The Case Against Mandatory Voting

Washington’s state legislature has a current mandatory voting proposalS.B. 5209The proposal (known as ) is under consideration. It would require registered voters return their ballots for each election. Proponents attempt to reduce the coerciveness and ambiguity of the proposal (which is very questionable considering the First and Fourteenth Amendments), by saying that it would allow citizens the option to not register to vote or to file a form with election officials. In this case, citizens would be unable to vote, even if they chose to. This means that it wouldn’t take long before there are first allegations of voter suppression. You could also return a blank vote ballot. “meet their civic duty,” According to Lead sponsorSen. Sam Hunt (D.Olympia), suggesting an extremely distorted notion of civic duty. There are no sanctions for non-compliance. However, one must wonder if this is the meaning of the word. “yet” Should be added to this claim. 

This is not the first time that mandatory voting has been proposed. However, the campaign has been much more visible in recent years. Last year, for example, the Los Angeles Times, published Mark Barabak’s “What if every American were required–by law–to vote?”E.J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport’s book, 100% Democracy; The Case for Universal VotingIn favor of “mandatory attendance at the polls.” 

As a way of focusing on specific issues, these writers are worthy of attention. Barabak began his article by claiming that mandatory voting would have a major advantage. “No lame excuses,” Like “all politicians are the same,” Or “one persons’ vote really doesn’t matter.” These aren’t weak claims. These are powerful claims.

As for the first “lame excuse,” It is clear that politicians are different in all aspects. But, name those politicians who don’t consider robbing Peter for Paul to be a significant part of their job. “portfolio” Their duties. I don’t see any way to vote for these people to represent me.

I line up more with Leonard Read, The Foundation for Economic Education’s founder, on this score. In his most famous book Anything That’s PeacefulHe called them trimmers.

“A trimmer…trims his personal idea of what is morally right…Integrity is sacrificed to expediency.” Many times, however, all options are trimmers. “one candidate will stand for the coercive expropriation of the earned income of all citizens…to those in groups A, B, and C…his opponent differs from him only in advocating that the loot be given to those in groups X, Y, and Z.” In this case, “Does responsible citizenship require casting a ballot for either of these political plunderers” Which “does as much as one can with a ballot to encourage other trimmers to run for office.” In fact “When one must choose between men who forsake integrity…there is little relief at the polling level except as candidates of integrity may be encouraged by voters of integrity.” 

You should also consider how ridiculous it would be to refuse that “one person’s vote really doesn’t matter” It really is. As Michael Barone Once wrote, “A very few votes can make a big, big difference.” As proof, he cited a few close elections, the smallest margin being George W. Bush’s 537-vote Florida margin in the Presidential election. Unfortunately, when the closest election that could be found was decided by more than 500 votes, that does not support the conclusion that any individual’s choice of whether to vote or who to vote for makes a big difference. This implies that the reverse is true. It doesn’t matter if you voted for the winner or loser. It isn’t. “one person’s vote really doesn’t matter” That is not lame, but the smorgasbord of invalids. “get out the vote” Americans hear these assertions every even-numbered calendar year.

Consider other common rejoinders to help you think about whether voting is really necessary. 

“If you don’t vote, you don’t have a voice in government.” The fact is, casting your vote won’t give you an effective voice in government any more than abstaining from voting refutes that claim.

“If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about government.” The argument is flawed for the same reasons. It also overlooks that facing what are typically binary choices between candidates further degrades anyone’s ability to clearly invoke their preferences by voting.

“If you don’t vote, you don’t care about America.” Again, this is unconvincing when your vote doesn’t alter the outcome. In addition, not only has abstaining been common since America’s foundation, but not voting is perhaps the most effective way to protest that “none of the above” Consider what you consider acceptable. “the lesser of two evils” Still voting for evil

“It is your duty to vote.” It is not your social duty to do something that makes no difference, even if it would be beneficial for society. Uninformed voters are more likely to be derelictions of duty than fulfill them. As George Mason law professor Ilya Somin Write, “When relatively ignorant voters go to the polls, they aren’t doing the rest of society a favor.” It’s far from the truth. “They are instead inflicting harm on us by making poor choices and incentivizing politicians to cater to their ignorance.”

“You must vote, because the electoral process would collapse if no one voted.” This ignores that in addition to your individual vote not changing the outcome, virtually no one’s else’s individual choice of whether to and/or how to vote alters an appreciable number of others’ voting choices. (Politicians, who won’t be taken seriously if they abstain from voting, may be an exception.)

Barabak also commits unforced mistakes in favor of mandatory voting. He cites Dionne’s “fancy dinner party,” An analogy can be used to argue for the obligation that only those who are eligible be rehabilitated. “habitually inattentive” All vote, even though their inattention almost eliminates the possibility that their votes would advance sensible policy for all Americans. This led to the claim that all voters would be attracted to parties. “extremely healthy” It is also important to remember that these appeals are made to people who lie and misrepresent more easily than current voters.

It would require a more intrusive government to enforce the proposal than Americans face today. It would allow for expanded coercive powers, which could be extended to deciding who is guilty. “genuinely sincere reasons to refuse to vote,” Inflicting fines or obligatory service is also possible, but this could open the door to future abuses. 

Do you think the fact that there are so many people is a good thing? “your vote is crucially important” arguments are logically invalid imply you shouldn’t vote? While it doesn’t imply that you should be forced to vote, it doesn’t require you to refrain from voting, either. But it doesn’t justify voting on issues you are uninformed about, since that offers society additional ignorant white noise rather than benefits. Further, since your electorally insignificant vote won’t change the outcome, it also means that trying to strategically vote to forcibly transfer others’ wealth to you or your pet causes is ineffective, as well as morally objectionable.

If such mistakes are avoided, voting can be a way to cheer for candidates and proposes that advance the goals of James Madison called “the general and permanent good of the whole” You can’t plunder others. Although logic and integrity are not required to vote, they do place limits on the types of people one can legitimately vote for. It would be better to recognize what we can do for ourselves than force us to vote for those in government.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases