Argument Against Mandatory Voting

VOTING

The right to vote is an individual liberty but a significant right at the core of democracy. Without political participation from society, government, public interests, security and the very core of society would be at stake. Weak social groups would lose their voices; failure to vote could bring political oppression and far greater infringements to personal freedom.

Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. “Protecting the integrity of our elections” is the rational Republicans give for the restrictive voter ID laws they have enacted on in Pennsylvania and many other places. If we truly cared about the truthfulness of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters.

Mandatory voting would prompt

more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Like this election with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton nobody liked either of them and did not really pay attention to the election until they started seeing that Donald Trump might actually win the election. They are now scared of what the United States will come too. Possibly the end. Those of us who lament the drop of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A order would arouse the demand side, encouraging more voters to learn what they were voting for, just as a draft makes the drafted interested to learn what they are fighting for.
With roughly 40% of eligible citizens voting, turnout in U.S.

midterm elections is particularly low. Required voting offers one possible, if radical, solution. Like any political institution, laws on it have multiple, if disputed, consequences. The average voter is incompetent at politics. The citizens who refrain are, on average, even more incompetent. Many people don't vote because they don't care enough or know enough of the politics to get involved, and there is no convincing evidence that mandatory voting increases voter knowledge. Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who don't. It is worth asking why we would want low information citizens voting in the first place. Just so they're "involved" even if they're trudging to the polls to avoid a fine? If we force everyone to vote, the electorate will become even more irrational and misinformed. The result will not only will the worse candidate on the ballot get a better shot at winning, but the candidates who make it on the ballot in the first place will be worse. The people who are forced to vote against their will to avoid a fine, are just going to vote for anyone just to fulfill their commitment and not be fined, is that what we want? Is this what American is coming to forcing people to go to the polls just to check a box just to avoid a

fine?
Many claim that not voting is a fundamental right, a free expression of political discontent. Some go as far as to say that enforced voting is worse than being denied a vote and a violation of rights. Most people believe that more voting causes better government. But in my personal opinion I do not think that we should be forced to vote. Many choose not to for their own reasons. Nobody wants to be forced to do anything. Ultimately, forced voting does not solve the problem that activists hope it will solve: low voter engagement and knowledge. Why? Because there is simply not enough hanging on a single vote for it to be worth it for most voters to be involved. Statistically speaking, one vote in a national election will never impact the outcome, and voters react to those incentives accordingly. But with choosing not to vote there comes consequences like seeing who will now run the United States and if it the worse of the choices of the candidates then there is going to be a big problem with how everything is ran.