I following Brazil's recent election, I have been thinking again about the issue of mandatory voting. Many countries have implemented this sort of system ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_voting for a cursory overview).

The advantages appear to be:
- Better representation of the entire citizenry
- Less disenfranchisement of sub-groups
- Less impact of special interest groups
- Increased knowledge of salient issues and thus a higher level of debate (possibly)

Some may argue that it's not constitutional to force a vote, that it is compelled speech. But that can be overcome by allowing a 'no vote' box.

So, the questions for debate are:

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

I don't like the idea of mandatory voting because I don't like coercion. I think we are forced to do enough without adding voting to the list. I would consider it an infringement on my rights.

If we had mandatory voting, what do you think the penalty for failure to vote should be? Who should be excused? I think you can see where I'm going with this. What a hullabaloo we would create with such a law. Rounding up those who failed to vote would be an expensive task. Imagine the people waiting to present their defenses in court.

I think I would protest by not being at home on election day. I would show how it was impossible for me to vote.

Unless the penalty was large and consequences were certain, I don't think it would work. I expect lawyers would love the idea

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

No. An ill-considered or ill-informed vote is worse than no vote at all. People that don't care about the process will simply vote for who they've heard of, is on the poster outside the polling place or just check random boxes.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

Yes, but just as a juror must face a selection process and then consider the facts of a case, the duty would be to learn about the issues or candidates before voting. You can't make that part of the process mandatory.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

Yes, it would make style over substance the order of the day. Looking & sounding good in a TV ad would be more important than it already is since thats all most voters will ever know about the issue. The informed voters (i.e. current voters) would be in the minority while the new "only voting because we have to" voters would have disproportionate influence.

I would be 100% against it for the fact that, as you said, non-constitutional. I would like though 100% mail in ballets. I think many more people would vote if they could receive their ballets and have time to review them then plop them in the mail.

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?
No, my scan of human nature says it would just add "noise info" to voting as "decision as info", and so is not good! It would also open up a market for "bought votes", sellers being those who don't care!

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?
No, not similar to either. If there's any similarity at all, it would be to "our citizens's arrests rights"--be that ever so shaky/explosive itself.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?
Yes, it will make it even more of a mess. You can't force thoughtful participation, which is what I think we want from a voter (and nothing else)!!

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

It's certainly tempting at times. A few other countries, like Belgium and Australia have mandatory voting, and it seems to work well for them. But no, I don't think we need to require citizens to show up at the polls.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

It should be, in my opinion. But sadly, it's more often seen merely as a privilege, something that can be either done or ignored, at want or whim, rather than a civic responsibility.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

There was a Slate article about this recently. It would help politics in the sense that politicians and political parties wouldn't have to spend as much time and money getting people to turn out. They could concentrate on persuading people of their position on the issues, and converting voters to their side. The downside was that people in mandatory voting, especially those who don't really want to be there, tend to vote a straight ticket far more often just to get it over with more quickly. The other problem is that Australia seems to have a much higher rate of defaced and/or spoiled ballots than countries without mandatory voting.

There was something else I've seen recently, that might work just work, however.

There is a voter initiative on the ballot in Arizona (I think) this year, that if passed would allow the state to basically hold a lottery for all of those who vote from this election on. Registered voters who show up to vote, would have their names entered in a random drawing for $1 million.

According to the people behind the initiative, considering the voter turnout in their state in 2004, the odds of winning would be far greater than any lotto game in the state right now. And it won't cost taxpayers any money, because the award will come from already unclaimed lottery winnings.

I do think we need to do something to increase voter interest. We've got Rock the Vote, Hip-Hop the Vote, Pray the Vote, and all sorts of other campaigns to get people involved and to the polls, all with limited success. Could "Lotto the Vote" be any worse?

