From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is compulsory voting in political elections a good idea?
|
Background and context
Compulsory voting requires electors to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. With a secret ballot voters remain free to spoil their ballot papers or remove them from the polling booth, depending on the voting system. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he/she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines, community service, or perhaps imprisonment if fines are unpaid or community service not performed.
See Wikipedia's article on "compulsory voting" and the pros and cons it presents as a starting point for building this article.
|
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Does compulsory voting improve governance?
|
[  ] Pro
- Better-informed votes, better policies. Compulsory voting will bring people's attention to politics and thus they will be more willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled (some even at the cost of social benefits). Better-informed voters will therefore oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.
|
[ ] Con
- Better-informed votes, better policies. “Compulsory voting will bring people's attention to politics and thus they will be more willing to inform themselves. ..” Why? If they were too lazy to vote in the first place, why should they put themselves out to go researching the issues now? They will simply go from the Bar to the polling booth and back to the bar in as short a time as is feasible.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Does it enhance democracy as such?
|
[ ] Pro
- Legitimacy. In such a system, the government effectively represents the opinion of the majority of population, not just a set of beliefs of numerous individuals who go to the polls. It also ensures that the government represents even those who otherwise would be less politically active. Therefore, this could be seen as a more legitimate system than those non-compulsory with lower voter turnout.
- Voting is a civic duty. Just like paying taxes, voting is essential and can be seen as a duty of each and every individual because of its great importance for the harmonious functioning of a society.
- Preventing interference with access to vote. Compulsory voting is a measure of preventing disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged, and it mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote (weather, transport, employer, etc). (Usage of mobile voting booths, postal voting, etc.)
|
[ ] Con
- Legitimacy is not enhanced. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How on earth can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?
- Voting is not a civic duty. A duty is a duty only when there is some tangible service involved. How can I, voting for what I myself want, be in any way performing a service for some else?
- Quality of decisions matters more than the access to vote itself. Doesn’t mobile voting booths and postal voting make it easier to vote anyway? Do we really want our election outcomes influenced by people who wouldn’t otherwise vote if it was a cold windy day, or if they had to fork out some loose change to catch the bus to the voting booth, or if they had to go to vote after work instead of going straight to their regular drinking establishment?
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Is compulsory voting enforceable?
|
[ ] Pro
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
[ ] Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
See also
External links
|
