September 24, 2004

You are on the invidual archive page of Voting. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Voting

RP points to the story of an American professor (of English Literature) whom has made it a course requirement to enter a voting booth. A little while back Conrad took issue with Cathy Seipp's assertion that those who don't vote are idiotic and lazy, arguing that not voting is a rational decision. I've found here at work it is an issue that can stir the passions of any American, who sees the idea of compulsary voting as an attack on their fundamental rights and a threat to all they hold dear.

It seems ironic in an age when the liberal democracies of the world are in engaged in a battle (both literally and of ideas) that so many members of these democracies do not vote. In Hong Kong, where democracy is emerging and under threat, the turnout in the LegCo elections just scraped over the 50% mark. In the US Presidential elections struggle to get even half the electorate to vote. Why is it these liberal democracies fight so hard to spread these values that half of their voting populations do not use themselves?

What it comes down to is voting a right or an obligation? If it is a right then choosing not to exercise that right is absolutely acceptable. If it is an obligation there is no such choice.

All systems of Government involve social contracts between the governed and the governors. In a democracy the contract is a complicated interaction between various institutions and differs in application from place to place. However in all democracies there are common elements. One of these, for example, is the rule of law: citizens accept and submit themselves to the enforcement of laws by courts and police. Voting is the same: as part of the democratic contract it is incumbent on all eligible citizens to live up to their end of the bargain. Just as a court summons creates an obligation for a citizen to appear, so does the call to vote. Waiving this obligation is an abdication of one's responsibility under the democratic system and it robs the elected of a proper mandate to rule. It hobbles the notion of democracy and represents a breakdown in that social contract.

Unfortunately too many view democracy as something of a menu, where many parts can be picked and choosen as they like. That erodes the very basis of the system, one of the key elements that allows the citizenery to exert their limited control over those that rule. If you fail to live up to that then you have no right to take issue with the results. Furthermore some argue free will allows for non-voting, which is obvious claptrap. Democracy does confirm many freedoms, but always with limits; and they also use coercion. You are not free to choose to shoot your fellow citizen. You are not free to abuse free speech to impeach someone else's character without basis. You are not free to speed as fast you can on the road. You must pay tax. You must obey the law. The idea doesn't stand up that not voting is allowed because of free will. Otherwise we are living in anarchy, not democracy. For those that argue that limits on freedoms come into play only when they impact someone else, not voting falls in the same category. By not making any choice the non-voter robs a democracy of legitimacy and thus affects everybody. There are many reasons people choose not to vote: antipathy or ambivalence to the candidates, laziness, ignorance, or a combination of these. None are legitimate excuses for avoiding your end of the social contract.

Voting is an obligation, not a right that can be waived. If it is worth fighting for then it is worth doing and it is worth making it compulsary.

posted by Simon on 09.24.04 at 02:11 PM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/47052


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.

Voting as a Course Requirement
Excerpt: Apparently, a professor at Drew University in NJ is making voting in the upcoming election a course requirement. Is this a good idea? The blogger at Random Pensées says no, coerced voting is contrary to American values and ideals. The blogger at Simon...
Weblog: e-Literate
Tracked: September 28, 2004 10:06 PM


Coerced to vote?
Excerpt: Recently reported in the Times, A professor at Drew U. is making voting in this year's election a course requirement for her English lit. course. A couple of blogs I read have fallen on both sides of the issue; either in favor of the social contract...
Weblog: greg.glidden.info
Tracked: September 29, 2004 12:22 AM


Comments:

Freedom is a right. That by-God includes the freedom to vote or not vote as I see fit. People who advocate stripping away free men's rights, as you do in this post, are a far greater threat to liberty than those who do not vote.

posted by: Conrad on 09.24.04 at 03:32 PM [permalink]

Freedom is not a right at all. Freedom is a value. People have a right to freedom but again with limits. Untrammelled freedom leads to anarchy.

