nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Compulsory Voting

mzungu

Whether or not society would be better of with compulsory voting has been a longstanding debate among scholars. Jason Brennan and Lisa Hill’s book Compulsory Voting: For and Against offers two opposing arguments on the matter. Hill argues for compulsory voting, while Brennan argues against it.

A very brief summary of their arguments are as follows. Hill believes that compulsory voting will strengthen democracy by allowing for marginalised groups in society to be part of the voting process. This means that politicians will pay heed to the problems faced by the less well off in society. As things stand, politicians usually only look after their voter base (mostly middle classes) safe in the knowledge that neglecting disadvantaged areas will not impact them negatively in elections, because a high percentage of people in disadvantaged areas do not vote.

Brennan is against state coercion of any kind, hence opposes compulsory voting. He believes there is no evidence to suggest that everybody voting would lead to a more democratic and inclusive outcome. Instead, he believes, a "voting lottery" would be a less coercive and democratic method of voting....

“In a voting lottery, all citizens have the same equal fundamental political status. While in universal suffrage every citizen has one equal vote, in a voting lottery every citizen has equal eligibility to vote. Elections proceed normally, with candidates working to gain support from voting-lottery-eligible citizens. Shortly before the election, the system selects a predetermined number of citizens at random. These citizens – and these citizens only – become electors, imbued with the power to vote. To ensure turnout, the government pays each elector a substantial sum to vote.22 They are not forced to vote. We might perhaps ask them to sign a contract committing them to voting (in exchange for the payment) and then allow them to be punished for breach of contract if they renege. This involves compulsion, but only compulsion to which citizens genuinely consent.
For instance, in a U.S. presidential election, we could select 20,000 citizens randomly from all eligible voters. We pay them $1,000 each to vote. They and they alone decide the election. In a local election, we might select a much smaller number of local citizens and pay them significantly less.”

Brennan & Hill (2014)

So, is it more democratic to make voting compulsory in order to try get representation for all groups in society, or is any kind of state coercion a slippery slope, and instead is Brennan's "voting lottery" a more democratic way of doing the same thing?

Thoughts?

Brennan, J., & Hill, L. (2014). Compulsory voting: For and against. Cambridge University Press.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

So, is it more democratic to make voting compulsory in order to try get representation for all groups in society, or is any kind of state coercion a slippery slope, and instead is Brennan's "voting lottery" a more democratic way of doing the same thing? Thoughts?

"More democratic?" Were these 2 approaches problematic when confounded by the “paradox of voting?” Marquis de Condorcet (1785) suggested that the possibilities for choosing rationally can be lost when individual preferences were aggregated into social preferences. To what extent were both approaches an Ecological Fallacy? Reasoning from one unit of analysis (individual) to another (society)?

[Deleted User]

mzungu wrote: »

So, is it more democratic to make voting compulsory in order to try get representation for all groups in society, or is any kind of state coercion a slippery slope

What will be the penalty for not voting: a fine or jail, which resembles more a totalitarian state than a free democratic one? Compulsory replies to surveys (e.g., elections are like surveys) has been exemplified by the US Census taken every 10 years. Citizens are required to respond, but many do not throughout the US. "72 Percent of Nation's Households Mail Back 2010 Census Forms." What did the Census Bureau do to the 28 percent that failed to respond? Nothing. 28 percent can represent a large segment of the electorate, and why they failed to respond may say a lot about a democratic system in the venue discussed. Unfortunately, we do not know for certain.

mzungu wrote: »

..., and instead is Brennan's "voting lottery" a more democratic way of doing the same thing?

I cringe when someone discusses a US lottery, obviously of the monies type. Brennan does a random selection, which, if we were to examine the selection methodology would probably be systematic random selection and not true random, which introduces a small bit of potential error. Furthermore, in small towns the sample size may be equally small, and sample size and sampling method may produce more error. If done scientifically, we can estimate this error, but do you want to introduce sampling error when the election results may have Trumpian consequences?

