More handpicked essays just for you.
Reasons why voting should not be mandatory
Essays on mandatory voting debates
Reasons why voting should not be mandatory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reasons why voting should not be mandatory
Prevailing arguments that lean in the vicinity of adverse effects of mandatory voting laws have always been primarily fixated on two things. Firstly, the controversy between Canadian rights and duties. Secondly, the proclamation that it 's undemocratic to force individuals to vote. However, a phenomenon that is frequently repressed, is the notion that sustaining a democracy in any country builds upon the commonality between informed citizens to hold the government accountable. As voter turnout plummets, so does the rights of Canadian citizens, in a democracy that is slowly being scrutinized as a crumbling social order of equality and justice. Let alone, in a political culture amidst a perspective centralized around peacekeeping and freedom, …show more content…
Currently, voting is a right, but enforced voting isn 't such a dreadful thing to be a part of in the first place. There are various benefits of voting and for this reason mandatory voting shouldn 't be the strife that it is. A strong example would to review the advances that Canadian students would acquire from mandatory voting. In the event that mandatory voting was in operation, issues concerning young Canadians would be taken into consideration to a greater extent. Currently, the voter turnout for young Canadians is commonly known to be slowly declining. The voices of young Canadians are disregarded because parties will not stress over the concerns of individuals that do not engage in any form of politics, as simple as voting. Providing that, the voter turnout of young Canadians were to be higher due to mandatory voting, issues such as high tuition fees would be taken into consideration. Voting is and should be viewed as a pleasant obligation. Canadians are literally given the opportunity to decide who should govern their country and for this reason, the right to vote is only important if you use
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...
John Adams once said "You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." For many generations, our ancestors have fought for the right to vote. It started with the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which made it mandatory that white schools integrate black children into their institutions. The outcome of the 1964 election was a landslide, favoring the democrats, which broached the issue of civil rights legislation. In 1964 “only 7% of eligible black citizens in Mississippi were registered; in Alabama the figure was 20% (Kernell, et. al 2014, 162). The low voter turnout rate was because people of color were required to take a literacy test. This all changed when President Johnson
"There is a reason for the country to embrace mandatory voting, and it may be the most compelling: democracy cannot be strong if citizenship is weak," _William A. Galtson_. Mandatory voting, or compulsory voting, is a law wherein citizens are required to vote, or suffer the consequence. Australia has had compulsory voting since putting it into effect in 1924. "The turnout of Australian elections has never fallen below 90 percent since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924," _Australian Electoral Commission_. Achieving over 90 percent of the citizens voting for nearly a century shows that mandatory voting is working in regard to getting people to vote. Governments should have mandatory voting because the people will educate themselves
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
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
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
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
First, one reason why Americans should be required to vote is that it will educate the citizens. Evidence supporting this reason is in “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma, American Political Science Review” Aaron Lijphart stated that “By compelling people to vote, we are likely to arouse in them an intelligent interest and to give them a political knowledge that do not at present possess.” This evidence helps explain why Americans should be required to vote because when citizens are required to vote it gives them a political understanding that they didn't have before voting. Most citizens will research
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.
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
The deficiency of the Canadian electoral system decreases the level of democracy in the Canadian constitution. Canadian citizens are known for being active in political matters; whether it relates to them specifically or not. 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 l...
Pammett, J., & LeDuc, L. (2003). Explaining turnout decline in Canadian federal elections: A survey of non-voters. Elections Canada, 40.
From its early period, the United States has obtained an indirect type of democracy, and has always had contentment that its citizens are allowed to vote for their representatives, especially the President. Nevertheless, the amount of citizens that actually vote in nationwide elections has decreased noticeably over the years. Voter participation and turnout has been declining in the United States throughout history. Voter turnout, the percentage of eligible individuals who actually vote (Ginsberg), to this day is lower than it was in the 1900’s. Since 1912, presidential elections have only had about 50 to 65 percent of Americans participate. This means that about half of United States citizens who are eligible and have the freedom to vote have failed to participate in presidential elections. At the end of the nineteenth century voter turnout started plummeting, reaching the 60 percent level by the election of 1912 (Teixeira, 1987). The declining rate of voter participation in the United States is due to voter registration and procedu...
Democracy has created prosperous nations in the Western Hemisphere and Western Europe. "Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom." stated by politician John Diefenbaker in the House of Commons, September 21, 1945. From this, it shows how Canada has the strong belief that citizens in a nation should have a say in government.
One important way that it does is in connection with participation inequality. The problem with an overall decline in voter turnout is that it is very unlikely to be uniform across major social categories. Instead, the drop is virtually certain to be accompanied by a widening disparity in participation rates, that is, an enhanced degree of inequality between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Such a disproportionate decline in voter turnout is particularly expected for groups such as young people, immigrants, tenants, and the poor; these are people who, of course, already participate at lower levels relative to those who are socially and economically better off. At the same time, arguably, the less well off are the ones who most need to vote. The real problem is that unevenness in electoral participation usually translates into distortions in representation and governmental response. That is, to the extent that participation matters, to the extent that the views of citizens are taken into account in the setting of policy priorities, then an important consequence of non-participation is the neglect of major interests. In Canadian politics as elsewhere, voices that are not heard are usually not