Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on mandatory voting
Compulsory Voting: For and Against
Essay on mandatory voting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on mandatory voting
Mandatory voting should not be enforced in the United States because it would contradict democracy by limiting the basic rights stated in the constitution. Though compulsory voting would increases voter participation, there is no guarantee that it would actually legitimize democracy because the votes cast by the uneducated, indifferent voters would not accurately display the public.
Although text 1, line 45 states that the turnout rate is low, it is better that the people participating in these elections are educated and passionate about the issues, than indifferent and voting arbitrarily like many of those who would be forced by compulsory voting. Similarly, line 46 of text 4 shows that quality of voters is more important than quantity. Lines
Recently, only 60% of registered voters have actually voted in presidential elections. This brings up the question: should Americans be required to vote? This question receives very mixed answers. Many Americans believe that they should have the choice and the freedom to vote or not; many Americans also believe that mandatory, or required, voting is simply a civic duty. Currently, American citizens are not required to vote. Citizens seem to like this system, but because voting is not mandatory, the amount of citizens that vote in elections is rather low. Americans should not be required to vote because it forces people to vote that are uninterested, makes citizens unhappy, and damages other people’s votes.
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
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...
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
Without mandatory voting, some people chose not to vote because they do not care, or are uninformed. Forcing these people to vote could lead to random choices when voters do not take responsibility to study the candidate's position on specific topics. "It may increase the number of informal votes, ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules for voting," _ Matt Rosenberg_. Compulsory voting may lead many people to not truly vote, but to put their name on a ballot and turn it in. While this is possible, a greater number of potentially interested people would also vote. If people are required to vote, the country will obtain every eligible voters’ opinions. Some of the citizens may not care who is elected, but they still can have a say if they want to. Without mandatory voting, the people who do not want to vote, do not and went about with their life. "Because a majority of the voters are turning out to cast ballots, the formation of the government can be a more accurate reflection of what the population of any nation wants," _Asia-Pacific Economics_. In a government with two different parties, the majority of the citizens decide how they want the government to be formed till the next election.
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
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.
As an American citizen do you think the government should enforce compulsory voting? A country usually needs three things to have a successful compulsory voting system, a national voter registration database, rewards to encourage voters, and punishing non-voters. Should americans be required to vote? There are three reasons why Americans should be required to vote, first, so citizens have interests and political knowledge, second, to increase amount of younger voters and finally, requiring people to vote is the least a citizen can do.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
Although it is possible to understand why some people might think that Americans should be required to vote. They could say that it gives non-voters political knowledge and the election turns out more accurate. However, the argument on the other side is stronger. Would you rather have an average size group of people who want to vote honestly, or a very large group made up of some people who want to vote honestly and some people who are angry about being compelled to vote? Well, no matter what side you’re on, Americans still should not be required to vote, because some people will not vote
On the contrary, citizens should be required to vote. For example, text 1 line 20 states "A democracy can't be strong, if its citizenship is weak"; therefore when being forced to vote against our own will, it is to strengthen our nation. In addition, if the turnout rates are high, then political parties reaches out to the citizens. As a result, the voices of the less educated and the poorer Americans will be heard and not ignored. Not to mention, William A. Galston states that voting evens out the inequalities stemming from income, education, and age in text 1. Most importantly, mandatory voting only benefits us a nation and individually. Clearly, compulsory voting should be enforced.
Most of the book is spent on determining the factors that lead to declining turnout and ways to remedy it. Franklin argues that it’s important to establish how voter turnout serves as an indicator of the
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.
There are many positive things that are produced after enacting compulsory voting according to Eric Lund “in Western democracies demographically and culturally similar to the United States, this comment suggests that enactment of comparable laws would benefit our political system in four ways. Such law would (1) provide a system more representative of the general public, (2) increase the amount of moderate politicians who are willing to cooperate and compromise with each other, (3) reduce the incentive for campaigns to target special interest groups, super PACs, and corporations, who now have unbridled ability to fund election efforts under the recent Citizens United decision,'" and (4) instill a sense of civic responsibility in the American electorate, thereby increasing participation in the U.S. political system.” (Lund and Others 2013, 90—147)