I have chosen to not vote this year. I feel I have every right to exercise my political freedom as I wish, not by commandment of the federal govt. I personally was unhappy with the process when asked to vote in 2004 and have not felt this moral dilemma subside, so I have chosen to no longer subjugate myself to such an ethical crisis again.

I do not believe in the republican party or the democratic party and feel that I have no obligation to support either. I feel as if I were to vote I would be legitimizing not only a party I feel deserves no legitimacy but a current political system that deserves no participation.

I think it is wrong that so many try to portray the non-voter as a disengaged, lazy and civic duty skirting criminal. I am as patriotic and in love with this nation and it’s political ideals as any other participating voter, I just am no longer going to allow the two party system control my political participation.

I also resent all attempts by the voters to try and invalidate the non-voter by claims that if you do not vote you lose the right to complain about government or issues in our society. Yet voting is not the truest, most honest form of helping to shape your community or helping your fellow citizen. It is to me likely the easiest, most impersonal means of participation.

Anyone who needs to have a lottery draw him to a voting booth would do his country a very humungous favor by spending election day either: playing video games, watching soap operas, shopping at the mall, staying in bed all day - but NOT VOTING, please! People who care enough about their votes to think about the issues and really pay attention to the debates I'm sure would much appreciate not having their efforts diluted by people who get easily swayed by catchy soundbites or how photogenic or charismatic a candidate is.

Yeah, like this doesn't happen anyway. How many times did we hear in 2000 that some folks voted for GWB, because it seemed like you could sit and have a beer with him, while Gore was a "robot", a "stuffed shirt".

Charisma and sound-bites already hold huge sway, whether you want to believe it or not. And maybe, the Arizona "election lotto" will get some people to actually take a look at the candidates and issues before they go to the polls for a chance at that million bucks. Like you, I have my doubts, but I'm not so naive as to think that everyone that goes to the polls now is really informed as to the issues or the candidates.

Umm, I don't think so. What they'll be thinking about is the million bucks. If they think about anything beyond that, it'll be the most superficial considerations imaginable. You're right that all too many voters let frivolous considerations dictate how they vote. We don't need to be increasing that percentage any.

So, the questions for debate are:

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

To what effect? Angry voter closes the curtain. Angry voter opens the curtain. Angry voter turns in a blank ballot? If a person does not wish to vote, forcing them to go to the polls would only get them angry, not force them to vote.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

Perhaps that is the problem. How many people try to avoid jury duty and taxes as well.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

I have this clear image in my mind of angry voters going to the polls and saying to themselves, "If it weren't for the Republicans and Democrats making this mandatory, I wouldn't need to be here. Let's see, what are my alternatives?"

We were getting training for Election Day 12 hours ago, and we were told that locally the upcoming election is very much a toss up. One more Democrat voting in each of our local precincts 2 years ago, and we would have elected Democrats. Six months ago, the Democratic Party assumed that no one could oust the sitting Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee during a war. Now we are being told that to prove that Saddam Hussein had plans to build Weapons of Mass Destruction, his blueprints to build atomic weapons were posted on the Internet by that committee chair... For 60 years, that information was kept classified. Now, we are being told, it was published on the Internet in Arabic so that any interested person could help translate it to to English. It makes me want to say, "Please define intelligence."

We'll be putting in some long hours on Tuesday in the hopes of getting one more vote cast for the Democratic slate. I'm certain that the Republicans will have volunteers trying to get one or two more Republican voters out per precinct.

I don't see any advantage to mandatory voting. I am far more fascinated by the movement being advertised by the AARP, Dontvote.com, asking voters to "Get informed before you vote."

Personally, I see this election as a referendum on the Bush administration and his "war on terror." I would encourage all of our fellow members who are registered, and haven't voted already, to go to the polls and vote on Tuesday.

