Should Voting Be Compelled?

The debate over compulsory versus voluntary voting systems is central to discourse on democratic governance, voter turnout, and representation. Both systems carry distinct implications on political engagement, policy outcomes, and the perception of legitimacy of elected officials.

Countries with mandatory voting consistently report higher voter turnout compared to voluntary systems. For example, Australia enforces compulsory voting and achieves turnout rates between 90% and 95%. Belgium and Turkey also see high participation rates, with 87.2% and 86.4%, respectively.

These elevated turnout rates ensure that election outcomes more accurately reflect the preferences of the entire electorate, enhancing the legitimacy of governance. Conversely, voluntary systems often suffer from lower turnout, as evidenced by the United States' 63.7% turnout in the 2024 presidential election, Bulgaria’s 38.94%, and Pakistan’s 47.28% in their 2024 parliamentary elections. This disparity can lead to underrepresentation of certain demographic groups, skewing policy decisions toward more active voting populations.

Benefits of Compulsory Voting

Proponents argue that mandatory participation encourages citizens to become more informed about political issues, as they are legally obligated to vote. Research suggests that strong enforcement of compulsory voting can positively impact political knowledge by incentivizing individuals to educate themselves or by imparting incidental knowledge through the voting process.

Limitations

However, critics highlight that compulsory voting does not uniformly enhance political engagement. Studies have found that while turnout increases under mandatory systems, some individuals comply without becoming more politically aware, potentially leading to uninformed voting choices. Additionally, forcing uninterested citizens to vote may increase feelings of political alienation.

Inclusivity in Policy

Compulsory voting often leads to policies that address the needs of diverse socioeconomic groups. Research has linked mandatory voting with reduced income inequality, as governments become more responsive to a broader cross-section of society. In contrast, voluntary systems may favor higher socioeconomic groups with greater voter turnout, perpetuating existing inequalities.

Voluntary Voting's Appeal

Voluntary systems respect individual choice and may lead to higher satisfaction among participants who view voting as a deliberate act of civic engagement. However, low turnout risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of elected officials and institutions.

Compulsory Voting's Challenges

Mandatory participation can provoke resentment among citizens who view it as an infringement on personal freedom. Critics argue that forcing uninterested individuals to vote may weaken their support for democratic institutions. Additionally, compulsory voting often results in higher rates of invalid votes (e.g., blank or spoiled ballots), which can dilute electoral outcomes.

Enforcement Challenges

Implementing compulsory voting requires systems to monitor compliance and administer penalties for non-voters. This process can be resource-intensive and face public resistance. For example, Chile experienced a dramatic drop in voter turnout—from 87% in 2010 to 42% in 2013—after shifting from compulsory to voluntary voting due to enforcement challenges.

Both voting systems offer unique advantages. Compulsory voting ensures higher turnout and equitable representation but raises concerns about personal freedom and uninformed participation. On the other hand, voluntary voting respects individual choice but risks lower engagement and less representative governance.

The choice between these systems should consider a nation's specific political, cultural, and social contexts. Balancing inclusivity, freedom, and effective representation remains crucial for fostering healthy democratic processes.

Mandatory voting should come with more voting options

In Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address, he spoke about the importance of having a government “of the people, by the people [and] for the people.” That second aspect is positively crucial in a democracy, because it means that government officials and selected and elected by the country's citizens. While it may not have necessarily been the case in Lincoln's day, in a modern democracy, this also means that the government should not be elected by a select few, but rather by the population at large. Voters should come from all walks of life, from all sorts of demographics, such that all of their interests are suitably represented in government.

Gage Skidmore

However, a democracy is only as strong as the people who vote within it and low voter turnout continues to be a problem in many parts of the world. It was experienced in the recent European Union elections, just as it is a problem in the United States. In Canada, the federal Liberal Party is considering mandatory voting as means of eliminating the problem of low voter turnout. 

The idea of instituting compulsory voting was previously explored in this blog not that long ago. There are certainly proponents and opponents of such a system and both its merits and disadvantages need to be carefully scrutinized before mandatory voting is implemented in any democracy. However, if the law requires that all eligible citizens must cast a ballot in federal elections, then an infrastructure needs to be put in place to best facilitate the vote.

