# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American People: Vote "No Confidence" in the presidential election via a write in.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/18/obama-calls-mandatory-voting-us/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama thinks that forcing us to vote might be a good idea. That he could favor punishing people for not voting-which means taking their money by force and imprisoning them if they resist-is unsurprising. The essence of government is violence-aggressive, not defensive, force. Government is not usually described in such unrefined terms, but consider its most basic power: taxation. If you can't refuse the tax collector with impunity, you are a victim of robbery. It doesn't matter that government claims to render "services" if you don't want them.

Most of us learn young that violence is wrong except in defense of self or other innocent life. To those who say society without government would be problematic, I reply that most of us also learn that even a good end cannot justify a bad means. Besides, most of the ills that government "protects" us from-such as economic distress and terrorism-result from its own policies.

Aside from the violence inherent in the system, mandatory voting has conceptual problems. Enthusiasts of modern government often say that voting is a right-the most sacred right in some people's eyes. [More sacred than the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?] It's also said to be a duty. Can it be both?

Having a right means you may freely decide to take-or not take-an action without forcible interference by anyone else, including people in the government. Your right to the car you bought signifies that you are free to use it peacefully, or not use it at all. It makes no sense to say that your right to your car obligates you to use it or face punishment. Anyone who talks that way simply does not understand what a right is. A right, then, differs from an enforceable duty.

The story is the same with voting. If one has a right to vote, the idea of making the exercise of that right mandatory is absurd. No matter how many good consequences Obama dubiously foresees from compulsory voting, they can't change the fact that forcing people to exercise a right makes no sense. It's a sad commentary that he is not ridiculed widely for his suggestion.

If voting is a right, it can't be a duty, and if it's a duty, it can't a right. Perhaps it's neither.

I've assumed people have a right to vote, but let's not be too hasty. It's an odd right, indeed, because it entails participation in the process by which government officials are chosen. But as we've already established, government's essence is aggressive violence. Can you have a right to participate in what would be condemned as a criminal operation if it were run "privately"? Can you have a right to help determine who will govern others against their will?

If for the sake of argument we concede the right to participate in the political system, shouldn't we have to acknowledge the corollary right not to participate? I don't mean just the right not to vote, but the right to opt out of government altogether-voting, taxation, war, regulation. Yet government does not let us theoretically free people opt out of individual programs (try opting out of the Mideast wars or Social Security), much less across the board.

In other words, no matter how often we're told that the government exists by the consent of the governed, it really does not. Were you asked to consent? Please don't say that remaining in the country counts as consent, for that would assume what is here disputed: that before any specific consent, the government has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory known as the United States of America. In fact, consent is merely presumed, and nothing you can do will ever be taken by the government as legitimate withholding of consent. Yet if that is true, then nothing you can do could logically constitute consent either. To repeat: if nonconsent is impossible, so is consent.

Individual freedom in moral communities requires not an impotent "right" to cast one vote among multitudes, but the right to ignore the state and live peacefully.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama thinks that forcing us to vote might be a good idea. That he could favor punishing people for not voting-which means taking their money by force and imprisoning them if they resist-is unsurprising. The essence of government is violence-aggressive, not defensive, force.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.zencollegelife.com/the-7-reasons-most-americans-dont-vote/

https://www.change.org/p/the-american-people-vote-no-confidence-in-the-presidential-election-via-a-write-in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A healthy representative democracy depends on citizens exercising their right to vote. Yet here in the United States, usually 40 percent of eligible voters don't vote during presidential elections, and typically 60 percent don't vote in congressional midterm elections.

Should voting be mandatory?

In the 2011 Op-Ed essay " Telling Americans to Vote, or Else," William A. Galston writes:

Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting? The idea seems vaguely un-American. Maybe so, but it's neither unusual nor undemocratic. And it would ease the intense partisan polarization that weakens our capacity for self-government and public trust in our governing institutions.

Thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory voting, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The list includes nine members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and two-thirds of the Latin American nations. More than half back up the legal requirement with an enforcement mechanism, while the rest are content to rely on the moral force of the law.

Despite the prevalence of mandatory voting in so many democracies, it's easy to dismiss the practice as a form of statism that couldn't work in America's individualistic and libertarian political culture. But consider Australia, whose political culture is closer to that of the United States than that of any other English-speaking country. Alarmed by a decline in voter turnout to less than 60 percent in 1922, Australia adopted mandatory voting in 1924, backed by small fines (roughly the size of traffic tickets) for nonvoting, rising with repeated acts of nonparticipation. The law established permissible reasons for not voting, like illness and foreign travel, and allows citizens who faced fines for not voting to defend themselves.

The results were remarkable. In the 1925 election, the first held under the new law, turnout soared to 91 percent. In recent elections, it has hovered around 95 percent. The law also changed civic norms. Australians are more likely than before to see voting as an obligation. The negative side effects many feared did not materialize. For example, the percentage of ballots intentionally spoiled or completed randomly as acts of resistance remained on the order of 2 to 3 percent.

Students: Read the entire article, then tell us ...

- Should voting be mandatory?

- Would legally requiring people to vote make for a healthier democracy? Or do you agree with Jason Brennan, an associate professor of ethics, economics and public policy at Georgetown University, who argues in this 2011 Room for Debate that higher turnout does not necessarily lead to higher quality government? He writes:

The median voter is incompetent at politics. The citizens who abstain are, on average, even more incompetent. If we force everyone to vote, the electorate will become even more irrational and misinformed. The result: not only will the worse candidate on the ballot get a better shot at winning, but the candidates who make it on the ballot in the first place will be worse.

Most people believe that more voting causes better government. This is an article of faith, not fact. Social scientists have shown that higher quality government tends to cause higher turnout. But higher turnout does not cause higher quality government.

- Is mandatory voting undemocratic? Is it unconstitutional?

- Instead of mandatory voting, would you support other ideas to increase turnout, such as tax breaks for voting or making Election Day a public holiday so workers get the day off, as readers suggested in these letters to the editor? Or would you recommend using automatic voter registration, so that when an eligible voter gets a driver's license, he or she is automatically registered to vote?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A healthy representative democracy depends on citizens exercising their right to vote. Yet here in the United States, usually 40 percent of eligible voters don't vote during presidential elections, and typically 60 percent don't vote in congressional midterm elections. Should voting be mandatory? In the 2011 Op-Ed essay " Telling Americans to Vote, or Else," William A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans).

There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting." The argument usually goes like this: Voter turnout in America is low. Low voter turnout is bad. Therefore, we should make voting mandatory. (This argument is most popular after an election like last week's when things don't go so well for Democrats.)

When asked why low voter turnout is bad, one usually gets a mumbled verbal stew of Norman Rockwell-esque pieties about enhanced citizenship, reduced polarization, and, on occasion, veiled suggestions that Washington would get its policies right - or I should say left - if everyone voted.

To call most of these arguments gobbledygook is a bit unfair - to gobbledygook. First note that this logic can be applied to literally every good thing, from brushing your teeth to eating broccoli. Moreover, the notion that forcing people who don't care about politics to vote will make them more engaged and thoughtful citizens is ludicrous. We force juvenile delinquents (now called "justice-involved youth" by the Obama administration) and other petty criminals to clean up trash in parks and alongside highways. Is there any evidence this has made them more sincere environmentalists? If we gave every student in the country straight As, that would make all the education trend lines look prettier, but it wouldn't actually improve education.

This sort of enforced egalitarianism is reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron," set in a society where everyone must be equal. Above-average athletes are hobbled to make them conform with the unathletic. The smart are made dumb. Ballet dancers are weighed down so they can't jump any higher than normal people. The prettier ones must wear masks.

#share#Political scientist Nicholas Stephanopoulos recently penned an essay for The Atlantic skipping any requirement to explain why voting should be compulsory and going straight to his plan to implement an individual mandate to vote.

He begins, "Not enough people vote. It's a perennial source of concern in American politics." And with that, he's off to the races. His basic idea, which is quite plausible, is that if some very liberal cities required citizens to vote - and because liberal governments are much more open to statist solutions - the resulting boost in liberal voters would incentivize conservative politicians to force their constituents to vote, too. It's a fairly brilliant application of arms-race logic to electoral politics.

One of the main reasons non-voters avoid the ballot box is that they just don't care enough to get informed. That's sad. But forcing them to vote won't change that. Indeed, it takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

For instance, many champions of compulsory voting say we should turn the ballot into a lottery ticket as well. Cast a vote, and you're automatically entered. By all means, let's empty the keno parlors on Election Day; that crowd really has a firm grasp on the nitty-gritty of public policy.

It takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

Even the ancient left-wing assumption that if we could politically activate the downtrodden masses of the poor and the oppressed to storm the polling stations, we might topple the supposed tyranny of privilege and inequality is wrong, too. The overwhelming consensus among political scientists who've looked at the question is that universal turnout would not change the results of national elections. It would, however, probably have a positive effect on local elections for school boards and municipal governments, because these low-turnout elections are monopolized by entrenched bureaucrats and government unions (and that's the way they like it, by the way).

Of course, some analysts disagree. But that just shows that their real interest isn't in engaged citizenship but in getting the policies they want. You can be sure the only way this statist fantasy will ever truly die is if liberals always get their way under the existing system. If that happens, you can be sure we'll start hearing a lot more about how low voter turnout is a good and wonderful thing.

- Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review . He can be reached by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Jonah Goldberg - Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. His new book, The Suicide of The West, will be released on April 24. @JonahNRO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progressives Think That Mandatory Voting Would Help Them at the Polls | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans). There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should voting be mandatory in the United States?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Express your views about the right to vote and whether or not you think the government should make it mandatory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voting is a right and a responsibility. As a citizen of one's country, it is important that you exercise your right to suffrage to help ensure that the government officials who are placed into office are the ones that the people actually voted. For many years in several countries, voting is non-compulsory. This means that the government does not force its citizens to show up at voting precincts to cast their votes. However, there are a number of nations that impose mandatory voting. These include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Greece and Singapore, to name a few. Twelve of these nations aggressively enforce the compulsion of voting, giving penalties and charging fees who violate such law. One of these is Australia. It has been requiring its citizens to participate in federal elections since 1924. The country's argument to this strict mandate is that it needs to address low voter turnout, which is currently below 60 percent.

Now, many people are wondering if compulsory voting is fair not. After all, the whole point of democracy is giving everyone the freedom to make their own choices, to voice out their opinions. Are you pro- or anti-compulsory voting? If you haven't made a choice yet, knowing its pros and cons could help you make an informed decision.

List of Pros of Compulsory Voting

1. Increase Voter Turnout
It is not democracy if there is only 50 percent of voter turnout. If only half of the population turns out at voting precincts at election, it can't be called a democracy. With the number of voters declining year after year, political analysts and a few citizens fear that there might come a time when it would just be the candidates' kin, friends and colleagues who will bother to show up.

2. It Broadens Representation And Legitimacy
If voting is made mandatory, it will ensure that the government will be represented by a majority of the population, not just a few individuals. It will also guarantee that members of the society who are not as politically active will not be neglected. It will also prevent political leaders to claim greater legitimacy.

3. Lessen The Need For Large Sums Of Money In Campaigns
Whether people admit it or not, money plays a significant role in politics. But if compulsory voting becomes a law, there will be no need for politicians to be backed by billionaires to fund their political campaigns.

4. Make Campaigns Broader
Compulsory voting will assist in not targeting specific subgroups. If it is guaranteed that everyone will vote, then politicians would stop creating campaigns that are only targeted to certain people. This should also mean more pressure on politicians to represent the beliefs of all citizens. As a result, determining the best candidate would be easier.

5. Promote Political Stability
Where there is division there is instability. So when a nation has an alarmingly low voter turnout, it could increase the risk of political instability brought about by crises or leaders with hidden agendas.

6. Encourage Voters to Better Educate Themselves
If people are obliged to vote every election, they will most likely want to make the most of their votes. So, they would want to research more on each candidate to ensure they'll be able to make the right choice. As a result, candidates would be forced to be more transparent about their stance on controversial issues. Furthermore, better informed voters will be able to determine unrealistic plans, ensuring fairer decisions in the future.

7. More Serious Elections
It will make people take elections as well as candidates more seriously. Compulsory voting would compel the people to be more proactive in building a government that will serve the majority, not only a few groups. This will lead to a better and more united nation.

List of Cons of Compulsory Voting

1. Violate Freedom of Choice
A democratic type of government means that it was built on the basis of respecting basic human freedoms and rights, particularly free choice. However, it can be violated if voting is made mandatory because people would not have the freedom to not express their opinion.

2. Decrease Interest
It could push individuals who have no interest in taking part of building a government for the people to vote. Although it could compel the citizens to educate themselves, there is also the possibility that those who are honestly not interested will be forced to vote. This could push people to choose candidates randomly, forfeiting the purpose of an election, which is to place deserving people in key positions. In other words, votes and consequently the budget spent for the polls will go to waste.

3. Minimize Right to Express Religion
It could take away people's right to express their religion. There are religious sectors that discourage their members from participating in political events. Therefore, forcing them to vote explicitly violates their right to practice their religion.

4. Wrong it Punish Those Who Refuse to Vote
It would be unacceptable and unlawful to punish those who would choose not to vote. It would be a violation of fundamental rights to punish people who refuse to practice their right to suffrage. Again, voting is a right, which means that people should have the freedom to choose whether to vote or not. Besides, imposing penalties and/or punishment to citizens who have no interest in politics would be unlawful because 1) they did not harm anybody, 2) they did not violate anyone's right, and 3) they did not break any law.

5. Encourage Informal Votes
This means that ballot papers with no appropriate markings of voting rules could be used to cater for the large number of voters every election.

6. Increase Law Enforcement Costs
It will require a considerable amount of money to enforce such law. If voting becomes compulsory, the government will be compelled to punish those who violate it. When this happens, it will require a large sum for law to be enforced, which would involve finding out who may or may not have broken the mandate. Although there would be fines as a result of a violation, these could not be enough to compensate what the government has to spend to impose the law.

In the end, it's all about making it fair for all parties involved. If enforcing mandatory voting would violate people's basic right to not vote, then it would not be a practical law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Strongest Pros And Cons of Compulsory Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting is a right and a responsibility. As a citizen of one's country, it is important that you exercise your right to suffrage to help ensure that the government officials who are placed into office are the ones that the people actually voted. For many years in several countries, voting is non-compulsory.

# data[].attributes.body
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm

http://connectusfund.org/13-strongest-pros-and-cons-of-compulsory-voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 Crucial Pros and Cons of Compulsory Voting | NLCATP.org

# data[].attributes.body
Mandatory:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-voting-be-mandatory-in-the-united-states
Not Mandatory:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/26/against-mandatory-voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting which requires citizens to register to vote and to go to their polling place or vote on election day.

With secret ballots, it's not really possible to prove who has or has not voted so this process could be more accurately called "compulsory turnout" because voters are required to show up at their polling place on election day.

Compulsory Turnout in Australia's Voting System

One of the most well-known compulsory voting systems is in Australia.

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 (except those of unsound mind or those convicted of serious crimes) must be registered to vote and show up at the poll on election day. Australians who do not show up are subject to fines although those who were ill or otherwise incapable of voting on election day can have their fines waived.

Compulsory voting in Australia was adopted in the state of Queensland in 1915 and subsequently adopted nationwide in 1924. With Australia's compulsory voting system comes additional flexibility for the voter - elections are held on Saturdays, absent voters can vote in any state polling place, and voters in remote areas can vote before an election (at pre-poll voting centers) or via mail.

Voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47% prior to the 1924 compulsory voting law. In the decades since 1924, voter turnout has hovered around 94% to 96%.

In 1924, Australian officials felt that compulsory voting would eliminate voter apathy. However, compulsory voting now has its detractors. In their Fact Sheet on Voting, the Australian Electoral Commission provides some arguments in favor and against compulsory voting.

Arguments in Favor of Compulsory Voting

Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform (e.g. taxation, compulsory education, or jury duty).

Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate."

Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management.

Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll.

The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.

Arguments Used Against Compulsory Voting

Some suggest that it is undemocratic to force people to vote and is an infringement of liberty.

The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls.

It may increase the number of "donkey votes" (votes for a random candidate by people who feel that they are required to vote by law).

It may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules for voting).

It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates - political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates.

Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Compulsory Voting a Good Idea in General?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting which requires citizens to register to vote and to go to their polling place or vote on election day. With secret ballots, it's not really possible to prove who has or has not voted so this process could be more accurately called "compulsory turnout" because voters are required to show up at their polling place on election day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans).

There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting." The argument usually goes like this: Voter turnout in America is low. Low voter turnout is bad. Therefore, we should make voting mandatory. (This argument is most popular after an election like last week's when things don't go so well for Democrats.)

When asked why low voter turnout is bad, one usually gets a mumbled verbal stew of Norman Rockwell-esque pieties about enhanced citizenship, reduced polarization, and, on occasion, veiled suggestions that Washington would get its policies right - or I should say left - if everyone voted.

To call most of these arguments gobbledygook is a bit unfair - to gobbledygook. First note that this logic can be applied to literally every good thing, from brushing your teeth to eating broccoli. Moreover, the notion that forcing people who don't care about politics to vote will make them more engaged and thoughtful citizens is ludicrous. We force juvenile delinquents (now called "justice-involved youth" by the Obama administration) and other petty criminals to clean up trash in parks and alongside highways. Is there any evidence this has made them more sincere environmentalists? If we gave every student in the country straight As, that would make all the education trend lines look prettier, but it wouldn't actually improve education.

This sort of enforced egalitarianism is reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron," set in a society where everyone must be equal. Above-average athletes are hobbled to make them conform with the unathletic. The smart are made dumb. Ballet dancers are weighed down so they can't jump any higher than normal people. The prettier ones must wear masks.

#share#Political scientist Nicholas Stephanopoulos recently penned an essay for The Atlantic skipping any requirement to explain why voting should be compulsory and going straight to his plan to implement an individual mandate to vote.

He begins, "Not enough people vote. It's a perennial source of concern in American politics." And with that, he's off to the races. His basic idea, which is quite plausible, is that if some very liberal cities required citizens to vote - and because liberal governments are much more open to statist solutions - the resulting boost in liberal voters would incentivize conservative politicians to force their constituents to vote, too. It's a fairly brilliant application of arms-race logic to electoral politics.

One of the main reasons non-voters avoid the ballot box is that they just don't care enough to get informed. That's sad. But forcing them to vote won't change that. Indeed, it takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

For instance, many champions of compulsory voting say we should turn the ballot into a lottery ticket as well. Cast a vote, and you're automatically entered. By all means, let's empty the keno parlors on Election Day; that crowd really has a firm grasp on the nitty-gritty of public policy.

It takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

Even the ancient left-wing assumption that if we could politically activate the downtrodden masses of the poor and the oppressed to storm the polling stations, we might topple the supposed tyranny of privilege and inequality is wrong, too. The overwhelming consensus among political scientists who've looked at the question is that universal turnout would not change the results of national elections. It would, however, probably have a positive effect on local elections for school boards and municipal governments, because these low-turnout elections are monopolized by entrenched bureaucrats and government unions (and that's the way they like it, by the way).

Of course, some analysts disagree. But that just shows that their real interest isn't in engaged citizenship but in getting the policies they want. You can be sure the only way this statist fantasy will ever truly die is if liberals always get their way under the existing system. If that happens, you can be sure we'll start hearing a lot more about how low voter turnout is a good and wonderful thing.

- Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review . He can be reached by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Jonah Goldberg - Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. His new book, The Suicide of The West, will be released on April 24. @JonahNRO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progressives Think That Mandatory Voting Would Help Them at the Polls | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans). There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens? This idea isn't as outlandish as it may initially sound. In fact, there are at least 26 countries that currently employ some form of compulsory voting.

While giving a speech just this past March, President Obama expressed his support for mandatory voting. Seeing compulsory voting as a way to combat the influence of money in politics, he said:

"It would be transformative if everybody voted [...] The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities."

Obama's concern regarding voter turnout in the U.S. is not unfounded. In the most recent 2014 midterm elections voter turnout rates were at their lowest levels since 1942, with less than 37% of the eligible population making it to the polls. In addition, voter turnout can be as low as 4% when municipalities hold special elections.

President Obama is not the only world leader who has been contemplating the possibility of mandatory voting recently. Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has seriously argued for compulsory voting, expressing hopes that it might take effect immediately after this Fall's national election.

Because compulsory voting is a hot topic in the United States, as well as our neighbor up north, it is important to consider some of the pros and cons of such a policy:

Pro: Higher Turnout Elections

Not surprisingly, one of the main arguments which champions of the policy present in favor of compulsory voting is that it leads to drastically higher voter turnout rates. Australia serves as a prime example of such an effect. Prior to Australia's implementation of compulsory voting in 1924, the voter rate had sunk to around 47% of registered voters. After the adoption of mandatory voting, turnout rates soared, with the current level resting at over 80% of the eligible population (and over 90% of registered voters). This percentage should be considered in comparison to the U.S., in which only 57% of eligible voters turned out in the 2012 presidential election.

Additionally, some proponents of the policy emphasize that under compulsory voting, voting becomes more a duty than a right. The idea is that making voting mandatory alters civics norms, so that eventually it is simply expected that everyone takes part in elections.

As is often highlighted by supporters of the practice, in a democracy where politicians are supposed to represent the interests of all citizens, it is especially important that as much of the population votes as possible. When voter participation rates are low, a small minority often ends up controlling leadership and policy decisions, while lower-income, younger and non-white voters are less often heard by political leaders.

Another benefit advocates cite in support of compulsory voting is that it will help to minimize political polarization in the United States. Lower turnout, it is argued, enables more hard-core partisans and ideologues to dominate elections. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, William Galston, believes a fully engaged voting population can counter this problem. "If the full range of voters actually voted," Eric Liu of TIME explains "our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."

Lastly, some people assert that mandatory voting will ultimately help make it easier for people to vote. If a state legally compels its citizenry to vote, the burden shifts from the individual to the state to ensure that everyone has the means to be able to take part in elections. An example of this shift can be seen in Australia's usage of mobile polling facilities in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote Aboriginal communities to ensure that those who are unable to get to a polling location can still vote.

Con: The Rise of the Uninformed Voter

Of course, the range of arguments supporting compulsory voting is matched by a plethora of reasons why the U.S. should keep voting voluntary.

One of the major arguments given by those against compulsory voting is that it leads to a greater number of uninformed voters, noting that those who choose not vote are generally less educated on political issues than those who choose to vote. Critics argue that the resulting surplus of politically ignorant voters has three main negative consequences:

1. Misleading uninformed voters. It is often asserted that uninformed voters are more susceptible to the influence of money and spending on television ads. A short advertisement is likely to have a greater influence on an uninformed voter than one who already has strong views. This encourages the use of sensational and misleading advertising and may have a negative effect on campaigning techniques. While politicians no longer need to try to convince citizens to go out and vote, they still need to find ways to maximize their vote among less informed voters. Australian political scientist, Haydon Manning notes that compulsory voting often "require[s] banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising."

2. Ignoring the wishes of most voters. Since uninformed voters are more easily persuaded, some politicians may choose to focus on marginal voters and ignore their main base of support. Even if compulsory voting leads to less polarization, it may not result in better policy outcomes because complicated and nuanced legislation may be perceived negatively by swing voters.

3. Dampening the voice of the majority. An additional concern under a compulsory system is that people who are uninformed (or simply do not care about the outcome of an election) may end up voting randomly. The impact of 'random' votes ends up being particularly detrimental because it fails to increase civic engagement and may skew election results.

Compulsory voting presents some ethical challenges. Many people argue that it infringes upon individual liberty by denying people the ability to choose not to vote. While it is true that ballots may include a "none of the above" option (though, in practice, typically do not), the act of voting itself may be seen as "endorsing" the current politicians and political system, an endorsement that some citizens may not want to make.
While it seems pretty unlikely right now that compulsory voting will be adopted in the United States, at least on a federal level, it is a policy to keep in mind as America continues striving towards a better democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
imported topic democracy and law quick news author nina jaffe-geffner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Requiring Citizens to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While speaking in Cleveland yesterday President Obama came out in favor of making voting in elections compulsory:

In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, it would completely change the political map in this country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups... So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term.

While there may be some benefits of mandatory voting, counteracting the amount of money in politics is not one of them. In fact, it would likely increase the amount of money spent on campaigning.

Currently, political campaigns spend a lot of money targeting likely voters and getting them to the polls. Mandatory voting would eliminate the need for spending on get-out-the-vote efforts, but it would make targeting voters even more essential. Political parties would have a need and an incentive to spend millions-perhaps even billions-more on campaigns since they would need to reach millions of additional, low-information voters.

But there are two other reasons why mandatory voting would be a terrible policy:

Compulsory voting violates civil liberties - The government and politicians serve the people, not the other way around. Citizens should not be obligated, by force of law and against their will, to participate in a electoral system. Padraic McGuinness makes a powerful point about how mandatory voting is violation of liberty:

One of the worst features of totalitarian or oppressive regimes is that it is necessary to take an interest in politics under them, either as a result of coercion into official demonstrations and so on or in order to contest their power. Surely it is a fundamental human right to be left alone, to be allowed to live one's own life within the law but otherwise unmolested, and to take no interest in policies at all except by choice. Compulsory voting, by imposing participation in the election of politicians and governments, infringes the right to be apolitical.

Compulsory voting doesn't change political ignorance - Just as you can force a horse to water but can't make him drink, you can force a voter to the polls but can't make him think. Many people choose not to vote because they are disengaged from or apathetic about politics. There is no evidence that requiring people to vote provides sufficient incentive for them to gain the information necessary to cast an informed ballot. The decision not to vote is therefore a rational one for those who have not put in the time or effort to discern which electoral choice is best for them or their country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While speaking in Cleveland yesterday President Obama came out in favor of making voting in elections compulsory: In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, it would completely change the political map in this country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While speaking in Cleveland yesterday President Obama came out in favor of making voting in elections compulsory:

In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, it would completely change the political map in this country. Because the people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups... So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term.

While there may be some benefits of mandatory voting, counteracting the amount of money in politics is not one of them. In fact, it would likely increase the amount of money spent on campaigning.

Currently, political campaigns spend a lot of money targeting likely voters and getting them to the polls. Mandatory voting would eliminate the need for spending on get-out-the-vote efforts, but it would make targeting voters even more essential. Political parties would have a need and an incentive to spend millions-perhaps even billions-more on campaigns since they would need to reach millions of additional, low-information voters.

But there are two other reasons why mandatory voting would be a terrible policy:

Compulsory voting violates civil liberties - The government and politicians serve the people, not the other way around. Citizens should not be obligated, by force of law and against their will, to participate in a electoral system. Padraic McGuinness makes a powerful point about how mandatory voting is violation of liberty:

One of the worst features of totalitarian or oppressive regimes is that it is necessary to take an interest in politics under them, either as a result of coercion into official demonstrations and so on or in order to contest their power. Surely it is a fundamental human right to be left alone, to be allowed to live one's own life within the law but otherwise unmolested, and to take no interest in policies at all except by choice. Compulsory voting, by imposing participation in the election of politicians and governments, infringes the right to be apolitical.

Compulsory voting doesn't change political ignorance - Just as you can force a horse to water but can't make him drink, you can force a voter to the polls but can't make him think. Many people choose not to vote because they are disengaged from or apathetic about politics. There is no evidence that requiring people to vote provides sufficient incentive for them to gain the information necessary to cast an informed ballot. The decision not to vote is therefore a rational one for those who have not put in the time or effort to discern which electoral choice is best for them or their country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While speaking in Cleveland yesterday President Obama came out in favor of making voting in elections compulsory: In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, it would completely change the political map in this country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens? This idea isn't as outlandish as it may initially sound. In fact, there are at least 26 countries that currently employ some form of compulsory voting.

While giving a speech just this past March, President Obama expressed his support for mandatory voting. Seeing compulsory voting as a way to combat the influence of money in politics, he said:

"It would be transformative if everybody voted [...] The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities."

Obama's concern regarding voter turnout in the U.S. is not unfounded. In the most recent 2014 midterm elections voter turnout rates were at their lowest levels since 1942, with less than 37% of the eligible population making it to the polls. In addition, voter turnout can be as low as 4% when municipalities hold special elections.

President Obama is not the only world leader who has been contemplating the possibility of mandatory voting recently. Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has seriously argued for compulsory voting, expressing hopes that it might take effect immediately after this Fall's national election.

Because compulsory voting is a hot topic in the United States, as well as our neighbor up north, it is important to consider some of the pros and cons of such a policy:

Pro: Higher Turnout Elections

Not surprisingly, one of the main arguments which champions of the policy present in favor of compulsory voting is that it leads to drastically higher voter turnout rates. Australia serves as a prime example of such an effect. Prior to Australia's implementation of compulsory voting in 1924, the voter rate had sunk to around 47% of registered voters. After the adoption of mandatory voting, turnout rates soared, with the current level resting at over 80% of the eligible population (and over 90% of registered voters). This percentage should be considered in comparison to the U.S., in which only 57% of eligible voters turned out in the 2012 presidential election.

Additionally, some proponents of the policy emphasize that under compulsory voting, voting becomes more a duty than a right. The idea is that making voting mandatory alters civics norms, so that eventually it is simply expected that everyone takes part in elections.

As is often highlighted by supporters of the practice, in a democracy where politicians are supposed to represent the interests of all citizens, it is especially important that as much of the population votes as possible. When voter participation rates are low, a small minority often ends up controlling leadership and policy decisions, while lower-income, younger and non-white voters are less often heard by political leaders.

Another benefit advocates cite in support of compulsory voting is that it will help to minimize political polarization in the United States. Lower turnout, it is argued, enables more hard-core partisans and ideologues to dominate elections. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, William Galston, believes a fully engaged voting population can counter this problem. "If the full range of voters actually voted," Eric Liu of TIME explains "our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."

Lastly, some people assert that mandatory voting will ultimately help make it easier for people to vote. If a state legally compels its citizenry to vote, the burden shifts from the individual to the state to ensure that everyone has the means to be able to take part in elections. An example of this shift can be seen in Australia's usage of mobile polling facilities in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote Aboriginal communities to ensure that those who are unable to get to a polling location can still vote.

Con: The Rise of the Uninformed Voter

Of course, the range of arguments supporting compulsory voting is matched by a plethora of reasons why the U.S. should keep voting voluntary.

One of the major arguments given by those against compulsory voting is that it leads to a greater number of uninformed voters, noting that those who choose not vote are generally less educated on political issues than those who choose to vote. Critics argue that the resulting surplus of politically ignorant voters has three main negative consequences:

1. Misleading uninformed voters. It is often asserted that uninformed voters are more susceptible to the influence of money and spending on television ads. A short advertisement is likely to have a greater influence on an uninformed voter than one who already has strong views. This encourages the use of sensational and misleading advertising and may have a negative effect on campaigning techniques. While politicians no longer need to try to convince citizens to go out and vote, they still need to find ways to maximize their vote among less informed voters. Australian political scientist, Haydon Manning notes that compulsory voting often "require[s] banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising."

2. Ignoring the wishes of most voters. Since uninformed voters are more easily persuaded, some politicians may choose to focus on marginal voters and ignore their main base of support. Even if compulsory voting leads to less polarization, it may not result in better policy outcomes because complicated and nuanced legislation may be perceived negatively by swing voters.

3. Dampening the voice of the majority. An additional concern under a compulsory system is that people who are uninformed (or simply do not care about the outcome of an election) may end up voting randomly. The impact of 'random' votes ends up being particularly detrimental because it fails to increase civic engagement and may skew election results.

Compulsory voting presents some ethical challenges. Many people argue that it infringes upon individual liberty by denying people the ability to choose not to vote. While it is true that ballots may include a "none of the above" option (though, in practice, typically do not), the act of voting itself may be seen as "endorsing" the current politicians and political system, an endorsement that some citizens may not want to make.
While it seems pretty unlikely right now that compulsory voting will be adopted in the United States, at least on a federal level, it is a policy to keep in mind as America continues striving towards a better democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
imported topic democracy and law quick news author nina jaffe-geffner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Requiring Citizens to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mike Blake/Reuters

This article first appeared on the Brookings Institution site. The full text can be found here.

When we receive a summons for jury duty, we are required to present ourselves at the court. Should we treat showing up at the polls in elections the same way?

Although the idea seems vaguely un-American, it is neither unusual, nor undemocratic, nor unconstitutional. And it would ease the intense partisan polarization that weakens both our capacity for self-government and public trust in our governing institutions.

It is easy to dismiss this idea as rooted in a form of coercion that is incompatible with our individualistic and often libertarian political culture. But consider Australia, whose political culture may be as similar to that of the United States as the culture of any other democracy in the world.

51

50
The Australian Solution
Alarmed by a decline in voter turnout to less than 60 percent in the early 1920s, Australia adopted a law in 1924 requiring all citizens to present themselves at the polling place on Election Day. (This is often referred to as mandatory voting, although Australian voters are not required to cast marked ballots.)

Enforcing the law were small fines (roughly the same as for routine traffic tickets), which increased with repeated acts of nonparticipation. The law established permissible reasons for not voting, such as illness and foreign travel, and procedures allowing citizens facing fines for not voting to defend themselves in court.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

It also required citizens to register to vote (much as the United States has draft registration) and the Australian authorities have created systems to make registration easy.

The results were remarkable. In the 1925 election, the first held under the new law, turnout soared to 91 percent. In the 27 elections since World War II, turnout in Australia has averaged 95 percent.

It is hard to doubt that there is a causal connection between the law and the large change in Australians' voting behavior. And there is additional evidence from the Netherlands, which operated under similar legislation from 1946 to 1967. During that time, turnout averaged 95 percent. After the Netherlands repealed this law, turnout has fallen to an average of 80 percent.

The impact of such laws can extend well beyond the act of voting. In Australia, citizens are more likely than they were before the law was passed to view voting as a civic obligation. This norm helps explain why the negative side effects that many feared did not materialize.

For example, the percentage of ballots intentionally spoiled, left blank, or randomly completed as acts of resistance has remained quite low. The Australian experience suggests that when citizens know that they are required to vote, they take this obligation seriously. Their sense of civic duty makes them reluctant to cast uninformed ballots and inclines them to learn at least the basics about issues, parties and candidates.

Why the Australian Model Makes Sense for Democracies- Including Ours

The most straightforward argument for near-universal voting is democratic. Ideally, a democracy will take into account the interests and views of all citizens so that its decisions represent the will of the entire people. If some regularly vote while others do not, elected officials are likely to give less weight to the interests and views of non-participants.

In practice, this might not matter much if non-voters were evenly distributed through the population, so that voters were a microcosm of the people. But that is not the case: In the United States, citizens with lower levels of income and education are less likely to vote, as are young adults and recent immigrants.

Changes in our political system have magnified these disparities. The decline of formal political organizations, including political machines, has reduced mobilizing efforts that were often year-round propositions and frequently gave life to political clubs that served as centers of sociability as well as electoral action.

The sharp drop in union membership since the 1950s has further eroded connections between citizens of modest means and lower levels of formal education to electoral politics. In their heyday, national civic institutions organized along federal lines performed these functions as well, but they too have undergone a relentless decline.

These factors were partly offset by a democratization of the electorate through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that empowered African Americans, particularly in the South, and by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution that lowered the voting age to 18 throughout the country in 1971.

But with the exception of a few states that provided for registration on Election Day itself, the inclusion of younger voters into the electorate was not matched by changes in voter registration laws to make it easier for younger Americans, who tend to change residencies more frequently than their elders, to be included on the voter rolls.

As it is, registration rules are biased in favor of those with relatively stable residential patterns. The combination of the decline in political mobilization and the rise of a younger electorate mean that turnout in presidential elections has fallen off since the 1950s.

As measured against the voting age population, turnout in 1952 hit 63.3 percent, fell slightly to 60.6 percent in 1956 and rebounded to 62.77 percent in the Kennedy-Nixon election of 1960. The last time turnout topped 60 percent was 1968.

The drop between 1968 and 1972, after the enfranchisement of all 18 year olds, was especially sharp-from 60.84 percent to 55.21 percent. The highest turnout since then (58.23 percent) came with the Obama mobilization efforts in 2008, but even this number was lower than the turnout figures between 1952 and 1964. And turnout fell off again in 2012, to 54.87 percent.

Universal voting would help fill the vacuum in participation by evening out disparities stemming from income, education and age. It would enhance our system's ability to represent all our citizens and give states and localities incentives to lower, not raise, procedural barriers to the full and equal participation of each citizen in the electoral process.

If citizens had a legal obligation to vote, managers of our electoral process would in turn have an obligation to make it as simple as possible for voters to discharge this duty.

The weakening of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court has allowed many states to impose new requirements on voters and to cut back on early and Sunday voting. Universal voting would change the presumptions in favor of broad democratic participation and put states on the side of promoting that goal.

It would also improve electoral competition. Campaigns could devote far less money to costly, labor-intensive get-out-the-vote efforts. Media consultants would not have an incentive to drive down turnout with negative advertising (even though such advertising would no doubt remain part of their repertoire). Candidates would know that they had to do more than appeal to their respective bases with harshly divisive rhetoric and an emphasis on hot-button issues.

This brings us to a benefit of universal voting that goes to the heart of our current ills. Along with many other factors, our low turnout rate pushes American politics toward hyper-polarization. Intense partisans are more likely to participate in lower-turnout elections while those who are less ideologically committed and less fervent about specific issues are more likely to stay home.

Although responding to strong sentiments is an important feature of sustainable democratic institutions, our elections tilt much too far in that direction.

A structural feature of our system-elections that are quadrennial for president but biennial for the House of Representatives-magnifies these ills. It is bad enough less than three-fifths of the electorate turns out to determine the next president, much worse that roughly two-fifths participate in midterm elections two years later.

As Republicans found in 2006 and Democrats in 2010 and 2014, when intervening events energize one part of the political spectrum while disheartening the other, a relatively small portion of the electorate can shift the balance of power out of proportion to its numbers. And with the rise of the Obama Coalition, the midterm electorate is decidedly older and less diverse than the electorate in presidential years.

The vast difference between these two electorates has enshrined new forms of conflict in an already polarized political system. Bringing less partisan voters into the electorate would reduce this instability, and it would offer parties and candidates new challenges and opportunities.

The balance of electoral activities would shift from the mobilization of highly committed voters toward the persuasion of the less committed. Candidates unwilling or unable to engage in persuasion would be more likely to lose. If political rhetoric cooled a bit, the intensity of polarization would diminish, improving the prospects for post-election compromise.

Rather than focusing on symbolic gestures whose principal purpose is to agitate partisans, Congress might have much stronger incentives to take on serious issues and solve problems. To pick up a term of the moment, universal voting might combat the "Trumpification" of politics.

The electorate that turns out is not representative of the country as a whole. After the election of 2014, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) re-interviewed 1,339 respondents who had been contacted in a pre-election survey.

The post-election poll found that Hispanic voters comprised 8 percent of midterm voters but 22 percent of non-voters. Millennials, those of ages 18-to-34, made up 17 percent of voters-and 47 percent of non-voters. Those earning less than $30,000 a year accounted for 26 percent of voters and 44 percent of non-voters.

And the underrepresentation of middle-of-the-road voters was brought home by both the PRRI survey and a Pew Research Center study of the 2012 electorate. In the PRRI study, independents accounted for 33 percent of voters but 42 percent of non-voters. Moderates accounted for 31 percent of voters but 38 percent of non-voters.

Based on the turnout model of the 2012 Pew pre-election study, independents made up 27 percent of likely voters but 44 percent of non-voters; moderates accounted for 34 percent of likely voters but 38 percent of non-voters.

A republic governed under a Constitution that begins with the words "We the people" should want an electorate as broadly representative of the people as possible.

There is a final reason for the country to embrace universal voting, and it may be the most compelling: Democracy cannot be strong if citizenship is weak. And right now, citizenship in America is radically unbalanced: It is strong on rights but weak on responsibilities.

With the abolition of the universal draft, citizens are asked to pay their taxes and obey the law-and show up for jury duty when summoned. That's about it.

Making voting universal would begin to right the balance. And it would send an important message: We all have the duty to help shape the country that has given us so much.

William F. Buckley Jr., who can fairly be thought of as the founder of contemporary American conservatism, wrote a book in 1990 called Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country. Gratitude is personal, but as Buckley made clear, it is also civic, and it is a disposition that transcends ideology.

Participation in self-rule is an expression of gratitude for the freedom we have to govern ourselves.
Take Part in the Debate If voting and registration rules were made easier, should voting in national elections be universal and mandatory for all eligible citizens? To voice your opinion, click the image below and vote. We will share the results on social media.
William A. Galston is a senior fellow and the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies and E.J. Dionne Jr. is a senior fellow and the W. Averell Harriman Chair in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article first appeared on the Brookings Institution site. The full text can be found here. When we receive a summons for jury duty, we are required to present ourselves at the court. Should we treat showing up at the polls in elections the same way?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans).

There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting." The argument usually goes like this: Voter turnout in America is low. Low voter turnout is bad. Therefore, we should make voting mandatory. (This argument is most popular after an election like last week's when things don't go so well for Democrats.)

When asked why low voter turnout is bad, one usually gets a mumbled verbal stew of Norman Rockwell-esque pieties about enhanced citizenship, reduced polarization, and, on occasion, veiled suggestions that Washington would get its policies right - or I should say left - if everyone voted.

To call most of these arguments gobbledygook is a bit unfair - to gobbledygook. First note that this logic can be applied to literally every good thing, from brushing your teeth to eating broccoli. Moreover, the notion that forcing people who don't care about politics to vote will make them more engaged and thoughtful citizens is ludicrous. We force juvenile delinquents (now called "justice-involved youth" by the Obama administration) and other petty criminals to clean up trash in parks and alongside highways. Is there any evidence this has made them more sincere environmentalists? If we gave every student in the country straight As, that would make all the education trend lines look prettier, but it wouldn't actually improve education.

This sort of enforced egalitarianism is reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron," set in a society where everyone must be equal. Above-average athletes are hobbled to make them conform with the unathletic. The smart are made dumb. Ballet dancers are weighed down so they can't jump any higher than normal people. The prettier ones must wear masks.

#share#Political scientist Nicholas Stephanopoulos recently penned an essay for The Atlantic skipping any requirement to explain why voting should be compulsory and going straight to his plan to implement an individual mandate to vote.

He begins, "Not enough people vote. It's a perennial source of concern in American politics." And with that, he's off to the races. His basic idea, which is quite plausible, is that if some very liberal cities required citizens to vote - and because liberal governments are much more open to statist solutions - the resulting boost in liberal voters would incentivize conservative politicians to force their constituents to vote, too. It's a fairly brilliant application of arms-race logic to electoral politics.

One of the main reasons non-voters avoid the ballot box is that they just don't care enough to get informed. That's sad. But forcing them to vote won't change that. Indeed, it takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

For instance, many champions of compulsory voting say we should turn the ballot into a lottery ticket as well. Cast a vote, and you're automatically entered. By all means, let's empty the keno parlors on Election Day; that crowd really has a firm grasp on the nitty-gritty of public policy.

It takes a twisted understanding of democracy to say that our politics will be greatly improved by getting more input from uninformed people.

Even the ancient left-wing assumption that if we could politically activate the downtrodden masses of the poor and the oppressed to storm the polling stations, we might topple the supposed tyranny of privilege and inequality is wrong, too. The overwhelming consensus among political scientists who've looked at the question is that universal turnout would not change the results of national elections. It would, however, probably have a positive effect on local elections for school boards and municipal governments, because these low-turnout elections are monopolized by entrenched bureaucrats and government unions (and that's the way they like it, by the way).

Of course, some analysts disagree. But that just shows that their real interest isn't in engaged citizenship but in getting the policies they want. You can be sure the only way this statist fantasy will ever truly die is if liberals always get their way under the existing system. If that happens, you can be sure we'll start hearing a lot more about how low voter turnout is a good and wonderful thing.

- Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review . He can be reached by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Jonah Goldberg - Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. His new book, The Suicide of The West, will be released on April 24. @JonahNRO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progressives Think That Mandatory Voting Would Help Them at the Polls | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My old boss, William F. Buckley Jr., often said liberals don't care what you do so long as it's compulsory (though he probably borrowed the line from his friend M. Stanton Evans). There's probably no better illustration of this illiberal streak in liberalism than the idea of "compulsory voting."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should voting be mandatory in the United States?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Express your views about the right to vote and whether or not you think the government should make it mandatory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should voting be compulsory or should we have a right not to vote?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each year, millions of people fail to vote without reproach. Does abstention constitute a citizen's right not to vote? This article in Australian Journal of Political Science explores whether we have a legal right to a 'no ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voting is not optional in 23 countries. Here's why the United States should become the 24th

Getty Images

Eleven weeks before Election Day we can't know who will win the presidency. But we can know with near certainty that voter turnout will be abysmal and that the results will be not so much a mandate as a skewed sampling of about half the electorate.

Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here's why.

Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. "Protecting the integrity of our elections" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they've enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters.

( MORE: How to Solve the Voter ID Debate)

Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today's electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don't currently vote.

Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they'd fight for).

There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don't vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you mustn't vote.

( MORE: Undecided? Election 2012 Is Up to You)

Another critique claims that requiring the vote devalues it, and that compelled voters will protest by voting carelessly. But in Australia, where voting became compulsory in 1924, that's been a marginal issue. The existence of a mandate has made voting a meaningful shared national experience.

Some Republicans will oppose mandatory voting for the reason they now push voter IDs: to win. (Conventional wisdom says the more people who vote, the worse the GOP does). But if a tactic of disenfranchisement and electorate-amputation makes sense for the party (which is debatable), it is terrible for the country. As former director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orzsag has pointed out, we can't know what the ultimate partisan impact would be. One day Republicans could benefit.

The most visceral critique is that mandating voting is just un-American. Yet jury duty, the draft, going to school, and taxpaying all have been compulsory without being called communist (OK, three out of four). At issue is what makes something American - and what makes liberty liberty. The Revolution and the framing of the Constitution were not about the right merely to be let alone or to do whatever one pleased. They were about our liberty to govern and represent ourselves. Core to that liberty is electing representatives and voting on public issues.

That is why the best reason for mandatory voting has nothing to do with today's politics. It's about redeeming the central promise of American citizenship. Generations marched, fought and died for the right to vote. The least we can do now is treat that right like a responsibility.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eleven weeks before Election Day we can't know who will win the presidency. But we can know with near certainty that voter turnout will be abysmal and that the results will be not so much a mandate as a skewed sampling of about half the electorate.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Sides
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/the-ongoing-debate-over-mandatory-voting/?utm_term=.95d8d8de6f88

# data[].attributes.body
Should Be Mandatory:
http://www.fairvote.org/the_pros_and_cons_of_requiring_citizens_to_vote

Should Not Be Mandatory:
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Should be mandatory http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasible-roadmap-to-compulsory-voting/413422/

Should not be mandatory
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427023/progressives-think-mandatory-voting-would-help-them-polls-jonah-goldberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2 out of 5 Americans don't see the point in going to the polls. They're right.

President Obama has suggested that compulsory voting could be a good idea. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said the president, Australia being the most prominent example. "It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything," he continued.

The president is wrong. Compulsory voting is not just unwise, it is unconstitutional.

The First Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but the right to refrain from speaking. In 1943, the Supreme Court held that Jehovah's Witness students couldn't be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance. Other cases have upheld the right to be free from forced speech in the context of compulsory union dues spent on political speech.

So, is not voting a form of speech? Not voting can certainly communicate a variety of messages, such as dissatisfaction, being fed-up with the two-party system or even being an anarchist. True, it is a crude method of communicating those messages, but it is no more crude than voting. A vote for a candidate could either indicate a begrudging acceptance or a whole-hearted endorsement. It could also just communicate that you hate the other guy (or girl).

The First Amendment covers the right not to vote. Moreover, Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass a law mandating voting, particularly in presidential elections. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress limited powers over presidential elections. State legislators have the power to choose how electors will be selected to the Electoral College, and there's actually nothing in the Constitution mandating states to give citizens the right to vote for electors. Congress only has power to determine "the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes."

Even if it were possible amend the Constitution to allow for compulsory voting, it would still be unwise.

Many people don't vote because they don't care enough or know enough to get involved, and there is no compelling evidence that mandatory voting increases voter knowledge. Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who don't. It is worth asking why we would want low information citizens voting in the first place. Just so they're "involved" even if they're trudging to the polls to avoid a fine?

American voter ignorance has become a familiar fact. In one Washington Post poll, only 36% could name the three branches of government. In another, 29% couldn't identify the current vice president. Should they be forced to vote? On the contrary, there is a very good argument that those with extremely low information have a moral obligation not to vote. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the possible consequences of their ignorance?

Moreover, in the American electoral system, not voting conveys valuable information. Every presidential election is about "getting out the base" - that is, getting core party members excited enough about a candidate to go out and vote. If turnout is low, then the party knows that, next time, they better run a candidate who excites rather than bores the base.

In Australia, where they have mandatory voting and a preference voting system - voters rank candidates in order of preference - they have a consistent problem of the " donkey vote." A small percentage of voters merely list the candidates in the order they are printed on the ballot. It is a small amount, but enough to turn a close election. Donkey votes might happen because of apathy or they could be protest votes, but in 1983 the Australian system had to be reformed to reduce the impact of donkey votes.

Ultimately, compulsory voting does not solve the problem that advocates hope it will solve: low voter engagement and knowledge. Why? Because there is simply not enough hinging on a single vote for it to be worth it for most voters to be engaged. Statistically speaking, one vote in a national election will never impact the outcome, and voters react to those incentives accordingly.

Ask yourself this question: would it make more sense to spend two years researching politics to cast a "fully informed" vote or would it make more sense to spend that time researching your next car purchase? And remember that your "fully informed" vote will count as much as a person who chooses his candidate by throwing a dart at board with all the candidates' pictures.

Instead, just let the dart throwers stay home.

Trevor Burrus is a research fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1CdbT9M

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mandatory voting guarantees ignorant votes: Column

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2 out of 5 Americans don't see the point in going to the polls. They're right. President Obama has suggested that compulsory voting could be a good idea. "Other countries have mandatory voting," said the president, Australia being the most prominent example.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many countries around the world still maintain a compulsory voting system. Even democratic countries are known to keep this practice alive in the modern era. While some believe that compulsory voting is a good thing that ultimately helps countries, there are others who see the need for its immediate abolishing. The time has come for a closer examination of the pros and cons of compulsory voting.

Pros of Compulsory Voting

1. Harder To Get Rid Of Disenfranchisement
When voting is not done in a compulsory manner, this leads to increased disenfranchisement of the poor and of minorities. Unfortunately, statistics indicate that those who live in poor communities are far less likely to vote unless they are forced to. Even the most egalitarian society will not be able to advance as quickly as they would like on key social issues unless all of their citizens take the time to vote about the problems that are most important to them.

While forcing people to vote seems like a close cousin of the actions that a dictatorship would take, in reality, compulsory voting is a great way to ensure that every group, no matter their economic station or race, has a continued say in the actions of a country in which they reside. People are always going to vote in their own best interests, which is why the lower class must utilize the chance to make their voices heard or risk being lost in the shuffle.

2. Voting Is Made Simple
If a person knows that they are going to be called upon to vote, it takes a lot of the guesswork out of making the right choice. In the months leading up to an election, a person who lives in a nation that still uses a compulsory voting system is much more likely to take the time to research a candidate, so that their vote is not cast from a place of ignorance.

Elected officials and those who are running against them make their presences felt, even in low income neighborhoods and other places where candidates in countries without compulsory voting would rarely show their face. This makes it easier for voters to get a strong feel for the official's viewpoint on key issues and enables more informed decision making.

3. Government Receives Additional Support
Countries that do not use compulsory voting system increase the odds of their citizens complaining about their elected officials and claiming that they did not vote for the people who are currently in power. This causes dissent among citizens of a nation, as those who did vote for those officials will express their support, while others sit and sulk.

When you vote due to compulsion, you eliminate your right to complain and even your fellow countrymen will be quick to inform that you had every opportunity to choose the person you wanted to see in power. Choosing a government body is something that every citizen of a country should take part in. It encourages people to take responsibility for their choices and decreases the odds that someone will complain about their government.

Cons of Compulsory Voting

1. Violation Of Human Rights
Having the right to vote is very important, but having the right NOT to vote is also pivotal. When you force a person to vote, you take away this basic human right and exercise an uncomfortable amount of control over their life and decision making. It is a person's philosophical to abstain from the voting process for whatever personal reasons that they deem necessary.

It may not be an imposition to some to take of their life to research candidates and select one to vote for, but it may be for some citizens. The outlook is not always preferable to every member of a society, but it is the right of citizens to decide not to vote, just like it is their right to decide to vote.

2. Votes Go To Waste
Forcing people to vote can have the unintended consequence of votes being wasted. Just because you make people vote does not mean that they will take the time to make the most informed decision. They often end up making a selection that is not based on any sort of research and is only done to ensure that they do not get into any sort of trouble with the law.

People who are ignorant, bigoted and have no real knowledge have their votes counted the same as those who are intelligent and enlightened in this scenario. Some see this concept as fair, while others often look at the wasted votes as a missed opportunity to make a lasting change in their country's policies.

3. Money Is Spent To Enforce The Rule
Finding out which citizens of a country are either following or not following the compulsory voting rules is not a simple or inexpensive process. A country has to budget a significant amount of money each fiscal year to remain up to date on the true voting habits of their citizens.

This means a nation has to devote major resources from their law enforcement so that they can figure out who is not adhering to the system that is in place. The country is able to collect fines from the citizens who do not vote, but this also costs money to enforce. This is a great deal of trouble to take on for a country, just to make sure that their citizens take interest in something that they have expressed a lack of desire towards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many countries around the world still maintain a compulsory voting system. Even democratic countries are known to keep this practice alive in the modern era. While some believe that compulsory voting is a good thing that ultimately helps countries, there are others who see the need for its immediate abolishing.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/07/should-voting-in-the-us-be-mandatory-14/mandatory-voting-would-be-a-disaster

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/03/19/obama-thinks-voting-should-be-mandatory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama thinks that forcing us to vote might be a good idea. That he could favor punishing people for not voting-which means taking their money by force and imprisoning them if they resist-is unsurprising. The essence of government is violence-aggressive, not defensive, force. Government is not usually described in such unrefined terms, but consider its most basic power: taxation. If you can't refuse the tax collector with impunity, you are a victim of robbery. It doesn't matter that government claims to render "services" if you don't want them.

Most of us learn young that violence is wrong except in defense of self or other innocent life. To those who say society without government would be problematic, I reply that most of us also learn that even a good end cannot justify a bad means. Besides, most of the ills that government "protects" us from-such as economic distress and terrorism-result from its own policies.

Aside from the violence inherent in the system, mandatory voting has conceptual problems. Enthusiasts of modern government often say that voting is a right-the most sacred right in some people's eyes. [More sacred than the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?] It's also said to be a duty. Can it be both?

Having a right means you may freely decide to take-or not take-an action without forcible interference by anyone else, including people in the government. Your right to the car you bought signifies that you are free to use it peacefully, or not use it at all. It makes no sense to say that your right to your car obligates you to use it or face punishment. Anyone who talks that way simply does not understand what a right is. A right, then, differs from an enforceable duty.

The story is the same with voting. If one has a right to vote, the idea of making the exercise of that right mandatory is absurd. No matter how many good consequences Obama dubiously foresees from compulsory voting, they can't change the fact that forcing people to exercise a right makes no sense. It's a sad commentary that he is not ridiculed widely for his suggestion.

If voting is a right, it can't be a duty, and if it's a duty, it can't a right. Perhaps it's neither.

I've assumed people have a right to vote, but let's not be too hasty. It's an odd right, indeed, because it entails participation in the process by which government officials are chosen. But as we've already established, government's essence is aggressive violence. Can you have a right to participate in what would be condemned as a criminal operation if it were run "privately"? Can you have a right to help determine who will govern others against their will?

If for the sake of argument we concede the right to participate in the political system, shouldn't we have to acknowledge the corollary right not to participate? I don't mean just the right not to vote, but the right to opt out of government altogether-voting, taxation, war, regulation. Yet government does not let us theoretically free people opt out of individual programs (try opting out of the Mideast wars or Social Security), much less across the board.

In other words, no matter how often we're told that the government exists by the consent of the governed, it really does not. Were you asked to consent? Please don't say that remaining in the country counts as consent, for that would assume what is here disputed: that before any specific consent, the government has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory known as the United States of America. In fact, consent is merely presumed, and nothing you can do will ever be taken by the government as legitimate withholding of consent. Yet if that is true, then nothing you can do could logically constitute consent either. To repeat: if nonconsent is impossible, so is consent.

Individual freedom in moral communities requires not an impotent "right" to cast one vote among multitudes, but the right to ignore the state and live peacefully.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama thinks that forcing us to vote might be a good idea. That he could favor punishing people for not voting-which means taking their money by force and imprisoning them if they resist-is unsurprising. The essence of government is violence-aggressive, not defensive, force.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/22/mandatory-voting-unconstitutional-unwise-column/25102317/

http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/

# data[].attributes.body
Not be Mandatory:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/26/against-mandatory-voting
Be Mandatory:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-voting-be-mandatory-in-the-united-states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens? This idea isn't as outlandish as it may initially sound. In fact, there are at least 26 countries that currently employ some form of compulsory voting.

While giving a speech just this past March, President Obama expressed his support for mandatory voting. Seeing compulsory voting as a way to combat the influence of money in politics, he said:

"It would be transformative if everybody voted [...] The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities."

Obama's concern regarding voter turnout in the U.S. is not unfounded. In the most recent 2014 midterm elections voter turnout rates were at their lowest levels since 1942, with less than 37% of the eligible population making it to the polls. In addition, voter turnout can be as low as 4% when municipalities hold special elections.

President Obama is not the only world leader who has been contemplating the possibility of mandatory voting recently. Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has seriously argued for compulsory voting, expressing hopes that it might take effect immediately after this Fall's national election.

Because compulsory voting is a hot topic in the United States, as well as our neighbor up north, it is important to consider some of the pros and cons of such a policy:

Pro: Higher Turnout Elections

Not surprisingly, one of the main arguments which champions of the policy present in favor of compulsory voting is that it leads to drastically higher voter turnout rates. Australia serves as a prime example of such an effect. Prior to Australia's implementation of compulsory voting in 1924, the voter rate had sunk to around 47% of registered voters. After the adoption of mandatory voting, turnout rates soared, with the current level resting at over 80% of the eligible population (and over 90% of registered voters). This percentage should be considered in comparison to the U.S., in which only 57% of eligible voters turned out in the 2012 presidential election.

Additionally, some proponents of the policy emphasize that under compulsory voting, voting becomes more a duty than a right. The idea is that making voting mandatory alters civics norms, so that eventually it is simply expected that everyone takes part in elections.

As is often highlighted by supporters of the practice, in a democracy where politicians are supposed to represent the interests of all citizens, it is especially important that as much of the population votes as possible. When voter participation rates are low, a small minority often ends up controlling leadership and policy decisions, while lower-income, younger and non-white voters are less often heard by political leaders.

Another benefit advocates cite in support of compulsory voting is that it will help to minimize political polarization in the United States. Lower turnout, it is argued, enables more hard-core partisans and ideologues to dominate elections. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, William Galston, believes a fully engaged voting population can counter this problem. "If the full range of voters actually voted," Eric Liu of TIME explains "our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."

Lastly, some people assert that mandatory voting will ultimately help make it easier for people to vote. If a state legally compels its citizenry to vote, the burden shifts from the individual to the state to ensure that everyone has the means to be able to take part in elections. An example of this shift can be seen in Australia's usage of mobile polling facilities in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote Aboriginal communities to ensure that those who are unable to get to a polling location can still vote.

Con: The Rise of the Uninformed Voter

Of course, the range of arguments supporting compulsory voting is matched by a plethora of reasons why the U.S. should keep voting voluntary.

One of the major arguments given by those against compulsory voting is that it leads to a greater number of uninformed voters, noting that those who choose not vote are generally less educated on political issues than those who choose to vote. Critics argue that the resulting surplus of politically ignorant voters has three main negative consequences:

1. Misleading uninformed voters. It is often asserted that uninformed voters are more susceptible to the influence of money and spending on television ads. A short advertisement is likely to have a greater influence on an uninformed voter than one who already has strong views. This encourages the use of sensational and misleading advertising and may have a negative effect on campaigning techniques. While politicians no longer need to try to convince citizens to go out and vote, they still need to find ways to maximize their vote among less informed voters. Australian political scientist, Haydon Manning notes that compulsory voting often "require[s] banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising."

2. Ignoring the wishes of most voters. Since uninformed voters are more easily persuaded, some politicians may choose to focus on marginal voters and ignore their main base of support. Even if compulsory voting leads to less polarization, it may not result in better policy outcomes because complicated and nuanced legislation may be perceived negatively by swing voters.

3. Dampening the voice of the majority. An additional concern under a compulsory system is that people who are uninformed (or simply do not care about the outcome of an election) may end up voting randomly. The impact of 'random' votes ends up being particularly detrimental because it fails to increase civic engagement and may skew election results.

Compulsory voting presents some ethical challenges. Many people argue that it infringes upon individual liberty by denying people the ability to choose not to vote. While it is true that ballots may include a "none of the above" option (though, in practice, typically do not), the act of voting itself may be seen as "endorsing" the current politicians and political system, an endorsement that some citizens may not want to make.
While it seems pretty unlikely right now that compulsory voting will be adopted in the United States, at least on a federal level, it is a policy to keep in mind as America continues striving towards a better democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
imported topic democracy and law quick news author nina jaffe-geffner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Requiring Citizens to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are used to hearing about elections that are plagued by low voter-turnout. Many Americans see voting as optional, and in most elections (that do not involve choosing the president) a majority of eligible voters choose to abstain. But what if voting wasn't a choice, but rather a duty that was legally required of a country's citizens?

# data[].attributes.body
https://web.kamihq.com/web/viewer.html?source=sharedfile&document_identifier=0B6suf5WYaDQMUjNpWTdpNmZXMWM

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p0klq63ed002srw/telling%20americans%20to%20vote%2C%20or%20else%20-%20the%20new%20york%20times.pdf?dl=0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's a Bad Idea to Force Ignorant Americans to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voting is a right and a responsibility. As a citizen of one's country, it is important that you exercise your right to suffrage to help ensure that the government officials who are placed into office are the ones that the people actually voted. For many years in several countries, voting is non-compulsory. This means that the government does not force its citizens to show up at voting precincts to cast their votes. However, there are a number of nations that impose mandatory voting. These include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Greece and Singapore, to name a few. Twelve of these nations aggressively enforce the compulsion of voting, giving penalties and charging fees who violate such law. One of these is Australia. It has been requiring its citizens to participate in federal elections since 1924. The country's argument to this strict mandate is that it needs to address low voter turnout, which is currently below 60 percent.

Now, many people are wondering if compulsory voting is fair not. After all, the whole point of democracy is giving everyone the freedom to make their own choices, to voice out their opinions. Are you pro- or anti-compulsory voting? If you haven't made a choice yet, knowing its pros and cons could help you make an informed decision.

List of Pros of Compulsory Voting

1. Increase Voter Turnout
It is not democracy if there is only 50 percent of voter turnout. If only half of the population turns out at voting precincts at election, it can't be called a democracy. With the number of voters declining year after year, political analysts and a few citizens fear that there might come a time when it would just be the candidates' kin, friends and colleagues who will bother to show up.

2. It Broadens Representation And Legitimacy
If voting is made mandatory, it will ensure that the government will be represented by a majority of the population, not just a few individuals. It will also guarantee that members of the society who are not as politically active will not be neglected. It will also prevent political leaders to claim greater legitimacy.

3. Lessen The Need For Large Sums Of Money In Campaigns
Whether people admit it or not, money plays a significant role in politics. But if compulsory voting becomes a law, there will be no need for politicians to be backed by billionaires to fund their political campaigns.

4. Make Campaigns Broader
Compulsory voting will assist in not targeting specific subgroups. If it is guaranteed that everyone will vote, then politicians would stop creating campaigns that are only targeted to certain people. This should also mean more pressure on politicians to represent the beliefs of all citizens. As a result, determining the best candidate would be easier.

5. Promote Political Stability
Where there is division there is instability. So when a nation has an alarmingly low voter turnout, it could increase the risk of political instability brought about by crises or leaders with hidden agendas.

6. Encourage Voters to Better Educate Themselves
If people are obliged to vote every election, they will most likely want to make the most of their votes. So, they would want to research more on each candidate to ensure they'll be able to make the right choice. As a result, candidates would be forced to be more transparent about their stance on controversial issues. Furthermore, better informed voters will be able to determine unrealistic plans, ensuring fairer decisions in the future.

7. More Serious Elections
It will make people take elections as well as candidates more seriously. Compulsory voting would compel the people to be more proactive in building a government that will serve the majority, not only a few groups. This will lead to a better and more united nation.

List of Cons of Compulsory Voting

1. Violate Freedom of Choice
A democratic type of government means that it was built on the basis of respecting basic human freedoms and rights, particularly free choice. However, it can be violated if voting is made mandatory because people would not have the freedom to not express their opinion.

2. Decrease Interest
It could push individuals who have no interest in taking part of building a government for the people to vote. Although it could compel the citizens to educate themselves, there is also the possibility that those who are honestly not interested will be forced to vote. This could push people to choose candidates randomly, forfeiting the purpose of an election, which is to place deserving people in key positions. In other words, votes and consequently the budget spent for the polls will go to waste.

3. Minimize Right to Express Religion
It could take away people's right to express their religion. There are religious sectors that discourage their members from participating in political events. Therefore, forcing them to vote explicitly violates their right to practice their religion.

4. Wrong it Punish Those Who Refuse to Vote
It would be unacceptable and unlawful to punish those who would choose not to vote. It would be a violation of fundamental rights to punish people who refuse to practice their right to suffrage. Again, voting is a right, which means that people should have the freedom to choose whether to vote or not. Besides, imposing penalties and/or punishment to citizens who have no interest in politics would be unlawful because 1) they did not harm anybody, 2) they did not violate anyone's right, and 3) they did not break any law.

5. Encourage Informal Votes
This means that ballot papers with no appropriate markings of voting rules could be used to cater for the large number of voters every election.

6. Increase Law Enforcement Costs
It will require a considerable amount of money to enforce such law. If voting becomes compulsory, the government will be compelled to punish those who violate it. When this happens, it will require a large sum for law to be enforced, which would involve finding out who may or may not have broken the mandate. Although there would be fines as a result of a violation, these could not be enough to compensate what the government has to spend to impose the law.

In the end, it's all about making it fair for all parties involved. If enforcing mandatory voting would violate people's basic right to not vote, then it would not be a practical law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Strongest Pros And Cons of Compulsory Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting is a right and a responsibility. As a citizen of one's country, it is important that you exercise your right to suffrage to help ensure that the government officials who are placed into office are the ones that the people actually voted. For many years in several countries, voting is non-compulsory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting within Australia - Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Counting in a federal election continues for some time after polling day. On election night, both ordinary ballot papers, and pre-poll ballot papers completed by voters within their division, are counted to first preferences. The AEC also conducts a Two Candidate Preferred (TCP) count of House of Representatives ballot papers on election night, which helps give an indication of the likely outcome of the election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the pros and cons to compulsory voting?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 29): Well, I lived in Australia long enough to get its citizenship. That place has compulsory voting, and to me, that worked out just fine. The rationale is simple: if the elections represent the will of the people, then they should truly include ALL people, and it is their responsib...

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-voting-be-mandatory-in-the-united-states

# data[].attributes.body
Should NOT have mandatory voting http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm
SHOULD be mandatory
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In other countries, the practice of compulsory voting - a system electors are required to cast their vote on voting day, and face consequences such as fines and community service of they don't - has been in place for a very long time. Belgium has the oldest existing compulsory voting system which has been in place since 1892 (for men) and 1949 (for women). Australia is another country with compulsory attendance at elections and that has been the case since 1924.

However, in America, the idea was brought up by current president Barack Obama. He said "It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything" as a response how to offset the influence of big money in politics.

Of course, not everyone agreed with their president's train of thought. They believe that mandatory voting is a violation of civil rights as casting a vote is speech - showing support or opposition to a candidate or proposal.

List of Pros of Compulsory Voting

1. It's a civic duty
Citizens have other comparable duties such as taxation and jury duty. While they are required to vote, they can still exercise their personal opinions - with some allowing voters to cast a blank vote, meaning they can choose not to vote for anyone in the candidate lineup.

2. It reflects the will of the people
With mandatory voting, a more accurate reflection of what the population wants can be achieved. Since people are required to cast a vote, the formation of government will really reflect the will of the people.

In the 2014 US mid-term elections, less than 40% of people cast their vote. As a result, the Republicans won by a large margin - their biggest since 1928. However, when polled, 54% of Americans identified as being Democrats.

3. It eliminates the influence of special interests on policy formation
In compulsory voting, the entire electorate should be considered when creating and managing policies since every voting block has a say in how the government is run. Meaning, the wealthy or special interests cannot sway government officials to create policies that benefit only them.

List of Cons of Compulsory Voting

1. It is an ineffective system
Compulsory voting requires a person to be present at the polls, but it doesn't mandate them to cast a meaningful ballot. As such, a person can show up and cast a blank ballot, which is the minimum requirement of the law. Others view this as a waste of time because a person hasn't effectively voted.

2. It doesn't truly reflect the majority
When voting is made mandatory, some voters just randomly select a candidate. In other words, they make uninformed decisions just because they have been required to vote.

3. It costs a lot to enforce the law regarding compulsory voting
A lot of law enforcement resources is needed to find out those who didn't cast a vote. Even though fines are the usual punishment for not showing up, resources still need to be allocated in enforcing those fines. Basically, it's dedicating resources into something that people don't want to do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In other countries, the practice of compulsory voting - a system electors are required to cast their vote on voting day, and face consequences such as fines and community service of they don't - has been in place for a very long time.

# data[].attributes.body
Mandatory:
http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/Voting-Mandatory-Obama-Australia/2015/03/23/id/631918/
Not Mandatory
http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/20/obamas-wrong-its-a-bad-idea-to-force-ignorant-americans-to-vote/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/22/mandatory-voting-unconstitutional-unwise-column/25102317/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427023/progressives-think-mandatory-voting-would-help-them-polls-jonah-goldberg

# data[].attributes.body
Mandatory: http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/

Pros and Con:
http://nyln.org/compulsory-voting-pros-and-cons-list

More Pros and Cons:
http://occupytheory.org/compulsory-voting-pros-and-cons-list/
- Lawrence Gee

# data[].attributes.headline
Links                               Brenda Millan

# data[].attributes.subject
Links                               Brenda Millan

# data[].attributes.body
Should be mandatory:
*http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/03/19/obama-thinks-voting-should-be-mandatory
*http://phys.org/news/2015-04-voting-compulsory-vote.html
Should NOT be mandatory:
*http://blog.acton.org/archives/76834-3-reasons-to-oppose-mandatory-voting.html
*http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427023/progressives-think-mandatory-voting-would-help-them-polls-jonah-goldberg

# data[].attributes.body
Diaz

# data[].attributes.body
Should be Mandatory:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/opinions/opinion-roundup-mandatory-voting-duplicate-2/

http://www.fairvote.org/the_pros_and_cons_of_requiring_citizens_to_vote

http://nlcatp.org/9-crucial-pros-and-cons-of-compulsory-voting/

# data[].attributes.body
Camper

# data[].attributes.body
Should not be mandatory: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1sfm30xqbegubd3/MikeRoweOnVoting.pdf?dl=0

Voting should be mandatory:
http://www.newsweek.com/should-voting-be-compulsory-376905

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/should-voting-be-mandatory/?_r=0

# data[].attributes.headline
Bishop, Ellena. "Voter Turnout - Fairvote." FairVote. Fair Vote, 12 Jan. 2016. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . Ross, Katie. "Eighth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Istitute, 14 May 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . Carter, Alex. "13 Strongest Pros And Cons of Compulsory Voting." ConnectUS. N.p., 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. .Klein, Debby. "U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. U.S Constitution Online, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bishop, Ellena. "Voter Turnout - Fairvote." FairVote. Fair Vote, 12 Jan. 2016. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . Ross, Katie. "Eighth Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Istitute, 14 May 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . Carter, Alex. "13 Strongest Pros And Cons of Compulsory Voting." ConnectUS. N.p., 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. .Klein, Debby. "U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. U.S Constitution Online, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 22 Aug. 2016. . 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If we force everyone to vote, the electorate will become even more irrational and misinformed.

# data[].attributes.body
Should be mandatory: http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/

Should not be mandatory:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/07/should-voting-in-the-us-be-mandatory-14/mandatory-voting-would-be-a-disaster

Choi, J