently vote, not add more people whose habits will become all that much more entrenched (Amlord's link at #6 says of Australia's experience: "If anything, mandatory voting has reinforced straight party-line voting, since reluctant voters find it easier to align themselves with one party or another and get the whole business done with as quickly as possible.").

Low turnout, on the other hand, could have a benefit for third parties. A given number of votes for a third party will yield a higher percentage under conditions of low turnout than of high turnout. That could make third parties more attractive to voters.

All things being equal that would make sense. But unfortunately money is involved. When you have RELATIVELY low turn out, it's easier for the big parties to spend money and concentrate on particular interests.

I'm not saying mandatory voting is a silver bullet, but getting more people involved even if marginally will put pressure on major parties to pay more attention to voters and less on money. Even if people vote indiscriminantly, it will force the voters to think about politics at least a little. And who knows, if they really don't care maybe they will vote for 3rd parties which are the key in my mind to real change in our cashocracy.

Or, they'll do what they do in Australia and just vote straight party-line to get it over with. My big fear is that people who don't really care enough to get registered on their own will be easy prey to soundbites and specious (but very emotionally seductive) arguments.

Like I said elsewhere, a much better strategy to take is to increase the number of congressional districts.