In my research for one of my countries Paraguay, I found
that it had compulsory and universal
voting, however it was not enforced. Over the ditch, Australia also has compulsory
voting which is enforced.
At first thought it seems to encourage democracy, as voting
outcomes should be more representative. However, with some research on
arguments both ways I am unconvinced that this is so.
Compulsory voting invades on some of our most important
rights. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, and voting should
therefore not be forced. Further, some religions such as Jehovah's Witness'
choose not to engage in political activities, which would be a breach of their
freedom of religion. Voting is a right, but it is also a choice and that choice
should be free.
I am also unconvinced that compulsory voting leads to a more
representative outcome. Uneducated or uninterested voters may vote for major
parties because they have to. This takes away the legitimacy of their votes. Also,
where parties/candidates need to be ranked, there is a risk that they are ranked
in order by uninterested voters.
Personally I feel if something has become forced, then it
takes away significance and a sense of duty from the voter.
What are your thoughts?
I also had to classify the country Paraguay for my assignment and thought about this exact question! I agree with you completely. Suffrage is such a crucial compartment of democracy. Nevertheless, the right to not vote is just as important as the right to vote.
ReplyDeleteAustralians have been considering whether compulsory voting in a democracy is a contradiction since voting became required by law nearly a century ago.
In my opinion, choice is essential. And that choice includes the right to not vote if you wish not to.
You might be interested in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381
I agree with this to some extent. I believe the aspect of compulsory voting does somewhat complicate and take away the validity in the significance and influence of public vote. I do believe that voting is a necessary factor in developing democracy and the need for varying public input does provide a democratic sense of choice. However, i agree with the fact that compulsory voting doesn't present a form of consistency as like you say people have to vote for the sake of it and don't really care who they vote for which doesn't provide a clear representation of public opinion. I think the matter of this provides positive democratic intentions in that public opinion is enforced that leadership must depend on the public. But i agree in the sense that there is a fault with the policy as there is a misrepresentation of valid opinionated voting.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a 'refusal to vote' option should be provided for voters. I can understand not voting due to lack of interest or knowledge - and I think those who make this choice are, as discussed, at times both an aid and detriment to valid forming a representation of public opinion - but surely democracy should provide an outlet to express preference for non-democracy? Simply declining to vote is insufficient to express choice.
ReplyDeleteSo many people recognise voting for the sham that it is and choose not to do so. Compulsory voting is one way to combat the declining rate of voting because the system is not working the way the books tell us it should. One could cast an intentionally spoilt vote in protest although that would be about as useful as casting an actual vote (i.e., not very). At least it makes their statistics for democratic participation look better on paper.
ReplyDelete