On Practicality
(1) Uninformed Voters – I think this would now be my chief concern with actually implementing a compulsory model, and most people who responded said as much. I’m not convinced this would definitely be a problem, but I am sure that it could be. However, saying that we should reject compulsory voting on the grounds that we are better off if OTHERS don’t vote is not to give a reason for us to value our own individual right not to vote. I think it’s safe to say that uninformed voters tend not to vote because they don’t care, not because they are exercising their cherished right NOT to vote. Besides, if we lived in an ideal community where everyone was educated, would we not still value our right not to vote? Based on the importance some of you placed on “choice,” it seems that we would.

(2) Legal Issues – I’m not too interested except insofar as the legal issues happen to coincide with the ethical. In that respect, the problems pointed out by Fresnel (his second post) more or less convince me that the cost of compulsory voting would outweigh the gain.

Valuative Concerns
(3) “What if I don’t like either candidate?” – I think this establishes one sense in which we value the right not to vote: we should not have to give our support to candidates we dislike – or else we are effectively consenting to the government by force (and in some important respect this makes the government illegitimate). Compulsory voting would seem to present us with a sort of catch-22 if all the candidates are distasteful, but I think the ability to write-in a candidate at least lessens the force of this objection.

(4) The Freedom to Choose – I understand the desire for freedom, but I don’t see how wanting the freedom to vote (or not) translates into the belief that we have a right to it. As far as I can tell, if compulsory voting manages to arise through our legal system (somehow, and it seems possible), then there is no innate right being violated. What is the basis for thinking we have a natural right not to vote? I don’t think we can use the “choice matters” argument without citing an argument resembling (3).

(5) Is There a Duty to Vote? – I’ll just restate my optimistic take on this. I think we should all strive to vote and to understand what we are voting for. It’s not clear to me that there is an absolute duty to vote, neither is it clear that anyone (at least, anyone in our situation) has much reason to value the supposed right not to vote. I think voting is a moral obligation only in as much as voting is a practice that makes us better people – as I said, “to engender community solidarity, patriotism, and appreciation for the rights and freedoms we blithely take for granted.” If we decide that voting does not help us achieve these ends, then perhaps there is no duty to vote.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed – it’s been a good discussion! Of course, comments are still open until we all get sick of the subject…

AMEN!!

Which is why this is a state issue and the federal government has no authority to legislate this.

Yes and most of those laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and our legislative branch ignores their oath & responsibility every day.

You say you think this is okay. Do you agree with the constitution? Do you agree with the political ideology as set forth by the founders? Would you at least be willing to change the document in the proper manner if you didn’t agree with it? Or would you simply ignore it as Obama would if he were elected President in regards to national healthcare for example.

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege. This is why felons cannot vote. Compulsory voting seeks to take a privilege and turn it into a duty.

First of all, duties are not to be taken lightly. There are only a small number of duties, several of which I have outlined previously. Selective Service, paying taxes, being on a jury, attending public school until a certain age, and the duty to obey laws are the ones that come to mind. The requirement to have insurance when driving is NOT a duty. It is a duty imposed on you only if decide to drive. If you plan on just sitting there and doing nothing all day, not much the government can do to stop you. The government, in all its wisdom, will even try to help you along for a little bit.

But no duty is ironclad. For example, you can always become a conscientious objector to military service.

So if the Government was to require voting of all citizens, it would have to take measures to accommodate all people. The elderly, the sick, the transportation less, and other segments of the population who are unable to vote would either require accommodations or exemptions. In the event that they are given exemptions, you now have a paradoxical situation where compulsory voting is actually marginalizing the right of some people’s representation. Why?

Because instead of having interested people go out and vote, you are requiring everybody to go out and vote. That marginal segment of the population who cannot vote, by definition is a minority and will see their issues trampled.

Let’s pose a hypothetical. You are an educated person (Only 28% of the US attended at least some college). In my precinct, there was 57 positions up for election (ranging from State judges to Federal representatives). Assuming all were contested (not necessarily true), that is 57 different positions you had to be familiar with. Were you, in fact, familiar with the platform and position of all 114 candidates? No, I didn’t think so.

Therefore, when you are requiring compulsory voting, are you merely requiring compulsory attendance? Or are you requiring people to vote for candidates and issues they are unfamiliar with? If this is, in fact, what you had in mind, how does having people choosing candidates at random help democracy in any way? How does compulsory attendance help anything?

So then would you only require voting on positions and candidates that the voter has an understanding of? What is understanding? Would you require them fill out a questionnaire before they vote to test their knowledge? What if somebody just simply liked so and so?

