Unfortunate as low voter turnout is, I do not believe the government should institute a compulsory voting law. Liphart brings up points such as party turnouts and the lack of representation for poorer people in the voting turnout to suggest that all people should be forced to vote. He further suggests that a full turnout would bring about a radical difference in election outcomes. However, these points are actually myths. The truth is, all groups have become less likely to vote and the level of turnout would probably not affect the outcome of the election. Surveys suggest that voters and non-voters actually have similar viewpoints. Also suggested by Liphart was the view that the educated are more likely to vote and that this leads to a government that favors the privileged. I would argue that the educated are perhaps a better influence on our political system, as they more likely to understand and know about the issues. Therefore, they are more likely to cast a informed vote. Also, voter participation is a right of all citizens. While more should consider it a duty as well, ultimately no one is denied the chance to participate in the system. I do support making voting an easier process, by simplifying registration and perhaps moving the voting times. Such measures would enable more citizens to vote, citizens who wished to participate in their government. However, participation should never be forced and therefore the government should not pass a mandatory voting law.
The title of the first article is one of the strongest arguments foe compulsory voting laws. "Compulsory voting is the best way to keep democracy strong." I agree with this and that voting is the easiest and most common way for people to get involved in government and democracy. The low numbers for US voter turnout are creating some real problems for our nation. One is, as Lijphart stated, is Democratic legitimacy. How could government officials really believe that they gained power in a representative government when voter turnout was so low. Low numbers mean only a portion of the population is participating which means these officials are not representing the nation as a whole. The other problem addressed in Lijphat's article was the balance of representation. "Low turnout almost inevitably means that certain groups vote in greater numbers than other groups and hence gain disproportionate influence on the government and its policies." Both issues are serious and both could be remedied with certain levels of compulsory voting. Maximizing voter turnout is key for the country to ensure we are running a true democracy. Voting laws and regulations would be a great way to ensure more people, and the country as a whole, are getting involved in the democratic process. It is not realistic to expect 100% voter turnout but there certainly would be an increase which would create a more fair, and evenly represented democracy. The government wouldn't be able to enact compulsory voting all at once. They would need to start small and work up. For example, states should all practice same day voter registration. This makes it easier and more likely people will come to vote. Eventually voter turnout will increase and compulsory voting will help us the rest of the way. More votes means more opinions leading to more of the country is being represented which is what this great nation's democracy is all about.
I agree with Blair. Meaning that the article written by Arend Lijpart made the strongest argument; I believe that Compulsory Voting is the best way to keep a democracy strong. Stated in the article, voting is indeed the most common and basic way of participating in a democracy. America faces a problem today because many people do not exercise their right to vote. A good deal of people, such as woman and african americans, spent countless time and energy on fighting for suffrage in the past, so why not use that right to maintain a legitimate democracy? Right now in the United States too many people do not vote on election day and as a result voter turn-out is at an all time low. Low numbers mean that only a certain segment of America's population are a part of the voting process; They are not representing the nation as a whole. As a result, the only key way to solve this problem is to maximize voter turnout and use compulsory voting. It would not make a dramatic difference in voter turnout but it would at least increase it. There are many ways how one could carry out compulsory voting such as voter-friendly registration procedures, changing the day of election day, easier access to absentee ballots, proportional representation, and scheduling elections ( national, state, and local ) on the same day. They would all influence the increase of voter turnout for different reasons, one being that making elections on the weekend would make it easier for people to go out and vote. Altogether, I believe that all of these reasons would help make America's democracy a true and legitimate democracy instead of one that is unfair and unproportional.
