Compulsory Statism
Luke Brown
The Australian Democrats fully support the practice of compulsory voting and oppose any proposal to introduce voluntary voting in Australia. Compulsory voting is an essential element of the democratic process and it has, since 1924, been the accepted practice in all Australian State and Federal Parliamentary elections. 24 countries (17% of all democracies) with a total population of 606 million people (15% of the total democratic population worldwide) are partly or fully compulsory voting democracies.
What this brief history of compulsory voting in Australia doesn’t tell you is that there was almost no debate over its introduction and it was rushed through both Houses of Parliament. But these are mere +details.
They don’t get off to a good start. If compulsory voting is “an essential element of the democratic process” why would, according to their figures, only 17% of democratic countries (with 15% of the total democratic population worldwide) have it? 83% of democratic countries and 85% of their populations therefore do not have it. It seems rather inessential.
Compulsory voting and participatory democracy
Voting is a means of participating in the political process uniquely accessible to the largest number of citizens and for many, represents the only way they believe they can influence what the government does. Removing the obligation to vote is not simply a matter of freeing people from the performance of a duty. It represents a devaluing of the act of voting by the government and a corresponding devaluing of the peoples' role in the system of government.
If for the “many” voting “represents the only way they believe they can influence what the government does” then surely they will go and vote if they feel this way? But what of those who are not part of the “many”? Perhaps anticipating this question, we suddenly have a switch in tone and language. From a generally accepted belief, we go straight into talk of an “obligation” and “performance of a duty.” Say what? “Freeing people from the performance of a duty.” Huh?
Compulsory voting helps to ensure the expression of choice at least by a majority of voters and to guard against the opportunities for improper or illegal electoral practices, such as multiple voting or bribing voters.
Never mind that New Zealand, where voting is voluntary, is nowhere close to dropping to a 50% participation rate (however even if they did, it would be irrelevant to the principles involved). Compelling someone (using the force of law) to express a “choice” is just plain contradictory and sounds awfully like duress. And how forcing someone to vote is going to restrict improper electoral practices is not elaborated on. (Surely the electoral roll would be maintained as usual, except that no-one is punished for not voting.
How the chances of multiple voting occurring could be any different than under compulsory voting is not clear. The same goes for bribery: it is no more likely than under the current system. If someone under voluntary voting doesn’t want to vote he is not punished, and if he wants to throw his vote, how can it be prevented? Under compulsory voting, if someone doesn’t want to vote he is punished, increasing the incentive to go to the polls to avoid the punishment and perhaps spoil one’s vote, or take money to throw his vote to make the trip worthwhile, it again being unpreventable.) Besides, it’s your system, you fix it.
Arguments for compulsory voting
voting is a civic responsibility of citizens in a democratic society. Each citizen must take responsibility for who governs them and how they are governed;
This is stated as a matter of fact. And what it is basically saying is that citizens are stupid; they wouldn’t know responsibility if it hit them in the head. It is also apparently a matter of undeniable fact that they must be governed and they must take responsibility for this (even though they are being forced to take responsibility like little children, who are so fragile and unlearned that they need the State to look after them. The irony is that when our political parents go off to work they are the ones who act like children). You see, it seems citizens are so stupid that they must be constantly reminded that in order for them to be responsible, they need the nod from government, although I always thought that government was supposed to be derived from the people. And presumably all those countries where people don’t vote renders them non-democratic societies.
compulsory voting ensures the expression of choice by all those eligible to vote and ensures, as far as possible, that parliaments are elected according to the will of all its citizens;
Surely it is up to “all those eligible to vote” to make the choice. What if the will of some of the citizens is to not vote for any political party or candidate to go forth to parliament? And if a threat is involved, how can it be someone’s “will”? Or is the collective will more important than the individual will? In fact, the only “will” being expressed is that of the State. You will vote and if you do not we will punish you. That is not choice, it is compulsion, thoroughly antithetical to a free society.
compulsory voting helps legitimise the electoral process and the parliaments chosen by it;
The only thing it “legitimizes” is the political parties, using the threat of force by the State. If one is forced into voting for the parliament, how on earth can this honestly legitimize anything, unless one thinks that coercion and force is legitimate? Duress can in no way bring about authenticity.
social and political cohesion is promoted and alienation from the political process by the disadvantaged is diminished;
Obedience to the State is the only thing being “promoted” here. What this is saying is that people cannot get along unless the State helps them do it, by force if necessary. How exactly does forcing the “disadvantaged” (whoever they may be referring to here) to go along and vote, diminish their “alienation”? In fact, the “alienation” will probably only be exacerbated.
There is obviously a reason for this alienation. Yet how can forcing these particular people to go along and put crosses in boxes on a piece of paper do anything for them? They will walk away and nothing will have been done to address their alienation unless their disadvantaged situation has actually been addressed (and how do they know if people are feeling alienated anyway; how will forced participation reveal this?).
If their situation has not improved, in a few years time there they will be again, at the ballot box, more alienated, because the likes of the Democrats promised them that things would be better by merely checking some boxes on a piece of paper and thus making them feel involved. This issue sheet does not say why or in what way these people are disadvantaged, but let us assume we are referring to economically disadvantaged people. Why are they economically disadvantaged?
Could it have anything to do with the following: they are out of work because unions have priced them out of work, unnecessary regulations, government intervention and protectionist policies have interfered in the market diminishing the overall amount of wealth in the country, taxes have diverted their income or those of others to wasteful government programs, or loose monetary policy has diverted investment away from productive enterprises and diminished purchasing power through inflation?