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

My gut says no. But I am biased. To my view, mandatory voting diminishes the value of my vote. In fact, if we take ten people who cared enough to get an absentee ballot or toddle over to their local polling place, and then forcibly shove in ten people who really would rather be home spending time with their family, watching the telly, or working on their cars, and you threaten those ten people with some penalty to make them actually pull the level on some candidate, we’ve just cut in half the value of the first ten who cared enough to self-select themselves into that portion of the electorate who pulled the lever on a candidate or issue, because they cared enough about our country or the issues to do it. Honestly, it simply appears counterintuitive that we would get better government if we let Uncle Sam and his wranglers forcibly herd into the polls those citizens who lack the desire to vote or intentionally decided not to vote.

If someone truly gets a wild hair stuck in some extraneous canal and we have to have some sort of compulsory voting law, please let us not make it a federal mandate. Instead, at the most, let the federal government pass legislation clearing the way for states to experiment on this issue. Historically, it’s been a decent way to test out odd-duck legislation in the United States. And this would be a bit of an odd-duck idea.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

I do see voting as a civic duty. But it is not the act of showing up at the polling place and going through the motions that is the civic duty. It is the act of educating yourself about the candidates and the issues and then voting your conscience. Mandatory voting does not ensure that citizens will carry out their civil duty, it merely pushes them into going through whatever nominal steps they have to do to meet the letter of the law. Remember, when you have a jury, you have twelve people (more or less) carrying out their civic obligations together. I think there is subtle peer pressure involved in being on a jury that helps to ensure that an individual, even if he or she would rather skip out of jury service, will find himself or herself actively engaged once on a jury. But the voting process if private (unless someone proposes to send in monitors, like we do with urinalysis testing, to ensure that each voter is legitimately trying to cast a vote), so if you aren’t inclined to be there in the first place, you do whatever it takes to meet your nominal obligations so you can get out and go home.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

Absolutely. I suspect it will favor democrats initially. I doubt it will do much for third parties. But the reality is we don’t know what it will do to politics until we try it out. And I suspect once you start mandatory voting, you won’t be able to put the Genie back in the bottle (too many people would argue you were disenfranchising the apathetic if you tried to go back to non-compulsory voting after instituting it). Hence, my argument that we let the states play with the idea of a few years—assuming someone really is desperate to see this potential debacle played out at the polls.

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

No- it is not the goverments job to force citizens to participate in anything but jury duty as far as civic duties go.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

Could be argued, I suppose. I vote every time, every election, because it is my civic duty- NOT because the goverment tells me too.

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

I think, yes. Poeple are more centrist in this country than those that vote indicate. And I don't think the voting electorate is any more informed than those that would be "forced" to vote. Anyone that voted for GW the second time proves my point there - anyone that believed the Swift water liars are another case in point - America is about the most ignorant and uneducated developed country on the planet, and we glorify ignorance, and scorn those that are smarter than the collective "we" are. The very word "intellectual elite" proves this point. They are the smartest poeple in the country, so we scorn them, but believe folks like Jerry Falwell and Karl Rove.

So I think it would probably move us back to center- though I am against it in philosophy.

Should the U.S. enact a mandatory voting law?

Nope. Our society is built on the concept of freedom. To compel people who do not want to vote to participate in the process is contrary to freedom.

Is voting similar to jury duty and taxes and should be seen by society as a civic duty of all citizens?

Not similar enough. If you ignore a jury summons or fail to pay your taxes, you will have consequences to pay. Can you imagine jails filled with people who simply refused to vote? The economy would collapse!

When people fail to inform themselves and then vote, the country suffers. We need the best informed group of voters we can get, especially with the smoke and mirrors campaign commercials that both parties come up with to obscure the issues.

There are some people who, by their nature, like to be victims. They carp about so much but seldom lift a finger to effect positive change. They gripe about the school system or decisions of the City Council but can't manage to find the time to attend the meetings. They don't write to their legislators nationally, or within their state. Why would we expect them to do otherwise on Election Day?

Will mandatory voting change the playing field of electoral politics?

No, because mandatory voting is not going to happen, at least anytime soon.