More handpicked essays just for you.
Compulsory Voting: For and Against
Reasons why voting should not be mandatory
Should voting be mandatory pros and cons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Should America Consider Compulsory Voting? Have you ever wondered if america should have compulsory voting? Ever since World War II our presidential elections have not included 65% or higher in voter turnout. Voting is important because, voting lets the citizens express their feelings towards the subject, it also lets the government know if it has support from it's citizens.Our low voter turnout rates are causing people to question the legitimacy of our government. Places such as Australia and Peru deal with this by using compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is where it is required to vote and if you do not vote you would be punished in some sort of way. So should America have compulsory voting. America should not have compulsory voting because …show more content…
In the article Vote or Else! By Filip Palda it is stated that Italy punishes non-voters by sometimes posting their names outside city hall and stamping did not vote for five years on identification papers (Doc D). Italy has a punishment that can hinder on the citizens future and how people perceive them. Punishments like these makes Italy have a lower voter satisfaction rate. Most Italian citizens have opposing feelings against their system because of it. According to the international IDEA other penalties such as fines, Limited rights and government services, and social or other informal sanctions (Doc A). The main problem with these penalties are that they first off could really change how people feel about our electoral system. The idea of limiting people's rights and government services would create a second class group of citizens. America should have the choice to vote or not cause penalties could create a second class citizen and make people disagree with our electoral …show more content…
According to the International IDEA only 40 out of 200 countries have some form of compulsory voting (Doc A). 40 out of 200 is only 20% so if only 20% of counties have some form of compulsory voting then what about the other 80% that doesn't. Compulsory voting can't be the only answer to our problem if only 20% of counties use it. America should not have compulsory voting because only a small amount of countries have some form of compulsory voting. In the article Is It Time To Consider mandatory Voting Laws? Worsening Voting Statistics Make A Strong Case, by John W. Dean it is stated that “Requiring citizens to vote is no more restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft…” (Doc C). It is true that requiring citizens to vote is less restrictive than other mandatory laws, Altough it's not the problem of making them vote it's the problem that doing so would result in lower satisfaction rates, uneducated citizens pretty much guessing, and citizens not liking our electoral
All in all, compulsory voting can seriously help out the United States of America. Although, forcing people to vote will make a lot more ignorant people vote for no reason, it will help get rid of those people by making them more intelligent in the world of politics, it will help rid fraudulent votes, and will help people realize that there are many more required things that are less important than voting. Compulsory voting will
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
Firstly, the idea of compulsory voting that involves every citizen having a civic duty, rather then a right to vote, which has been introduced in over 20 countries worldwide, a good example being Australia. In Australia, the system has been a success, producing an impressive turnout of 94% in the 2013 election, which therefore means that the Australian government will have a much higher level of legitimacy compared to the UK. However, critics of compulsory voting argue that such a system is undemocratic by itself as it does not provide a citizen with a choice on whether to vote or not, resulting in a serious debate around the issue. However, I must agree with the critics of the system, as the people voting because they have to, are likely to be less passionate and well informed about the person they have to
What principles and ideals lie at the heart of a free democratic society? Canadians take pride in their country’s values of tolerance, inclusion, and respect, and over Canada’s guaranteed freedom of expression, including the right to vote (Thevenard & Orend, 2015). In democratic Canada, “all eligible citizens have the right to participate, either directly or indirectly, in making the decisions that affect them” ("Democracy Defined"). Voting, in essence, ensures all citizens receive an equal opportunity to express their views by selecting and supporting a political party of their choice. Such an approach provides freedom of expression for all eligible citizens, allowing for the political party with the most votes to take over the ruling.
Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (1997). Does Compulsory Voting Lead To More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655-672. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/tmp/44514596344978336.pdf
Adding restrictions of voting such as implementing fines will utterly change the prevalence of our nature in our country. In source #1 (“Telling Americans to Vote , or Else) by William A. Galston, mandatory voting is straightforwardly civic. A democracy can’t be strong if its citizenship is weak. And right now American citizenship is attenuated-strong on rights, weak on responsibilities. In 1924, Australia adopted mandatory voting and required costly fines if individuals didn’t participate to vote but why pay a fine that is equal to a traffic ticket than to not register a simple vote. As Abraham Lincoln states, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
In Document D, it tells us that although Italy has a compulsory voting system in place, it “ranks low” in political satisfaction among western countries. In addition, many voters have “unfavorable attitudes towards their electoral system”. When citizens are required to vote, their attitudes towards voting can become negative. In addition, in places like the US, where voting is optional, voters have the “highest voter satisfaction rates with their political institutions”. So, citizens are much happier with their government when they are given the choice to vote, not when they are forced to do it. The government doesn’t want their citizens to be unhappy; in the past, unhappy citizens has lead to revolts against the government. Citizens being unhappy about compulsory voting is shown in Document E. In Peru, citizens are required to vote and will receive a penalty of US$35 if they do not vote. Because of this penalty, 13% of ballots cast are blank or null. These citizens either “spoiled” their ballots or refused to vote for any of the candidates. It is clear that these citizens were unhappy about being forced to vote and they were unhappy about the penalty for not voting, so they voted, but they voted by casting ballots that were blank or null. Is it really better to have citizens that vote when they are submitting blank or null ballots? No. If citizens are so against voting that they will submit blank or null ballots, they should just be allowed to not
There is a way that is already put in use to increase voter turnout in Australia is to make voting mandatory. People in Australia are forced to vote or they will be fined, or even jailed if they do not vote repeatedly. It is very effective in term of improving voter turnout; however, there is still some argument against it. One of them being people would only vote because they have to, so they are ignorantly voting for the candidates just to be done with it. I completely agree with this idea. The voter turnout can be really high, but it would be meaningless if the people just vote to escape from the punishments. Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter also suggested that, instead of punishing people do not vote, we should reward people who vote. It is the same with the mandatory voting. I think it will only be effective in increasing the voter turnout, but the results will not. People should vote voluntarily for the best and fair outcome. To have more people voting, I believe we should take a look at why people do not vote. We must assure people that if everybody thinks their vote does not count, then no one would vote. We should be able to change their attitude about their own votes. If people cannot vote because they are busy with work or schools, we should have a national day off on the election day. By doing so, much more people will be able to participate in voting. There should also be
The most critiqued argument is that mandating voting is just un-American. The con side argues that forcing people to vote violates our freedom of speech. But they don’t feel that the requirement to pay taxes and serve as a jure are unjust. This seems contradictory. The second argument is that requiring all citizens to vote would result in many uninformed and carelessly voters. They continue this argument by stating many people would cast “donkey votes” which are votes for a random candidate because they are required to vote by law. There are many arguments for and against compulsory voting but it comes down to what makes something
Women were not allowed to vote in the nineteenth century. This was mainly due to opposing views sweeping America at that time, which were pushed forward by two well known political arguments-a report from the Senate's Committee on Priviledges and Elections and an address by Isabella Beecher Hooker. In 1878, the Senate Committee wrote a response to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give women the right to vote, stating the main reasons why women shouldn't be given the ability. Some of these reasons announced that female voters had no experience in political affairs, while being quite generally dependent upon the other sex and incapable of performing military duty. Without the power to enforce the laws they could create, what good
I believe that the single most important societal problem currently is voting right restrictions. November is quickly coming upon us, so does the right to cast our votes for whoever we believe to be the best candidate for the oval office. However, new voting right restrictions will make the voting process harder for certain groups. These laws will affect of upwards to millions of potential voters this coming election. We all have the right to vote. The government also has the right for certain groups to make that ballet harder to cast. The reason that voting right restriction is so important is because it stops numerous people from voting, a specific group of people were targeted, and the reason the law was made is wrong.
The Voting Rights Act, signed into law on August 6, 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, protects the freedoms given by the fifteenth amendment. While the fifteenth amendment allowed all men of color to vote, some states, especially southern ones, loopholed that law. Many people of color were unfairly denied the right to vote through literacy tests and poll taxes. Almost 95 years after the amendment, many people were protesting because their freedoms still weren’t being recognized. A push for change was completely necessary, and while America may not be completely equal yet and the act not be being used to its full potential, the Voting Rights Act was a valuable contribution to equality that helped get this country where it is today.
Lisa Hill a professor at the University of Adelaide who spreads the yes, in mandatory voting, “If voting were mandatory in the U.S., people would be inspired to pay more attention to campaigns... ” (Junior Scholastic). Many might think their vote doesn't count, so government should express how it does and not make it a unpleasurable activity by making it mandatory. However much, there is truth in that point, an election simplifies down to one person over another other. My point still stands that unwanted force is never good and America should not accept that. It is human nature to show displeasure to forced activities that weren't done by will before hand. It isn't convenient for some citizens, and if registering for voting was much easier that there might be a higher voter turnout (Scholastic Magazine).If the government wants a higher turnout, than people shouldn't be making time for the government, the government should make more time for the people and not stripping us of our freedom.
There has been much debate about the legalisation of compulsory voting throughout political history and more importantly its place in a democratic society. Compulsory voting at a Commonwealth level was recognised in Australia in 1924 under section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as stated: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election” (Australian Electoral Commission, 2011). Since the introduction of compulsory voting there has been both strong advocacy and opposition in terms of its legitimacy in society, which this essay will highlight through the concept of its consistency with representative democracy and its ability to ensure parties reflect the will of all people. On the contrary, opponents argue that it increases the number of safe seat electorates as well as forcing the ill informed to vote.