The pros and cons of mandatory voting

[Elixir]

Sounds like a great thread title, eh?

Pros include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

Cons include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

 

[bilby]

Sounds like a great thread title, eh?

Pros include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

Cons include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

Having lived half my life under each system, I am firmly in favour of mandatory voting.

In my experience, most voters don't vote for their preferred candidate or party; They vote against the parties and candidates that they least want to see in power. And that's a good thing - but depends for its full effect on getting everyone to express an opinion even if that opinion is "I don't care".

Mandatory voting is a bit of a misnomer - it's actually mandatory participation. People are quite at liberty to cast a blank ballot paper, or to cast an invalid paper; What they are not allowed to do is stay home watching TV.

Once they are in the booth with a paper and pencil, the vast majority of people will make a valid vote - which strongly suggests that the claim "I am not lazy, I choose not to vote as a matter of principle" is largely false. Certainly there are people who make that principled decision not to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot - and that choice is in no way made more difficult by mandatory participation. I have seen blank ballots, defaced ballots, even ballots with short political manifestos written on them. But most (though by no means all) of the "I don't vote as a matter of principle" crowd drop that principle like a hot brick once laziness is no longer an influence.

A couple of elections ago, we had a paper on which no boxes were marked, with "Not everybody should have to vote!" scrawled across it. As one of my colleagues remarked "well, he didn't, did he?".

 

[Tigers!]

Pros: For perhaps a few secs you get some people to think about what they might want in their future.
More accurate tally of what is the state of play at that time.
People get a chance to meet others and see their neighbourhood
Making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate
Sense of participation and a stake in the working of your country

Cons: Annoys some people (tough toenails)
More work behind the scenes for many people (but good work)

Don't forget that with mandatory voting it is necessary to have it as easy as possible for people to vote.
Suggestions:-
1. Weekend voting rather than a week day
2. Don't display voting tallies until final polling station is closed to avoid people saying what's the point?
3. Plenty of polling stations
4. Non-gerrymandered electorates
5. Independent electoral commission
6. Consistent (across the country) method of voting and tallying the votes. Having 1 state use machines and another state use chads and yet another state use paper etc. is just so stupid. Standardise!
7. Get politicians out of boundary drawing and the electoral process
8. Separate clearly the mechanics and logistics of voting from the politics of voting
9. Count all ballots cast. Provide information on how many were formal, informal etc.

(Sadly none of these suggestions will give of themselves decent candidates or polices.)

 

[Swammerdami]

(BTW, the penalty for not voting in a mandatory-voting country is usually very mild. But just calling it "mandatory" does encourage participation.)

The general answer in the abstract is, Yes, mandatory voting is a good idea. Not voting is usually the smart selfish thing to do! Littering is also the "smart" selfish thing —why waste time disposing? Mandatory voting laws are good for the same reason anti-littering laws are good: Coerce altruistic behavior. If most rational people made the rational decision NOT to vote, election results would be dominated by irrational people, often motivated to vote by confusion or misdirected anger.

That voting is irrational is easily seen via ordinary mathematics. Let's assume only the Presidency is at stake. Driving to a poll and waiting will easily cost you more than $5 of time and money, and may have just one chance in a million of flipping the outcome. $5 = $5 million ÷ 1,000,000. Was it worth $5 million to you that Biden ousted Trump? I'll guess there are MANY Trump haters who would have happily let Trump remain in office if you paid them $4 million or even $3 million.

For a close LOCAL election, e.g. for school board where you have great interest in the schools the chance your vote will be decisive is MUCH greater, and the calculus changes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pros: For perhaps a few secs you get some people to think about what they might want in their future.
More accurate tally of what is the state of play at that time.
People get a chance to meet others and see their neighbourhood
Making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate
Sense of participation and a stake in the working of your country

Cons: Annoys some people (tough toenails)
More work behind the scenes for many people (but good work)

Don't forget that with mandatory voting it is necessary to have it as easy as possible for people to vote.
Suggestions:-
1. Weekend voting rather than a week day

Are you kidding me? We need it on Tuesday so people can get to church and travel to the voting location and sell their harvest.

Also, weekend voting is a "power grab".

 

[Jayjay]

Sounds like a great thread title, eh?

Pros include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

Cons include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

I don't think either is true. If you have to choose between a turd sandwich and a douche, those are still going to be your only options even if voting were mandatory.

What bilby said is probably the best rationale for mandatory voting anywhere: it forces people who pretend that they stay home out of principle, when in fact they're just lazy, to put their money where their mouth is and actually expend the same amount of effort to cast an empty ballot rather than vote for something/someone. But let's say you have a very high barrier to get to the polls to begin with, like standing hours in line. In that situation, forcing a mandatory vote will just piss people off. I don't think it'd work in America.

But in countries where it takes literally five minutes to vote, sure, why not?

And maybe even in the US, lots of more people being pissed off at long lines would help get elected officials to do something about those lines?