You claim that the solution to this is education of the people. These people have been, by choice, ignorant of the issues (this in fact requires an assumption that lack of voter participation has been caused by ignorance). So you will institute either mandatory voter education or you are essentially asking people to go vote randomly. So now you are putting great numbers of votes into the hands of few (the educators). Would you mind if compulsory voting forces people to receive voter education from the Church of Scientology?

Consider that the reason voter participation is low is because there is no real reason to vote. The US is fairly stable and regardless of who is in office, things seem to stay the same. This is not like an unstable country where choosing a candidate could literally mean the end of a way of life. The people, who by education or intelligence (we are not all equal by the way, this is not socialism), have decided to pursue political activism and get acquainted with the issues should not have their votes diluted or drowned out by a thoughtless mass mobilized by law.

A few final points:

Legal permanent residents, who arguably have more on the line than citizens, cannot vote. Equality is fleeting. Who has more stake in the government and its policies? An LPR with 1 million invested capital in the US (business owner from Germany) employing 10 US workers, or an unemployed citizen living abroad?

A full 28% of the population is functionally illiterate. Blame the education system or whatever. Must these people vote? How useful to democracy are randomly filled ballots?

Your arguments have centered on voting as the sole instrument of public change. You underestimate the entire apparatus of lobbyists, special interest groups (which are not a bad thing in of themselves) as instruments of policy and change.

By definition, the less well off outnumber the well off. The less educated outnumber the educated. If you have a majority rules democracy of the common denominator, you will have a majority vote of the least common denominator.

Requiring 100% of a sample to vote means that only the majority elements of that sample will win every time.

As far as I’m concerned, compulsory voting would not be at odds with the spirit of democracy. Quite the contrary; it is the apathetic or willful decision NOT to vote that seems to go against democratic ideals.

Well that’s assuming that the candidates support what you believe is best for society and the environment (as some have mentioned, already). Exercising the right NOT to vote could be rationalized as your right of dissent against the choices of candidates. Despite your ability to write in your vote, how many people publicize their political platform if they don’t have some sort of nomination? How are you supposed to make any kind of educated decision with write-ins?

There seemed to be a further concern among the students that compulsory voting somehow shifts more power into the hands of the government. I simply do not know what that is supposed to mean. If anything it puts the power into the hands of the people, whether they want it or not. But even for those who would rather not vote, what harm is being done?

The harm is somewhat in line with my comment above. If they are forced to vote for one of the candidates, none of which they agree with, penalizing them for withholding their vote does seem like it violates their right to decide for themselves. Perhaps in a real democracy this would be a non-issue, but in the quasi-democratic republic we have in the U.S., it’s a different story.

The last point I have in favor of compulsory voting is that I think it would probably spur more interest and debate about political issues. People who don’t know about the candidates and the relevant issues would probably learn more – they might have the motivation to learn more, since they would have the responsibility of choosing a candidate. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I would hope that if people are forced to get involved (and, say, 95% of the population votes), they might feel like they are a part of something bigger and more important than just one individual casting a ballot. Ideally, compulsory voting would engender a sense of community solidarity, patriotism, and appreciation for the rights and freedoms we blithely take for granted.

I’m not sure you can really spur more interest by forcing something. Most likely people will show up (and the logistics involved in fairly making voting accessible to everyone would probably require some sort of national holiday–as somebody mentioned–where nobody works, which would create a some other problems). But most likely people would just choose a canidate at random if they cared, so you really don’t get the desired result of making people more politically aware.

My second point would be, why should I have to dedicate portions of my free time to following politics in order to make an educated decision? In our society, if we required customers to say, learn about a store layout of Hastings, so that we know where each item is, consumers might be a bit frustrated. Isn’t it the job of the employees to show us where to find what we want? Perhaps that argument could get a bit absurd, because picking a president isn’t a whole lot like finding the perfect DVR or a book all the time, but the basic point is that it takes a lot of time to become well informed regarding politics. I voted in the Texas primary, but even though I was relatively educated about the presidential candidates, I really had no idea who to vote for as sheriff, district attorney, etc. Why should we have to keep tabs on all these people and their political views? Isn’t it the job of politicians to represent our opinions? Why shouldn’t we just be able to express our general opinions on certain issues and leave it up to the government to hire the right person. If they hire the wrong person, then they should suffer the consequences and correct the mistake.

