Vote, or else…
An on-line article in Der Spiegel today reports on the low turnout in last Sunday’s vote for the Eurpean Union’s parliamentary elections. “Across the 27-member bloc, just 42.9 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. That marks the lowest turnout since direct voting began in 1979.” Various solutions to the problem are being proposed, including popular election to the EU’s Commission as well as of the EU’s president, which might spark greater interest.
There was also low voter turnout for the recent election in Germany, at which the Social Democrats did very poorly. Its parliamentarian, Jorn Thiessen has proposed that voters who don’t vote be fined: “We politicians are required to vote in parliament,” he told Bild. “One can require the same of voters in an election. Those who don’t cast their ballots should be fined €50. A democracy without democrats doesn’t work.” Spiegel comments:
Thiessen’s idea is not quite as outlandish as it may sound. Australia has enforced compulsory voting since 1924 and fines people between 20 and 70 Australian dollars should they provide no good reason for not having cast their ballots. Argentina is also a member of the elite, mandatory voting club.
There are also a few European members in that club, including Luxembourg and Belgium. Their turnouts in the European elections: 91 percent and 90.4 percent, respectively.
Good idea, or bad? Would it be unconstitutional in the USA?
I think it’s better for the parties and candidates to have to work to attract turnout. FWIW.
Not unlike jury duty, voting is an essential civic responsibility. But I don’t think the gov should mandate voting like it does jury duty. When called to do so, defining justice is a requirement of every citizen. Voter apathy cannot be overcome simply by enacting a law.
I confess I’m not up on the EU structure of governance, but if I followed the article correctly, it appears there is a European Parliament, AND a Commission, AND Council, AND a presidency? Yeesh.
There’s actually been a lot of sociological research on compulsory voting. (I’ll try to provide some good links.) In general, voter turnout is increased in compulsory voting countries if there is both a high penalty and strict enforcement. Any variation on these two necessary conditions and voting % drops. Some countries, Chile and Fiji for example, use the threat of imprisonment to motivate turnout, but unless such a threat is strictly enforced, voting % is not much greater than it is in jurisdictions where voting is non-compulsory. In addition to the use of fines, some countries (e.g., Belgium, Argentine) use disqualification from public benefits or public sector jobs as the whip.
Even where there are stiff penalties and strict enforcement, people often can game the system by intentionally creating invalid ballots or by leaving ballots blank. To the extent officials try to prevent such ‘voting’ by reviewing ballots before they are officially cast, are the officials impinging on a right not to vote? I remember a professor describing compulsory voting, with tongue firmly in cheek, as “forcing citizens to be free.”
If you require all persons of voting age to vote in all elections, you would also have to require them also to register and penalize failure to register. You would also have to make all election days holidays. A federal law would only bind for federal elections, no? Could a state pass a law setting up these requirements for state residents? The complexity of our system is such that what might work for Luxembourg might be impossible here.
Australia does this, and the penalty for failing to vote is a modest fine. Of course the government makes allowances for the poor and overburdened.
I spent a year in Iceland in the mid 1960s. All elections were held on weekends over 2 days. Transportation was provided for those who didn’t have their own way to the polls. Records were kept of who voted. There was a lot of national pride instilled in people when it came to voting and, consequently, they had (maybe still do) one of the highest rates of voter turnout (somewhere in the 90% range) of any free country at that time.
I personally think that voting by mail should be made as easy as possible (can it be any easier than it currently is?) and that might improve the results.
But, most of all, unless people recapture their sense of civic duty and stop saying “my vote won’t make any difference” … and our governments PROVE that voting DOES make a difference, things won’t improve.
I think we also need a 3rd national party with local affiliates to get away from the virtual stranglehold of the US electorate by the Republicans and Democrats. The fact that elected officials can switch parties as easy as changing their underwear proves that the differences are not inherent but practical and fungible as the wind direction changes.
Such a law would be contrary to both the spirit and letter of the First Amendment as it was originally drafted. I know people such as myself and others such as our current CENTCOM commander would be forced into seeking redress from the courts to protect our conscience rights rather than submit to forced voting under the State’s police power.
Not voting can also be considered as a “vote”: The non-voter is asserting his distaste for both (or all) candidates, or he/she is asserting that he/she does not consider the candidate or issue as being important enough. A fine would be inappropriate.
Mr. Schwartz, I don’t see a contradiction between your observation (which could be true in individual instances) and mandatory voting. The ballot could include a preference for “Neither/None of the Above.”