Mandatory voting has become a hot topic for conversations and discussion considering the poor voter turnout last year,PBS states only 58% of eligible voters voted.This is only a small amount of the US who voted,but is it low enough to pass a law for mandatory voting?
Jason Brennan ,an assistant professor of ethics,economics and public policy at Georgetown University, states in his article Mandatory Voting would be a disaster,”When we the people vote, we make bad choices, and we get what we choose.” Brennan might be onto something here.What if everyone who voted just randomly picked one? If this were to happen it would be like a game of Wheel of Fortune everytime citizens voted.This law would also mean a high risk of losing your citizenship,what
…show more content…
Sure, but so is mandatory taxation, jury duty and the requirement to educate our children.” This comes from the article What we've seen in australia with mandatory voting These facts are all true,however if they added mandatory voting would we be a free country anymore?All of these things should be taken into account before deciding on mandatory voting.
Some more information is by the article Understanding Nonvoters, states that “Analyses of survey data show that no objectively achieved increase in turnout including compulsory voting would be a voon to progressive causes or Democratic candidates.”There would be no real difference in the outcome if mandatory voting was a law.
The article Compulsory Voting by Matt Rosenberg states, “Voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47% prior to the 1924 compulsory voting law. In the decades since 1924, voter turnout has hovered around 94% to 96%.”This is a good amount of voters but how big of a difference did it actually make in the outcome?
Not voting is voting,think about it,you are deciding you are not going to vote.That is your voice, deciding who to vote for is your voice and when mandatory voting comes in,our voice will be misheard.People will just randomly choose and then no one makes a stand to have their own
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
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...
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
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
Australia has one of the oldest systems of compulsory voting, and arguably the most efficient (Hill, 2010). Compulsory enrolment at the federal level was introduced in 1911 this later became mandatory voting in 1924 (Hill, 2010). Mandatory voting was introduced in Australia to combat the problem of low voter turnout and it was successful in doing so; 59% turnout in 1922 surged to 91% in 1925 after the first federal election (Hill, 2010). “Australia never had a rights culture understood in the classical liberal sense of individualized rights” (Hill, 2010. Pg.428). Australia was unified in 1901 and shortly after compulsory voting became mandate. The citizen’s of Australia have never known a...
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
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
Recently, only 60% of registered voters have actually voted in presidential elections. This brings up the question: should Americans be required to vote? This question receives very mixed answers. Many Americans believe that they should have the choice and the freedom to vote or not; many Americans also believe that mandatory, or required, voting is simply a civic duty. Currently, American citizens are not required to vote. Citizens seem to like this system, but because voting is not mandatory, the amount of citizens that vote in elections is rather low. Americans should not be required to vote because it forces people to vote that are uninterested, makes citizens unhappy, and damages other people’s votes.
Over the recent year’s American voters have brought back a way of voting that was used during the country’s old age of existence, this rediscovered act is known as early voting. Early voting started in the early 1990s, though the outcome has not had such a high consistency over the years it is still recommended to help the Election Day process in the country. Since voter turnout is not entirely consistent due to the process being constantly shortened by state laws, the argument against early voting is that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, opponents believe it is ineffective. Although that is not the case, in his 2016 blog article, “A Brief History of Early Voting,” Michael McDonald inform readers on the brief history of early voting as he states how the rates of voters who has cast their ballots before election day has increased over the years, “from less than a tenth to about a third” (qtd. in McDonald) since the 1990s. This proves to show why the money being spent on this act is not simply being wasted. Although early voting has
There is a way that is already put in use to increase voter turnout in Australia is to make voting mandatory. People in Australia are forced to vote or they will be fined, or even jailed if they do not vote repeatedly. It is very effective in term of improving voter turnout; however, there is still some argument against it. One of them being people would only vote because they have to, so they are ignorantly voting for the candidates just to be done with it. I completely agree with this idea. The voter turnout can be really high, but it would be meaningless if the people just vote to escape from the punishments. Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter also suggested that, instead of punishing people do not vote, we should reward people who vote. It is the same with the mandatory voting. I think it will only be effective in increasing the voter turnout, but the results will not. People should vote voluntarily for the best and fair outcome. To have more people voting, I believe we should take a look at why people do not vote. We must assure people that if everybody thinks their vote does not count, then no one would vote. We should be able to change their attitude about their own votes. If people cannot vote because they are busy with work or schools, we should have a national day off on the election day. By doing so, much more people will be able to participate in voting. There should also be
Katie, Beck. 2013. "Australia election: Why is voting compulsory?" BBC News, August 26. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23810381 (March, 2015).
"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
In 2012, only 58% of the population voted in the primary elections. That is a very low number compared to all the other countries. According to William A. Galston’s article, “Telling Americans to Vote, or Else,” he states, “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting.” I agree with his statement. Pursuant to the online business dictionary, jury duty is “one of the highest duties of citizenship.” In jury duty, you are making a very important decision. You’re making the decision to prove if someone is innocent or guilty. The idea of jury duty correlates with the aspect of voting. You’re a part of the decision process to pick the next leader of our country. As well as jury duty, voting should be added to one of the highest duties of U.S
Lisa Hill a professor at the University of Adelaide who spreads the yes, in mandatory voting, “If voting were mandatory in the U.S., people would be inspired to pay more attention to campaigns... ” (Junior Scholastic). Many might think their vote doesn't count, so government should express how it does and not make it a unpleasurable activity by making it mandatory. However much, there is truth in that point, an election simplifies down to one person over another other. My point still stands that unwanted force is never good and America should not accept that. It is human nature to show displeasure to forced activities that weren't done by will before hand. It isn't convenient for some citizens, and if registering for voting was much easier that there might be a higher voter turnout (Scholastic Magazine).If the government wants a higher turnout, than people shouldn't be making time for the government, the government should make more time for the people and not stripping us of our freedom.
...in the politically process could be a reality. Once a person's vote is stolen their voice is lost and the votes could be sold for a profit. The challenge to the validity of our future elections could destroy the confidence in our electoral process.