General Statements on Replies:

This is probably more of a hypothetical ethical question, but the practical comment regarding the constitutional justification for compulsory voting is still a good point. However, federal laws can be made without supreme court approval. It’s only when said laws are challenged in an actual court case that the supreme court can say anything about it. That would require somebody to go through the effort of challenging it. Prohibition was instituted with no say from the supreme court. It didn’t last long, because you can’t legislate morality in this country. I’m not sure that the choice of voting or not voting is really a moral choice though, so it’s hard to say how things would go down. Also, just to play devil’s advocate I’ll respond to Richard’s comments:

- Willfully choosing not to vote violates the spirit of democracy only to the extent that the present electoral system instantiates that spirit.

I’m not sure there is a clear consensus on the degree to which the democratic spirit is instantiated by the present electoral system. Opinions probably vary. That seems like a pretty subjective variable in your equation.

- “Prohibiting an action/forcing us to act” is a distinction without difference. Singer wants to violate my right to go to a bar on election day.

What about a court subpoena to testify or serve on a jury? Your right to go to a bar instead of show up in court can land you in jail, but this is generally accepted as necessary. Why would compulsory voting be any different?

In the beginning, I will address the legal issues. Then I will address what I perceive are the benefits, or lack, of compulsory voting.

****POWERS OF CONGRESS TO ENACT COMPULSORY VOTING****

I saw above a reference that Congress could enforce compulsory voting. This is wrong.

**Art II. § 1 argument**

As you may know, the Federal government is a government of limited powers. If the powers are not enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government cannot do it.

Art. II § 1 states: ” Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”

Frankly, this means that States do not even have to give their citizens the right to vote.

An argument was made that Congress has the right to regulate, through new laws, the federal elections. This would necessarily be derived from the “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Art. I § 8 Clause as an extension of Congress’s right to change the time, place and manner of holding elections (Art I. § 4). But remember that Congress is limited in powers and here, it specifically says they can only change the time, and manner. Necessary and proper here means that Congress can do what is necessary and proper to change the time, and manner. Time seems straight forward, but what is manner?

Unfortunately for fans of compulsory voting, “manner” is not very wide ranging. The Supreme Court has decided that Congress’s power to regulate the manner of voting only extends to their duty to uphold the rest of the Constitution. I’m talking mainly of the Reconstruction amendments, which give voting to all citizens. “Manners” that States have tried to enact regarding voting are poll taxes or readability tests (Jim Crow Laws).

This makes sense because the tenth amendment designates that powers not expressly given to Congress is reserved by the States or the people. Without launching into a discussion of what “the people” means, it is clear that in a situation where both the States and the Federal government is given authority in the same subject, non specific Federal power should be the one that is checked in favor of States Rights. Therefore, where the States have the right to enact or prohibit compulsory voting, Congress cannot trump that because they are not defending other enumerated duties.

**Republican Guarantee Clause argument**

Art. IV § 4 reads:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Again, it may surprise some, but the citizen’s right to vote is not guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. This is strictly a State issue. This clause may seem like it gives Congress the power to set up republics, but really it is a duty on the Congress to allow the State to form republican governments on their own. Essentially, where a legitimate State republic is threatened by violence, the federal government can intervene. Similarly, where it is under invasion from foreign (or I suppose other States), again the Fed gov can intervene. But nothing says the Federal government can stop a legitimate State authoritarian government from forming.

**Fifteenth Amendment**

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

This clause is straight forward. Where the States have decided to give people the right to vote, it cannot discriminate based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The State could just as easily deny everybody the right to vote and nothing would happen.

****POWERS OF THE STATE TO ENACT COMPULSORY VOTING****

So far, it seems that the States could enact compulsory voting if they could. But a challenge would undoubtedly arise in the form of the 1st amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”

As the Courts have interpreted, freedom of speech is not just speech or text. I think it is at least strongly arguable that voting, or not voting, is an expression. By way of the 14th amendment, this has been made an unalienable right that even the States must abide by. I see no way around this besides the “fire in a theater” argument. (The argument, for those unacquainted, says that freedom of speech does not extend to crying fire in a crowded theater, or other similar acts). There is no compelling public policy reason why compulsory voting should be allowed. No lives would be saved.

You’ll notice that there are very few things that are compulsory upon people. The first is selective service. All males of 18 or older must register with the selective service. Another is paying your taxes (although this is distinguishable because you choose to work). The last that comes to mind is serving on a jury. In each of these situations, these steps are protecting an implicit power or duty in the Constitution (provide for the national defense, power to levy and collect taxes, right to due process and a jury of your peers). As we’ve established earlier, there is no duty to have a Republican government.