Responding to Critics
About My Article on Compulsory Voting
The value of a writer can be measured by the amount of intelligent criticism he inspires. By this standard, I failed. My article suggesting that Australia should make voting voluntary found hundreds of readers in its first week, but I was unprepared for their luminous objections:
Bozo shit.
Pretty shit article really.
You don't seem to want to fix the system, just dismantle it.
Who would have thought Australia’s revolutionary publication would be called Cosy Moments?
I do, however, appreciate the readers who read my article and shared their opinions of it. I’ll address some of their objections and introduce some new arguments.
Objection 1: Yeah, voluntary voting works well in the US.
Maybe it’s unfair to start with this one, because this is the least-supported objection, and the sarcastic tone with which it is usually expressed reveals that this is more of an emotional reaction than a rational response. I’m starting with it because it was by far the most common answer I received, even though I clearly laid out the arguments against it in my initial article.
If I were as glib and simplistic as my opponents, I would write something like this:
Countries with voluntary voting: Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Japan.
Countries with compulsory voting: Australia, North Korea.
This is at least enough to make you consider that the problems in the United States cannot be attributed to voluntary voting alone. There’s no reason to think that Australia would immediately turn into the United States if it made voting voluntary. It’s possible (and, in my view, likely) that Australia’s political culture is much less fissile than that of many other countries (including the US) because Australia is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. But that’s a debate for another time.
Objection 2: Compulsory voting prevents extremism
If you’re tired of this argument, my dear reader, imagine how I feel, having responded to it in my original article. Here is how one commentator put it:
“The US issue with extremism is DIRECTLY tied to low voter turnout giving out weighted political power to the most politically engaged which more often then [sic] not are extremists.”
Despite my correspondent’s use of capital letters, he doesn’t provide any proof that “extremism” is tied to low voter turnout or voluntary voting. In fact, there’s some evidence suggesting the opposite.
One study in the Netherlands found that the votes for minor and “extreme” parties decreased when the country abolished compulsory voting in 1970. Studies in other countries show mixed results. (See the studies cited in the Netherlands paper.)
New Arguments – Interference with negative liberty
The argument that compulsory voting infringes on someone’s negative liberty was once popular in Australia, though it was often poorly expressed. “Negative” liberty usually refers to the absence of external obstacles or constraints: you are free if no one prevents you from doing what you want. (Most authors use “freedom” and “liberty” interchangeably.)
Say, for instance, John faces a choice between having coffee or tea, and that he would prefer the coffee. In this example, John enjoys his “negative” liberty if he can choose the coffee without interference, and no one would have interfered had he chosen the tea or had chosen to drink nothing at all.
“Positive” liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to control your own life in your own interests. This requires the presence of something like self-control or self-determination.
The Steel Man
Most people are aware of the straw-man fallacy: when you attack a weak or fabricated version (a straw man) of your opponent’s argument rather than the one he actually made. The steel man is the opposite: presenting the strongest possible version of your opponent’s argument.
Since my critics failed to present even a mid-strength version of their own argument, I direct them to Dr Lachlan Umbers of the University of Western Australia, who has made the best case for compulsory voting I’ve come across. I’ll try to summarise it for you:
Supporters of compulsory voting don’t deny that it limits citizens’ negative liberty. Yet governments can (and should) limit some liberties if there is the justification to do so. If compulsory voting produces clear benefits (as compulsory taxation does) then many people would consider it just.
What are those benefits?
In many countries, the people least likely to vote are the poor and marginalised. Compulsory voting ensures that these people participate in the electoral process, thereby making government more responsive to their needs. Compulsory voting ensures that it isn’t only the wealthy people who decide the government, and there is some empirical evidence claiming that compulsory voting (when enforced) reduces income inequality (measured by Gini coefficients).
In the case of Australia, Dr Umbers cites evidence that, after the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, the federal government spent more on pensions, a policy more popular with working-class voters.
Some objections
It’s unclear why reducing income inequality is the best way to improve the lives of the poor: making everyone’s income $0 would increase equality but decrease living standards. This is a problem especially when using the Gini coefficient: because it’s a relative measure, it’s possible for it to rise (owing to higher income inequality) while the number of people in absolute poverty falls. An absolute measure might be better here, but I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting that compulsory voting reduces the number of people below an absolute poverty line or increases income per capita.
I find it curious that Dr Umbers must go back almost a century to find an example of compulsory voting helping the poor in Australia. If the practice really were so significant, wouldn’t there be more recent examples of its benefits? Considering this, I doubt if the benefits of compulsory voting in Australia are strong enough to justify the limit on negative freedom.
If the practice really were so significant, wouldn’t there be more recent examples of its benefits?
It also seems strange to me that compulsory voting is the best way to alleviate the plight of the poor. Why not instead make donations to charity compulsory?
And why stop there?
If Dr Umbers’ argument proves anything, it proves too much: why not make daily exercise mandatory? Isn’t physical health an undisputed, important good? Isn’t it then legitimate for the state to take reasonable coercive measures to promote it? Dr Umbers doesn’t provide any criteria by which one might judge which benefits justify a limit on negative freedom.
Such criteria would depend on your underlying political philosophy. Dr Umbers has smuggled his in. He assumes:
It is possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf.
It is wise for the state to do so.
The positive freedom of Australian citizens includes economic equality.
These assumptions are fiercely disputed and need much more argumentation than Dr Umbers provides.
Objection 3: Compulsory voting doesn’t deprive you of your ability to abstain
This is another common objection, and one made by Dr Umbers. He argues that compulsory voting is compatible with many possible forms of political expression (letters to newspapers, attending protests, writing on social media) and says that the opponent of compulsory voting must show that these forms of expression are less significant than an abstention.
Well, protests and letters to newspapers don’t decide the government. Spoiled ballots and “donkey” votes are considered mistakes; they are arbitrarily judged as illegitimate.
An abstain option is a message to political parties and candidates saying that they have failed to persuade a voter. If Dr Umbers thinks that other forms of political expression are just as significant as voting, then why doesn’t he support making them compulsory too?
Undefeated Arguments
I received hundreds of comments (mostly negative) about my original article. I found it revealing that no one addressed two of my arguments:
1. If voting is important enough to be compulsory, why can politicians abstain from voting in Parliament? The champion of compulsory voting must show why arguments in favour of it apply not to politicians but to the people who pay their salaries.
2. Why should I be forced to vote for candidates I don’t like or trust? And isn’t it a little patronising to say that it’s for my own good?
I welcome any response to these arguments. If you have one, please leave a comment below.
It seems to me that this isn’t a question about negative freedom but positive freedom. Compulsory voting isn’t so much a prohibition as forced political speech. This, in my opinion, is enough to consider that the costs of compulsory voting outweigh its benefits.
It seems to me that this isn’t a question about negative freedom but positive freedom. Compulsory voting isn’t so much a prohibition as forced political speech.
Forcing people to express (a narrow range of) political opinions denies that they can think for themselves and decide how they are governed. You can think for yourself so long as you come up with the “right” answer: support for one of the available candidates. Also note that, under compulsory voting, “I have no opinion,” and “I don’t know” are unauthorised viewpoints.
If you deny that people can have valid opinions about politics that aren’t shared by the candidates on offer, then presumably you would deny the value of any sort of self-governance. In that case, why support voting at all?
What do you think, reader? Do I have this all wrong? Tell me what you think in the comments.
Years ago I would have strongly disagreed with William's article. Lately, however, I am beginning to see his point of view. Neither of our major parties in this last campaign election took the time to actually speak to any of the people of Australia. Every city they went to they held press conferences but the average Australian was kept away. If voting was made voluntary then they would have no choice but to talk to the people, not the press. After all, aren't we the ones they are meant to represent??