I addressed your concern in the main post. All "rights" and values have limits, even in the land of the free and home of the brave. As even you would accept, rights ARE restricted as I explained in the post. Each society decides upon the extent to which these rights and freedoms are restricted by such things as laws, social norms and the like. Sometimes these decisions are made by the governed, and sometimes by those that govern. But otherwise you are going to need to take issue with the concept of law in general and the criminal code, libel laws and constitutions to start with in detail. That is exactly what these are: partial restraints on freedom.

I cast the reasoning in terms of voting being an obligation as part of the social contract of being a member of a democratic state. Those that do not vote are a far greater threat to liberty because they undermine the very basis of that freedom. If you want to opt out of living in freedom there are (unfortunately) plenty of countries that will take you. Otherwise all you do by not voting is not live up to your side of the bargain.

So dear Conrad when you're ready please re-read my original post and consider adressing what I actually said, rather than what you think I said. Voting is an obligation, not a right.

posted by: Simon on 09.24.04 at 04:19 PM [permalink]

Freedom is most assuredly a right. Go read Locke and voltaire, I haven't the time to conduct an introductory course in political philosophy here.

As for voting being an obligation, obligations exist when free men volutarily assume them. I have damned sure not assumed any obligation to turn up at the polls when I prefer not to.

Furthermore, voting is an act of political expression and no legitimate goverment of earth has the right to compel any form of political expression by its citizens.

Fortunately, I am from a country with a consititution that protects against meddling rights usurpers, which I why, when the next election rolls around, I can tell those presumptuous enough to try to foist unwanted "obligations" upon me, that they can kiss my American ass.

posted by: Conrad on 09.24.04 at 08:16 PM [permalink]

Simon, I thought that was an interesting post, even if I don't agree with you. Compulsory voting allows some "democracies" to proclaim that dictators have been reelected with 99.9% of the population voting for him. Making it compulsory makes me nervous. On the other hand, I subscribe to the belief that failing to vote deprives you of your right to complain!

posted by: RP on 09.24.04 at 08:43 PM [permalink]

Freedom of speach also means freedom to be silent, I'd rather not vote than vote for somebody who was the lesser of two mad men.

If voting was compulsory in the US you would see a lot of protest votes for minority candidates. You might get a racist candidate polling highly simply because he wasn't a main stream candidate, and in countries where there is proportional representation this would lead to greens, radicals and mega liberals getting a slice of the power.

People who don't vote have no right to complain, but they have the right to announce quietly that they think all of the candidates are poor.

posted by: ACB on 09.25.04 at 11:05 AM [permalink]

Simon: Part of the democratic contract should be the right to freedom. Voting in a political act. The government shouldn't force its citizenry to vote simply because they have an "obligation" to vote.

Freedom to do something, such as voting, should also work the other way round - freedom not to do that. Free speech doesn't mean you must speak out, neither does free association means not you must be part of any organization. The right to vote should also include the right not to vote.

Forcing people to vote increases protest votes - aimed at fringe groups that isn't from the mainstream parties.

As for turnout, if you see in Hong Kong - what the people of Hong Kong are voting for is an opposition, not an government. Even so, turnout was much higher than the previous LegCo elections. In places, like Iran, where elections are pointless and hopeless, turnout is very, very low. In addition to that, people tend not to come out to vote for something important, instead of periodic, mundane elections (i.e. the recall election in California recorded a rather high turn-out, considering its not election season).

posted by: Rajan R on 09.26.04 at 02:43 AM [permalink]

Not voting = abstention. That's always been a legitimate alternative to voting when you either don't like any of the options, or have no preference over which one prevails, or for other political reasons. It happens frequently in the UN, corporate stockholder referendums, etc. It's just that in those cases, you actually specify that you abstain, instead of simply not showing up.

Having said that, I share your concerns that low participation in the democratic process may endanger it. Perhaps we should put "abstain" on the ballot, if it isn't already there, and encourage people to officially register their disatisfaction/disaffection.

posted by: Byron on 09.26.04 at 01:23 PM [permalink]

I disagree that non-voting deprives me of the right to complain. I wrote a post about this on my blog, which is linked on my sidebar ("Sacred and Profane" section, On Voting).

I also disagree that voting should ever be made obligatory, because I view it primarily as an act of conscience, not a government-mandated ritual.

