Voting is often seen as a fundamental right and a civic duty in democratic societies. Many countries have laws that require citizens to vote in elections, either through mandatory voting or through fines for not participating. While the intention behind compulsory voting may be noble, there are several reasons why it may not be the best approach.
One argument against compulsory voting is that it infringes on an individual's right to free choice. Every person has the right to make their own decisions and express their own opinions. Forcing someone to vote goes against this principle and may result in people casting a ballot without truly understanding or caring about the issues at hand. This can lead to uninformed or apathetic voting, which undermines the integrity of the democratic process.
Another issue with compulsory voting is that it may not necessarily increase voter turnout or political engagement. While it may encourage some people who would not otherwise vote to participate, it may also discourage others who feel their vote does not matter or who disagree with the candidates or issues on the ballot. In Australia, where voting is mandatory, there are still significant numbers of informal or "dummy" votes, which are ballots that are not marked for any candidate. This suggests that even with compulsory voting, people may still feel disengaged from the political process.
Compulsory voting can also have unintended consequences on marginalized groups. For example, low-income individuals or those with disabilities may face barriers to voting, such as lack of transportation or access to polling stations. These individuals may be disproportionately impacted by fines for not voting, leading to further inequality.
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that countries with voluntary voting tend to have higher voter turnout and more politically engaged citizens. This may be because people are more motivated to vote when they feel that their participation is a choice rather than a requirement.
In conclusion, while the intention behind compulsory voting may be to increase political participation and engagement, it can have negative consequences on individual freedom, political engagement, and marginalized groups. Instead of mandatory voting, governments and political parties should focus on efforts to increase voter education and access, such as through voter registration drives and accessible polling stations. These approaches respect individual autonomy while still promoting the importance of participating in the democratic process.
Pros and Cons of Compulsory Voting
If the legitimacy and authority of a jury decision depends upon the jury making a competent decision in good faith, then perhaps so should the legitimacy and authority of most other governmental decisions, including the decisions that electorates and their representatives make. So we should also implement compulsory voting. Prior to that, election days varied by state â but because the US was still a largely agrarian society, early November was the prime time to vote because the harvest was over but the weather was still mild. The best scientific studies tell us that citizens act like Betty at the voting booth. Universal voting would help fill the vacuum in participation by evening out disparities stemming from income, education and age. Mandatory voting in Australia has also contributed to diminishing wealth inequality and political corruption, both of which are powerful changes in a democracy. Sports fans who paint their faces the team colors do not generally believe that they, as individuals, will change the outcome of the game, but instead wish to demonstrate their commitment to their team.
Why Voting Should Not Be Mandatory (Free Essay Sample)
For example, the coercion theory holds that anyone subject to coercion from a political body ought to have a say LĂłpez-Guerra 2005. To be sure, no one should be forced to be a responsible citizen: however, neither should anyone be forced to do what responsible citizens can do; that is, cast their vote at election time. Alternatively, suppose that there were a determinate threshold either known or unknown of votes at which a winning candidate is suddenly transformed from being a delegate to a trustee. As it is with jury service, so it is with voting: Asserting a civic duty is the best way to guarantee the right this duty entails. I welcome the report. Should Everyone Receive Equal Voting Rights? For instance, is a voter obligated to vote for whatever would best produce the most just outcomes, according to the correct theory of justice? This means that their message needs to be one that includes and benefits everyone, resulting in politicians taking positions on issues that are not necessarily ideal because they are trying to get votes from everyone.
3 reasons to oppose mandatory voting
In Australia, which is the setting that I know best, just because I've studied it, compulsory voting is pretty popular, there is not a major push from the public to repeal compulsory voting. If citizens had a legal obligation to vote, managers of our electoral process would in turn have an obligation to make it as simple as possible for voters to discharge this duty. The thought here is that an individual voter realizes her individual vote has little significance. For instance, when the United States decides whether to elect a warmongering or pacifist candidate, this affects not only Americans, but a large percentage of people worldwide. In the United States, for elections and changes to be made, we rely on the voice of the population via their vote. There is some evidence that even just the act of inducing somebody to vote will actually make them more informed. For instance, suppose one argues that citizens should vote because they ought to exercise civic virtue.
FRQ Compulsory childhealthpolicy.vumc.org
One suggestion Beerbohm 2012 is that citizens have a duty to vote to avoid complicity with injustice. And if people have a hard time voting, or if the lines are two hours long, you're going to have a bunch of outraged citizens who's saying, "What the heck? Brennan 2011b; LĂłpez-Guerra 2014; Mulligan 2015. Forcing everyone to vote means that the voice of those with no interest in politics will influence the decision about who rules the country. The expressive theory of voting G. Should we treat showing up at the polls in elections the same way? So do we know a little bit more about why they abolished it? One plausible explanation of why it is wrong is that there may be a general moral prohibition against participating in these kinds of activities. They tend to believe that citizens have a duty to vote even when these citizens rightly believe their favored party or candidate has no serious chance of winning Campbell, Gurin, and Mill 1954: 195. During that time, turnout averaged 95 percent.
