Polling Booths - Ben Sutherland (Flickr)
We are at an age where democracy is the governance model that leading western countries adopt and attempt to introduce around the world – sometimes by force (Afghanistan, Iraq) and sometimes by political or economic pressure (Cuba). Let’s not forget the amount of interest that the recent Iran election has sparked.
Democracy
Democracy for me means that individuals (adults) who belong to a country through birth right or citizenship may exercise their consent on who should govern that country for the next four years. Each person is entitled to only one vote and the leader is established by the majority of the people.
There are people inside compulsory voting countries that would prefer to have voluntary voting on the grounds that this would make politicians work harder and become more reliable.
Isn’t it strange?
I find it ironic that in countries where dictatorships have ruled in the past, people are now asking for voluntary voting (Chile in mind). While the country was in dictatorship, people wanted a chance to choose the government and be able to change it. Now they want the right to not choose a government.
Many people who are unsatisfied with the major political parties, sabotage their vote on election day by making their vote invalid. This is disappointing as the elector (who is clearly unsatisfied) instead of holding a government accountable, lets this opportunity go by.
If voluntary voting were introduced, what benefits would it bring about? US and UK have voluntary voting, are their governments better or more accountable than Australia’s, who has 92% voting turnout on election day?
Why I don’t like it
The problem I have with voluntary voting is the following: The candidates and their political parties would only target the groups that have a tendency to vote – this being the educated and/or the upper class population of the country. (I’m speculating that the lower classes or people without much education would not bother voting)
This means that both major political parties will target these populations because they are the ones with the power. When in government, they will make decisions that will affect the WHOLE country while only representing the interests of a big (but limited) group.
Let’s look at the US
The 2008 US presidential election had a voter turnout of approximately 57% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). We all like to believe that America has a democracy, meaning that majority of citizens elect the government. Well if 57% of the eligible population voted, and 52.9% voted for Obama, then a bit over 29% of the elegible population voted for the current president. So 29% of Americans who could of voted, elected Obama. Was Obama then elected by the majority? Yes, but not in the way we understand democracy.
Summing up
In conclusion, voting is a right. It’s a right that many people in smaller countries around the world wish they had. Let’s not take it for granted, appreciate the opportunity to vote. The current politicians may not be the best but let’s face it, they will never be satisfactory enough.
I am not into writing negative or critical posts but I thought this was timely after the recent Iran election controversy and all the outrage it has caused in Western countries (with people) who are suddenly interested in freedom in other places.
I’m not sure you can say that with voluntary voting it’s only the upper classes and educated who vote. In Venezuela Chavez has managed to cling to power by doing the opposite – building a big support base in the poor and uneducated classes away from Caracas and the elite. That country might not be the best example, but in a way voluntary voting is good in the sense that politicians have to work harder to make people support them enough to want to get out and vote for them. When Reagan became president in the US in the 80s he did it partly by getting a lot of evangelical christians who traditionally didn’t care much about politics or have large turnouts on election day to start caring, and they’ve been a powerful force in American politics ever since.
I’m not sure how I feel about compulsory voting. I’d probably vote most of the time anyway so it doesn’t bother me…
But I can see why other people might not want to or care. If you didn’t know anything about the candidates or if it won’t really make a difference to you who wins anyway (think student elections at uni!)
I’m not sure you can say that with voluntary voting it’s only the upper classes and educated who vote. In Venezuela Chavez has managed to cling to power by doing the opposite – building a big support base in the poor and uneducated classes away from Caracas and the elite. That country might not be the best example, but in a way voluntary voting is good in the sense that politicians have to work harder to make people support them enough to want to get out and vote for them. When Reagan became president in the US in the 80s he did it partly by getting a lot of evangelical christians who traditionally didn’t care much about politics or have large turnouts on election day to start caring, and they’ve been a powerful force in American politics ever since.
I’m not sure how I feel about compulsory voting. I’d probably vote most of the time anyway so it doesn’t bother me…
But I can see why other people might not want to or care. If you didn’t know anything about the candidates or if it won’t really make a difference to you who wins anyway (think student elections at uni!)
@ Matt
You bring up some good points. Venezuela isn’t a unique example, much of the controversy of Iran’s recent election is similar. The poor, uneducated, the religious and the farmer population voted for incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While inside Tehran, he was hugely unpopular – strangely enough, he manages to get a majority of votes there on election day. There is so much suspicion in both cases that it is hard to use the voting system as an indicator.
Venezuela abandoned compulsory voting in the last election. I think that this would have been a strategic move. If compulsory voting would have been re-established I wonder if the results would have been different (supposing that the election was conducted without fraud).
In the US, analysts use voter turnout as an indicator of faith in the system. It is discouraging to have a low turnout. Here is a history of voter turnout: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Voluntary voting can be used to influence results either way, targeting a population, urging them to vote and only promising results in their favour. Sometimes the elite may benefit, sometimes the poor benefit.
One aspect I like about compulsory voting is that the candidate is obliged to perform and appeal to a larger audience. This creates a balanced government who cannot afford to exclude populations from big policy decisions hence they will be held accountable at the next election.
One argument in favour of voluntary voting that I have sympathy for is: Voters who care about elections and inform themselves should have the privilege to vote as people who don’t care distort the result.
Both systems have pros and cons. As long as the elections are conducted in a legitimate fashion, the candidates of that country will have to adapt their campaign to best suit the situation. In my experience I have always identified a stronger candidate observing the elections in the US, UK, Australia and Chile. I am happy with the system in Australia and respect voluntary voting in other countries.
@ Matt
You bring up some good points. Venezuela isn’t a unique example, much of the controversy of Iran’s recent election is similar. The poor, uneducated, the religious and the farmer population voted for incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While inside Tehran, he was hugely unpopular – strangely enough, he manages to get a majority of votes there on election day. There is so much suspicion in both cases that it is hard to use the voting system as an indicator.
Venezuela abandoned compulsory voting in the last election. I think that this would have been a strategic move. If compulsory voting would have been re-established I wonder if the results would have been different (supposing that the election was conducted without fraud).
In the US, analysts use voter turnout as an indicator of faith in the system. It is discouraging to have a low turnout. Here is a history of voter turnout: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Voluntary voting can be used to influence results either way, targeting a population, urging them to vote and only promising results in their favour. Sometimes the elite may benefit, sometimes the poor benefit.
One aspect I like about compulsory voting is that the candidate is obliged to perform and appeal to a larger audience. This creates a balanced government who cannot afford to exclude populations from big policy decisions hence they will be held accountable at the next election.
One argument in favour of voluntary voting that I have sympathy for is: Voters who care about elections and inform themselves should have the privilege to vote as people who don’t care distort the result.
Both systems have pros and cons. As long as the elections are conducted in a legitimate fashion, the candidates of that country will have to adapt their campaign to best suit the situation. In my experience I have always identified a stronger candidate observing the elections in the US, UK, Australia and Chile. I am happy with the system in Australia and respect voluntary voting in other countries.