More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on compulsory voting australia
Impact of social media on political participation
The case against compulsory voting in canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on compulsory voting australia
My opponents believe compulsory voting will solve the low voter turnout of 68.5%, according to Huffington Post in the 2015 Canadian elections . However, I salman, and my partner Nabil believe Canadian citizens should not be legally obligated to vote in every election, and instead should be persuaded to vote. Due to the fact this violation of an individual's freedom is counterproductive. As it inaccurately depicts society, rather than better depicting society. According to researcher Henry Milner about 60 per cent of young people have little ability to make relevant distinctions about politics in Canada. This shows the ignorance held towards politics in the lives of Canadians. Attesting to the fact, forcing people into voting when they are …show more content…
Secondly, why should a person be unwillingly forced to vote, as it violates their freedom of choice. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, states “Everyone has the following freedom, the freedom of opinion and expression”. A democratic type of government should respect basic human freedoms and rights, particularly free choice. As a result people should have the freedom to choose if they vote and express their opinion, as Wayne Dyer said “Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery”. Thirdly, there are better alternatives which solve the problems of voter disengagement, while not causing the problems already said. These alternatives include empowering voters, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good." Thus, we can solve this problem by publicising the power and popularity of the vote using social media, resulting in more people being intrigued to vote. As 66% of social media users have engaged in one of eight civic or political activities with social media, according to PEW Research
I believe that Canadian should be allowed to “vote” with their purchasing habits. Isn’t Canada a democratic country and Canadian have right to vote?
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...
Governments should require compulsory voting because a higher percentage of citizens will educate themselves when they are required to vote. All campaigns will have to focus
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
Out of all Canadian age groups, the voter turnout for young voters is the most disappointing. In specific today’s youth are less likely to vote, less interested in politics, and know less about politics compared to all other Canadians. This brings about a great deal of concern, as young people are the future of this country, and are expected to uphold the expectations put on them by their older counterparts. Youth are still being affected by the consequences brought about by politics; they still go to school, get jobs, get sick, and so forth, so why is it that they feel indifferent?
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
Austin Ranney does not dread that low voting is hurting American democracy. Arend Lijphart believes that democracy is meaningless without voting. The fact that to many people do not vote for Presidential or Congressional elections concerns him. With numbers like 49 and 55 percent of the eligible population voting on Presidential elections, Lijphart questions the actual democracy in America. Low voting turnouts is giving large groups more control over government ideals. Lijphart thinks the best way to solve this problem is to raise turnouts in a variety of ways. Things like weekend voting and easier ways of acquiring absentee ballots will increase the number of voters. Also, having multiple elect...
Should Canadians turn to compulsory voting for answers? Many democracies throughout the globe, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg, employ mandatory voting and report an average turnout rate of 90 percent ("Canadian Parliamentary Review - Article"). In light of this, establishing electoral participation as a civic duty seems pretty reasonable. Particularly considering the guaranteed increase in voter participation, it seems like the perfect solution. When examined father in-depth, however, one will discover the issue poses some
The young as well as the older people of Canada seem to be in a deadlock. The question of if the federal government should or should not lower the voting age is a question debated surely around the dinner tables of families in Canada, as well as in the ranks of the government. Some people even suggest that the age needs to be raised. What would make people want the voting age to be lowered to an even lower age than the young adult age of 18? On the other hand how can the youth of Canada who have their own individual views be able to make a difference without being able to vote? Both sides provide for an intriguing look into the facts and resolutions for an appropriate way to either change the voting age or keep it the same. Throughout this paper I will look at and analyze the arguments of the youth who claim to be 'disenfranchised', as well as others who see the lowering of the voting age to be detrimental rather than an improvement to the Government of Canada's political process. In 1854, before Canada became a responsible government the only people allowed to vote were people who had a high value of land which they owned, and had a high income. Women and people with other ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs were also denied the right to vote. This did not mean that these people did not have their views and beliefs on who and what they wanted in their government but rather they were denied the right. These laws have changed since then drastically and Canada has become a democratic country (rule by the people). However, the frustration of not being able to vote and support their ideals and politicians does live on in the hearts and minds of thousands of young Canadians under the age of eighteen. The...
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of the vote has come into power. Already, three provinces have attempted to vote on electoral reform; however, the vote did not pass in any of them. British Columbia (BC) and Prince Edward Island (PEI) both held their first referendum on the subject in 2005, BC's second referendum was held in 2009. Also, Ontario held their referendum in 2007. Because none of the referendums passed, it is clear that Canadians are not quite ready for electoral reform. Regardless, it is evident that a spark has ignited in the brains of citizens nation-wide; with recurring evidence that suggests the current electoral system horribly represents the majority of Canadian citizens, the public is beginning to realize that there is something terribly wrong.
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.
In fact, “on average, educated, well informed, and interested in politics – all factors associated with high voter turnout.” But if this is the case, why is there a democratic deficit in the Canadian electoral system? The answer is simple: Most elections today rely heavily on media when it comes to national context which decreases the links between the parties and the voters.... ... middle of paper ... ...6.
Pammett, J., & LeDuc, L. (2003). Explaining turnout decline in Canadian federal elections: A survey of non-voters. Elections Canada, 40.
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