That is how you help the disadvantaged, by addressing these problems you are responsible for (i.e. get out of the way of the market and quit blaming it), not giving vague promises about how politicians will help solve the things they caused, usually by more statist activity.
citizens develop a sense of ownership of the political and decision-making process;
How one develops a sense of ownership by being forced to be part of something is not explained. We obey, because the State says so. If we don’t, we get punished. We have a system called a +representative+ democracy. We participate nominally by “choosing” the representatives to act on our behalf. That we choose through the threat of force is clearly considered irrelevant. Think about “our” democracy this way. Let’s say you are caught in a dark alleyway and confronted by a bunch of thieves.
They offer you some alternatives. You will be robbed no matter what, but the good news is, is that you have a choice of who will do the robbing. Not only that but the thieves will not just pocket the money, they will actually spend it for you, according to what they feel is best for you and, just for kicks, they give you a little preview of their plan. They also inform you that they are not just picking on you, but will in fact be robbing everyone in the neighborhood, thanks to their colleagues in their own respective gang of thieves.
At the end of the day, the most “popular” gangs will be counted and then will decide how the collective purse will be spent depending how many chose each particular gang relative to the others. You start to complain and mutter something about it being your money and you’d rather spend it the way you’d prefer.
Anticipating this, they reassuringly, and trying hard to keep the condescension out of their voices, tell you that well, in fact, it is quite fair, because they did consult the other victims as well. The victims have spoken. Well, you counter, what business is it of the other victims what happens to your money; it is after all yours, not theirs. The thieves, getting impatient, thunder, you do believe in democracy, don’t you? Ah, what benevolent parasites, sorry, thieves, these are.
compulsory voting contributes to civic education and the entrenchment of civic values;
Civic in this case is merely code for the State. What exactly these “civic values” are is not explained (coercion and forced association are values?). As for “civic education” the only lessons that can be drawn from this is that the State is to be obeyed and feared. What kind of values can be brought about through coercion, besides statist and collectivist ones?
election campaigns focus on the issues and choices before the voters rather than concentrating on mechanisms to get people to the polls;
This is just silly (but rather revealing). It is issues and choices that should be getting people to the polls.
compulsory voting diminishes the opportunities for the exercise of corrupt, illegal and improper practices during elections;
How it does this is not explained (although I attempted to address this earlier). And anyway, just because the politicians are unable to clean up their own electoral processes, why should the burden for this be shifted onto citizens who don’t want any part of the electoral process or at least want the choice whether to be involved or not? This implies that it is the fault of the citizen who wishes not to vote that improper practices occur and that the citizen concerned should be forced to do the government’s job for them. This smacks of involuntary servitude.
the involvement of all citizens in an election provides some protection against domination by minority interest groups, the economically powerful and other elites.+
The only domination going on is between those who use force and coercion, and those who don’t. The former is certainly the State, and the latter are freedom loving individuals and those who they choose to voluntarily co-operate with.
Compulsory voting and individual liberty
Voting is a positive duty owed by each citizen to the rest of society arising out of the profound political and social significance it wields.
A positive (for whom) duty? The only duty that they feel is owed to anyone is to the State. Making voting voluntary affects no other citizen in the rest of society. It does not take away the right of other citizens to vote. The only thing a citizen, an individual (remember them?) arguably “owes” is to himself, family and friends, and to whoever he chooses to voluntarily deal with, free from coercion.
It is argued that compulsion to exercise a right to vote infringes individual liberty. However, it is integral to our system of democracy that citizens possess and exercise both rights and responsibilities.
The compulsion to vote is not unique. Other citizenship responsibilities accepted by governments and citizens include jury duty, giving evidence in court proceedings, compulsory education and payment of taxes. The compulsion to vote cannot be considered an unusual or especially onerous requirement of citizens.
In the same way that the payment of taxes is accepted as a sacrifice citizens must make to obtain various social benefits provided by a democratic system of government, the obligation to vote is accepted as a necessary duty citizens must fulfill in order to maintain our system of democracy and the benefits that flow from it.
They are correct on one point here. The payment of taxes (“sacrifice”?… “benefits”? – as if these “benefits” originate from the State and not us — and as if the State is better at determining what is best for us) and the like is certainly accepted by governments. Yet if all of the above were “accepted” by citizens (and was not considered “unusual and “especially onerous”), why would there by any need for them to be compulsory?
If they are so confident that these so-called responsibilities are accepted, make them voluntary and let us see what happens. Clearly this is not going to happen and the reasons for this are very clear. Their whole argument would collapse like a rickety chair that had these politicians’ superannuation packages dropped on it.
All this condescending prattle that is enumerated in their platform is designed to conceal the fact that they have no respect for the individual, clearly feel that citizens are so stupid and frail that they need government to control and legitimize their lives; for their own good of course (though when anyone usually tells us it is for our own good, it is usually for their own good). Note how they admit that there is an argument that ”compulsion to exercise a right to vote infringes individual liberty” but then quickly dismiss it, without elaborating on it.
Individual liberty, an essential foundation of a free society, is instead treated as if it is some kind of old-fashioned, obscure “thing” that is irritatingly brought up, to be immediately dismissed and overridden by the collective. This is followed by talk of “rights” (read duties to the State) and “responsibilities” (read you know to whom).
In a free society, one has responsibilities to account for your own actions, respect the choices, property and freedom of others; not the State. A free society is a lot more important than what some politicians want for us, backed up by force . I’d like to see an issue paper of the Democrats answer that.
Email Luke Brown
BrookesNews.Com
Thursday 14 August 2003