13NFL1-Compulsory Voting Page 118 of 163 www.victorybriefs.com MANDATORY VOTING CAN ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NEGLECT THEIR DUTIES Ben Saunders Temporary Lecturer in Philosophy, Increasing
Turnout A Compelling Case Politics: 2010 Vol. 30(1), 70
–77 It maybe objected that most of the above argument concerns whether or not individuals should vote. It is not, as such, an objection to proposals that require
mere attendance at the polls, provided that individuals retain the right either to spoil their ballot and/or are provided with a none of the above option. Advocates of compulsory voting have generally endorsed such measures, in order to protect freedom of conscience (e.g. Birch, 2009, p. 22; Engelen, 2009; Hill, 2002, pp. 82
–
83; Lacroix, 2007, pp. 192
–193; Lijphart, 1997, p. 2).
Nonetheless, this manoeuvre seems unsatisfactory. Firstly, if we think that individuals have reason to exercise these options
– that is,
not to cast valid votes – then it seems puzzling why we should expect them to attend the polls at all. As Annabelle Lever has remarked, there surely is no duty to turnout as such the only reason to make it compulsory is to encourage voting (Lever, 2009, p. 224). Even if some individuals
do have a duty to vote, at least on some occasions, others
may have a duty not to vote, for instance because they are unaffected or uninformed about the decision (Brennan, 2009; Hanna, forthcoming. If anything, forcing the latter group to attend the polls is more likely to cause them to violate their duties by voting anyway. Since casting a vote
is not always more democratic, it is hard to see what democratic value can be gained from requiring people to attend the polls, even if we grant that it is not a serious violation of individual liberty.
Requiring everyone to turnout, merely so that some vote, seems like forcing everyone to attend church in the hope that some will pray (Lever,
2008, p. 64).