Traditional paper ballots submitted at traditional voting places that citizens must visit in person would likely not be sufficient and it would not be the most convenient. As many of these polling stations already struggle with efficiency and with the exceptionally long waits experienced in many parts of the United States, it is clear that managing a near 100% voter turnout under the current system would result in chaos. The logistics are not there.

In the case of Canada, voter turnout got as high as almost 80 percent in 1958, but it has since dropped significantly down to under 60 percent in 2008. By contrast, voter turnout in Australia is consistently around 95 percent and that's because mandatory voting has been in place in Australia since 1924.

Looking ahead to the future, election officials and government representatives need to consider more efficient and convenient voting methods. Direct recording electronic voting machines at physical polling places is a good place to start, as the electronic machines theoretically never run out of ballots and can handle a theoretically infinite volume. The electronic nature of these voting machines may also be more approachable by young people, who are far more accustomed to smartphones, tablets and other consumer electronic devices. 

Many other government operations that are mandatory among citizens can be completed in an efficient and secure manner through online portals. All citizens must file their income tax returns each year, for example, and Canadians can do so through the Internet. The same idea can be implemented when it comes to federal elections, utilizing similar or even more advanced methods for voter identification and verification. 

Online voting may not be the “magic bullet” for improving voter turnout, but it can provide a more easily accessible means for citizens to cast their ballot from the comfort of their homes, offices or even mobile devices. When everyone votes, then the government is truly elected not only by the people, but by all the people.

Should governments fight low turnout with compulsory voting?

Following the mere 36% voter turnout in May's European Union elections, many experts have asked how they can increase the number of people who make it to the polls. This is not only for future elections in the European Union, but also for local, regional and national elections all around the world.

Daniel Lobo

It's a common problem in many democratic nations and it's one that governing bodies need to address. There are at least two prominent strategies being discussed and both of these strategies can be used in tandem for the greatest impact. The first of these is to implement compulsory voting. 

If eligible citizens who do not exercise their right to vote are penalized in some way -typically through the application of fines- then the effective voter turnout rate should be practically 100%. In Belgium, where voting is compulsory, voter turnout is typically over 90%. Elected Government officials can then justifiably say that they represent the will of the people. 

When there is low voter turnout, as was the case with the EU, it can be argued that the elected officials are only representing the will of a select minority: those who actually made it to the polls to cast a ballot. 

On the other hand, the very spirit of democracy is based on the notion of personal freedom. If a free citizen is forced to vote, then he or she is no longer free. Indeed, the very act of abstaining to vote can be a political statement by itself.

The second big strategy being discussed is the increased adoption of technology in the electoral process, including e-voting technology for casting ballots, as well as the possible adoption of Internet voting. This would be particularly effective in reducing voter apathy among young people, as that demographic largely embraces e-voting. Members of the so-called Generation Y (or “Millennials”), as well as much of Generation X, grew up with technology being an integral part of their lives. They use the Internet and mobile devices on a daily basis to conduct the rest of their business, so why not include technology as part of exercising their democratic right to vote as well?

Indeed, Max Benwell of The Independent argues that these two strategies should be combined. He supports compulsory online voting as a means to “revolutionise the way our political system works.” If voting is mandatory, it may as well be convenient. “It would be quick and easy,” he writes, “with no more trudging down to your local polling centre.”

The use of Internet voting could be accompanied by a mobile app that can provide voters with more information about the platforms of each of the candidates. This way, they can make a more educated decision more easily. It is a sad state of affairs when more people (at least in the United Kingdom) are likely to vote on a reality TV talent show than they are to vote on who should represent them in government. A big part of that has to do with access and convenience. The democratic process needs to be secure, of course, but it also shouldn't feel like so much of a chore and a burden. Even if people don't want to vote, they should feel committed to do so. And maybe compulsory voting, perhaps with an option to cast a ballot online or by a more efficient and accessible e-voting system, is the way to improve the situation.