The Case for - and Agaist - Mandatory Voting

The case for - and against - mandatory voting about: reader?url=https://ipol itics.ca/201 6/ 11/07/the-case-fo r-and-again... ipolitics.ca The case for - and against mandatory voting 7-9 minutes In the aftermath of the 2000 federal election, which saw only 64 per cent of eligible Canadians cast ballots, then-chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley mused publicly that if turnout descended low enough, the search for democratic legitimacy would lead the country to consider making voting mandatory. Future prime minister Stephen Harper, then head of the National Citizens' Coalition, was moved to accuse Kingsley of acting "more like a state policeman" than a public servant. "Would Kingsley's police," he asked , "use the election register to go house to house to force people to the polls or arrest them?" Whether mandatory voting should be adopted is not a simple question, but it's fair to say that the tenor of the debate has moved beyond the Kingsley-Harper exchange. The Special Committee on Electoral Reform 's to-do list includes studying mandatory voting. Anxiety about the democratic legitimacy of elections with low turnouts has led to renewed interest internationally in making voting compulsory. Around 25 per cent of democracies now use some form of mandatory voting . Among their number are countries with spotty democratic credentials , such as Venezuela, but also those with long histories of free and fair elections, such as Australia, which has had mandatory voting since 1924. Millions of Canadians choose not to exercise their right to cast a ballot at each election . Political scientists have debated the possible reasons in depth : alienation from the system , the decline of civic duty, dissatisfaction with the options, simply being too busy, and so on . The long-term absence of a significant percentage of 1 of 4 20 17-12- 13,4:31 PM The case fo r - and against - mandato1y voting about: reader?url=https:// ipo 1itics.ca/201 6/ 11 /07/th e-case-fo r-and-again ... electors from participation on election day, however, persists regardless of the cause. Turnout was up overall in the October 2015 election to more than 68 per cent, which included notable increases among indigenous people and youth - two groups which usually see lower voting rates than the rest of the population. The turnout was up from 61 per cent in 2011 , and an all-time low of 59 per cent in 2008. The 2015 election provides reasons for optimism about the health of our democracy - but it seems unlikely to herald anything close to full voter turnout in the future . The nascent debate in Canada about mandatory voting raises several issues that should be the focus of extensive public discussion if the committee and the government are seriously considering the idea. The fit, or lack thereof, between mandatory voting and Canadian political culture is relevant. The idea that the law would oblige citizens to attend a polling station on election day- and punish them if they do not- rests uneasily with the Canadian liberal tradition that permits individuals to decline to cast a ballot with no questions asked. Canadians face few obligations imposed upon them by the state by virtue solely of their citizenship: jury duty, paying taxes, completing the (once again) mandatory census. Mandatory political participation has a whiff of the despotic about it for many, as Harper's comments show. , ,It's unclear whether the right to vote also extends to a right to not vote. It must also be noted that there is substantial disagreement about the merits and drawbacks of mandatory voting. Advocates argue that it helps democratic legitimacy, because all have participated to determine the outcome. It also makes the results on Election Day more likely to align with the actual preferences of the citizenry as a whole. Advocates of mandatory voting say it would force political parties to take seriously the interests of groups with historically low turnout rates, such as young people. Parties would have less of an incentive to focus their energies on turning out the base, and may 2 of4 2017-1 2-13 , 4:3 1 PM The case fo r - and against - about:reader?url=https://ipolitics.ca/201 6/1 1/07 /the-case-for-and-again ... mandato1y voting instead engage with the electorate more broadly. Critics claim, as Harper did, that mandatory voting is unduly coercive. They argue that it discards the tradition that permits citizens to decide for themselves their appropriate level of engagement with politics. There is no conclusive data to show that being obliged to vote encourages citizens to be better informed about the choices before them. In short, there is no consensus on whether mandatory voting is implementable or desirable, or what impact it might have on the quality of democratic participation . Any assessment of mandatory voting must give serious thought to the design choices on the table . Should mandatory voting be enforced through "sticks," such as fines, or "carrots," such as modest tax breaks? Does offering financial incentives trivialize the solemn act of voting? Laws making voting mandatory usually include exemptions, such as for those who are sick on Election Day or who conscientiously object to the legitimacy of the state. Should individuals be obliged to offer proof that they had a legitimate reason for not voting? How broad should the exemptions be? Prominent U.K. academic Sarah Birch has argued that voting there should be compulsory only for first-time voters in order to inculcate the habit of participation , which may have lifelong effects. A mandatory voting law could be designed in many ways - something the committee will have to take under consideration . There are also constitutional issues at play, although these are surmountable. The right to vote is protected in the Charter of Rights. It's unclear whether that right also extends to a right to not vote . There may be a natural symmetry to protecting the choice between voting and not voting. Mandatory voting might also entail some constitutional risks because it could be characterized as compelled speech , which would violate the Charter guarantee of freedom of political expression. But Charter concerns could be addressed by offering a 3 of 4 2017-12-13 , 4:3 1 PM The case for - and against - mandatory voting about:reader?url=https://ipo Iitics.ca/2016/ 11/07/the-case-for-and-again .. . "none of the above" option, a right to spoil a ballot, exemptions from the obligation to vote for those with valid excuses, and reasonable penalties for non-compliance. The underlying question is whether mandatory voting is a good idea for Canada in 2016. Even if it's not endorsed by the committee this time around, it's likely to remain an option on the reform agenda for the foreseeable future. Fixes for lower-than-ideal voter turnout are few and far between. A more proportional system likely would increase turnout, but only marginally. Voter education, easier voting procedures, early registration for young voters, and many other techniques have not appreciably moved the needle. The merits and drawbacks of mandatory voting deserve to receive a full airing before the committee and in its final report, to assist members of the public in making up their own minds about what would be a fundamental shift in Canadian democracy. This article appeared originally in Policy magazine. Michael Pal is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Common Law at the University of Ottawa and specializes in the comparative law of democracy and election law.michael.pal@uottawa.ca The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author's alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics. 4 of4 2017-12-13,4:31 PM