Argument For Compulsory Voting example essay topic

Compulsory Voting: Should citizens be forced to vote? Introduction In the Writings of Samuel Adams, Adams stated, "Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a compliment to please an individual - or at least he ought not to do so; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country". Adams' quotable remark demonstrates his opinion on the importance of voting - a position that is undoubtedly shared by many. An intrinsic element in the development of a democratic society is the willingness of the people to be self-governing. In various democracies across the world this willingness is diminishing, resulting in low voter turnout. In an effort to challenge low voter turnout, many countries have adopted compulsory voting.

Compulsory voting is a law which obliges all citizens to vote in governmental elections. If a citizen refuses to vote, he or she can be punished by law. Advocates of compulsory voting believe each citizen not only has the privilege, but also the responsibility to actively participate in the making of laws and the selection of leaders. Opponents to compulsory voting believe that such a practice is an infringement on the civil liberties of citizens in a democracy and is contradictory to the ideals of freedom.

Thesis: Compulsory Voting is Unfair and Illogical This paper will provide the rationale behind compulsory voting, but argue against its theory and practice, particularly debating Arend Lijphart's proposal for compulsory voting in Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma with evidence from Andre Blais' explanation of voting rationale in To Vote or Not To Vote. Argument for Compulsory Voting Lijphart states that compulsory voting is the "strongest of all the institutional factors" to influence voter turnout (8). He agrees with Tingsten's evidence and Gosnell's findings that compulsory voting has resulted in a. ".. remarkable rise in participation... ".

(8). Lijphart proffers three speculative advantages of compulsory voting. Argument #1: : Stronger Participation in Politics The first is "the increase in voting participation may stimulate stronger participation and interest in political activities" (10). This is basically the notion that people who participate in a certain venue of politics will be compelled to participate in others.

The understanding behind this rationale is that compulsory voting imposes a civic duty upon the citizens of a democracy, and that by such a process, the citizens are becoming more involved and educated in their political surroundings. It is sustained by the concept that by being forced to vote, citizens will also be forced to develop a sense of ownership of the political and decision-making process. Argument #2: Less Money in Politics Lijphart's second argument is "compulsory voting may have the beneficial effect of reducing the role of money in politics" (10). He maintains this by suggesting that compulsory voting diminishes the necessity for politicians to spend funds merely trying to persuade people to vote.

Argument #3: Less Cynicism and Distrust in Politics His final argument is "mandatory voting may discourage attack advertising - and hence may lessen the cynicism and distrust that it engenders" (10). Lijphart validates this argument with evidence that attack ads are primarily targeted for those who are not likely to vote for the attacker. Argument #4: Rational Choice Model Furthermore, Lijphart states that the rational choice model justifies compulsory voting, because the model explains that "in an election with a large number of voters the rational citizen decides not to vote" (Blais, 2). Lijphart basically believes that the rational choice model justifies the free-riding and laziness of citizens who choose not to exercise their civic duty. He finds this unacceptable, believing that each citizen must take the responsibility for who governs them and how they are governed. Argument Against Compulsory Voting While Lijphart's arguments for compulsory voting are, at first glance, reasonable and valid, there are staggering problems with the compulsion of all citizens to vote.

Counter Argument #1: Less Participation in Politics First, the notion that compulsory voting will result in greater interest in political participation is illogical and unrealistic. It is true that some citizens who are forced to vote may become more interested in politics, however, it seems more likely that compulsory voting would discourage the political education of the electorate because many people would resist what they believe is a source of oppression. Citizens would become, in fact, become apathetic or angry to a government which they believe is purposely and directly infringing on the rights of citizens. Additionally, it is overly optimistic to believe that if a citizen is forced to vote, he or she will have interest in a subject in which he or she has never been interested. Citizens would be more likely to vote at random, as uninformed and apathetic voters, merely trying to satisfy the requirements of their government and evade punishment.

Counter Argument #2: Greater Role of Power Lijphart's second argument, that compulsory voting would "reduce role of money in politics", is speculative and unpersuasive. While it may be possible that that the role of money would be reduced in politics, the role of power and possibility of totalitarianism would certainly increase. Compulsory voting advocates a kind of government that can oppress the rights of citizens, complete with governmental officials who have the ability to exercise such oppression. That kind of power is far more menacing than money. Counter Argument #3: Encourages Cynicism and Distrust in Politics Lijphart's argument that compulsory voting would reduce attack advertising and thereby reduce cynicism and distrust is as unsubstantiated as it is irrational. Compulsory voting may reduce attack advertising, but it is highly doubtful that it would reduce cynicism and distrust.

It is much more likely that forcing citizens to vote, disregarding their civil liberties would result in greater cynicism and distrust. Typically, when any human person feels that they have been violated, as many citizens would if they were forced to vote against their will, they become angry, suspicious and scornful toward the source of that violation. In the case of compulsory voting, the source of that violation would be the government. Counter Argument #4: The Rational Choice Model Lijphart validation of his argument for compulsory voting with the rational choice model can be blatantly contradicted with Blais' conclusions in To Vote or Not To Vote? Blais proffers seven reasons for the paradox of voting and explains why citizens do, in fact, vote in major elections. Lijphart would have you believe that people do not vote because of the rational choice model, while Blais offers the rationale behind why people do vote.

Conclusion Compulsory voting debases the democratic process by coercing citizens to participate in it. It is a fundamental human right to be un bothered, to be allowed to live one's own life with in the confines of the law, and to take no interest in politics or government except by personal decision. In a democracy, a person should be free to participate in the election process when he or she wishes to do so, and to avoid participation without having to face punitive consequences. Arend Lijphart's arguments are faulty.

While compulsory voting may seem practical, it is a scheme against the exercise of free will and civic rights.

Bibliography

Blais, Andre. To Vote or Not to Vote? : The Merits and Limits of the Rational Choice Model. University of Pittsburg Press. 1, 1-15; Conclusion. Lijphart, Arend. 1997. Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma", American Political Science Review. 91, 1, 1-14.