Why Compulsory Voting S Beneficial

By definition, citizens of democratic countries are given the right to vote and elect leaders they feel can best represent the people’s political ideologies; but what if portions of the electorate do not vote, resulting in an unbalanced government with unequal representation? This disastrous scenario could easily be solved with compulsory voting, also referred to as mandatory voting. Although compulsory voting could be difficult to enforce and may infringe upon the rights of citizens who do not wish to vote, a compulsory voting plan should be implemented in every democratic government because it broadens representation in government, ensures a true democracy, and decreases risk of political instability.

While opponents claim that compulsory voting could be difficult to enforce, there is in fact a simple solution. As other plans to increase voter turnout at the polls have failed, it has become clear that the only way to enforce compulsory voting and make sure voters visit the polls on Election Day is to issue a small penalty, such as a fine anywhere from $15 to $100. Of course, any new measure requires resources to implement, and in this case, detractors of compulsory voting point to the “waste” of these resources on an “unnecessary” logistical headache as a reason to oppose this plan. These critics may say that these funds could be used in other, “more meaningful” settings, like the health and education sectors, rather than be allocated for the purpose of ensuring every citizen has voted. However, while the administrative barrier of mandatory voting could prove to be a major obstacle to overcome, with a properly-set penalty fee, this strategy would pay for itself, and possibly even generate income for the government!

Another argument against compulsory voting is based on the premise that frequently, portions of the electorate may be ill-informed about politics, and thus, if mandatory voting is implemented, these citizens would influence the polls in an unfavorable manner. Supporters of this argument suggest that ignorant voters could harm the future of their country, as they could be too easily swayed by external influences, such as bribery or manipulation, rather than the politician’s ideologies and relevant experience. However, mandatory voting could actually impel citizens to educate and inform themselves on political matters before Election Day. In fact, compulsory voting has major potential to engage voters in civic or political affairs concerning the country, making for a more politically-informed electorate. This, in turn, would decrease risk of political instability -- educated citizens would be able to make their own decisions, rather than be easily controlled or swayed by manipulative politicians. If citizens were obligated to vote, they would take this responsibility more seriously, resulting in less “donkey votes,” or votes cast from apathetic voters who only wish to avoid receiving a penalty.

Additionally, compulsory voting would broaden representation in government. Traditionally apolitical groups, such as immigrants who do not yet feel strongly assimilated into the culture of their new country, may be left out of the political process, meaning their concerns would not be discussed within the government. Though one reason citizens currently may not feel compelled to vote is the lack of suitable candidates, compulsory voting would encourage more minority or marginalized candidates to run for office. Designating voting as a compulsory obligation would level the playing field for all election candidates and increase the number of minority representatives or leaders, which is crucial to building a cohesive political unit.

Even though mandatory voting has drawbacks, such as its potential difficulty in implementation and possibility of including ignorant and apathetic voters, a compulsory voting plan should be implemented in every democratic government because it broadens representation in government, ensures a true democracy, and decreases risk of political volatility.