I agree with both Tess and Blair. I believe that the creation of a compulsory law is the best way to keep the American democracy strong. As stated in the first sentence of the article, voting is the commonest and most basic way of participating in a democracy. The decrease in voter turnout within recent years has created serious problems. Liiphart has two main arguments in favor of compulsory voting. One is democratic legitimacy. Some voters questioned Clinton's mandate because of the low percentages of voter turnout. Liiphart goes on by saying that the low voter turnout gives certain voting groups more influence than other groups. This decreasing voter turnout "means that privileged citizens vote in significantly larger numbers than less-privileged citizens," and thus creating a bias against lower class citizens. In order to have equal influence, the government must create a way to maximise voter turnout. The compulsory law, among many other ideas such as voter-friendly registration procedures, voting on the weekend instead of during the work week, and proportional representation have all been ideas proposed by the government to increase voter turnout. The compulsory law would require all citizens to cast a vote on an election day. It "equalizes participation and removes much of the bias against less-privileged citizens." While many people believe that compulsory voting violates a persons' right not to vote, the person does not actually have to cast a vote on election day. They could leave their ballot blank, and count that as their vote. Therefore, not violating their right not to vote. I believe the the United States should enact compulsory voting laws because they would, over time, increase voter turnout.
I agree with both Blair and Tess; Compulsory Voting is the best way to keep the democracy strong. This idea of compulsory voting laws is the simplest way to keep this country's citizens as involved in the government as possible. Even though the voter turnout numbers are low, the citizens are still given the opportunity to vote and shape their country the way they would like to see it. Like Arend Lijphart says in his article, "...Mandatory voting has produced near-universal voter turnout" (Page 89.) There are so many issues that need to be solved in the United States. This Compulsory Voting Law would give citizens of the United States a fair chance to vote for what they believe is right for their country. In today's society, the voter turnout numbers are lower than they have ever been. These low numbers show that normally the same citizens vote every election, while others do not even bother getting involved in the campaign, let alone voting. Some citizens find voting to be too difficult of a process, not to mention having to register to vote. If citizens do register to vote, learn more about the elections, and are influenced to vote, more citizens are likely to attend the polls on any election day. Therefore, a Compulsory Voting Law would influence more citizens to vote in the United States. This Law would help the United States' elections in order to gain more support by the country's citizens for either party.
Throughout much of the past five decades in American history, voter turnout has been embarrassingly low. In the 1996 presidential election, it reached the lowest level since the election of President Coolidge in 1924. In fact, even in 2008, the prospect of the first black President of the United States or the first woman Vice President was not sufficient enough to dramatically increase turout. Such low turnout has been occuring, ironically enough, in a republic with a founding doucment that begins with the words, "We the people." Indeed, the United States often prides itself on the Jeffersonian ideal that "governments are instituted among men" and that "it is the right of the people to abolish" an unjust government. Since our founding, we clearly always champion the right to vote. That critical promise is the guiding principle of American democracy.
Therefore, voting in the United States should be compulsory. It would be the best way to ensure the thriving of a poltiically active citizenry that constructively contributes, through the power of the vote, to the success of its democracy. British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin put it best in assering that "participation in self-government is...a basic requirement." Going even further, Pericles, the father of Athenian democracy, even suggested that "our ordinary citizens...are still fair judges of public matters" and that those who "take no part in these duties...[are] useless."
Compulsory voting in the United States has a number of benefits, the chief among them being, it is proven to increase voter turnout. Indeed, history has indicated that those nations with compulsory voter turnout, such as Australia, have markedly higher voter turnout that those countrie without it, such as the United States. In those countries that abandoned compuslory voting, such as Netherlands after the 1970's, voter turnout subsequently declined. Such high levels of turnout reflects an active, politically involved, and participatory citizenry in the United States. Furthermore, by instituting compulsory voting, those voters who do not typically go to the polls will be more compelled to pay attention to national political debates, which enhances the kind of "civic health" which Austin Ranney simply dismisses. In ensuring compulsory voting, America, as the world's sole superpower and most successful republic in history, would send a message to the rest of globe that are nation's embrace of empowering the voice of the people is truly reflected in the process of our elections. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that nonvoters' political composition is reflective of actual voters, Mr. Lijphart accurately asserts that compulsory voting would still assure that a government is indeed representative of all the people and truly legitimate in its nature. This argument is one that Mr. Lijphart makes at the beginning of his case and is a valid one. Lijphart uses 1992 to make this argument yet 1996 is more applicable: reelection of President Clinton with a 49% voter turnout may have been a fair victory but may not be truly representative of all the people. Therefore, it is evident that there are many bonuses to compulsory voting.
One of the unique traits of the United States is our reliace and embrace of the voice of the people. Compulsory voting ensures that this citizen-driven spirit of American government endures.
I agree with Pooja. The implementation of a compulsory voting law is radical and unnecessary. As note by Ranney's view, the right to not vote is just as precious as the right to vote itself. Whiel Liphart argues that the increased numbers of non-voters creates a lack of representation and minorities feeling a sense of alienation, Ranney disagrees. Empirical studies on this view have proven that the distribution of policy preferences among voters and non-voters. It has also been shown that cynicism about the government is present in both groups, and in no way signifies, "an increased level of alienation or lawlessness." This point also covers the "democratic legitimacy" question. It proves that even if a larger group of voters were to turned out, the outcome of the vote is likely to be the same. Education is another dispute that came to the forefront. Liphart stated that it is more frequent for the educated to vote. I also share this a similar view with Pooja on this matter. The educated are more likely to voted in an informed manner. In addition, it is not the case that the uneducated are not allowed to vote. It is their choice to vote (or not to vote) and their right and responsibility to exercise that right. Ultimately, if they choose not to vote it is their choice duty, and right to carry, or not carry out. Overall, voting is a right that should be given to those who are deserving of it, but not thrust upon them.
As terrible as low voter turnout is, a compulsory voting law should not be instituted by the government. One of the main points made by Liphart is that without compulsory voting, representation for all groups is unequal. If representation is disproportionate, the United States cannot truly be considered a democracy, according to Liphart. He also suggested that a 100% voter turnout would drastically affect the outcomes of elections. However, both of these assertions are not factual. Take the 1980 election as an example. Even if the five lowest voting groups participated in the election, Carter's share of the vote would only have increased by 1.5%. Reagan would still walk away with the victory. As seen in this example, the assertion that the outcome of elections would be affected is highly exaggerated.
Liphart also noted that the well-educated are the most like to vote; thus, resulting in a government that favors the advanced and priviledge. The educated are the people who take time to think about their decision and gather facts before they vote. The educated have a greater influence on our political system because they collect the facts and vote for the candidate who will best serve the country. The uneducated may not consider the facts, and therefore cast a uniformed vote which would not be beneficial for the country.
Mandatory participation in voting would not be beneficial for the government, and so compulsory voting should not be instituted by the government.
I really dislike the idea of "Compulsory Voting Law?" This requires voters to attend on voting day and vote. If they do not attend they will be punished. To me, voting is a privilege and a right that we have which gives us the opportunity to vote, not a duty that we have to fulfill. We should have the right to choose what rights we want to exercise and this law would only decrease the basis of ones own freedom which this nation is known for. Another negative side of this is that not everyone is informed about the candidates on the ballet. If they are forced to vote for people they have no idea what their beliefs are, they would simply just pick a random person just in order to fulfill the requirements of the law. This will cause elections to be inaccurate of what the public wants from their government and thus eventually become corrupt.
While many Americans do not take advantage of the opportunity to vote, compulsary voting laws are the wrong way to increase voter turnout. It is shown that Non-voter policy preference is divided equally with the preference of voters. It has also been suggested that these laws do nothing to do with a dicrease in cinicism for the government. Voting is a right, and something that Americans take pride in doing. By forcing them to vote the government would be changing the way people look at voting. It could also be said that many people voting would be uneducated and not care how the election turns out. Voters should be informed and have reason to support their candidate. Many citizens who do not vote feel they are under represented, however if they care enough about the government they should have made the effort to have an impact on it.
I believe that the US should enact compulsory voting laws form any reasons. The first reason deals with " democratic legitimacy;" with a low voter turnout, typically under 60%, the government cannot claim to be a representative democracy. For example, Clinton's mandate "received the support of fewer than 25% of all eligible voters in 1992." Therefore, since not all eligible voters voted during the election, it is unclear whether the mandate truly represented what the people favored. Additionally, by increasing voter turnout " it can reduce the role of money in politics since it does away with the need for candidates to spend large sums on getting voters to polls." Now candidates can spend more money on their campaign, campaign goals and other things needed for the election.
Another reason why compulsory voting should be used in the United States is that policies tend to favor the interests of privileged citizens. Without compulsory voting laws, socio-economic biases would become a major problem. For example, " low and unequal voter turnout is a major reason why politicians find it much easier to reduce government aid to the poor than to cut entitlement programs that chiefly benefit the middle class." With compulsory voting not just the middle or upper class would be represented. Candidates would be more likely to support policies representing minorities and the poor if they were going to the polls.
Also, compulsory voting would not force Americans to actually vote. A government " cannot require its citizens to cast a valid vote; secret ballots mean that nobody can be prevented from casting an invalid or blank one."
Lastly, "compulsory voting should be seen as an extension of universal suffrage- which we now take for granted." Although many amendments were passed to give voting rights to blacks, women, and citizens over the age of 18, many people from these groups are not taking advantage of the privilege to vote. Therefore, compulsory voting laws will hopefully remind them of the adversity faced to make universal suffrage possible because voting a "basic democratic principle."
Though I do believe it is important to be actively involved in our nation’s political system, I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. One main argument against compulsory voting is that it violates the individual freedom to not vote. Lijhpart claims that this argument is a weak one because “a government can require citizens to show up at the polls or even to accept a ballot and then drop it into the ballot box, but it cannot require its citizens to cast a valid vote.” I honestly do not understand why Lijhpart would consider invalid voting a good thing. What is the point of forcing someone do go to the polls and waste their vote? It’s a waste of time and no better than not voting at all. I also do not understand the desire to have people vote that do not want to vote. The late Senator Sam Evrin stated, “I don’t believe in making it easy for apathetic, lazy people. I’d be extremely happy if nobody in the United States voted except for the people who thought about the issues and made up their own minds and wanted to vote.” I agree with this statement one hundred percent. If a person has no interest in voting, for whatever reason, I would rather they not vote than make an uninformed decision. I have no doubt that many voluntary nonvoters, if forced to vote, would vote without spending the time to learn about a candidate’s policies in comparison to the other candidate’s policies and form an educated opinion on which candidate will best represent them and govern in accordance with their beliefs and desires. I believe that compulsory voting focuses on raising the percentage of voter turnouts in any way, without focusing on the bigger issue at hand, which is the cause behind low voter turnouts. The focus should be on why people are not voting, as well as getting them to cast an informed vote, not just getting as many people to vote as possible. Why should it be more important to vote at all, than to cast an informed and honest vote? Another argument made in favor of compulsory voting is that it is necessary in order to have a true democratic government, government for the people by the people. In June 2004, a national sample was asked the survey question, “In a few countries every eligible citizen in required by law to vote in national elections. Those who don’t have a good excuse for not voting are subject to a small fine. Do you think this would be a good law or a poor law to have in this country?” The results showed that 21% of respondents favored compulsory voting, while 72% opposed it. If our aim is to have a true democratic government, shouldn’t it matter if the public does not want compulsory voting to be a part of their government? The issue of compulsory voting affects the way the country is governed, so the public should be given the right to vote on this issue. I’m sure that vote would have a great voter turnout. Compulsory voting is an unnecessary step to increase voter turnout, and presents no proven argument that low voter turnouts have a negative effect on the way our country is governed. To the contrary, increasing voter turnouts through the use of compulsory voting could even have a negative effect on the way the country is governed, because it can resulted in uneducated votes.
Compulsory voting laws should be enacted in my opinion. Based on the incredibly low voter turnout, it is obvious that American citizens are not getting involved enough in the government. With the voter turnout of 49 percent in the 1998 Presidential election, the "democracy legitimacy" is losing its true meaning. While the government claims to have represented all the people, only half of the citizens voiced their opinions.
According to Lijphart, the compulsory voting will protect the rights of all people. The existing system strongly favors the privileged citizens over the less-privileged ones. Those who have better education and wealth tend to vote in larger numbers, and therefore benefit more from the government policies. When not all classes are represented, the policies have higher chance to fail. Those problems related to socio-economic biases can easily be avoided with the compulsory voting laws.
Implementing compulsory laws, however, can face problems. I suggest that while slowly carrying out the laws, the government can also use other mechanisms such as voter-friendly registration procedures, easy access to ballots or proportional representation. That way the true meaning of representative democracy will be preserved.
14 comments:
Unfortunate as low voter turnout is, I do not believe the government should institute a compulsory voting law. Liphart brings up points such as party turnouts and the lack of representation for poorer people in the voting turnout to suggest that all people should be forced to vote. He further suggests that a full turnout would bring about a radical difference in election outcomes. However, these points are actually myths. The truth is, all groups have become less likely to vote and the level of turnout would probably not affect the outcome of the election. Surveys suggest that voters and non-voters actually have similar viewpoints.
Also suggested by Liphart was the view that the educated are more likely to vote and that this leads to a government that favors the privileged. I would argue that the educated are perhaps a better influence on our political system, as they more likely to understand and know about the issues. Therefore, they are more likely to cast a informed vote.
Also, voter participation is a right of all citizens. While more should consider it a duty as well, ultimately no one is denied the chance to participate in the system. I do support making voting an easier process, by simplifying registration and perhaps moving the voting times. Such measures would enable more citizens to vote, citizens who wished to participate in their government. However, participation should never be forced and therefore the government should not pass a mandatory voting law.
The title of the first article is one of the strongest arguments foe compulsory voting laws. "Compulsory voting is the best way to keep democracy strong." I agree with this and that voting is the easiest and most common way for people to get involved in government and democracy. The low numbers for US voter turnout are creating some real problems for our nation. One is, as Lijphart stated, is Democratic legitimacy. How could government officials really believe that they gained power in a representative government when voter turnout was so low. Low numbers mean only a portion of the population is participating which means these officials are not representing the nation as a whole. The other problem addressed in Lijphat's article was the balance of representation. "Low turnout almost inevitably means that certain groups vote in greater numbers than other groups and hence gain disproportionate influence on the government and its policies." Both issues are serious and both could be remedied with certain levels of compulsory voting. Maximizing voter turnout is key for the country to ensure we are running a true democracy. Voting laws and regulations would be a great way to ensure more people, and the country as a whole, are getting involved in the democratic process. It is not realistic to expect 100% voter turnout but there certainly would be an increase which would create a more fair, and evenly represented democracy. The government wouldn't be able to enact compulsory voting all at once. They would need to start small and work up. For example, states should all practice same day voter registration. This makes it easier and more likely people will come to vote. Eventually voter turnout will increase and compulsory voting will help us the rest of the way. More votes means more opinions leading to more of the country is being represented which is what this great nation's democracy is all about.
I agree with Blair. Meaning that the article written by Arend Lijpart made the strongest argument; I believe that Compulsory Voting is the best way to keep a democracy strong. Stated in the article, voting is indeed the most common and basic way of participating in a democracy. America faces a problem today because many people do not exercise their right to vote. A good deal of people, such as woman and african americans, spent countless time and energy on fighting for suffrage in the past, so why not use that right to maintain a legitimate democracy? Right now in the United States too many people do not vote on election day and as a result voter turn-out is at an all time low. Low numbers mean that only a certain segment of America's population are a part of the voting process; They are not representing the nation as a whole. As a result, the only key way to solve this problem is to maximize voter turnout and use compulsory voting. It would not make a dramatic difference in voter turnout but it would at least increase it. There are many ways how one could carry out compulsory voting such as voter-friendly registration procedures, changing the day of election day, easier access to absentee ballots, proportional representation, and scheduling elections ( national, state, and local ) on the same day. They would all influence the increase of voter turnout for different reasons, one being that making elections on the weekend would make it easier for people to go out and vote. Altogether, I believe that all of these reasons would help make America's democracy a true and legitimate democracy instead of one that is unfair and unproportional.
I agree with both Tess and Blair. I believe that the creation of a compulsory law is the best way to keep the American democracy strong. As stated in the first sentence of the article, voting is the commonest and most basic way of participating in a democracy. The decrease in voter turnout within recent years has created serious problems. Liiphart has two main arguments in favor of compulsory voting. One is democratic legitimacy. Some voters questioned Clinton's mandate because of the low percentages of voter turnout. Liiphart goes on by saying that the low voter turnout gives certain voting groups more influence than other groups. This decreasing voter turnout "means that privileged citizens vote in significantly larger numbers than less-privileged citizens," and thus creating a bias against lower class citizens. In order to have equal influence, the government must create a way to maximise voter turnout. The compulsory law, among many other ideas such as voter-friendly registration procedures, voting on the weekend instead of during the work week, and proportional representation have all been ideas proposed by the government to increase voter turnout. The compulsory law would require all citizens to cast a vote on an election day. It "equalizes participation and removes much of the bias against less-privileged citizens." While many people believe that compulsory voting violates a persons' right not to vote, the person does not actually have to cast a vote on election day. They could leave their ballot blank, and count that as their vote. Therefore, not violating their right not to vote. I believe the the United States should enact compulsory voting laws because they would, over time, increase voter turnout.
I agree with both Blair and Tess; Compulsory Voting is the best way to keep the democracy strong. This idea of compulsory voting laws is the simplest way to keep this country's citizens as involved in the government as possible. Even though the voter turnout numbers are low, the citizens are still given the opportunity to vote and shape their country the way they would like to see it. Like Arend Lijphart says in his article, "...Mandatory voting has produced near-universal voter turnout" (Page 89.) There are so many issues that need to be solved in the United States. This Compulsory Voting Law would give citizens of the United States a fair chance to vote for what they believe is right for their country. In today's society, the voter turnout numbers are lower than they have ever been. These low numbers show that normally the same citizens vote every election, while others do not even bother getting involved in the campaign, let alone voting. Some citizens find voting to be too difficult of a process, not to mention having to register to vote. If citizens do register to vote, learn more about the elections, and are influenced to vote, more citizens are likely to attend the polls on any election day. Therefore, a Compulsory Voting Law would influence more citizens to vote in the United States. This Law would help the United States' elections in order to gain more support by the country's citizens for either party.
Throughout much of the past five decades in American history, voter turnout has been embarrassingly low. In the 1996 presidential election, it reached the lowest level since the election of President Coolidge in 1924. In fact, even in 2008, the prospect of the first black President of the United States or the first woman Vice President was not sufficient enough to dramatically increase turout. Such low turnout has been occuring, ironically enough, in a republic with a founding doucment that begins with the words, "We the people." Indeed, the United States often prides itself on the Jeffersonian ideal that "governments are instituted among men" and that "it is the right of the people to abolish" an unjust government. Since our founding, we clearly always champion the right to vote. That critical promise is the guiding principle of American democracy.
Therefore, voting in the United States should be compulsory. It would be the best way to ensure the thriving of a poltiically active citizenry that constructively contributes, through the power of the vote, to the success of its democracy. British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin put it best in assering that "participation in self-government is...a basic requirement." Going even further, Pericles, the father of Athenian democracy, even suggested that "our ordinary citizens...are still fair judges of public matters" and that those who "take no part in these duties...[are] useless."
Compulsory voting in the United States has a number of benefits, the chief among them being, it is proven to increase voter turnout. Indeed, history has indicated that those nations with compulsory voter turnout, such as Australia, have markedly higher voter turnout that those countrie without it, such as the United States. In those countries that abandoned compuslory voting, such as Netherlands after the 1970's, voter turnout subsequently declined. Such high levels of turnout reflects an active, politically involved, and participatory citizenry in the United States. Furthermore, by instituting compulsory voting, those voters who do not typically go to the polls will be more compelled to pay attention to national political debates, which enhances the kind of "civic health" which Austin Ranney simply dismisses. In ensuring compulsory voting, America, as the world's sole superpower and most successful republic in history, would send a message to the rest of globe that are nation's embrace of empowering the voice of the people is truly reflected in the process of our elections. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that nonvoters' political composition is reflective of actual voters, Mr. Lijphart accurately asserts that compulsory voting would still assure that a government is indeed representative of all the people and truly legitimate in its nature. This argument is one that Mr. Lijphart makes at the beginning of his case and is a valid one. Lijphart uses 1992 to make this argument yet 1996 is more applicable: reelection of President Clinton with a 49% voter turnout may have been a fair victory but may not be truly representative of all the people. Therefore, it is evident that there are many bonuses to compulsory voting.
One of the unique traits of the United States is our reliace and embrace of the voice of the people. Compulsory voting ensures that this citizen-driven spirit of American government endures.
I agree with Pooja. The implementation of a compulsory voting law is radical and unnecessary. As note by Ranney's view, the right to not vote is just as precious as the right to vote itself. Whiel Liphart argues that the increased numbers of non-voters creates a lack of representation and minorities feeling a sense of alienation, Ranney disagrees. Empirical studies on this view have proven that the distribution of policy preferences among voters and non-voters. It has also been shown that cynicism about the government is present in both groups, and in no way signifies, "an increased level of alienation or lawlessness." This point also covers the "democratic legitimacy" question. It proves that even if a larger group of voters were to turned out, the outcome of the vote is likely to be the same.
Education is another dispute that came to the forefront. Liphart stated that it is more frequent for the educated to vote. I also share this a similar view with Pooja on this matter. The educated are more likely to voted in an informed manner. In addition, it is not the case that the uneducated are not allowed to vote. It is their choice to vote (or not to vote) and their right and responsibility to exercise that right. Ultimately, if they choose not to vote it is their choice duty, and right to carry, or not carry out. Overall, voting is a right that should be given to those who are deserving of it, but not thrust upon them.
As terrible as low voter turnout is, a compulsory voting law should not be instituted by the government. One of the main points made by Liphart is that without compulsory voting, representation for all groups is unequal. If representation is disproportionate, the United States cannot truly be considered a democracy, according to Liphart. He also suggested that a 100% voter turnout would drastically affect the outcomes of elections. However, both of these assertions are not factual. Take the 1980 election as an example. Even if the five lowest voting groups participated in the election, Carter's share of the vote would only have increased by 1.5%. Reagan would still walk away with the victory. As seen in this example, the assertion that the outcome of elections would be affected is highly exaggerated.
Liphart also noted that the well-educated are the most like to vote; thus, resulting in a government that favors the advanced and priviledge. The educated are the people who take time to think about their decision and gather facts before they vote. The educated have a greater influence on our political system because they collect the facts and vote for the candidate who will best serve the country. The uneducated may not consider the facts, and therefore cast a uniformed vote which would not be beneficial for the country.
Mandatory participation in voting would not be beneficial for the government, and so compulsory voting should not be instituted by the government.
I really dislike the idea of "Compulsory Voting Law?" This requires voters to attend on voting day and vote. If they do not attend they will be punished. To me, voting is a privilege and a right that we have which gives us the opportunity to vote, not a duty that we have to fulfill. We should have the right to choose what rights we want to exercise and this law would only decrease the basis of ones own freedom which this nation is known for.
Another negative side of this is that not everyone is informed about the candidates on the ballet. If they are forced to vote for people they have no idea what their beliefs are, they would simply just pick a random person just in order to fulfill the requirements of the law. This will cause elections to be inaccurate of what the public wants from their government and thus eventually become corrupt.
While many Americans do not take advantage of the opportunity to vote, compulsary voting laws are the wrong way to increase voter turnout. It is shown that Non-voter policy preference is divided equally with the preference of voters. It has also been suggested that these laws do nothing to do with a dicrease in cinicism for the government.
Voting is a right, and something that Americans take pride in doing. By forcing them to vote the government would be changing the way people look at voting. It could also be said that many people voting would be uneducated and not care how the election turns out. Voters should be informed and have reason to support their candidate.
Many citizens who do not vote feel they are under represented, however if they care enough about the government they should have made the effort to have an impact on it.
I believe that the US should enact compulsory voting laws form any reasons. The first reason deals with " democratic legitimacy;" with a low voter turnout, typically under 60%, the government cannot claim to be a representative democracy. For example, Clinton's mandate "received the support of fewer than 25% of all eligible voters in 1992." Therefore, since not all eligible voters voted during the election, it is unclear whether the mandate truly represented what the people favored. Additionally, by increasing voter turnout " it can reduce the role of money in politics since it does away with the need for candidates to spend large sums on getting voters to polls." Now candidates can spend more money on their campaign, campaign goals and other things needed for the election.
