Mandatory voting could be a boon to our democracy

By Ray Still
Courier Herald Reporter
President Barack Obama spoke in Cleveland two weeks ago and mentioned his support of
mandatory (or compulsory) voting in the United States.
The president said it would completely transform the political map in this country, and argued
mandatory voting would help remove big money from politics, encourage the young, working class
and disenfranchised citizens to vote and increase voting turnout numbers.
Many news sources reported 57.5 percent of the American public voted in the 2012 presidential
election. Thats not such a bad number - at least the majority of registered voters showed up at
the polls.
The number dips to an abysmal 37 percent for the 2014 midterm elections. Although midterm
elections dont have the same turnout as presidential elections, it still means a little more than
one-third of registered took control of the governmental wheel, so to speak.
In contrast to the low voter turnout in the US, Australia constantly boasts high voter turnouts.
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance reported Australia had a registered voter
turnout between 93 and 95 percent since 1946.
However, between 78 and 91 percent of the voting age population historically shows up at the
polls, so the voting turnout numbers are often debated.
Still, anywhere between 78 and 95 percent of voters at the polls is a great win for democracy,
and the high participation numbers are most likely caused by Australias mandatory voting
system, which fines unregistered voters and citizens who dont vote about $20.
Admittedly, Australia is one of a minority of 23 countries with mandatory voting laws, and only
one of 10 which enforces those laws, according to the BBC.
Other counties that have mandatory voting laws include Costa Rica, Egypt, Lebanon, Argentina
and Belgium.
For the sake of argument, lets assume a supermajority of Americans would rather take the pains
to vote than get fined $20, and voting numbers would stretch into 80 percent range for all
elections.
Also for the sake of argument, ballots include a none of the above option, so voters who truly
have no opinion have a voice and can bypass the fine.
The question now is, is it healthy for a democracy to have mandatory voting laws? After all, it is a
bit of a paradox democratic philosophy relies on the freedom of choice, which includes the
freedom to not choose, or in this case, the freedom to not vote.
Some arguments against mandatory voting say the average American is incompetent at
following political races and their votes for presidents and congressmen are based on
sensationalized headlines and misinformation.
If we were to force the uninformed masses to vote, the argument goes, the political system
would become more backwards than it already is. Hence, only the informed should participate in
the political system and the ignorant should choose to remove themselves from the game.
Ilya Somin of the Washington Post wrote an opinion article about Obamas speech, refuting the
presidents argument that compulsory voting would help get big money out of politics.
Somin argues, relatively ignorant voters are more likely to be influenced by simplistic 30 second
ads than relatively well-informed ones, and more money will pour into the political system to
sway the uninformed.
This may be so, and as a journalist, Ive seen how people can be led astray by misinformation
from both sides of the political spectrum.
However, I think a mandatory voting system gives many disenfranchised citizens a chance to
voice their opinion. This would not only far outweigh the cons of ignorant voters participating in
the political arena, but it also resolves the paradox of mandatory voting in a democracy.
Elections are run by multi-million dollar PACs and laws are passed by deep-pocketed lobbyists.
Money runs the American political system now, not the voters. So maybe its time for the
government to help the people take back their voice.
In his speech, Obama said, The people who tend not to vote are young, theyre lower income,
theyre skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups Theres a reason
why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. We should want to get them into the polls.
Political studies show that many young people, such as myself, vote for more liberally. The same

goes for the working and poor classes, as well as immigrant groups and minorities. It may be a
political boon for the Democratic party if a mandatory voting system was installed, but not all
conservatives vote during elections either. And not all liberals and conservatives are straight-ticket
voters.
Really, no one knows which party, if either, would benefit the most from a mandatory voting
system.
Rohan Wenn, a spokesperson for the non-partisan political advocacy group Get Up! was quoted
in a BBC article about Australian mandatory voting.
If you look at the international experience, in non-compulsory voting systems, he said, the
people who dont vote are the poor and disenfranchised and those are exactly the people we think
should be voting.
Everyone should have the power to vote, but in recent history the voices of the tired, the poor
and the huddled masses have eroded, and the rich and affluent have built walls and towers to
consolidate their control.
Maybe the answer isnt mandatory voting. Maybe we should make presidential and midterm
elections a national holiday, so more people can take the time to vote. If that option is too
expensive, then lets try voting on the weekend.
Maybe laws should be passed to ensure political ads convey truthful and accurate information
and money spent on political campaigns should have a cap limit and be made 100 percent
transparent. Any of these solutions could be a step towards equality and a more effective
government.
But the fact remains that an accessible voting system with a high participation rate will only help
a democracy, not hinder it.
And of course, if one party does benefit from a silent majority now compelled to vote, well, thats
democracy for you.