Having said that, I'm not keen on condemning democracies that do oblige their citizens to vote. Such obligations make me uncomfortable, true, but not uncomfortable enough to react in an alarmist fashion. I have to trust that folks know what they're doing when they accept those social contracts. And if they don't, and feel so moved, here's hoping they'll toss out the old contract in favor of a better one.

My two cents,


Kevin

posted by: Kevin Kim on 09.27.04 at 02:02 AM [permalink]

it's true that non-voting doesn't deprive you of your 'right' to complain, but if you don't even bother to take part in the process and then whine about the result, who really cares what you think anyway?

posted by: Prince Roy on 09.27.04 at 05:37 AM [permalink]

i couldn't be bothered to read all the post to be honest6, so this is a comment merely on the final 3 lines.

what happens if none of the major parties espouse a policy that i want? in the uk at the last elction all 3 major political parites were in favour of the euro, and none were going to hold a referendum before introducing it. i personally am in favour of it, but believe a referendum should be held first, as many other european countries did, as it is a major move to give up your currency and thus control over monetary policy.

by forcing mew to vote you would have forced me to vote for a policy that i didn't believe in.

thus i abstained - and went to the pub instead.

freedom means you have the right to abstain, or to be apathetic, and not vote if you want. that's what democracy is all about.

posted by: GILES on 09.27.04 at 09:47 AM [permalink]

Democracy does not include the right to abstain and to not care. Often the state is able to compel and coerce actions from its citizens for a greater good, for example jury duty, traffic laws and taxes. These are things that you cannot choose to abstain from; likewise voting should be the same. If it's OK for a Government to compel tax paying it is absolutely legitimate to compel citizens to vote. If you don't like the choices on offer, you can either choose the least worse or go and run yourself.

posted by: Simon on 09.27.04 at 11:34 AM [permalink]

I agree with Giles last comment. Not voting when there is no real choice is acceptable in democracy. Forcing a choice where there is none is not necessarily democracy. Remember the movie Moon Over Parador. The same dictator ran in the election as the Red Dictator and the Blue Dictator. One soldier asks the other which color he will vote for this year. "I think I will vote for the Blue this year"

Simon - You must pay tax. You must obey the Law. Read the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. When laws are unjust and taxes are punitive, it is the right of the governed to disobey those laws, not pay their taxes. When government "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And the US is a republic, NOT a democracy. (Debatable these days I know but still valid for the first century after Washington).

posted by: kennycan on 09.27.04 at 11:36 AM [permalink]

Simon - I read your last post after composing my subsequent post.

I find it hard to believe you advocate the government's absolute right to compel people to do things. The forefathers of the US spent a lot of time debating the Tyranny of the Majority and made every effort to limit the tyrannical tendencies of Democracy. This is the problem with many emerging democracies these days. It is one and done as in one election and a new dictatorship, approved by the majority.

Did you know the income tax was ruled as uncontitutional by the US Supreme Court and thus the Consitution of the US had to be amended to institute it without challenge. Worst thing ever for limited government. After all, excise taxes and tarrifs eventually are counterproductive in that marginal revenue is decreased as rates are increased. So these taxes are self limiting. The income tax is self limiting but only at very high levels and then only after long periods of time. In the meantime it can be used to raise massive amounts of money. It has enabled the most expansive government expansion and infringement of rights in the US in its history.

posted by: kennycan on 09.27.04 at 11:55 AM [permalink]

simon it sounds increasingly like you actually don't want to ever see a vote at all but simply have a totalitarian system where the government decides everything and the population has no choice but to toe the line.

you use the analogy of tax paying as the evidence of the government compelling the popualtion to do something, but that is not relevant as it is tax paying that allows the government to exist at all, and the fact that we pay taxes simply shows that we are happy to fund the services etc provided by the government.

when a tax is unjust then people exercise their democratic right and do not pay it, as was beautifully illustrated by the Poll Tax in the UK which was patently unjust and provoked riots and civil disobedience. It ultimately brought down Thatcher. The tax was repealed. That is people exercising their democratic right to NOT pay taxes if they feel they are unjust. In the same way they have the right to not vote if they do not support, or care about, any of the options on the ballot paper.

posted by: giles on 09.27.04 at 12:15 PM [permalink]

I'd agree that voter apathy is a problem, but nonvoting isn't always the result of apathy-- also something I cover in my essay. I'm not satisfied with a "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. Others might be OK with that, and that's fine. But for me, I feel it'd be dishonest to vote for a candidate I didn't actively endorse.

If you go to a restaurant where menu items A through Z feature crap as the theme ingredient, you leave the restaurant. The fact that the restaurant has a door is part of what a restaurant is. By the same token, so long as nonvoting remains an option in America, then nonvoting is PART of the democratic process, not "opting out of the process" as some might contend.

My worry, should a must-vote law be implemented in the States, is about the irony of promoting freedom and democratic values by eliminating freedom from a crucial part of society's machinery.

For the record: my two best American friends disagree with me. They feel, each for different reasons, that voting is a moral duty, not merely a privilege attached to living in a democracy (or republic, etc.), so I get excoriated all the time for this.

One commenter asked who would care about my opinion if I didn't vote. He'd be surprised.

Here's a question: what's the difference, if any, between not voting at all, and going to the polls and not voting for anyone listed-- or writing in only fantasy characters as a protest?

My point: I don't have to "register" my protest by coming to the polls; I can do that just as easily by not voting. Voter turnout is as relevant to the electoral process as voting is.


Kevin

posted by: Kevin Kim on 09.27.04 at 11:19 PM [permalink]

There's an amusing thought. If the US compelled all eligible people to vote the winner of the election could be Mickey Mouse. Or Britney Spears.

Especially in this election when all they have to run against is a chimp and a poodle.

posted by: kennycan on 09.28.04 at 09:17 AM [permalink]

I heartily agree with kennycan's last comment. Shit Sandwich A or Shit Sandwich B?

Think I'll go for pizza.


Kevin

posted by: Kevin Kim on 09.28.04 at 02:24 PM [permalink]

I know I'm late in coming back to this, but for what it's worth let me ask the question again: why should something as important as voting be voluntary where paying taxes and jury duty is not?

posted by: Simon on 09.29.04 at 11:28 PM [permalink]

Good question. Wish I'd been a poli-sci major, so I could give you an intelligent reply to that.

I think you'll find that the tax issue provokes its own debate in American society. After all, you've got libertarians who'd say that taxation is outright theft, and for them, there'd be no reason to tie the voting issue (a question of the machinery of democracy) to the tax issue (a question of thieving injustice).

The same might be said of jury duty: apples and oranges, because jury duty is something that only might happen, and it's arguably not directly linked to the larger machinery of the democratic process. There aren't huge debates about jury duty in the States because it simply doesn't figure much in the public consciousness.

I suppose you could reply that the above is hairsplitting, and maybe that'd be right. My point isn't really to offer an opinion on your question (I haven't thought it through yet), but to demonstrate how and why the issue might be considered complex by sincere minds (just as I hope my own case shows that it's possible to abstain from voting for reasons other than apathy).

Will have to get back to you on this. My superficial answer is probably somewhere in the "apples and oranges" arena: voting, precisely because of its prominent role in a democratic society, is intimately tied to questions of personal freedom vis-a-vis the government in a way that taxation and jury duty are not. Involuntary jury duty doesn't directly lead to elected officials; neither does taxation (though you could certainly argue that a candidate's stance on taxation can affect whether he gets elected!).

Question: is the mandatory nature of the vote in Australia sanctioned by the national constitution? I ask because the US Constitution guarantees a trial by a jury of one's peers, so there's a solemn understanding that, sort of like a military draft, we might be "called to service." This imperative, too, is disanalogous with some American conceptions of voting.

Will chew this over. In the meantime, perhaps some poli-sci/law folks would like to step in with more technically astute answers...?