Fathom wrote: »

"More democratic?" Were these 2 approaches problematic when confounded by the “paradox of voting?” Marquis de Condorcet (1785) suggested that the possibilities for choosing rationally can be lost when individual preferences were aggregated into social preferences. To what extent were both approaches an Ecological Fallacy? Reasoning from one unit of analysis (individual) to another (society)?

Ecological fallacy applied to elections is an interesting application, one I have not read in the scholarly literature. I must look at this further.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

"More democratic?" Were these 2 approaches problematic when confounded by the “paradox of voting?” Marquis de Condorcet (1785) suggested that the possibilities for choosing rationally can be lost when individual preferences were aggregated into social preferences. To what extent were both approaches an Ecological Fallacy? Reasoning from one unit of analysis (individual) to another (society)?

In Brennan's case, he was not concerned with who people voted for, but why they voted. In his view, the vast majority of the electorate know next to noting about politics/economic/international affairs etc. Hence, having them vote when they don't know the full facts is like having a jury for a murder trial who never bothered to listen to the case evidence (his analogy). He has no problem with how people vote, as long as it is in their own interests. To give a recent example, why did people who availed of Obamacare vote for Trump? It most certainly was not in their interests to do so. Did they know, and do it anyway, or were they completely unaware they were voting against themselves?

de Condorcet's "paradox of voting" was not mentioned, however updated applications of that idea were touched upon. Regarding Ecological Fallacy, I guess it is always possible that statistics were interpreted incorrectly. Although, neither argument hinges on the use of statistics all that much.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

What will be the penalty for not voting: a fine or jail, which resembles more a totalitarian state than a free democratic one? Compulsory replies to surveys (e.g., elections are like surveys) has been exemplified by the US Census taken every 10 years. Citizens are required to respond, but many do not throughout the US. "72 Percent of Nation's Households Mail Back 2010 Census Forms." What did the Census Bureau do to the 28 percent that failed to respond? Nothing. 28 percent can represent a large segment of the electorate, and why they failed to respond may say a lot about a democratic system in the venue discussed. Unfortunately, we do not know for certain.

Hill recommends something similar to the Australian system, where the fine is $20 if you do not vote. However, the state makes it easier for all to vote (voting is allowed in prisons, hospitals, citizens based in Antartica, the elderly are transported to voting centres etc). Satisfaction rate with compulsory voting there is over 70% and people appear to be happier with the state of their democracy compared to nations where voting is optional.

The above are Hill's arguments, not mine I might add. However, she states that compulsory voting is only for advanced democracies (as the case with Australia proves that it need not be a step towards totalitarianism), and not tin-pot dictatorships in the Caribbean and the like.

Black Swan wrote: »

I cringe when someone discusses a US lottery, obviously of the monies type. Brennan does a random selection, which, if we were to examine the selection methodology would probably be systematic random selection and not true random, which introduces a small bit of potential error. Furthermore, in small towns the sample size may be equally small, and sample size and sampling method may produce more error. If done scientifically, we can estimate this error, but do you want to introduce sampling error when the election results may have Trumpian consequences?

I believe the sample would be taken from all different groupings in society, hence making sure all minorities would be represented at the polls. Although, I do get what you mean, that having a exact statistical match would be unlikely. In another book, he expands on the idea, and it involves giving all 21,000 voters courses in what candidates policies will do what, who it will effect etc. Hence making their final decision armed with all the facts.

This is not to say I agree with him. I would like higher turnout at the polls, but having 21000 people, even if they were correctly chosen with 100% statistical accuracy, might have unforeseen complications. For example, what if organisations found participants and tried to influence them one way or another etc.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

Hence, having them vote when they don't know the full facts is like having a jury for a murder trial who never bothered to listen to the case evidence (his analogy).

If Brennan's jury analogy has merit, what does this say about the electorate with access to the facts? Was Brennan's jury analogy problematic? Do juries really know the facts? What are facts? Are facts and their interpretations troublesome? In science we are told to be cautious of things called "facts." Rather the data "suggests." Were juries influenced by other variables other than facts? Do some jury systems exhibit a double standard? Does wealth of the defendant make a difference: "Money talks, and OJ walks?" To what extent do jury personalities affect fact interpretation and decision making? Do the number of high-authoritarian vs. low authoritarians in jury composition affect fact interpretations and outcomes? Ref: Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1424-1430.

Fathom

Donald Green and Alan Gerber (2015) have delineated strategies to increase voter turnout in their Get Out the Vote, 3rd edition, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Voluntary voting seems more consistent with a free society than compulsory voting.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

If Brennan's jury analogy has merit, what does this say about the electorate with access to the facts?

Was Brennan's jury analogy problematic? Do juries really know the facts? What are facts? Are facts and their interpretations troublesome? In science we are told to be cautious of things called "facts." Rather the data "suggests."

Were juries influenced by other variables other than facts? Do some jury systems exhibit a double standard? Does wealth of the defendant make a difference: "Money talks, and OJ walks?"

To what extent do jury personalities affect fact interpretation and decision making? Do the number of high-authoritarian vs. low authoritarians in jury composition affect fact interpretations and outcomes?

Ref: Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1424-1430.

Not so much facts, but evidence. The reasoning being that a government impacts the lives of everybody in the state and therefore voting should be treated seriously. We would not accept a half informed or disinterested jury in a trial that impacts the life of one person, so why would we accept the same from voters when their decisions can potentially impact the lives of millions?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Donald Green and Alan Gerber (2015) have delineated strategies to increase voter turnout in their Get Out the Vote, 3rd edition, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Voluntary voting seems more consistent with a free society than compulsory voting.

Fair point, but when used within a mature democracy it can work, and increases satisfaction ratings. It may not improve outcome, but by people exercising their right to vote they become a part of the democratic process.

That's not to say it will solve all ills, because it most certainly will not. We may even be stuck in the same status quo, however it might improve the lot disenfranchised groups that would not vote otherwise.

I will also accept that voluntary voting does result in positives as people often vote in what might be in the interests of everybody.

I am on the fence a bit about it being honest!

[Deleted User]

Fathom wrote: »

Voluntary voting seems more consistent with a free society than compulsory voting.

mzungu wrote: »

I am on the fence a bit about it being honest!

I too am having difficulty accepting "compulsory voting" in a free society. Methinks we have too much government regulation in our lives already, and to force citizens to vote or suffer penalties makes me want to "bend a knee" and protest such a system.

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

I too am having difficulty accepting "compulsory voting" in a free society. Methinks we have too much government regulation in our lives already, and to force citizens to vote or suffer penalties makes me want to "bend a knee" and protest such a system.

Takes a knee too.

ForestFire

I think people should have to take and pass a questionnaire on the vote subject so show they have a basic understanding of what the vote is about, before their vote is registered.

Fathom

ForestFire wrote: »

I think people should have to take and pass a questionnaire on the vote subject so show they have a basic understanding of what the vote is about, before their vote is registered.

Who would construct the content and context of the voting questionnaire? How could you ensure fairness and lack of bias?

ForestFire

Fathom wrote: »

Who would construct the content and context of the voting questionnaire? How could you ensure fairness and lack of bias?

Sorry I don't have this fully fleshed out yet...but we seem to be able to create "independent" bodies when needed.

1)Referendum commission
2)Citizens assemble

Fathom

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry I don't have this fully fleshed out yet...but we seem to be able to create "independent" bodies when needed. 1)Referendum commission 2)Citizens assemble

When you do, please show. Makes for cool discussion.

mzungu

ForestFire wrote: »

I think people should have to take and pass a questionnaire on the vote subject so show they have a basic understanding of what the vote is about, before their vote is registered.

As Fathom noted above, this would be problematic on a few fronts, but bias being a main one. I think we could reach a similar point through increased education in primary, secondary and third level. Possibly by introducing (in some form) the social sciences (political science, economics, sociology etc) into the school curriculum to make sure that all pupils have an understanding of it before they leave school. I would also make it a mandatory add on for doing apprenticeships. For example, alongside doing your four years training to be a carpenter, you also need to complete some modules in a social science discipline (say one or two a year). Also, in third level, all students of the *hard sciences will have some modules in the social sciences as part of their course. On the flip side, students of the social sciences will have to take a few hard science modules**.

I think that initiative might go someway towards getting more people interested in taking part in voting.

* Update Edit: Was told on another thread that hard sciences do have humanities modules in some Irish third level universities, so to some extent this has started to happen.

** Needed for areas of the social sciences where postmodernism is running rampant.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

** Needed for areas of the social sciences where postmodernism is running rampant.

Derridean deconstruction?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Derridean deconstruction?

I was thinking more the liberties taken with historical fact (Foucault) and the outright rejection of the sciences in humanities (taken by gender theorists for things like there being no biological difference between men and women etc) to push a theory. Moreover, I would find parts of the postmodern philosophy that advocate that there are "no truths" to be problematic. It's a laissez-faire of looking at the world, and as others have said before, it is an ultra-conservative position dressed up as progression. If society and/or the individual abandons the search for a real truth and instead embarks on the abstract and personal quests led by a "no truth" philosophy, this energy will be wasted down an intellectual cul-de-sac. Meanwhile, that energy that could be used towards trying to make cohesive social changes for the better, gain little traction due to unnecessary fragmentation. Hence, the societal status quo remains, and postmodernism helps this. Hence why it could be argued to be a form of conservatism.

I won't dismiss all of postmodernism btw, far from it. I do think some of it has merit. You mentioned "deconstruction", whilst it does interest me, I think the idea that texts can be open to interpretation of the reader is problematic. For example, can these two paragraphs be read as a fire safety document? :pac::D Jokes aside it is something I am on the fence about, there are certain occasions where meaning can be taken from text, but in others what you see is what you get. I think you can find meaning in just about anything if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean the meaning is valid though, the same as if you stare at a cloud on a sunny day for ages and it makes the shape of a cucumber, it is still a cloud shape and not a cloud shaped as a cucumber.

My own (conspiracy?) theory is that I think deconstruction has probably helped writers who write in an opaque fashion on purpose, knowing that countless people will "deconstruct" and find all sorts of great and mystical meaningings where there really was not any that was intended.

seagull

mzungu wrote: »

Possibly by introducing (in some form) the social sciences (political science, economics, sociology etc) into the school curriculum to make sure that all pupils have an understanding of it before they leave school. I would also make it a mandatory add on for doing apprenticeships. For example, alongside doing your four years training to be a carpenter, you also need to complete some modules in a social science discipline (say one or two a year). Also, in third level, all students of the *hard sciences will have some modules in the social sciences as part of their course. On the flip side, students of the social sciences will have to take a few hard science modules**.

Science students have a significantly heavier workload than arts students. We had to do a compulsory arts course as part of our science degree. I despised having to do it, and it took time away from what I wanted to study. In first year, I could out-debate a significant number of the arts students in their own subject. With regards making arts students do hard science subjects - half of them would never graduate if you introduced that policy.

mzungu

seagull wrote: »

Science students have a significantly heavier workload than arts students. We had to do a compulsory arts course as part of our science degree. I despised having to do it, and it took time away from what I wanted to study. In first year, I could out-debate a significant number of the arts students in their own subject. With regards making arts students do hard science subjects - half of them would never graduate if you introduced that policy.

I wouldn't agree there. Most would have done science in some shape or form in secondary school, so they would be able to manage. It would need to be handled the right way with introductory modules covering the basics. Having the one hard science module per semester would flesh out the course a bit more. Some universities in the UK already do something similar, so it definitely can work.

seagull

mzungu wrote: »

I wouldn't agree there. Most would have done science in some shape or form in secondary school, so they would be able to manage. It would need to be handled the right way with introductory modules covering the basics. Having the one hard science module per semester would flesh out the course a bit more. Some universities in the UK already do something similar, so it definitely can work.

That was largely the standard science student dig at arts students having an easy life and simple course work.

They introduced a genetics for art students course at the university I was at. It counted as a full course, and covered less than what we did in 1 semester. Strangely enough, the science students were less than impressed.

Why mess around with the curriculum and make people take a course that they have no interest in, and quite possibly a very limited ability? Somebody could be e.g. a talented artist with very poor maths skills. Are you going to make them do a hard science course requiring maths?

Fathom

seagull wrote: »

Why mess around with the curriculum and make people take a course that they have no interest in, and quite possibly a very limited ability? Somebody could be e.g. a talented artist with very poor maths skills.

Contrary evidence? Music is one of the greatest of arts. Yet there is a significant relationship between performance in math and music. Ref: Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship K Vaughn - Journal of aesthetic education, 2000 - JSTOR

seagull

Which is why I picked art rather than music.

Fathom

seagull wrote: »

Which is why I picked art rather than music.

"What is Music? Music is a discipline that stretches back to the ancient world. One of the seven original liberal arts" (Trinity College Dublin).

mzungu

seagull wrote: »

They introduced a genetics for art students course at the university I was at. It counted as a full course, and covered less than what we did in 1 semester. Strangely enough, the science students were less than impressed.

Was it one semesters material stretched over 3-4 years of a degree module? If the main modules for the course were arts based, then I wouldn't see too many issues with it. Maybe they should have dropped genetics from the course title if that was the case, especially if the science end of it was only minor.

seagull wrote: »

Why mess around with the curriculum and make people take a course that they have no interest in, and quite possibly a very limited ability? Somebody could be e.g. a talented artist with very poor maths skills. Are you going to make them do a hard science course requiring maths?

A choice would be available. Ideal scenario would be all STEM subjects so the student has a good mix to choose from. Although some branches of the social sciences incorporate some maths, so it wouldn't be outlier by any means.

Regarding your artist example, the idea would be to pick the science subject that would benefit them in their future career. So, naturally it won't be anywhere near as heavy as a full degree in biology or physics.

Fathom

North Korea has compulsory voting. Citizens were to vote for a single candidate from the district where they live. Abstaining from voting was considered treasonous with severe consequences. Ref: The Economist, March 5, 2014.

Fathom

mzungu

Fathom wrote:

North Korea has compulsory voting. Citizens were to vote for a single candidate from the district where they live. Abstaining from voting was considered treasonous with severe consequences.

Ref: The Economist, March 5, 2014.

Fathom wrote: »

There are a few corrupt nations with compulsory voting, no questions there. However, a few advanced democracies are in the picture too. It appears to work well in the democratic countries that do use it.

If a certain demographic, usually the wealthier in society form a large voting bloc, then a "class bias" occurs where policies will be more likely to favour their interests over other groups.

Fathom

Compulsory voting not the silver bullet to ensure democracy. Neither does increased participation by itself. Voting is complex. Australia has compulsory voting. For example, Amy King and Andrew Leigh (2009) in Beautiful Politicians, Kyklos International Review of Social Sciences, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 579–593, concluded about Australia: "Beautiful candidates are indeed more likely to be elected, with a one standard deviation increase in beauty associated with a 1 ½– 2 percentage point increase in voteshare." Modeling cliche applied to elections: "Look the look. Walk the walk. Talk the talk." Get elected.

Fathom

"Australia’s adoption of compulsory voting significantly increased turnout and pension spending at the national level. Results suggest that democracies with voluntary voting do not represent the preferences of all citizens." Ref: Fowler, Anthony (2013). Electoral and Policy Consequences of Voter Turnout: Evidence from Compulsory Voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8(2):159-182.