Consequences Of Breaking Compulsory Voting Laws

Compulsory voting has been a topic of discussion and debate for many years, with some countries and states implementing it, and others abandoning it. In the US, the idea of compulsory voting is not new, with some colonies imposing fines on eligible voters who chose not to participate. In the 19th century, English philosopher John Stuart Mill advocated for such compulsion, and the idea was widely debated during the American Progressive Era, from 1900 to 1920.

While the US has never implemented compulsory voting at a federal level, some states have passed laws to that effect. In 1898, North Dakota passed a law allowing the legislature to penalize non-voters, but this power was never exercised. Similarly, in 1918, Massachusetts granted similar permission, which also went unenforced. Kansas City, Missouri, also adopted an ordinance fining individuals who did not vote, but the Missouri Supreme Court voided the law in 1896 as a nonuniform tax prohibited by the state constitution.

Today, compulsory voting is implemented in over 20 countries worldwide, including Australia, Belgium, and Brazil. While the specific consequences of breaking compulsory voting laws vary by country, they typically include fines, with harsher penalties for repeated offences. In some countries, such as Brazil, non-voters face additional consequences, such as being unable to work in the public sector, obtain a passport, or get a loan from a public bank. In Australia, failure to vote can result in a fine of up to AU$180, and non-payment can lead to imprisonment for contempt of court.

While compulsory voting can lead to higher voter turnout, there are concerns about the potential for random votes from individuals who are voting against their free will. Additionally, there are debates about whether compulsory voting qualifies as compelled speech and violates freedom of speech protections. Proponents of compulsory voting argue that it improves political representation and reduces income inequality, while opponents argue that it infringes on citizens' freedom and may not lead to more informed voting decisions.

Fines and other sanctions for non-voters

Compulsory voting laws vary from country to country, with some imposing fines, others imposing restrictions on civic rights, and some taking a more relaxed approach by not enforcing the law.

In Australia, citizens who do not vote are fined between AU$20 and AU$50, with a maximum penalty of AU$180. In Argentina, fines range from $50 to $500 pesos. In Belgium, voters who repeatedly fail to vote may be disenfranchised, and in Peru, voters who do not vote are required to carry a stamped voting card for several months after the election to obtain some services and goods from public offices. In Singapore, non-voters are removed from the voter register until they reapply and submit a legitimate reason for their absence.

In some countries, the penalty for not voting is more severe. In Bolivia, voters who do not participate in an election may be denied the ability to withdraw their salary from the bank for three months. In Brazil, non-voters are barred from obtaining a passport and face other restrictions until they settle their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections.

Some countries take a more relaxed approach to enforcing compulsory voting laws. In Austria, for example, voting is compulsory in only two regions, with sanctions weakly enforced. In Belgium, while voting is compulsory, sanctions are rarely imposed, and in Mexico and Italy, there are no formal sanctions, only possible arbitrary or social sanctions.

In the United States, no one is required by law to vote in any local, state, or presidential election. However, in the colonial era, non-voters in Georgia and Virginia could be penalised with fines. Today, the state of Massachusetts has a provision in its constitution allowing the general court the authority to provide for compulsory voting.

Voting as a civic duty vs. a right

Voting is a civic duty that holds tremendous importance in every election, big or small. It is an opportunity to participate in a true democracy and a chance to make one's voice heard in a systematic way.

However, the right to vote did not come easily, especially for people of colour, women, and Indigenous people, who had to fight for it – and this fight continues even today. Casting a ballot is a tiny act that can change a nation's laws and make it a more equitable place. Decisions made by elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels have a direct impact on people's daily lives.

Voting is a fundamental part of democracy, and not exercising this right could result in political autonomy being relinquished to those who do not have the best interests of the community at heart. It is, therefore, crucial to keep future generations in mind when voting and to remember that decisions made today can have long-lasting consequences.

Voting as a civic duty implies that it is an obligation of citizens to participate in the democratic process by casting their votes. This perspective aligns with the idea that voting is a responsibility that comes with the privileges of citizenship. It suggests that by introducing an obligation to vote, all citizens governed by a democracy partake in the responsibility for the government appointed through democratic elections.

On the other hand, viewing voting as a right emphasises individual freedom and choice. It recognises that while voting is an important tool for shaping society, ultimately, the decision to vote or not rests with each individual. This perspective sees voting as an intrinsic obligation and argues that enforcing compulsory voting would infringe on the freedom associated with democratic elections.

Arguments for compulsory voting:

Proponents of compulsory voting, also known as universal civic duty voting or mandatory voting, argue that it improves political legitimacy by resulting in higher voter turnout and a more representative electorate. They believe that compulsory voting addresses the paradox of voting, where the costs of voting often exceed the expected benefits for individuals, particularly the socially disadvantaged. Compulsory voting can also stimulate political interest and education, creating a better-informed population.

Additionally, supporters argue that compulsory voting improves the quality of candidates and their decisions. In a compulsory voting system, candidates must appeal to a broader range of voters rather than just their base, leading to more moderate and less extreme governments.

Furthermore, compulsory voting can help remove voting restrictions by ensuring that everyone has equal access to polling places, reducing the impact of external factors such as weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It can also lead to the identification and removal of barriers to voting, such as registration requirements.

Arguments against compulsory voting:

Opponents of compulsory voting argue that it infringes on individual freedom and is not consistent with the values of democracy. They believe that voting should be a voluntary act and that enforcing compulsory voting may discourage political education as people forced to participate may react against the perceived source of oppression.

Additionally, critics argue that compulsory voting may result in a high number of random or blank votes, as individuals who are voting against their free will may not care about their choice of candidate. This could impact the legitimacy of the democratically elected government.

Moreover, the financial burden of maintaining and enforcing compulsory voting laws may be challenging for countries with limited resources.

The debate around voting as a civic duty versus a right is complex and multifaceted. While compulsory voting can increase participation and improve representation, it also raises questions about individual freedom and the potential for coercion. Ultimately, the decision to implement compulsory voting depends on a country's specific context, values, and priorities.

Political legitimacy and representation

Compulsory voting laws are based on the idea that higher voter turnout leads to greater political legitimacy and more representative governments. In countries with compulsory voting, such as Australia, Belgium, and Brazil, voter turnout rates are significantly higher than in countries without such laws. For example, in Australia, where mandatory voting was introduced in 1924, turnout for elections typically hovers around 90% of all registered voters. This is in contrast to countries without compulsory voting, such as the UK, which had a voter turnout of 59.7% in its 2024 general election.

Advocates of compulsory voting argue that higher voter turnout leads to governments that are more representative of the population as a whole. In the US, for example, it is often noted that the electorate tends to skew older, wealthier, whiter, and more educated than the general population. Compulsory voting could help to counteract this by ensuring that a broader cross-section of the population participates in elections.

Additionally, compulsory voting is seen as a way to counteract the influence of money in politics. As former US President Barack Obama noted in 2015, "it would be transformative if everybody voted... it would counteract money more than anything." This is because those who tend not to vote, such as young people, lower-income groups, and minorities, are often underrepresented in elections, which can lead to policies that favour wealthier and more powerful groups.

However, critics of compulsory voting argue that it infringes on individual liberty and the freedom associated with democratic elections. They argue that voting is not an intrinsic obligation and that enforcing compulsory voting could discourage political education and participation. Critics also point to the potential for an increase in uninformed voters, who may be more susceptible to misinformation and negative advertising. There is also the concern that compulsory voting could lead to an increase in "random" votes, where voters who are forced to participate check off a candidate at random or submit blank ballots.

Enforcement of Compulsory Voting Laws

It is worth noting that the enforcement of compulsory voting laws varies significantly between countries. Some countries, such as Australia, impose modest fines on citizens who do not turn up to vote, with exceptions made for those who have valid reasons for their absence. Other countries, such as Belgium, may impose more severe penalties, such as disenfranchisement for repeated non-voters. In some cases, countries may even post the names of non-voters, leading to a form of public shaming.

The effectiveness of compulsory voting laws also depends on factors such as registration requirements and the availability of exemptions. For example, in many countries, it is only compulsory to vote if you are a registered voter, but registration itself may not be mandatory. Additionally, countries may offer a range of exemptions, such as for those who are ill, elderly, or absent from the country on election day.

Voter suppression and political instability

Voter Suppression

Voter suppression refers to various tactics used to prevent or discourage people from exercising their right to vote. In the context of compulsory voting, the following factors can contribute to voter suppression:

• Financial penalties: In some countries with compulsory voting laws, citizens who do not vote may be subject to fines or other financial penalties. This can disproportionately affect low-income individuals, who may find it challenging to pay the fine, creating a barrier to their participation in the democratic process.
• Complexity and lack of enforcement: In some cases, compulsory voting laws may exist but are not effectively enforced by the government. This can lead to confusion among citizens about their obligations and may result in low turnout, particularly if the process for registering to vote or providing valid excuses for absence is complex and cumbersome.
• Restriction of freedom of expression: Critics argue that compulsory voting infringes on the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom not to speak or participate. This perspective views voting as a right rather than an obligation, and individuals should have the choice to abstain from voting if they so choose.
• Informed consent: Some critics argue that compulsory voting may lead to a higher number of uninformed voters. Without adequate knowledge of the political issues and candidates, individuals may feel pressured to vote randomly or without a full understanding of the implications.
• Impact on marginalised communities: Mandatory voting can disproportionately affect marginalised communities, who may face additional barriers to participation, such as access to transportation, language barriers, or a lack of civic education.

Political Instability

Political instability refers to a situation where a government or political system experiences frequent or significant changes, often characterised by conflict or uncertainty. Here are some ways in which compulsory voting laws can influence political instability:

• Legitimacy of elected officials: Compulsory voting can impact the perceived legitimacy of elected officials. On the one hand, higher voter turnout resulting from compulsory voting may lead to greater representation and reflect the will of a broader segment of the population. On the other hand, critics argue that high voter turnout does not necessarily equate to political stability, especially if a significant portion of the votes are cast randomly or without genuine engagement.
• Extremism and polarisation: Compulsory voting can influence the political landscape by pushing parties towards more centrist positions. However, there is a risk that it may also lead to the election of extremist candidates or increase political polarisation if a significant number of voters feel coerced or manipulated.
• Income inequality: There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of compulsory voting on income inequality. While some studies suggest a correlation between compulsory voting and improved income distribution, other research indicates that countries with strict compulsory voting laws, such as Australia, have higher income inequality compared to countries without such laws.
• Impact on political campaigns: Compulsory voting can significantly affect political campaigns and the strategies employed by candidates. With a guaranteed higher voter turnout, campaigns may focus more on engaging swing voters and moderating their positions, potentially reducing the influence of more extreme ideologies. However, this can also create an incentive for candidates to resort to negative advertising or simplistic sloganeering to attract voters who may be less engaged or informed.

The paradox of voting

The paradox disproportionately affects the socially disadvantaged, for whom the costs of voting tend to be greater. This leads to a prisoner's dilemma situation for marginalised citizens, where it seems rational to abstain from voting under the assumption that others in their situation are doing the same. However, since these citizens have a pronounced need for representation, this decision is irrational.

There are several possible explanations for the paradox of voting, including:

• Irrationality: Voters may not be making rational decisions about whether or not to vote.
• Social customs: Voting may be influenced by social norms and peer pressure.
• Social duties: Voting may be seen as a civic duty or responsibility, rather than a right.
• Altruism: Voters may derive expressive benefits from supporting particular candidates, similar to cheering on a sports team.
• Collateral benefits: Voting may provide benefits beyond the resulting electoral outcome, such as increased political knowledge and community awareness.

Some countries have introduced compulsory voting laws to address the paradox of voting and increase voter turnout. However, the effectiveness of compulsory voting in resolving the paradox is debated. While it can increase turnout and make the electorate more representative, it may also lead to an increase in invalid and blank votes, and may not necessarily result in more legitimate governments.

Frequently asked questions