 

[Patooka]

And maybe even in the US, lots of more people being pissed off at long lines would help get elected officials to do something about those lines?

Pretty certain those long lines are a direct result of the elected official's actions.

 

[bilby]

And maybe even in the US, lots of more people being pissed off at long lines would help get elected officials to do something about those lines?

Elected officials should under no circumstances be allowed to influence those lines in any way.

An independent body should be tasked with ensuring that voting is easy for everyone, and elected officials should leave that independent body the fuck alone.

 

[Tigers!]

Pros: For perhaps a few secs you get some people to think about what they might want in their future.
More accurate tally of what is the state of play at that time.
People get a chance to meet others and see their neighbourhood
Making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate
Sense of participation and a stake in the working of your country

Cons: Annoys some people (tough toenails)
More work behind the scenes for many people (but good work)

Don't forget that with mandatory voting it is necessary to have it as easy as possible for people to vote.
Suggestions:-
1. Weekend voting rather than a week day

Are you kidding me? We need it on Tuesday so people can get to church and travel to the voting location and sell their harvest.

Also, weekend voting is a "power grab".

I assume you are being sarcastic?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But in countries where it takes literally five minutes to vote, sure, why not?

Why just countries? Why not states, counties, municipalities, school districts?

Another way to encourage voting is to make it pay. Give people fifty bucks if they vote. Want to stay at home instead? Fine.

 

[Tigers!]

Sounds like a great thread title, eh?

Pros include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

Cons include making the body of elected officials more representative of the electorate.

A couple of elections ago, we had a paper on which no boxes were marked, with "Not everybody should have to vote!" scrawled across it. As one of my colleagues remarked "well, he didn't, did he?".

Every election I am surprised by how many votes the Queen (Elizabeth II for the yanks) gets. 'Mum' also gets many votes. (Frankly based on most candidates I reckon more mums would do better).

 

[Tigers!]

But in countries where it takes literally five minutes to vote, sure, why not?

Why just countries? Why not states, counties, municipalities, school districts?

Another way to encourage voting is to make it pay. Give people fifty bucks if they vote. Want to stay at home instead? Fine.

Who would be paying? Sounds too close to bribery for my liking.

 

[Derec]

Mandatory voting is a bit of a misnomer - it's actually mandatory participation. People are quite at liberty to cast a blank ballot paper, or to cast an invalid paper; What they are not allowed to do is stay home watching TV.

Once they are in the booth with a paper and pencil, the vast majority of people will make a valid vote - which strongly suggests that the claim "I am not lazy, I choose not to vote as a matter of principle" is largely false.

So if somebody is lazy and does not show up, is there a fine or do bailiffs come and escort to you a polling place?

 

[bilby]

Mandatory voting is a bit of a misnomer - it's actually mandatory participation. People are quite at liberty to cast a blank ballot paper, or to cast an invalid paper; What they are not allowed to do is stay home watching TV.

Once they are in the booth with a paper and pencil, the vast majority of people will make a valid vote - which strongly suggests that the claim "I am not lazy, I choose not to vote as a matter of principle" is largely false.

So if somebody is lazy and does not show up, is there a fine or do bailiffs come and escort to you a polling place?

There's a small fine.

 

[Metaphor]

Once they are in the booth with a paper and pencil, the vast majority of people will make a valid vote - which strongly suggests that the claim "I am not lazy, I choose not to vote as a matter of principle" is largely false. Certainly there are people who make that principled decision not to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot - and that choice is in no way made more difficult by mandatory participation. I have seen blank ballots, defaced ballots, even ballots with short political manifestos written on them. But most (though by no means all) of the "I don't vote as a matter of principle" crowd drop that principle like a hot brick once laziness is no longer an influence.

Was this supposed to be a 'pro' or a 'con'?

Do you believe the people who are too lazy to vote and lie about their motivations are in general voters you wish to participate? Why?

A couple of elections ago, we had a paper on which no boxes were marked, with "Not everybody should have to vote!" scrawled across it. As one of my colleagues remarked "well, he didn't, did he?".

It seems both you and he rather missed the point.

He (or she) did vote. He cast what in Australia we call an 'informal vote'. But he was obviously made to vote against his will. He obviously wanted to do something else on his Saturday.

 

[TomC]

But in countries where it takes literally five minutes to vote, sure, why not?

Why just countries? Why not states, counties, municipalities, school districts?

Another way to encourage voting is to make it pay. Give people fifty bucks if they vote. Want to stay at home instead? Fine.

Who would be paying? Sounds too close to bribery for my liking.

The same people who paid Halliburton to fuck up Iraq. The same people who bailed out Goldman-Sachs and Citibank.

Taxpayers.

I'm no fan of government mandates. I'm much bigger on the carrot approach, rather than the stick approach. Instead of mandatory voting, how about a small tax credit? Say, $10?

I feel the same way towards organ donation. Everyone who is a registered organ donor gets a $50 tax credit.

I feel that way about a lot of things. Don't punish people for non-compliance, reward them for doing the right thing.
Tom