Merits and Demerits of Compulsory Voting
-
As many of you may know, Australia has implemented compulsory voting. This measure dramatically increased voter turnout and appears to have improved representation for less affluent citizens. It also obviously had influence on policy.
My first instinct was that compulsory voting violates individual expressive freedom and political choice, and may be impractical. If an electoral system is ineffective or corrupt, coerced participation removes abstention as a form of political refusal and institutional rejection.
However, I think it is better to understand the evidence and the actual tradeoffs involved. I am wondering whether, and to what extent, compulsory voting addresses concerns about representation, justice, and effective government compared with voluntary voting.
Does anybody have a more refined understanding of its implications?
-
I think the argument is that it gives a more representative parliament and helps fight against voter apathy.
But I'm not sure I buy this. If people are only voting because they have to, the extra votes will come more from people who don't feel they have anything invested in any of the candidates winning, so the extra votes are more likely to be "noise".
Also, voter apathy is a thing. It's a worry that people don't feel engaged with the political system, and aren't moved to vote for any of the candidates. By forcing people to vote, you're simply hiding that. Knowing that only x % of people vote in an election should be a alarm bell to try and engage these potential voters. But if you force people to vote, you don't know how many of them are just voting under duress.