13NFL1-Compulsory Voting Page 101 of 163 www.victorybriefs.com THERE IS NO MORALLY RELEVANT DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF AUTONOMY BETWEEN COMPULSORY VOTING AND TAXES, JURY DUTY, OR MILITARY SERVICE. HLR – 2007. The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States Harvard Law Review, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Dec, 2007), pp. 591-612. A powerful objection to compulsory voting, more philosophical than doctrinal, is that it is an interference with individual liberty. n The United States is not, however, a society of purely libertarian ideals. There are numerous instances when the government can legitimately compel individuals to fulfill some kind of duty, generally when there is a market imperfection that would result in too much shirking in the absence of compulsion. For example, because of the importance of having a criminal jury that represents a fair cross-section of the community, n the government may compel jury service. n Similarly, if paying income taxes were voluntary, many Americans would simply choose not to pay and become free riders instead. To overcome this [*601] problem, paying income taxes is required bylaw. Selective service is another example. The government has the power to require military service, n because in times of war relying on voluntary service may not be sufficient. n In all of these examples, it is obvious that compulsion is necessary to avoid some kind of market failure. Jury service, taxpaying, and military service during times of war would fall far below the socially optimal levels without some kind of government action. Voting neatly fits into the mold of these examples. Voting is subject to a market failure due to the existence of a serious collective action problem. If left to individual choice, the level of voting theoretically will be below the socially optimal level. Like jury service, taxes, and the draft, compulsory voting is a legitimate way to solve such a market failure.
Share with your friends: |