Another reason why compulsory voting should be used in the United States is that policies tend to favor the interests of privileged citizens. Without compulsory voting laws, socio-economic biases would become a major problem. For example, " low and unequal voter turnout is a major reason why politicians find it much easier to reduce government aid to the poor than to cut entitlement programs that chiefly benefit the middle class." With compulsory voting not just the middle or upper class would be represented. Candidates would be more likely to support policies representing minorities and the poor if they were going to the polls.
Also, compulsory voting would not force Americans to actually vote. A government " cannot require its citizens to cast a valid vote; secret ballots mean that nobody can be prevented from casting an invalid or blank one."
Lastly, "compulsory voting should be seen as an extension of universal suffrage- which we now take for granted." Although many amendments were passed to give voting rights to blacks, women, and citizens over the age of 18, many people from these groups are not taking advantage of the privilege to vote. Therefore, compulsory voting laws will hopefully remind them of the adversity faced to make universal suffrage possible because voting a "basic democratic principle."
Though I do believe it is important to be actively involved in our nation’s political system, I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. One main argument against compulsory voting is that it violates the individual freedom to not vote. Lijhpart claims that this argument is a weak one because “a government can require citizens to show up at the polls or even to accept a ballot and then drop it into the ballot box, but it cannot require its citizens to cast a valid vote.” I honestly do not understand why Lijhpart would consider invalid voting a good thing. What is the point of forcing someone do go to the polls and waste their vote? It’s a waste of time and no better than not voting at all.
I also do not understand the desire to have people vote that do not want to vote. The late Senator Sam Evrin stated, “I don’t believe in making it easy for apathetic, lazy people. I’d be extremely happy if nobody in the United States voted except for the people who thought about the issues and made up their own minds and wanted to vote.” I agree with this statement one hundred percent. If a person has no interest in voting, for whatever reason, I would rather they not vote than make an uninformed decision. I have no doubt that many voluntary nonvoters, if forced to vote, would vote without spending the time to learn about a candidate’s policies in comparison to the other candidate’s policies and form an educated opinion on which candidate will best represent them and govern in accordance with their beliefs and desires.
I believe that compulsory voting focuses on raising the percentage of voter turnouts in any way, without focusing on the bigger issue at hand, which is the cause behind low voter turnouts. The focus should be on why people are not voting, as well as getting them to cast an informed vote, not just getting as many people to vote as possible. Why should it be more important to vote at all, than to cast an informed and honest vote?
Another argument made in favor of compulsory voting is that it is necessary in order to have a true democratic government, government for the people by the people. In June 2004, a national sample was asked the survey question, “In a few countries every eligible citizen in required by law to vote in national elections. Those who don’t have a good excuse for not voting are subject to a small fine. Do you think this would be a good law or a poor law to have in this country?” The results showed that 21% of respondents favored compulsory voting, while 72% opposed it. If our aim is to have a true democratic government, shouldn’t it matter if the public does not want compulsory voting to be a part of their government? The issue of compulsory voting affects the way the country is governed, so the public should be given the right to vote on this issue. I’m sure that vote would have a great voter turnout.
Compulsory voting is an unnecessary step to increase voter turnout, and presents no proven argument that low voter turnouts have a negative effect on the way our country is governed. To the contrary, increasing voter turnouts through the use of compulsory voting could even have a negative effect on the way the country is governed, because it can resulted in uneducated votes.
Compulsory voting laws should be enacted in my opinion. Based on the incredibly low voter turnout, it is obvious that American citizens are not getting involved enough in the government. With the voter turnout of 49 percent in the 1998 Presidential election, the "democracy legitimacy" is losing its true meaning. While the government claims to have represented all the people, only half of the citizens voiced their opinions.
According to Lijphart, the compulsory voting will protect the rights of all people. The existing system strongly favors the privileged citizens over the less-privileged ones. Those who have better education and wealth tend to vote in larger numbers, and therefore benefit more from the government policies. When not all classes are represented, the policies have higher chance to fail. Those problems related to socio-economic biases can easily be avoided with the compulsory voting laws.
Implementing compulsory laws, however, can face problems. I suggest that while slowly carrying out the laws, the government can also use other mechanisms such as voter-friendly registration procedures, easy access to ballots or proportional representation. That way the true meaning of representative democracy will be preserved.
Post a Comment