The most fundamental aspect within a democracy is that ruling is done by the people . Without this, a society could never function as a democracy; it would be one only in name. In the first forms of democracy, this meant that every single citizen was responsible for participating in the decisions that the state made. As society progressed, however, this responsibility was handed off, with representatives being elected by the citizens in order to make the decisions for them, in their interests, thus creating the modern representative democracy . It is important to question whether this has resulted in the people being uninformed and uninterested in politics, and whether it is necessary to have the people stay involved in this process. This …show more content…
Specifically, Dr. Verity Burgmann has stated that by denying people the ability to decline participation in voting there is an important freedom that Australians are denied. This aligns with the view of countries like the United States, where citizens value their personal freedom above all else. However, this does not appear to be the popular view of the Australian citizens. Polls taken show that over the years there has been very steady support for compulsory voting, generally with between 60 and 70% of citizens in favour of it. It shows a belief among the citizens that having compulsory voting does serve a purpose and is not an egregious infringement to their rights. In support of this Lisa Hill wrote: “The majority of Australians endorse compulsory voting and could be said to consent to the obligation to vote, not merely because they feel bound to obey the laws of a relatively just society, but because they apparently regard this particular law and its entailed obligations as a reasonable imposition on personal autonomy,” (Hill). They may recognize a utility that arises from political participation and understand that being involved in the election process benefits them by helping them to elect the representative that will best serve them. It is difficult to conclude whether the right not to …show more content…
This is often cited in support of compulsory voting, with supporters claiming that they make the elected governments seen as more legitimate. This would mean citizens could be more willing to support the decisions made by the government, as they would reflect the opinions of almost all citizens, thus creating a society in which the majority is satisfied with the representation they receive and the choices that are being made for them. This appears to hold true when examining the percent of the populations in Australia and the United States that trust their governments. While 45% of Australians trust their government, compared to only 30% of Americans (OECD study). This would seem to support the claim that a compulsory vote creates citizens happier, however, an obvious issue would be that only two countries are being compared. These rates are not solely due to voting systems and a compulsory voting system within a less stable country would have a lower rating than a stable country with voluntary voting. To prove this, the level of governmental trust in Canada was 62%. One can conclude that voting being made voluntary or compulsory is not responsible for making citizens more pleased with their government, with it rather being related to the specific country one resides
In document C, John W. Dean who was legal council the the U.S. President Richard M. Nixon said, “While compulsion of any kind is a restriction, so is the compulsion to drive only on the right side of the road. Requiring citizens to vote is no more restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft. And it is far less restrictive than requiring us, for example, to attend school; to serve on juries, possibly for weeks or months at a time; to pay taxes; or to serve in the military when drafted”(Dean). That shows the multitude of laws or requirements in America that are less important than voting, but are required. Voting is for the good of the country, yet people won't vote, but won't bat an eye when they are forced into jury duty.
There is an argument in the article “Telling Americans to Vote, or Else”, that is written by William A. Galston. The article states that voting should be necessary for everyone. The author contrasts American voting with Australian voting. In the text, it says,
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...
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
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
In Document D, it tells us that although Italy has a compulsory voting system in place, it “ranks low” in political satisfaction among western countries. In addition, many voters have “unfavorable attitudes towards their electoral system”. When citizens are required to vote, their attitudes towards voting can become negative. In addition, in places like the US, where voting is optional, voters have the “highest voter satisfaction rates with their political institutions”. So, citizens are much happier with their government when they are given the choice to vote, not when they are forced to do it. The government doesn’t want their citizens to be unhappy; in the past, unhappy citizens has lead to revolts against the government. Citizens being unhappy about compulsory voting is shown in Document E. In Peru, citizens are required to vote and will receive a penalty of US$35 if they do not vote. Because of this penalty, 13% of ballots cast are blank or null. These citizens either “spoiled” their ballots or refused to vote for any of the candidates. It is clear that these citizens were unhappy about being forced to vote and they were unhappy about the penalty for not voting, so they voted, but they voted by casting ballots that were blank or null. Is it really better to have citizens that vote when they are submitting blank or null ballots? No. If citizens are so against voting that they will submit blank or null ballots, they should just be allowed to not
Should we have the freedom to chose weather we vote or not? Currently the United States allows citizens not to vote, but some believe that this makes our politics undemocratic. Some think forcing people to vote is against the freedoms we have today. In the following essay, I will give the views of Arend Lijphart and Austin Ranney about these topics.
On the contrary, citizens should be required to vote. For example, text 1 line 20 states "A democracy can't be strong, if its citizenship is weak"; therefore when being forced to vote against our own will, it is to strengthen our nation. In addition, if the turnout rates are high, then political parties reaches out to the citizens. As a result, the voices of the less educated and the poorer Americans will be heard and not ignored. Not to mention, William A. Galston states that voting evens out the inequalities stemming from income, education, and age in text 1. Most importantly, mandatory voting only benefits us a nation and individually. Clearly, compulsory voting should be enforced.
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
Sections 7 and 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution confer an implied right to vote. This interpretation comes from that the people elected to be the members of the Senate and the House of Representative are defined as ‘directly chosen by the people’. In other words, the equal electorate needs for the people who participate in elections to express their wills through their representative. Accordingly, the implied right is consistent with the definitions of representative democracy and representative government. The following case, Rowe, is considered the both notions, bu...
Clearly, many citizens are choosing not to vote. Now, some may forget to vote. Others may be unable to vote due to sickness or other emergencies. But many people simply do not bother. They may feel they are too busy to participate, or, worse, that their vote "doesn't count." Some people actually believe that individual votes do ...