For example, in Austria voting is compulsory in only two regions, with sanctions being weakly enforced. Although a government may not enforce mandatory voting laws or even have formal sanctions in law for failing to vote, the law may have some effect upon the citizens. Mandatory voting laws that do not include sanctions may fall into this category. Some laws are created to merely state the government's position regarding what the citizen's responsibility should be. There are a variety of possible reasons for this. This spectrum implies that some countries formally have compulsory voting laws but do not, and have no intention to, enforce them. It is more constructive to analyse compulsory voting as a spectrum ranging from a symbolic, but basically impotent, law to a government which systematic follow-up of each non-voting citizen and implement sanctions against them. The simple presence or absence of mandatory voting laws in a constitution is far too simplistic. What effect does this immeasurable category of random votes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government?Ī figure depicting the exact number of countries that practice compulsory voting is quite arbitrary. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty. Voters who are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random, particularly the top candidate on the ballot. It has been proved that forcing the population to vote results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws.Īnother consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Is a government really more legitimate if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? Many countries with limited financial capacity may not be able to justify the expenditures of maintaining and enforcing compulsory voting laws. It may discourage the political education of the electorate because people forced to participate will react against the perceived source of oppression. Voting is not an intrinsic obligation and the enforcement of the law would be an infringement of the citizens' freedom associated with democratic elections. The leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy. Lastly, if democracy is government by the people, presumably this includes all people, then it is every citizen's responsibility to elect their representatives. Political parties can derive financial benefits from compulsory voting, since they do not have to spend resources convincing the electorate that it should in general turn out to vote. They argue further that voting, voluntarily or otherwise, has an educational effect upon the citizens. There are also examples of countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlands which at one time in their history practiced compulsory voting but have since abolished it.Īdvocates of compulsory voting argue that decisions made by democratically elected governments are more legitimate when higher proportions of the population participate. Some of the first countries that introduced mandatory voting laws were Belgium in 1892, Argentina in 1914 and Australia in 1924. Some countries go as far as to impose sanctions on non-voters.Ĭompulsory voting is not a new concept. In some countries, where voting is considered a duty, voting at elections has been made compulsory and has been regulated in the national constitutions and electoral laws. Some consider that participation at elections is also a citizen's civic responsibility. Most democratic governments consider participating in national elections a right of citizenship.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |