Despite being in Beijing for nearly a month now, I have not come across anything that has inspired me to raise it on here. During this time however, I have been following the Colbert Report very closely, that is to say, I’ve been watching all I have of it including many back episodes prior to the mid-term elections. While this didn’t directly come up during any of the episodes, after watching a few my mind wandered and I had a revelation, so to speak. I’ve found what I think is a compromise, one I feel a lot more comfortable accepting, in the debate between compulsory and non-compulsory voting.
For those that are unaware, throughout the world there are hundreds of supposedly democratic societies, some more so in name than in practice, but between those democracies that believe they’ve found the most suitable system, a debate rages on whether it is more appropriate to enforce voting or instead give citizens of the society the choice of voting or abstaining. Each side of the debate has its merits giving both systems, in one way or another, substantial credibility; similarly they both have their weaknesses too, but in my opinion, neither system is truly ‘better’ or more effective than the other.
The most notable societies to my mind that practice non-compulsory voting are the United States and Britain. Among the advantages of these systems is that, firstly, since the idea of freedom is such a central theme to most modern democracies, the notion of forcing people to do something seems at odds with this idea. Granted human history might be regarded as a tale of how over time the people fought to have their voices heard, it seems fairly anti-climatic to have the final chapter end with the peoples’ forced consent of the choices that society makes.
Another advantage of the non-compulsory voting system, though it may seem petty to many, is that it means people don’t have to sacrifice their time engaging in an activity of which they may well have no interest in the outcome of, or infringes on something which they do have an interest in the outcome of. I suspect for the overwhelming majority that do or might read this blog, this wouldn’t seem like a very credible reason, but for a segment of the population who more than likely will not be able to read this blog, that thirty minutes to several hours it might take to vote might better be spent some other way. A person who works at the minimum wage for sixty or more hours a week might feel the return on another hour’s work or, were they to have the time off work, the chance to spend it with their families might seem significantly more attractive than going to vote.
The last advantage the non-compulsory voting system has that comes to mind is, in the likely event that there isn’t anyone worth voting for; not voting may well be conceived as the best option available. However, I think that this is something of a chronic weakness built into all democratic systems not just those with non-compulsory voting. I’m not sure what the solution is to this issue, but whatever it is, it is not what I seek to discuss here.
Now for all these advantages, non-compulsory voting inevitably leads to a number of setbacks which, from my perspective, impede the democratic process. First among them is the expenditure, not by candidates getting people to vote for them, but by government and non-government bodies alike getting people to vote. Why would it be in anyone’s interest to get more people rather than less people to vote? I will get to this in my next point, but needless to say, if compulsory voting is instituted, all this effort and money could instead find its way into a more meaningful venture (though perhaps not by much).
Why is it important that as many people vote as possible? I think for the sake of stability, it is very important that the people in power have the mandate of the majority of people they were supposedly chosen to serve and represent. When the authority in power is put there by less than half the total population, their credibility, both with respect to those they rule over as well as to their peers in the international arena, is substantially weaker. Should the authority decide to take an action that is unpopular with the majority of society it could well come to pass that the action either doesn’t get carried out or is met with substantive resistance, potentially turning into a very damaging situation, both for the authority and society at large.
The last disadvantage I think non-compulsory voting suffers from is, well, I am quite critical of this one, I don’t think it is a big issue, but a lot of others might, the erosion of the idea of duty. For many, voting is seen as a duty reserved for those fortunate enough to live in a society in which the choice exists. If anything, voting might be interpreted as quite possibly the singularly most important duty each citizen in that society has to perform, although many might argue defence is an equally important duty. What would happen if the people no longer felt the need to perform their duty? Perhaps apathy would settle in. It might be said that apathy is an obstacle to progress, but can it not also be an obstruction to regression? I will get to this later.
Next we move onto compulsory voting and the advantages and disadvantages it has to offer. I am aware that Australia and Singapore both have compulsory voting and I think I remember hearing Israel has it too, but I cannot vouch for that. The premier advantage that compulsory voting has is that, more often than not, the people in power have the mandate of the people that voted them in. The majority who voted that party in are content that their candidate got into or remained in power, while the minority can accept that, while they disapprove of the candidate, at least the candidate is a representative of the people that
put them there. Unlike with non-compulsory voting, there isn’t a portion of the population, however significant it may be that may or may not have voted for this or that party.
The only other advantage I can think of, to reiterate above, is that a minimal amount of money needs to be spent on getting people out to vote. If the people have to vote, that money can be better spent informing them of the possible outcomes of their choices rather than motivating them to put a ballot in the box. Granted, what I describe sounds fairly innocent, we all have a fairly good idea of what politicians are made of, but I believe it is a far more meaningful investment than the alternative.
The disadvantages of compulsory voting mirror those above, firstly, the act of forcing someone to do something goes against the very grain that most democracies are built on, that is, freedom. Generally people don’t like to be told what to do and, even more so, don’t like to be patronised into doing something they don’t necessarily want to do.
The other disadvantage as above is the time issue which discriminates against those who are otherwise indifferent to the mechanics and outcomes of the political process. I imagine there are many people who either resent or are frustrated by the fact that they have to go out to vote every-so-often for candidates they don’t know, who don’t represent them and who aren’t going to improve their situation when instead they could be doing something else which actually would improve their situation.
Lastly, we get to the crux of this matter with my idea of a compromise between the systems or compulsory and non-compulsory voting and it is summed up by statement: apathy is consent. Instead of forcing people to go out and vote or wasting money on trying to get people out to vote, instead why don’t all votes start off in an initial state of being in favour of the incumbent candidate and then, through going out to the booths, this vote can then be changed to someone else if you’re unhappy with the current. How would this be achieved? Well, there already is an electoral roll, at the end of the election, once all the names have been crossed off for those who already voted, those that remain instead of being fined for not voting, should then be added to the incumbent candidate’s tally.
The idea behind this is, if there are people who are so apathetic towards the political process to not be bothered to vote, then it should be regarded that the status quo is clearly acceptable to them. Beyond this, I haven’t really thought of the mechanics of implementing this, but I can’t see any holes in the idea. You might say that issues not related to the political process might get
in the way of people voting, but I think it is more likely that, if society is truly mismanaged, more people would have more free time, rather than the other way around, although this might be quite a naive conclusion. Having written this, it does make me wonder whether such a system would work and what other problems would arise were it implemented.