Kevin

posted by: Kevin Kim on 09.30.04 at 01:46 PM [permalink]

Kevin, I fear we're down to a party of two on this one. Nevertheless I reread your voting piece today (during which I noticed no link to my site on your sidebar. We really need to talk) and I completely disagree with you. To me it seems like the ultimate cop-out to declare that neither choice suits and thus not voting is valid. It is an abdication of responsability and it is taking the easy road. I appreciate you've put thought into it, but nevertheless in the end often democracies come down to choises between things - there is never going to be the perfect choise and instead it comes down to compromising. It's not pure, but it's the system.

In Australia compulsary voting is not in the constitution, but it is supported bipartisan-ly (perhaps because the conservatives aren't sure if making it voluntary would really support them, as convention wisdom attests).

To address your apples and oranges, surely jury duty and taxes are also two integral parts of the system. I agree not everyone is called up to jury duty at once, but when it does happen there is no element of volunteerism - in fact it is impossible to imagine a jury system working without compulsary jury duty (self-selection and all that). Excluding your libertarian utopia the same applies to taxation. And they were just two examples dashed off late last night.

Finally one could turn the apples argument to my advantage - voting is such a crucial part of the system it has to be compulsary, even if nothing else is. I await your response with itnerest...plus anyone better qualified to weigh in as well.

Both trackback links have interesting angles.

posted by: Simon on 09.30.04 at 04:45 PM [permalink]

My basic alignment on the issue is this: as much as possible, in as many situations as possible, it's better to make choices without coercion than with coercion. Forced redistribution of wealth, for example, violates this principle. Being obliged to give to charity violates this principle. Forcing me to take financial/personal care of the man who slaughtered my family would violate this principle (to use an extreme example of taking a "moral" course of action-- practicing Christian charity to one's enemy-- but not because one wants to). Forcing me to eat pizza with onion or hamburger with onions, when what I want is something onion-free, would also violate this principle.

There's far more moral worth to voluntary moral action than to "involuntary moral action," if such a term isn't oxymoronic. Many, in fact, would argue that freedom and moral action imply each other. This is why I reject the notion of the obligatory vote: it strips my action of its morality by shoving me to the voting booth.

Ostensibly, this coercion is in the service of a higher cause-- the continuation of democracy-- but there a vicious solipsism about that setup that bugs me. I still think it's ironic that democracy should require such an undemocratic impetus.

The argument that "voting is so important that you should do it" (given the difference between should and have to) is a good one, and it's one that my best friends use against me all the time. That argument, in itself, has a great deal of force: I have to respect the convictions of anyone who says that. What poisons the argument, from the American perspective, is the unjustifiable move from "voting is a moral duty" to "you will vote or you'll be fined/jailed/punished somehow."

What you still haven't demonstrated, for me, is how non-voting constitutes "opting out of the process" in America. It's certainly "opting out" in Australia, because it's illegal. That's pretty clear-cut. If this is how Aussies like it, then I'm OK with it, too. But the Aussie situation isn't the American one; the histories (and, I'll venture, the political philosophies) are too different. Many countries argue that America is too quick to apply its way of thinking to other countries, but that argument works in the other direction, too.

So I'd submit that arguments in support of obligatory voting in Australia can't and don't apply to the American situation. I'd further submit that, if your argument is based in abstract notions of what's moral, then you'd have to address the question of whether "coerced moral action" (CMA?) can even be counted as moral.

As to the latter, I'll anticipate an objection: I'm aware that American government and society feature plenty of CMA. We could lump taxation and jury duty and a host of other things into this category. But if we head off in this direction, we'll spend eternity nitpicking each other's countries' inconsistencies and hypocrisies-- none of which require much digging to find. It's a fruitless direction to pursue, because we'll only end up discovering what we already know: we contradict ourselves and contain multitudes.

If the basic question is: Should democractic society have involuntary suffrage?, I'd have to say Nay, for the reasons highlighted above: CMA, especially for such important choices as the election of our local and national officials, doesn't make moral sense. If a vision of morality doesn't feature the element of choice, it's an inferior vision, in my view.

Am still mulling over the jury duty/taxation thing.


Kevin

posted by: Kevin Kim on 10.01.04 at 04:38 PM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer