Why Australia Should Abolish Compulsory Voting
Some Arguments Considered...
In my more cynical moments, reflecting on the nugatory differences between Australia’s major political parties, I describe the country as a one-party state that forces you to vote for it. When sober, I concede that there are important differences between the major parties (the Liberal/National Coalition has better hats), but still oppose compulsory voting.
Voting in national elections became compulsory in July 1924 after astoundingly little debate in the Senate (where the bill was introduced) and the House. The bill was an attempt to solve the problem of a decrease in voter turnout in the 1922 election.
In the House, the honorable member for Perth, Mr Mann gave his reasons for supporting the bill: “If the principles of democracy are to be properly applied, it is evident that some attempt should be made to ensure that those who govern at least represent the majority of the governed.” Owing to the obvious perfection of its members’ policies and persuasive skills, Parliament recognised that the voter is obliged to recognise them. Mr Mann continued: “People need to be taught that they will be good democrats, not by being armchair or street-corner critics, but by becoming in reality responsible for public acts.”
The honorable member for Boothby, Mr Duncan-Hughes opposed the bill: “Such a radical alteration of the electoral machinery of Australia is sufficiently important to justify the fullest details being laid before honorable members. I regret the haste with which this bill has been introduced. It was both introduced and passed in the Senate during the last week, and, apparently a similar course is to be followed in this chamber.” He continued by pointing out that a “franchise which gives an individual the right to decide whether he shall vote or not ceased to be freedom when made compulsory.”
Mr Duncan-Hughes also noted that he did not mention the subject of compulsory voting during his election campaign and would not support the bill without the approval of his constituents. He pointed out the hypocrisy of the idea of compulsory voting: “It is certainly not obligatory upon honorable members to vote upon any question brought forward in this House. If honorable members are in favour of compulsory voting, the proper place to make a start is this House.”
After a few interruptions (including one from a Mr Forde who urged Mr Duncan-Hughes to stop speaking because “we want to get the bill through”) Mr Duncan-Hughes introduced a familiar argument: “Many people do not vote because they consider that their knowledge of politics is not sufficient to justify them in doing so… Many will not vote because they do not think that they understand politics… Does the honorable member for Perth anticipate that such people would, under compulsion, develop an interest in elections?” If people are forced to vote on a subject to which they’re indifferent, or which they don’t understand, “they will depend upon the opinions of others, so that their votes, in the main, will not represent their own definite views.” Almost a century later, his country proves him right: Australians are no more politically educated (and maybe are even less so) than citizens of similar countries that have voluntary voting.
“If honorable members are in favour of compulsory voting, the proper place to make a start is this House.”
So how should Parliament improve voter turnout? Mr Duncan-Hughes gave two suggestions: more access to education and “for this Parliament to increase in stature and favour with the people.”
This was too much to ask; the bill was read a second time and passed the remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Reading the Hansard from this period, I was surprised that most of the arguments in favour of compulsory voting were not the ones commonly used today. This makes me suspect that today’s advocates for compulsory voting start with the conclusion (compulsory voting in Australia is good) and look for arguments to support it.
The most common argument is the one made by Mr Mann: that voting is a civic responsibility. This is quite persuasive because few people would disagree with the premiss that citizens have civic responsibilities and duties. Advocates for compulsory voting, however, fail to argue why this is an argument specifically for voting. Voting is not the only civic duty and maybe not even the most important one. (The narrator of Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, a recent recipient of the right to vote and a huge inheritance, writes that “Of the two – the vote and the money – the money, I own, seemed infinitely the more important.”) One could argue that, say, volunteering at a charity or subscribing to a newsletter that discusses Australian politics are important civic responsibilities – so why aren’t they obligatory?
Voting is not the only civic duty and maybe not even the most important one.
Another popular argument is one expressed by Waleed Aly: “Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in the center… That is one reason Australia’s version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts.” There are at least three things wrong with this argument. The first is the lazy use of ill-defined adjectives like “far right,” which is often used as a pejorative label to dismiss viewpoints without disproving them. The second is the implicit assumption that compulsory voting is good because it benefits left-wing parties (however you define them). It’s possible that left-wing parties are better at governing the country, but this is something Mr Aly must prove and not just say. The third problem is that it begs the question about cause and effect. How does compulsory voting specifically prevent undesirable political viewpoints? Is Australia’s political system more stable than that of, say, New Zealand or Canada or the United Kingdom?
In the 1924 debate in the House Mr Duncan-Hughes realised that compulsory voting would require a huge increase in the cost of holding elections. So how does Parliament pay for this? It doesn’t. You do. Each candidate or group receives $2.914 per eligible vote. But this applies only to those who receive “at least four per cent of the total first preference votes in an election.” I suppose this is how compulsory voting excludes minor parties: by denying them the ability to extort the electorate. The major parties force you to vote and then force you to pay for the privilege.
The last argument I want to propose is one I haven’t heard in the context of this debate. It’s based on trust. How do I know a candidate will accurately represent my views to Parliament? How do I know a candidate won’t introduce a private member’s bill which wasn’t mentioned in any manifesto or debate? (Many egregious laws are snuck into Parliament this way, including the bill to make voting compulsory).
If I don’t trust any of the candidates on offer, why should I be forced to vote for one?